[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] In a family where the primary earner has irregular days/hours (like salespeople who travel at least two weeks/month, for instance), is it better if they have a parent available to both that spouse and the children whenever it works best for them? There is no right or wrong answer here, it depends entirely on the beliefs and desires of the individual families.
[/quote]
I can understand irregular hours.
The problem for workers who don’t have set hours, is that labor laws are screwed up. Unless workers have unions representing them, the employers would almost always require their employees to be on-call all the time, but only pay them part-time.
Employees should be notified of their schedules well in advance so they can plan and not have to wait around without getting paid.
See, I’m not anti-union at all. ;)[/quote]
IIRC there is some energy behind legislation that would require employers to give employees their schedule at least a week ahead of time. Haven’t followed up on it much, but have heard about it.
Still, some people have such irregular hours that, even if they know in advance, they would not be able to find someone who would also be “on call” to respond to their schedule changes.
A person who’s taking care of the children of someone who has an irregular schedule cannot take classes, work, participate in activities of their own, etc. if those activities take place on a particular day of the week…unless they try to hire someone else who can cover these times. The problem keeps getting pushed to someone else down the line.
