Can you be sacked for not doing overtime?

princessdon

Mista_C wrote: »

From what I can gather from your previous posts you believe that having one parent missing for large periods of time is not detrimental to children in any way, shape or form. Do you want to show me some evidence that this is not the case. I'm not going to suggest you restrict it to children of military personnel either.

There are way too many variables into whether a parent who works away from home or long hours is detrimental to children and there has been no clinical evidence to this affect (good or bad) as far as I know - perhaps you can post a clinincal evidence base for this as I'd be happy to read it as I haven't seen any.

It depends on their resilance factors (as we professionals in the field call it), negative impacts, parenting, health, extended family and so many other things it would be impossible for anyone to say with any degree of proof that a working parent not at home to tuck them in 7/52 impacts the child negatively.

Similarly it can't be conceived to be 100% positive either due to these variables.

For me personally my children have me at home 4 nights a week after school so 6 in total and school holidays and so they have more quality time than 2 parents working 9-5. It also means that when Dad is home he gets 100% dedicated time with children as he has no "jobs" to do as I have time during the week to do them. His free time is family time (not shopping, washing, gardening, DIY) etc.

j.e.j.

ILW wrote: »

As an potential employer, that CV would go straight in the bin.
Along with the ones that say such things as personality clash and misunderstanding over expenses.

Now 'personality clash' as a reason for leaving I can understand would ring alarm bells. Might as well put down that you're a difficult s*d to work with :rotfl:

duchy

scooby088 wrote: »

It has been said that those eastern europeans who work for minimum wage are doing a great dis service to those who have fought for better conditions in the workplace, many who contribute on this thread are more than likely never really done a hard physically demanding job in their lives day in day out for 8/9 hours per day an yet are quick to condemn those who do not want to do another hour/s of overtime. Some people need to get their head out of their own backsides.

What utter rubbish -you have no idea of other poster's work history so are making things up to fit your arguement.

I for one have worked 12 hour shifts with anti social hours in physically demanding jobs at times. The alternative was not working and I had no intention of sitting back on benefits -but maybe that's because I'm the grandaughter of an eastern Europeon who came to London in 1901 and worked dam-n hard to build a business and support the family he raised over here !

He had to contend with Mosely's black shirts intimidation and violence toward immigrants who were prepared to work harder than they were prepared to. Seems like not much has changed in three generations <shrug>

scooby088

duchy wrote: »

What utter rubbish -you have no idea of other poster's work history so are making things up to fit your arguement.


He had to contend with Mosely's black shirts intimidation and violence toward immigrants who were prepared to work harder than they were prepared to. Seems like not much has changed in three generations <shrug>

How Have i made things up for my own purposes, you accuse me of being racist for your own argument?

Mista_C

princessdon wrote: »

There are way too many variables into whether a parent who works away from home or long hours is detrimental to children and there has been no clinical evidence to this affect (good or bad) as far as I know - perhaps you can post a clinincal evidence base for this as I'd be happy to read it as I haven't seen any.

It depends on their resilance factors (as we professionals in the field call it), negative impacts, parenting, health, extended family and so many other things it would be impossible for anyone to say with any degree of proof that a working parent not at home to tuck them in 7/52 impacts the child negatively.

Similarly it can't be conceived to be 100% positive either due to these variables.

For me personally my children have me at home 4 nights a week after school so 6 in total and school holidays and so they have more quality time than 2 parents working 9-5. It also means that when Dad is home he gets 100% dedicated time with children as he has no "jobs" to do as I have time during the week to do them. His free time is family time (not shopping, washing, gardening, DIY) etc.

I agree and that was mostly my point. I didn't expect any evidence either way but was simply responding to Welshwoofs request that I provide evidence to support my stance, a stance which Welshwoof had essentially twisted the context of what I had said and made his own assumptions on the content of the post.

My original response was that contrary to the matter being about parents becoming spineless for wanting to spend time with their children it may be that the children are the ones missing out on the time with their parent(s). I then offered an example in the form of my step-son who rarely gets to see his Dad and blames his Dad's work for that fact. Apparently that's because my step-son is spoilt and whiney for missing his Dad, but then Welshwoof isn't the one mopping up tears when the lad's been let down by his Dad yet again.

I'm not sure what Welshwoof wants out of this, if parents suggest they're away from their kids too long then they're spineless. If kids are upset because they rarely see their parents they whiney and spoilt.

Due to work commitments I've had in the past my own son was 12 before I got to spend any quality time with him. The first summer I took him on holiday (no, I hadn't been on holiday in the previous twelve years, work commitments didn't allow it) he said to me "It feels like i've got a real Dad". I was happy but saddened at the same time.
I'm not just pulling this stuff from my hat, I've lived through it and to realise what was really important took me 12 years I'll never get back.

I'm not sure what evidence Welshwoof wanted that my step-son had thought about family and work at the age of 9. Maybe he wanted me to make a video diary, or get my step-son to write him an essay on the subject. There's nothing unusual about a 9 year old knowing the reason his Dad rarely sees him is because he's always working and then associating work with keeping parents from their kids. It's the kind of association kids make and as a professional in the field undoubtedly you're well aware of those kind of associations.

For the record your post is one of the most sensible and unbiaised I've seen on this thread. Let's hope some take notice of it.

duchy

scooby088 wrote: »

How Have i made things up for my own purposes, you accuse me of being racist for your own argument?

You're the one who brought Eastern Europeans into the discussion -not me.

scooby088

duchy wrote: »

You're the one who brought Eastern Europeans into the discussion -not me.

If you check others mentioned eastern europeans before me!

Welshwoofs

Mista_C wrote: »

Because that never happens?

No, because the Op has already said on numerous posts and on numerous threads that he works between 41 and 43 hours a week. He's also saying he works 8am-5.30pm. You don't have to be a genius to work out that a 7-day week from 8am-5.30 would equate rather more than 41-43 hours.

Many people on that thread shot down parents who said they didn't have the hours in the day to do this, e.g. spend time with their kids. According to you that's not a problem. b) It doesn't matter who teaches them but I didn't see you on thread defending the actions of parents who worked away from their families.

Possibly because I haven't seen the read...being that I'm a) not omnipresent and b) not omniscient either.

Do you really have such little interaction with kids that you are blissfully unaware of this?

I have as little interaction with kids as I can possibly get away with. I did try and find some place where you can get them to go up your chimney and give it a good clean, but apparently that's 'not allowed' anymore.

...I was talking about behaviour. I was suggesting that it is more likely to have an affect on the child than simply being a case of the parents being spineless for not wanting to be away from their children, as you put it in your first post on the thread.

But you don't know that do you....unless you've kept your authorships of socialogical studies on the point hidden throughout this thread.

Why would I waste my time looking for evidence to put forth to contradict you when you're the one making the sweeping generalisations on how parent-child relationships aren't that important when you have a job?

I didn't say parent child relationships aren't that important when you've got a job. That's a statement you've just invented out of thin air. I am countering YOUR statement that you believe a child is more likely to have a negative attitude towards work if one of their parents works a lot. I asked you for evidence to back up that assertion...and that's been notably lacking.

From what I can gather from your previous posts you believe that having one parent missing for large periods of time is not detrimental to children in any way, shape or form. Do you want to show me some evidence that this is not the case. I'm not going to suggest you restrict it to children of military personnel either.

You're asking me to prove something that something doesn't exist? Don't tell me....you're a Christian

Actually, don't bother. Having read back your comments during "Preview Post" I can see you like to take a comment and then push it to an extreme to argue against in order to gauge a disproportional response.

Yup - it's something to do whilst having a nice cup of tea when taking a break from planting up hanging baskets.

Welshwoofs

Mista_C wrote: »

I'm not sure what evidence Welshwoof wanted that my step-son had thought about family and work at the age of 9. Maybe he wanted me to make a video diary, or get my step-son to write him an essay on the subject. There's nothing unusual about a 9 year old knowing the reason his Dad rarely sees him is because he's always working and then associating work with keeping parents from their kids. It's the kind of association kids make and as a professional in the field undoubtedly you're well aware of those kind of associations.

a) I'm a she
b) There's a gulf between a kid knowing that their Dad isn't around much because they have to work....and a kid having that situation impact so negatively on them that they don't want to work or have a bad attitude to work which is what you seem to be suggesting is the norm. Now frankly I don't know what the issue is with your kid and I have zero interest in finding out....but I'd suggest that like most things in life, how an authority figure reacts to a situation informs to some extent how a kid acts. If one of the parent's makes a big deal out of the other working away or working late, then I'm quite sure the kid is likely to pick up those vibes and conclude it's a 'bad thing'. Miss Cynic here also wonders whether situations that result in you mopping up your step-son's tears aren't rather to your benefit as you get to be the good guy against 'evil old Daddy who's never there'

Mista_C

Welshwoofs wrote: »

a) I'm a she

I do apologise, no offence was meant.

b) There's a gulf between a kid knowing that their Dad isn't around much because they have to work....and a kid having that situation impact so negatively on them that they don't want to work or have a bad attitude to work which is what you seem to be suggesting is the norm.

I have suggested no such thing as being the norm. Suggesting it is the norm is an assumption on your part. You dismissed that parents were becoming spineless for missing time with their children and I merely provided you with an example of how it may affect a child missing a parent absent for lengthy periods.

Now frankly I don't know what the issue is with your kid and I have zero interest in finding out....but I'd suggest that like most things in life, how an authority figure reacts to a situation informs to some extent how a kid acts. If one of the parent's makes a big deal out of the other working away or working late, then I'm quite sure the kid is likely to pick up those vibes and conclude it's a 'bad thing'.

You're over-thinking the issue here. Children learn by repetitiveness. Dad says he's going to see you Sunday. Saturday he calls and says he can't make it, kid wants to know why. Dad has to work. How many times do you think a kid needs to hear his Dad say that he's been called into work instead of coming to visit him before he associates a pattern?

Miss Cynic here also wonders whether situations that result in you mopping up your step-son's tears aren't rather to your benefit as you get to be the good guy against 'evil old Daddy who's never there'

I'm loathed to even answer that but... I'm not his Dad, he already has a Dad. 100s of men could step up and do what I'm doing and none of them will ever be his Dad. I don't get to be the 'good guy', his Dad isn't the 'bad guy'. There's absolutely nothing in this situation that benefits me whatsoever. I am an addition to the lad's family, not a replacement.

That last comment of yours really puts perspective on your comments of spineless parents and spoilt, whiney kids and shows how little you grasp the kind of situation we're talking about here. This situation isn't about me, it's not even about his Dad, it's about addressing the the ideas children can get in their heads from seeing patterns form around them and addressing them rather then accusing them of whining or calling parents spineless for thinking about their offspring.