Hacker News Reader

You have to respect the common shared space such as office space.

That works both ways. If you believe parents shouldn't bring their children to the office space because they should respect you and your desire for children not to be there, then it's only reasonable that you should respect their desire to have their children with them. Whether you're fond of babies or not is irrelevant; the important thing is the impact on the business. If having children around means an overall productivity drop then they're a net loss, and a dedicated child-care facility is a better option. But if the parents in the office are more productive with their children close by, to a point that outweighs the loss of productivity from the non-parents, then children in the office is a positive. Few workplaces have ever measured that, so there isn't a simple "it's worse with children around" answer.

Plus, and this is really important, there's a distinct danger that employers who say they don't want children around the business using that as a way to limit opportunities for women (albeit subconsciously; few would admit to it). That's something to guard against.

That works both ways. If you believe parents shouldn't bring their children to the office space because they should respect you and your desire for children not to be there, then it's only reasonable that you should respect their desire to have their children with them.

You do know realize that an office space means a space for employees to do work for someone who is paying them. It is not a space for their children or parents or grand-parents or cousins or favorite stuff toys.

I think you're relying too much on the photo-op images rather than the points of the story text itself.

An employer offering in-house childcare has benefits, this does not necessarily mean your kid will be sitting on your desk and you will be taking care of it.

OP specifically referenced the image, so I think it's fair to focus on the image in this thread.

Like any space, an office space is whatever the people occupying it choose to make it. We don't live in a videogame where all of the architecture and its uses are hardcoded. We aren't sims.

I've been in office spaces that were spaces for quiet work, heated discussions, listening to music together, nerf battlegrounds, emotional reconciliation, alcohol-infused parties, Quake tournaments, and philosophical debate.

Humans and their activities defy simple categorization, despite how much our industrial mindset might encourage us to treat them—us—as cogs in a machine.

That's a recent historical development, and one could even say it's rooted in deep gendered thinking in the roles of men and women.

That's a recent historical development

Really? When were office spaces expected to have children around?

Office spaces are a relatively recent historical development.

or - you know - it's just practical, not to have kids around people trying to concentrate?

still, there were times when you could send your kids to work. that sort of thing is frowned upon/illegal now.

No, the practical answer is to treat humans with respect and dignity, and give them office space that is private with a door that closes. The fact that we are so willing to be treated so poorly and then blame parents with young children for noise is beyond me.

You know my office used to have speakers in it? That we played music on? That bothered no one because the door was closed!?

Oh the horror.

Wait, what? This is Hacker News, where bringing your seven mangy dogs to the office is practically required. I know they get in the way of the ping-pong sometimes, and gnaw on the cables for the PS4, but you can just feed them some snacks from the jerky dispenser if they bug you too much.

Have you heard of start-ups?

>But if the parents in the office are more productive with their children close by

As someone who works from home with a toddler on the other side of the door, I'll go ahead and challenge that assumption.

Agree 100%.

I've worked both in a traditional environment (I drop the kids off at daycare before work, and pick them up afterwords), and a remote work environment (I walk into my office, the kids are on the other side of the door, in the care of a nanny).

I feel more guilt being in the same house as my kids, and not being involved, than I did with them at a separate daycare.

It's nice when I eat lunch or take a break, to be able to walk out and hang out with my kids. It's not nice when I'm on a conference call, and I can hear the wailing on the other side of my (well-sound-insulated) door when someone stubs a toe, and feel guilt that I'm not involved.

On site, but separated, child-care is I think the ideal solution for working parents and the workplace. It gives parents the ability to visit their children when they have a break, or need to breastfeed. It gives them a bit of space, so they don't feel obligated to be involved in the tens of minor-crises that occur every day in the life of a child.

It also keeps a bit of separation between "work" and "family" time, which even as a very involved father I feel is valuable.

Because only women are involved with parenting, right?

Of course not. What we're talking about is parents being discriminated against, and the number of documented cases where women have been discriminated against for having children (leaving to look after them, being passed over for promotion because they don't work late, etc) is considerably higher than men, so if you're suggesting there might be parity in discrimination you'll need to find some evidence to back up that point.

That's not how it works. The desire for children to not be there is so you can concentrate and do your job. Children being children is going to be distracting to everyone, and cause a drain on everyone else's productivity. Not to mention that having small children around would likely cause a number of people to search for alternative employment.

EDIT: This is in response to the idea that one has to respect parents wanting to have their children at their desks. I'm fairly certain the photos in the article are stock photos, and I'm fully in favor of having a separate day care facility.

But if the parents in the office are more productive with their children close by,

I see that straw men can be used to argue both against an idea, and apparently for an idea as well.

Those are posed pictures for a PR piece. Don't take it literally. They are probably a bit ill-conceived, since pictures of happy kids in the care centre and happy workers in the office might have got the message across better.

I expect most parents are like me: happy to have a kid-free zone to get some stuff done.

I have two small childern and thought the same thing. Bringing an infant/toddler around to meetings would be highly disruptive.

I would prefer having a shorter workday where we can just efficiently get stuff done and then go home to the kids.

It's also a little disappointing the way the writer completely writes off men being caregivers to kids.When I started reading the piece I was thinking "yeah, onsite childcare would be kind of nice," but nope, apparently the writer thinks this only for women.

I worked at a dog-friendly office for a while. People brought their dogs in and let them roam around the cubicles while we worked. I'm not sure what else to say about it, other than your comment reminded me of that. Work still got done, and people seemed to like it (I'm kinda neutral on dogs myself).

I also went to a college where there were some (relatively) older students who were married and had kids. Many of them brought kids to class (mostly sleeping infants). It looked difficult for them, but good on 'em for continuing their education. Didn't have much affect on my learning.

I'm positive you're not the only one to feel that way. But it's not the only way to feel either. The child-free office is a socially constructed expectation, it's not an absolute. Some people balk at the idea of casual dress, ping pong tables, dogs in the office, etc.

I would personally love to work in an office where people were welcome to bring their kids. I'd happily deal with the interruptions and inefficiencies. If the company thought the benefits outweighed those costs, I'm game.

Would you be willing to work overtime for free, to compensate for those interruptions and inefficiencies?

Sounds like a trick question. It's the company that has to compensate for that loss of productivity.

If we're dealing in hypotheticals, what if your personal productivity went down, but the overall productivity of the company went up, due to factors such as the ones mentioned in the article?