I think my contract states something along the lines of xx hours per week with a codicil stating that additional duties and hours may be required as the business dictates....

I used to do a lot at the office after hours but thankfully now thanks to the internet revolution I am able to put a lot of hours in at home....I don't get paid overtime if I work at home or in the office though....

If the job can't be finished in the hours you are contracted to work and you're working unpaid and/or from home then that falls neatly into the willing donkey scenario.
It matters not if you have a family or not if you are working for a company making them money is it not fair to expect money or time owed?
So far from being a simplistic comment it's opened up the fact that many people are working many hours above and beyond for nada.... That's not the fault of working mothers and those who are being put upon in the workplace should look to themselves for accepting this situation.

What utter rubbish. It's not all about nine to five for a lot of people. I don't work for a company, you have no idea what I do or anything about my contract and I'm one of many that doesn't fit into a neat little 36-hours-a-week pigeon hole so I'm afraid the donkey scenario is not just wrong, it's a little insulting. As you know. And in any case, if someone wants to work hard to build a career, staying late and working hard to get a job done is something that goes with the territory. If people want to go home at 5pm when there's a flap on, they should probably look elsewhere for a job.

I'm surprised people think they have the right to be outraged that some women would make a decision to take advantage of the offer described in the OP when really, it's not anything to do with anyone but the woman making the decision and no one's hand is being forced.

Yeah, let's have loads more kids with disabilities and other health related problems from being born of older women.

I'm not talking about your situation personally am I? Just commenting on the thread topic.
Nobody is outraged, it's just being discussed is all.

That's a relevant point, there are greater risks associated with older mothers 35+

That's why I said "and I'm one of many".

Any woman deciding to have kids later will be well aware of the medical implications and would take that into consideration. It's their choice, and no one else's. Lots of women are having children later naturally. Again, their choice.

Nobody said it wasn't their choice, however people are still allowed their opinion on it. It was based on Alex's comment anyway.

All comes down to personal choice.
Just as long as the women look into it and understand the statistics, not every egg will work, they may end up childless.

As to working and having children, you have to find the happy medium, what works for you as a family.
In reality..you can't have it all, so maybe Just enough to keep you happy.

Agree with all that Smudgie. Especially the last two sentences.

There is a huge difference between what you said above and working on after hours to finish a job, most women and men will take annual leave for child sickness and sports days etc so they will be covering someone else's annual leave at some point.

If you work on after others have left then I assume this has been agreed with management that they can leave? they don't down tools, and can they not be be productive and contribute from home? I work with people who live in the States Germany and Denmark and quite often I get calls before 8am and after 7pm, we teleconference, email and skype, just because I am sat at home doesn't mean I can't do my job! or contribute.

I disagree that you can't have it all, you can have it all if you have a good home support network and a supportive Manager, I really don't see how delaying pregnancy can help someones career, is it really the time to step aside and get pregnant once you hit the top of the ladder :suspect: I'm trying to envisage a pregnant PM or President...

Hmm. On the one hand I think its good for women to be given the opportunity

On the other hand I suspect this would be abused...those who have effectively signed away their right to have kids getting promoted above others etc...

Yes, I expect that would happen, not sure I'd call it "abuse". If someone's made the decision to delay motherhood, the option having been offered to her by her company, and then someone who has not made that commitment is promoted, I'm sure the person being overlooked might have cause to feel pretty pissed off.

Vicky, hi... haven't spoken to you for ages.

That's completely unfair and sexist as well can I add, I'm sure that would qualify as discrimination. Would they pass over a man who has kids over a single man? I doubt it

Disagree, the person promoted should be the best person for the job at the time, regardless of any other factors.. IMO anyway :S

I would say the person overlooked simply because they have kids would be more in the right to be pissed off :laugh:

And hi. I lurk a lot these days rather than post...cba with all the dramas

Exactly.

We're not talking about men here, we're talking about women having their eggs frozen.

So not at all discriminatory to the woman who'd committed to delaying motherhood, then? It's fine for her to delay it, and then be passed over for someone who's going to carry on and have a family?

Women sometimes can't have it all.

Well...no. Not if the other woman was better qualified for the promotion. If the woman who has delayed motherhood (and been paid a quite hefty sum to do so already I need to add) was actually better qualified and was for some reason looked over in favour of someone with a family then it would be discrimination :shrug:

Some jobs just aren't right for women who can't commit to them. That doesn't mean to say they're worth less, just that while they're raising children, they have other priorities. I'm not sure I could concentrate 100% if I had a sick child at home, for instance. However, if they have a husband who has taken on the childcare mantle, then that's a whole new ballgame.

Dramas? What dramas? :-)

Nice to see you.

Qualifications are only part of the person spec.

So because a woman has decided to freeze her eggs she's automatically a better candidate for the job? That's complete discrimination.

If the company is paying for a female employee to have her eggs frozen I'm guessing she's going to be an employee they want to hang on to and is well qualified.

Anyway look, bugger off you two. We're not going to agree so I'm leaving it there. Unless you want to take it out to the car park? :fist:

Maybe employee number two was also offered the egg freezing as she was a much valued employee but said no? hhhmmmmm?

See you in the car park in 5 :hehe:

'I am aware nobody is forcing the women to do this however it is possible that if there was a promotion to be offered of the two female candidates the more 'productive human being' would perhaps unfairly have the advantage.
Also my comment earlier relating to contracts didn't mention anything about contraception and it's reliability, a woman may decide to move having children forward for any number of reasons. Also this would be limiting in the amount of children you have, the odds of having a child in later years are reduced drastically especially if you want to have more than one child'

Great minds eh? :D