Perks

38 thoughts on Perks

1. “Midnight”?

   Hahahaha. You’re in for a surprise.

2. I read the article too and was taken aback by on-site daycare being described as a “perk”.

   I’ve never worked in a New York law firm, but every job I’ve had has had some sort of on-site subsidized daycare. It’s so common nowadays that I figured the controversy would be long gone.

3. if someone wants to stand in line for an hour to bring me Shake Shack and red wine after yoga class, I’ll be theirs forever. Also, they should buy me a puppy.

   ]

   Alright, when do you want it? I need an attorney on my side and a good one as I don’t have guns or money either.

4. At my last job, we used the nap room when we we’d been working until 2 or 3 am and were too tired to drive home. (No, I’m not a lawyer, I worked in the tech industry.) Now I work for an oil company that has some pretty good “perks” in terms of benefits, savings plans, etc. Neither my last job nor the job I had now had child care though. With this job there is a daycare associated with the company, but it’s not on site and it’s not subsidised (well, you get one day a year free, the idea being if there’s some kind of emergency and your regular care falls through, you can use that. But that’s it). So I think a lot of people do still consider chid care a “perk”.

5. DId the long hours law firm thing alongside the attorneys as a paralegal when i was thinking about law school. The experience of staying past midnight regularly…including two incidents of staying till 5:30 am…was such that I am strongly reconsidering…and left to do other things.

   Do the hours improve as one advances in the legal profession…or stays the same?

6. As much as I am interested in the law and enjoy reading about law, court cases, etc., what you’ve written here is one reason why I decided not to go to law school, even when nearly everyone I knew was encouraging me to do so.

   I’ve found that being an academic, especially a grad student/junior academic, is an improvement over being a junior attorney, but not by much.

7. Do the hours improve as one advances in the legal profession…or stays the same?

   You begin to have the power to make other people stay late, but the hours are still long. Plus, some partners are workaholics themselves.

   It’s one reason I’m a contractor now instead of partnership-track.

8. You don’t even have to be an actual lawyer to get exploited. I started out as a paralegal at a small firm, then (as they began to lay off employees) I was also a legal secretary, receptionist, courier, coffee-cup washer, party planner, and, in the end, office manager. It was by declaring me office manager that I achieved exempt status, la la la, I was a true professional. They no longer had to pay me for the overtime I was expected to put in. There’s more, but it’s barfworthy, and besides, it’s hard to explain how and why I lasted as long as I did when there was never any partner-track issue. (It’s kind of a frog-in-the-slowly-heating-water story.)

   But tut-tutting about “perks”, even if we’re talking about concierge-type services, not basics like childcare? I don’t get the disapproval, except that everyone seems to think it’s loads of fun to mock lawyers. Shouldn’t the market decide? If a firm gets more and better work from its lawyers, and longer workforce retention, blah blah blah, via this strategy, good for them. If it has no benefit to the firm, they’ll stop it.

   Jeepers. Fat people and lawyers: it’s like everyone feels free to open fire at will.

   Okay. Shutting up now. Flashbacks and pointless schadenfreude (as demonstrated by the tut-tutters concerned about whether lawyers might be having fun) combine to make me grumpy.

   PS: Jill, I will walk your dog. It’s what I do good.

9. BeaTricks, where do you work and what do you do?

10. It’s one reason I’m a contractor now instead of partnership-track.

    Zuzu,

    Many thanks for your answerr.

    What does being a contractor entail? How are the hours and working conditions? What types of work do they have you do beyond document review?

11. BeaTricks, where do you work and what do you do?

    I’m a chemist for a pharmaceutical company.

    I’ve worked in both big and small companies in the biotech/pharma industry and each one had an on-site daycare which I took for granted and never considered it a “perk” on par with wine tastings as such, like Jill said. I figured this was standard in other industries as well…but based on the other comments, apparently not.

12. every job I’ve had has had some sort of on-site subsidized daycare. It’s so common nowadays that I figured the controversy would be long gone.

    Not in the United States. The highest estimate I’ve seen of the number of employees with access to on-site child care is 11%, and that includes “near-site” child care. I considered myself damn lucky to find an opening at the one child care center in town (yeah, a town of less than 150,000 people, but still…it’s not like folks don’t need child care here!) that opened before 7:00 AM (which is when work started, and no, there’s no “flexible hours”).

    Shit, I’ll let the whole “perk” thing go in exchange for childcare being available. I mean hell, health insurance and pensions are still referred to as perks (at least when The Great Unwashed like me are getting ’em).

13. I don’t get the disapproval, except that everyone seems to think it’s loads of fun to mock lawyers. Shouldn’t the market decide?

    Part of it is plain old class jealousy as most people don’t get anywhere near the seemingly great pay and “perks” as attorneys while forgetting the amount of hours worked along with the education….along with the fact the occupation of lawyer is a “respectable profession” on the one hand while being ridiculed for perpetuating the “excessive litigiousness” within our society over what they see as “trivial matters”.

    Along with that is the fact many have probably have had bad experiences with arrogant attorneys or were adversely affected as a result of an attorney’s actions (i.e. Being sued…whether justly or not is a quick way for many people to develop a strong apathy towards attorneys.). Among some progressive friends in grad school, some see lawyers as collaborators in corporate globalization efforts which they argue screws the poor, working, and middle classes both in the US and abroad while the corporations and upper classes enrich their coffers.

    Personally, I can understand the need of others to mock attorneys at times…though I feel it should be targeted towards specific attorneys working with specific clients in cases meriting such derision for it to be truly fair. Most who overgeneralize in their lawyer mocking forget those who work in Legal Aid, NGOs, ACLU, EFF, Pro bono cases, along with the Federal, State, and local attorneys charged with ensuring a smooth running of our Republic.

    As for comparing fat shaming with mocking lawyers, how would you argue that? The former makes fun of a physical trait that may be a product of many complex factors which is often not under our control due to genetics, medical conditions, adverse environmental factors such as dangerous neighborhood streets, availability of healthy foods, etc. The latter makes fun of an occupation that one has to voluntarily enter…especially considering the mandatory 3 years of law school and periodic continuing education requirements thereafter.

    I may be a bit dim, but I just don’t see how they are comparable.

    Disclaimer: I have two relatives who are attorneys….though both are working in the public sector.

14. What does being a contractor entail? How are the hours and working conditions? What types of work do they have you do beyond document review?

    I’ve mostly done straight-up litigation, usually coming in for a specific project or trial. The pay, frankly, hasn’t changed much in 7 years, there are no benefits unless your agency provides them, and then you pay full rates. Working hours tend to be on the 40-hour side, since there’s no benefit to the employer to having working you extra hours, since they still have to pay you. Working conditions: I’ve almost always had an office, but I’m considered the help rather than a potential member of the firm. Upside: avoidance of office politics, and I can easily walk away.

    The plum jobs are kind of thinning out for me, though, since it’s slow right now and since (at least I suspect) that employers are looking for someone with the characteristics of a permanent hire, even if they’re looking for short-term contractors (like, I recently had an interview for a four-month gig in which I was grilled about every job on my resume, which goes back to 1996 in its current incarnation. They even wanted to know what I did after graduating college in 1990, and what my future ambitions were). Most jobs out there seem to be document reviews, which vary widely in pay rate and hours (sometimes you luck out and get a good rate plus time and a half). I’m on my second doc review ever, and base rates have definitely improved since then (probably because Enron chewed up all the available attorneys and they needed to get competitive).

15. Exholt at 5/10

    What Zuzu said. I likewise have done both substantive work and doc review (with a few doc review projects having some meaningful substantive elements also, especially if you have foreign language skills.)

    The “nap room” often acts more like a “sick room” where I have worked. While the working conditions for contract attorneys vary from “nice” to “sub-dorm” in quality, none of the firms want you puking on their rented equipment. Figure it’s the same for associates. Contract attorneys don’t usually get a free limo ride home late from the firm’s driver but they will sometimes pay for a cab ride and for overtime dinner – Quizno’s, not filet mignon.

    On Monday night as a doc review attorney, I worked until 1:45 AM and arrived home at 3:30 AM. This is quite unusual but not “unheard of” to meet a deadline.

16. Working conditions: I’ve almost always had an office, but I’m considered the help rather than a potential member of the firm. Upside: avoidance of office politics, and I can easily walk away

    What is the social interaction dynamic like in the office between you and permanent associates, partners, and other staff? Are you able to maintain contact with colleagues from previous assignments? Did your contractor status prove to be an issue in this or not?

    What types of questions should one ask themselves to see if s(he) is well-suited to working and living as an attorney?

    I’m sorry to be bombarding you with questions. Thank you for providing your experience from the attorney vantage point.

17. If your hours go from 530am to sometimes after midnight, where is the childcare center that can handle those hours? I know they must exist somewhere, but I just can’t imagine a childcare center that would be open that much, be able and willing to operate on such flexible client needs, could keep staff at all hours, and still be affordable. Would there actually be decent childcare staff willing to work midnight shifts at their usual wages? I thought that industry had a hard enough time getting staff to fill daytime hours, and that’s why good workers there become private nannies (or their very uncommon male equivalent:) the hours became more regular and the ability to choose your work environment was much stronger.

    As for it being a perk, I’d say that finding childcare any time of the day or night would be one. If I was a daycare center operator, I would probably have serious qualms against opening the doors 24/7. Sure there’s money to be made, but the staffing issues would be atrocious. And then I’d be the one working the incredibly long hours away from my family. No thank you. Your problem shouldn’t become my problem just because you make more money than I do.

    As for it being a perk in regular hours, not so much. Beyond that? I know this may be a feminist blog’s third rail, but why not ensure that a spouse/lover/family member/whoever can raise your child since you’ve decided to opt out? The care would be cheaper, probably better, more consistent (children need rhythm,) and not at the hands of a bunch of people hired to be the on-call warm bodies to watch your children sleep or cry themselves to sleep while their parents try to make themselves partner. Also, when your child is sick it’s unfair to send them to daycare and get everyone else sick.

18. What types of questions should one ask themselves to see if s(he) is well-suited to working and living as an attorney?

    1) Do I like crushing debt?

    2) Do I like pain?

    As for it being a perk in regular hours, not so much. Beyond that? I know this may be a feminist blog’s third rail, but why not ensure that a spouse/lover/family member/whoever can raise your child since you’ve decided to opt out? The care would be cheaper, probably better, more consistent (children need rhythm,) and not at the hands of a bunch of people hired to be the on-call warm bodies to watch your children sleep or cry themselves to sleep while their parents try to make themselves partner. Also, when your child is sick it’s unfair to send them to daycare and get everyone else sick.

    Female attorneys tend to be married to male attorneys. Guess who usually “retires” to take care of the kids when this arrangement becomes untenable?

19. Exholt 16 – you did not ask me but if you happen to be interested, I will forward you some materials that I have written on document review work in DC. I don’t want to spamulate my own email address but if you are interested, I would be happy if Feministe management forwarded you my email address so I can send you a link/attachment.

20. jon, I didn’t opt out of raising my child when I sent her to day care, and neither did my husband. It’s pretty clear from your comment that you’ve already made up your mind, though, and one story from someone with actual personal experience in a marriage where both partners have made work compromises to have a decent family life won’t dissuade you. Carry on, then, with your preconceived notions, and don’t let anyone introduce you to anything that would challenge them.
    /thread drift off

    Both hospitals where I’ve been on staff since becoming a parent have day care centers on or near-site, run by independent providers but offering preference and discounts to hospital employees and medical staff. They have longer hours than most local centers to accommodate nurses who have to start work at 7:00 AM, but rarely have openings and no one is guaranteed a slot. I don’t think that counts as a perk of employment.

    I think you’re right, Jill, that child care is qualitatively different from concierge services. I can work without someone picking up my cleaning at the office; I can’t work without reliable child care. Putting child care in the “perk” category, though, means it’s not something the government, God forbid, should have to consider helping us with. Like health care, of course. We don’t want the government deciding who cares for our children, do we? Then women like La Lubu might think they’re actually entitled to work decent jobs and get paid decent rates, and folks like jon wouldn’t be able to imply that being home with my child is by rights something only I can do. Can’t have those options, especially not for women. It would be un-American

21. I’m a cynic–I don’t think any employer offers any benefit that doesn’t somehow help their bottom line. If they want to attract good rain-making attorneys and keep them (thus keeping turnover costs down), then they woo them. If the market changes and there is more competition for those open legal positions, the perks will decrease. In other words, they aren’t arranging for dry cleaning because they want you to feel ease about your out-of-office needs, they are offering dry cleaning so you feel ease about your out-of-office needs and stay to do your job without distraction and increase their bottom line.

    I have been employed for the past year at a company that is ranked on several surveys, including Fortune, as “Best Employer”. And yes, that comes with some perks. But its all very carefully orchestrated to reduce turnover, increase productivity, and as a bonus–create some positive press. Do I benefit? Yes. Is that the primary reason the company provides it. Absolutely not.

    I’ve never worked in a New York law firm, but every job I’ve had has had some sort of on-site subsidized daycare. It’s so common nowadays that I figured the controversy would be long gone

    Really? I have worked in corporate America for a couple decades now (minus a few years at a small non-profit along the way) and I only once (as a temp) was in a place that offered on-site care and the waiting list was so long most people didn’t get to use it. At my current position, I have a 10% discount through my employer for my childcare center (only available to employees who use one of two national childcare chains, which I do), which is the first time anyone has done anything for me in terms of helping or paying for childcare. I can’t think offhand of any working friend I know that has on-site childcare. My point being that I just don’t think this is as common as it should be. Or could be.

    Add to that the complication of finding an appropriate setting for a child with a disability at an affordable price… and yikes.

    The one exception to this is that when my husband was in the military, we benefited from the MWR child care facilities. They had a sliding scale payment based on household income. Most of the time, as a dual income family we paid the maximum amount but it was still a good value for the money we paid. I knew many other families (especially single-parent families) who benefited from the availability and price of these centers.

    If your hours go from 530am to sometimes after midnight, where is the childcare center that can handle those hours?

    Exactly. My job is a typical office-hours job and I still have trouble sometimes with childcare. When the deadline is looming and everyone is gearing up to slam out a project and I say, “Its 5:30, I have to get my kid before the daycare closes” its not exactly a career-building move.

    My neighbor, a single-mother of one and a shipyard worker working 1st shift, MUST punch in a 7:00 a.m. Which means her child MUST be at the daycare at 6:00 a.m. because of the commute, etc. She did fine with that until he hit school age. Now, all the before-school program don’t start until 6:30. So us neighbors fill in that gap for her… one takes him from 6:00 – 7:00; then I take him (bus stop is at my house) from 7:00 until 7:20 when the bus comes.

22. I know this may be a feminist blog’s third rail, but why not ensure that a spouse/lover/family member/whoever can raise your child since you’ve decided to opt out? The care would be cheaper, probably better, more consistent (children need rhythm,) and not at the hands of a bunch of people hired to be the on-call warm bodies to watch your children sleep or cry themselves to sleep while their parents try to make themselves partner.

    Hee. This is funny. Its sort of like the time my stay-at-home-mom sister-in-law said to me… “at daycare, do they LET THEM NAP?????” To which I replied, “No. They stick little toothpicks in their eyes and MAKE THEM STAY AWAKE.”

    And… when they get bored with that game… they let the poor, lonely, mommy-missing children cry themselves to sleep in dark cold rooms with no blankets. And watch. And laugh.

    And then, just to make sure there is no rhythm or consistency, they dispense with any schedules or routine at daycare. Just because its fun to mess with little kids.

    Because daycare is that cruel and awful and so are the mothers that put their children there.

    I’m a working mother and always have been. I’ve been hearing guilt-inducing puke like this for so long, I often wonder when someone is going to come up with something original. Honestly. Find some new material… the old stuff is getting stale.

23. While it does not solve every problem, I found leaving the firm and going in-house to be a wonderful experience. The work is more enjoyable, and the hours are much more reasonable. Also, if you do the math, on an hourly basis, you make more money in-house. The marginal income on those late night billable hours is barely minimum wage at some point.

    When my wife and I were debating about having children this was a huge consideration. I didn’t want to even consider having kids until I had left the firm for a more reasonable position.

24. Outside of the context of this article, a “perk” is a fringe benefit; something that comes with the job. I didn’t think there were two tiers of fringe benefits, just benefits that your employer may or may not supply.

    Although otherwise quite humane, a former employer cited fear of liability and fairness for its refusal to have onsite day care, because many sites processed hazardous materials. Even though others did not, having day care only at non-hazardous locations would mean treating employees differently depending on where they worked.

    I imagine that firms take on some risk by having onsite daycare; What if one of the childminders abuses the children? The firm that sponsors the daycare would be a deep pocket. Giving employees an occasion where they might sue their employer is seldom good policy.

25. exholt – your observation about my juxtaposition of fat jokes and lawyer jokes is apt. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It was a superficial remark that I think has some superficial accuracy, but I agree that the wheels fall off before I even get it out of the driveway.

    What people regard as acceptable targets for jokes – from mild ones to offensive ones – is always changing, and never free from objection. I’m just saying that jokes about fat people and jokes about lawyers are currently more likely to appear in the media and in general discourse than, say, jokes about people with Downs or cerebral palsy. (And when I was a youngster, such jokes weren’t generally considered malicious.)

    When I wrote my comment, I was thinking about that so-called fitness club TV ad, discussed elsewhere on this site, that used as its theme the humiliation of a fat woman. I was also remembering a TV ad that was broadcast around the time of the 101 California shooting spree that left some lawyers, office staff, and clients dead in San Francisco. I can no longer remember was the ad was for – possibly beer or a car – but its theme was a “Lawyer Round-up”, in which suited lawyers milled about in a rodeo corral, frightened and panicky like cattle – while cool guys laughed at them. I remember being astounded that the sponsor or broadcaster apparently couldn’t imagine how nasty it was. Or they couldn’t make the connection with the image of terrified humans trying to escape a deposition room while being gunned down. But neither instance is actually a joke, with a punchline and a pause for laughs. It was imagery that was considered by its purveyors to be sales-enhancing, and only in that sense is there a common ground.

    Anyway, I wanted to explain the context and why this resonates for me, none of which information could possibly have been gleaned from my previous “throw-away” post.

26. I agree with most of the commenters that child-care should be considered more importantly as a needed benefit for all employees, not merely a perk akin to concierge services. Though I turned out ok as an ’80’s era quasi-“latchkey” kid, my childhood classmates and I could have benefited from more regularized childcare and after school programs.

    Exholt 16 – you did not ask me but if you happen to be interested, I will forward you some materials that I have written on document review work in DC. I don’t want to spamulate my own email address but if you are interested, I would be happy if Feministe management forwarded you my email address so I can send you a link/attachment.

    Bruce,

    I would be very interested. Thank you for your offer.

27. I have a friend who is a lawyer (corporate litigation for big clients,) works outrageous hours, and homeschools the children. Her husband is a stay-at-home parent and does a wonderful job of it, and they’ve made a number of sacrifices to avoid needing daycare. I know that’s not everyone’s experience (hell, nothing ever is,) but I really don’t see any realistic scenario where a daycare would be open all day and night. Daycare is too much a seller’s market to suggest that something like that would just suddenly be available for those who work such long hours.

    As for the rest, Kat, I guess when I read the scenario I did see a lack of rhythm is schedules that go from 7am to midnight every day of the week. I didn’t imagine those were the posted hours and every night at midnight an alarm goes off and everyone scurries home lest their magic pantsuits turn into lowcost outfits from Old Navy. I envisioned something like: sometimes until 10 or 11, sometimes until 2 or 3, but usually around 12. Like others, I’ve never worked in a big lawfirm, so how the hell should I have known? And I don’t have anything against the users of daycare. I just think it’s too underfunded while at the same time too unaffordable, has a seller’s market, is usually better than some other options, makes me unhappy to think about, and makes me glad I don’t have to use it. Am I smug? No, I’m grateful. I don’t pity you or demonize those like you. You’ve found a good center, can afford it, and it works for you. Good deal.

    Really, I wish the school system would have schedules like most jobs so this daycare thing could be less of a problem. Those underlapping schedules are the thing that’s killing working moms (and to a lesser extent dads) more than the usual things talked about on blogs and park benches. Of course, extending the school day would be expensive, “anti-family”, and a host of other things largely unsupportable in today’s political climate. It would also be a damn good idea.

28. And I don’t have anything against the users of daycare.

    Really? Because this is what you said….

    and not at the hands of a bunch of people hired to be the on-call warm bodies to watch your children sleep or cry themselves to sleep while their parents try to make themselves partner

29. I didn’t imagine those were the posted hours and every night at midnight an alarm goes off and everyone scurries home lest their magic pantsuits turn into lowcost outfits from Old Navy.

    Interesting. You seem to think that childcare is solely the province of the woman.

    And I don’t have anything against the users of daycare. I just think it’s too underfunded while at the same time too unaffordable, has a seller’s market, is usually better than some other options, makes me unhappy to think about, and makes me glad I don’t have to use it. Am I smug? No, I’m grateful. I don’t pity you or demonize those like you.

    No, you’re smug.

30. Until very recently, things like childcare benefits and the like weren’t even on my radar screen. As DH and I are now discussing having children at some point in the distant future (his mantra is “5 years” although we’ve been discussing it for nearly a year, and it’s not yet changed to “4 years”), I’ve been paying much more attention. It’s atrocious how much my colleagues have to pay to get decent childcare, and I don’t know how some of them do it. My current employer does offer a Dependent Care Flex Spending Account, which would allow me to pay for childcare in pre-tax dollars, but still, I’d kill for one of us to work somewhere that actually provided affordable on-site childcare.

31. The scenario presented was someone who works from 7 to midnight five days a week. The scenario didn’t pretend to portray all users of childcare or all users’ needs. As presented, I still stand by my comments regarding the opting out of parenting, putting career ahead of something I think is more important, and so on.

    And I can be called smug, but I don’t feel that way. I’ve been damn lucky to have a wife who was able and willing to be a stay-at-home parent and now a part-time worker while our three-year-old is still three. She’s lucky to have an employer (a lawyer with a busy firm) who values her contributions enough to put up with an erratic and limited schedule. I’m “stuck” at a state job with decent pay and great benefits but hardly any flexibility. By “stuck” I mean that I could quit my job and take care of the children while she works, but it wouldn’t be financially responsible.

    And I don’t think childcare is solely for women, but as presented (again) I certainly saw it that way. Maybe it was the name of this blog, or the blogger, or maybe it’s just that I see most of the people picking up and dropping off children at daycare as being women, but whatever it was I didn’t mean to imply that only women use childcare. My bad. I promise never to make another semi-veiled allusion to Cinderella in reference to rhythm and schedules and midnight.

32. Oh, jon, fuck off. Putting a child in daycare is not “opting out of parenting.” Saying so just shows that you think women shouldn’t be out working when they have “more important” things to do.

33. I am a lawyer at one of these firms, and I strongly believe that the existence of these “perks” (and not just childcare) is a feminist issue. As I get more senior, my male colleagues increasingly get married to women who either stay home altogether or have 9 to 5 jobs, while most of us women are either unmarried or married/in relationships with people who also have high-stress jobs. It creates a HUGE amount of inequality in the workplace. It is so much easier to work 14 hour days and travel on a moment’s notice when you have someone at home administering the rest of your life for you (paying bills, dropping off dry cleaning, doing the taxes, buying milk, Christmas shopping). And it is not just the hours that make this job so demanding, its the need to be constantly available on a moment’s notice — so not that easy to, for example, schedule a furniture delivery, even at 9 am on a Sunday, when you routinely get emails at Saturday night at 10 pm telling you that you need to be in the office the next morning.

    And it really effects women’s ability to compete when we have to take care of these things ourselves (or in partnership with our partners/husbands). My husband and I share domestic responsibilities 50/50, but this arrangement hurts both of us as compared to men who have stay-at-home or 9-to-5 wives. Of course both of us are able to work less, and have to say “no” to last minute requests to work in order to take care of domestic necessities.

    Therefore, I think these perks level the playing field between men and women, and also between people in male-breadwinner relationships and those in economically egalitarian ones. This point just seems to get lost when people bitch about how spoiled we are. Yes, we are spoiled, but I personally would rather see that happening in a gender-neutral way!

34. Putting a child in daycare 80 hours a week is opting out, zuzu. I can’t see it in any other way. Even if you are the only heart surgeon in the world and can justify it morally, it’s still opting out. 7 to midnight was the scenario. “Opting out” was my reaction. Daycare for 40-50 hours a week may be a necessity, but 80 is just plain opting out of parenting. Justify it and label it however you like, but that’s how I see it. Maybe it’s something that will make the child/ren and the parent/s better off in the long-term, but that’s your choice to make.

    And even if the employer was willing to pay for it, I still doubt it would be available. That may be a chicken and egg scenario, but I don’t see a huge amount of daycare workers striving for more hours. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it. Those able to work extra do so privately, not as part of a center.

35. Shorter jon: “As a female of the species, your appointed task is to give birth to and raise the next generation of American warriors successful working men. Attempting to maintain a career of your own interferes with this vital function and cannot be tolerated. zuzu, stop working, get married, and start pushing out those babies…”

36. Putting a child in daycare 80 hours a week is opting out, zuzu. I can’t see it in any other way. Even if you are the only heart surgeon in the world and can justify it morally, it’s still opting out. 7 to midnight was the scenario. “Opting out” was my reaction. Daycare for 40-50 hours a week may be a necessity, but 80 is just plain opting out of parenting.

    Oh, no, no. You stated flatly that daycare, full stop, is opting out of parenting — or else why would you be so careful to specify that you made sacrifices so your wife could stay home? Or that you “don’t have anything against the users of daycare”?

    I’m also curious: are you only opting out if your child is in daycare or being taken care of by a nanny? Because there are an awful lot of male attorneys working 80 hours a week, but nobody wags their fingers at them for “opting out of parenting.” I guess it’s only a problem for you when the mother works.

    Tell me —

37. Therefore, I think these perks level the playing field between men and women, and also between people in male-breadwinner relationships and those in economically egalitarian ones. This point just seems to get lost when people bitch about how spoiled we are. Yes, we are spoiled, but I personally would rather see that happening in a gender-neutral way!

    Those “perks” may level the playing field between men and women. However, some of these perks are seen by many people as an extravagant lifestyle reminiscent of the aristocrats or wealthy bourgeois families of old with plenty of servants to take care of ordinary mundane tasks of life. The class jealousy this arouses will be such that trying to explain the long hours would often be summarily dismissed…especially when they would often argue that one voluntarily chose to enter the legal profession by enduring 3 years of law school education and its associated expenses.

    As for working 14 hours/day…my own working-class parents and those of my classmates worked at least as many hours six or even seven days/week for years with few breaks to make ends meet without having necessities like childcare or the “perks”.

    Moreover, this does not take into account the less sympathetic perspectives of many progressive/Marxist/Maoist undergrad and some grad classmates who would view the defense of these perks as self-indulgent upper-class whining by collaborators who facilitate the very corporate globalization that screws the poor, working, and middle classes all over the world while their corporate masters enrich themselves.

    Not that I necessarily agree with these oversimplistic arguments as I have worked as a paralegal and did the long hours…but I do understand why so many people would be quite receptive to such arguments.

38. Zuzu,

    I give my consent to your providing my email address to Bruce. The one I am using to post comments is a valid working address.

    Thank you again for sharing your experiences.

    To Bruce,

    Thank you again for your offer.

Comments are currently closed.