From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:27:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr8.002734.588
Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization

In article <2681@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.170654.12024@midway.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes:


>	Stop feeling sorry for me.  

Actually, I didn't, till I saw this most recent set of responses.

>A job is a means to an end, in this case a combination of professional 
>satisfaction and enough dollars to be able to do what we really want in 
>a little while.  

That's the problem, dontcha see. Deferred living against some promise
of a better future is what my part of this discussion is about. I can't
say I've ever met anyone for whom it has actually worked out as the sought
after advantage in the long term. 

>	I'm actually sorta confused, though...  This all started out with
>"Your company should pay for women to take a year or so off to have babies
>because they deserve it", and my pointing out that a place like Unisql
>*can't* pay salaries to people who aren't producing - we don't have that
>kind of cushion yet - then moved to a bunch of pissing and moaning about how
>companies should support Family and Apple Pie and all that stuff even if it 
>means they go out of business because Family and Apple Pie and all that stuff
>is what's **really** important anyway and ended up with a bunch of sour grapes
>"Well, I got screwed so you will too.  Better quit while you're ahead and
>go work at Burger King so you can spend more time with your family" bullshit.

Name a company which admits it can pay salaries to people who are not
producing. Cushion has nothing to do with anything. Don't be confused.
I addressed the issue of prioritization, work or family first. One cannot
have both. There is an overlap, in my opinion, in the discussions.

>What's the point?  That since Bill got the shaft 25 years ago on a government
>contract I should quit my job since my dreams can never come true and anyway
>I have to work too hard to make them happen? Feh.

Sorry that's what you got out of my little discourse. I never complained
about getting the shaft. The only shaftings were self-induced. What I
was trying to impart was quite simply that making a difference and
deferring things of personal value was without recompense. My proposal
flew, as did the end product.

The operative phrase, wharfie, was 'buying into the hype.' In hindsight,
I didn't need to do that 95 hours in a week. The schedule wasn't that
sort of critical, though the hype made it so. That's the real problem.
Employers are too quick, usually, to set unrealistic goals. Those of
us who are determined to be high performers, at the head of the pack,
do it, sometimes just because it seems impossible. Damn the personal
expense.

There is an interesting article in the March _Cosmopolitan_ regarding
life in "the slow lane." The article tells the tale of four individuals
who opted out of the fast lane into jobs and lifestyles more in keeping
with the values Valerie Maslak was discussing. Might surprise you to
know that the alternatives in the article are eminently successful in
economic terms as well. 

Seems that nothing is quite as cut and dried as those generally supportive 
of your position seem to believe. You can flaunt that "cannot afford" stuff 
all you want. In the end, childbearing costs all of us anyway. By not being 
supportive of your employees, you're paying costs which you might not be 
able to identify as a line item of cost, but it is there anyway, as real
dollars and cents. I am not certain that a full year off is required, but 
it is a good idea if at all possible.

Bill Vajk
Newsgroups: soc.men