Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Salty, Dec 19, 2010.
Interesting study ( PDF ) file
Interesting. Every other American employer including police and fire departments has learned to deal with this problem. Note that the problem is only a couple of percent of total combat troops. Only a small percentage of all enlisted personnel are combat troops.
But when you only have 5 personnel in your section, and one is out on maternity leave, then the other 4 guys have to make up the slack - thats if you have all 5 slots filled - Yes, I have experienced that.
In a fire department there is a minimum personnel requirement for sending out a ladder truck or whatever. Same with a machine gun squad but if the Army lets the personnel roster get that low that missing one person in a unit would cancel a mission . . . a unit doesn't surrender because one person gets killed.
4 other guys or girls.
So what? We shouldn't have babies? Or we should fire pregnant women? Or maybe we should force a woman not to spend any time with her baby after it's born.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger has often said that you want something cuddly to hold, get a kitten. But if you want a baby, then mom needs to be home full time with the child.
In case you are not aware - the military is subject to a 24 hour - seven day a week job - with deployments - both training and combat. A single parent (& that includes men) can severely affect the morale, discipline and mission of a military unit.
The ultimate mission of the US Army is Victory - and any distraction can be disastrous.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.... let's all pretend that there is no problem!
Even better yet, let's all make sure that the people who have to deal with the problem are just being mean and nasty. That's even better!
If we can defend a person's right to have a baby and disrupt the operations of the business, then we are so much kinder and gentler than the person who has to deal with the issue.
Reality, doncha hate it? It sure gets in the way of doing what we want to do. That is solved, though, by getting laws passed that make it illegal to hold me accountable for the things I do.
Would you rather deal with the problem or have the baby?
Supervisors are paid to deal with problems.
If you're a supervisor, that's your issue. Stop whining, figure it out and be happy for the person blessed with a baby and give them the support they need.
If I'm accurately reading through the nearly incoherent sarcasm, it seems that you're saying people who have babies should be aware of the consequences.
You realize that, if we're going to be pro-life in all things, we have to be pro-life for those already born, right? Like little babies.
Seriously?!? You're quoting Dr. Laura? She's hardly an authority on anything. She's not really a researcher or practitioner in any legitimate psychological sense.
Someone needs to be home with the child, and yes, there are obvious reasons why that needs to be mom initially. After that, it could be Mom or Dad. In a perfect world, families would be able to survive on one income. But we don't live in a perfect world.
So what? The others need to deal with it. We should be about supporting those with babies, even in the military.
Most families could live on one income - if they dropped Cable TV, Internet, 2nd car, eating out excessively - ect, ect, ect.
Mind you, there is nothing wrong with a higher standard of living - IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT!
But then again you think the rich should supplement the non-rich with all the modern day connivances.
You noticed I didn't reply to your other comments. No sense in wasting my time. Just curious though, have you ever owned a business?
I most certainly am pro-life.
I am also a firm believer that child raising is a full time job. When one decided to give birth and raise a child, the other career is over.
The problem happen when we forget that raising a child is much more important than a second income, however, the U.S. being what it is now; our government lays the problem on businesses instead of on the people who created the problem.
A supervisor is paid to supervise people to get a job done, not to find a way to get a job done while the employees - with government backing - strip away their resources.
It is obvious to me that those who feel that it is not a problem have not yet really had to deal with it. If they did, then evidently there were enough employees and resources that a real problem did not occur.