Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Probability - near zip.  Our beloved president has expressed the
    sentiment that women should stay home and take care of the kids.
    This has been discussed at great length in EXIT26::PARENTING
    (press KP7 or SELECT to add it to your notebook).
    
    I expressed the opinion the other day that DEC spends a lot of
    effort and money to patch up employees lives after they've gone
    to pot (the EAP, etc.), but little or no attention to the small
    things that would make a great difference in happiness and
    productivity, such as daycare.
    			Steve (newly-single parent)

    Well, my 3 are all grown and away now, but I certainly could have used
    daycare earlier on and would sign petitions or whatever to change
    KO's mind if that's what's needed.  Who runs Employee Benefits?
    I think that office proposes things that are then passed on by the
    Corporate Personnel Committee.  Some process like that anyway, is
    there anyone in here who knows for sure?
    
    					=maggie

    I checked with a personnel rep a short time ago and the company
    STILL has no intention of even assisting with day care.  They are
    looking at the new cafeteria-style benefits packages, which would
    allow an employee to decide for him/herself how their company-given
    benefits would be distributed, but that's about as far as it goes
    right now.  Of course, with the amount of babies being born each
    year, these things could change -- it will eventually get too expensive
    to try and replace all of the women who cannot find reasonably-priced
    daycare and must then stay home.  The center I use keeps on raising
    its rates -- I'm only part-time so that's where my check goes each
    week -- but the quality is so good I don't want to change.
    
    
    sandy
    

	Let's try and get away from assuming that the woman might have
	to quit work and stay home with the children.  Let's say
	that the company might start losing "parents".
	...Karen

    My wife used to work for a law firm which represents a company called
    Work/Family Directions.  They provide child care resource and referral
    information to other companies' employees as part of their benefit
    packages.  Work/Family has contracts with IBM, PepsiCo, Kraft and
    McDonald's among others.  Maybe if enough people asked Personnel to
    talk to them, they might actually look into it. 
    
    Dg

    I was interested to note in an article published in July that Digital
    ranksin the top 30 companies among women, inspite of no day care
    If anyone is interested I'll try and find the article and include
    it here.

	Well the whole daycare issue has been knock around for quite sometime 
now but nevertheless...

	I don't know how Ken Olsen stands on daycare, I don't recall him 
pubicly stating "woman should stay home and raise the kids", I think he's to 
bright a person to say such in public even if he felt it.

	There are many other issues involved, mostly liability and publicity. 
What happens when a little child get's molested in a DEC sponsored daycare 
center ??? Probably DEC get's hit with a massive lawsuit and bad press to 
boot. Daycare is to sticky an issue for a computer company to get involved in. 
That's right DEC is a computer company and there are limits to the extremes it 
must pursue to create a good work environment. I don't know what percentage of 
DEC employees could use such a service, but I can't imagine it being to large. 
If it's subsidized by the company then where does the money come from ??? Is 
it fair to have a "benefit" worth thousands of dollars available to only a 
subset of the employees??? 

	Wang USED to have a daycare center, it went out with the layoffs...

/harry

    
    Re .8, those reasons sound like non-reasons or cop-outs to me. 
    I would think that a LARGE percentage of employees could use daycare
    what with the average age of DEC employees and the new babyboom.
     I don't understand why it should be any different for a computer
    company to have daycare than any other kind of business.  I realize
    DEC *is* a business and was created to make money not to improve
    living conditions, but wouldn't it be *nice* if the company wanted
    to do both - be a business AND help people.  I do believe that the
    happier employees are the more they'll put into the company.
    
    A couple of years ago I was working in an engineering group in Digital
    where a woman engineer tried to stir up a little interest in daycare.
     She told me that management informed her not to start trouble.
    
    I can't help but be thankful that daycare is not an issue that affects
    me directly.
    
    Lorna
    

    .re 8
    
    Have you ever heard of WANG Labs?  Not as big as DEC, but pretty
    big.  THEY have a day care center.  The employees love it and use
    it and it works VERY WELL.  I have never heard a bad thing about
    it except that it's a six-month wait to get your kid into it.  I
    know because I used to work there.

    BTW, there's also such a *miniscule* chance that any kid will ever be
    molested in a daycare center.  The media has blown a couple of instances
    out of proportion and now everyone says daycare is "bad" for your
    kids because they might be molested.  There's still an almost
    infinitely greater chance that the kid will die in a car accident.

    	Ellen

	Well perhaps I'm misinformed but I was under the impression that WANG 
has canceled their daycare center. I know I would be kind of pissed getting 
laid-off when the company is pouring $$$ into daycare.

	As for the number of employees who could use such a service, just 
looking around in my cost center I wouldn't say "LARGE", but it is 
significant. Remember the number of employees that would benefit is all 
employees with children, but a subset of those who have very young children. 
And in that group many desire a spouse to stay at home and raise the children. 
Has anyone in DEC done a study??? I don't feel too comfortable talking about an 
issue for which I have no facts (but I do it anyway!!).

	Now if the company isn't subsidizing it, just providing a convenient
location for workers - why not use external daycare??? If the workers in a
plant can support a daycare center without subsidies, why doesn't some
entrepreneur start one up across the street??? Perhaps coalitions of concerned 
parents can attract such business ?

	I'll be in the position (in a few years) where my wife and I will be
having children. Company provided daycare would be great!! I also recognize
that esoteric benefits are to the detriment of other employees not "eligible" 
for them. But sometimes the cookie crumbles that way ...

/harry

ps. 	I don't blame DEC for trying to aviod a messy issue like daycare.

pss.	I don't buy the "Big Brother" image of management trying to repress
	the idea of daycare.
	

>pss.	I don't buy the "Big Brother" image of management trying to repress
>	the idea of daycare.
        
        Unfortunately, it's really true.  Ken Olsen has stated firmly
        and repeatedly that DEC will *not* get into daycare.  Since
        Ken is, after all, *the* management of DEC, and no lower
        level managers can go against that even if they want to,
        I'd say that qualifies as meeting your image.
        
        Daycare *is* a messy issue, and there are lots of reasons
        for concern over legal issues, etc.  But then, having property
        and letting *anyone* on that property is a complex legal
        issue nowadays; and plenty of other companies have managed
        to run daycare centers for their employees.  I've yet to
        see any real justification for DEC's position.
        
        As someone else said, I'm just glad I don't have to worry
        about it (at least, not for a while).  That doesn't stop
        me from being sympathetic to all those who *do* currently
        have small children...
        
        	/dave

    I'll try to keep the flames on low.
    
    No, I have no *proof*.  But I have heard from too many, too varied
    sources to deny it is creditable:  DEC won't do daycare - ANY sort
    of daycare benefit - because a certain highly placed individual
    believes that women should stay home with their children. Period.
    
    Over at least the past several years, several attempts have been
    made to stimulate corporate interest in this issue: by individuals,
    by groups of individuals.  The answer has always been the same:
    No Dice.
    
    I'll argue with the assumption of many people who comment on this
    issue, that a DEC-sponsored daycare benefit HAS TO be on-site,
    company-subsidized and/or owned daycare center.  There are a whole
    range of possible methods, many of which have been used successfully
    and without undue hassle/liability by other companies:
    		1/ keep a list of registered daycare providers
    		   who are liscenced by the Mass. Office for Children,
    		   to be provided to anyone looking for daycare.  This
    		   could let DEC in for no more liability than a newspaper
    		   that runs ads for such people.
    		2/ have a benefit that pays some (negotiable, sliding
    		   scale, etc) portion of daycare cost, at the site
    		   of the parent's choosing
    		3/ lease extra land at the worksite to a daycare center,
    		   which brings in mobile facilities to meet the demand
    		   and which bears all the liability burden
    etc, etc, etc.  There is a fuller discussion of options and opinions
    in the PARENTS note file on EXIT26::.  My point here is, if 'DEC'
    was not so dead set against it, 'DEC' could *easily* find a way
    to help its child-raising employees in this area.

    re .11:  I checked with a friend at WANG and he said that the WANG
    daycare center *is* still operating, but that it is fully open to the
    public as well as employees and that everyone pays the full price now.
    Formerly, WANG employees paid half price for it.  (It was $55 a
    week two years ago for one child and double that for non-WANG
    employees' children).  I think this all means that it's just a
    for-profit day care center now.

    Hey - this is still a BIG improvement over DEC's policy, folks.
    
    And to answer your charge that daycare would only benefit parents...
    NOT TRUE.  Let me first say that I do not have children nor do I
    plan on having any.  However having affordable, decent daycare is
    *everyone's* responsibility, just as educating children is *everyone's*
    responsibility.  It benefits society.  It also directly benefits
    DEC since parents worry less about their children's care and are
    more effective at work.
    
    	-Ellen
    

    I know this is an unpopular position, but providing a $100/week
    benefit for a small subset of employees (those with small children
    and having both parents in the workforce, and single parents) seems
    just a little unfair to the rest of the employees.  And I will point
    out that there being a two salary family with small children *is*
    something that only the people involved are responsible for.  The
    same with single parents.
    
    I would have no problem with DEC giving out names of daycare centers
    in the area, or leasing land for an entrepreneur to start a daycare
    center if the demand were such that an entrepreneur could make a
    profit.  But giving it as a benefit for employees in this situation
    is just too much.
    
    Kathleen

I think it's too bad daycare is perceived as a women's issue, because it
does cross the gender boundary. This is a topic for two other notes: "do
women really do more child care work than men?" (I beleive they do) and "is
this good, right, fair or just?" (I beleive not.) (I'm not talking about you
individual dads out there who are candidates for sainthood. :-) However, on
any benefits question I'd much rather have a decision based on "is this good
for the company" rather than "should women be in the workforce?" And I'd
rather have it decided by the same people who decide on our other benefits
(though I disagree with them sometimes) than have it decided by KO's fiat
(although I admire and respect him, and like his style of management.)

I'm an unmarried man with no children, and no plans to have any, but I can
see the benefit to me of company-sponsored day care in the form of making
things easier for my colleagues who do have children. I don't have my
benefits notebook here with me, but I know there are plenty of other
examples of benefits that not everybody uses. I don't hear anybody bitching
about any of the others. I personally wouldn't want only benefits that
everybody could use equally. That would mean that either nobody gets any
disability payments, or everybody has to get disabled.

Don.

    
    For an example of a benefit we do have that doesn't apply to everyone,
    how about the adoption benefits?  Surely, each DEC employee is not
    going to adopt a child a some point in their career.
    
    Also, DEC provides some sort of benefit for employees who are in
    the reserves so that they can go off for their annual stints or
    whatever.  It was certainly the choice of these employees to enlist
    in the reserves.
    
    ALSO, Digital spends thousands of dollars relocating new hires,
    putting them up in hotels, giving them rental cars, etc.  One might
    argue that these people *chose* to move and to work at Digital,
    so why should the company pay for their move?  Why this and not
    daycare?
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  Besides you never know when *you* might need daycare - mistakes
    do happen!!!
    

    And  if  the  previous  examples  of  "extraordinary"  benefits  don't 
    convince you that a daycare benefit is  appropriate,  there  is  still 
    another  option: cafeteria-style benefits.  The working parents choose 
    to forego the disability benefits (for instance) in favor of  daycare. 
    And this is a scheme that is already in use at other companies.
    
    But,  of course, K.O.  would still have to agree to the daycare in the 
    first case, and we know how likely that is...
    
    Dg

O.K. It is after 8:30 and I shouldn't be tying up the network but. . .

Head note: Stats quoted in this comment are from an article in the Globe
Wednesday (?)business extra on earning and working patterns in modern
families. 

As a married but childless (and trying to stay that way) person who gladly
pays 17 out of every 22 local tax dollars for support of education, I think
the education/day care analogy is very apt.  In a society where over half
of all couples have both partners working outside the house, (The figure is
even higher for single parents), it is imperative for the well being of
the society that some care be provided for it's infants.  Should business
provide this service when a culture does not?  That hinges on the
perspective of the pay back of  benefits(extraordinary or otherwise).

Another perspective on the "extraordinary benefits" nature of daycare.
Given the above stats, and the incidence of permanently childless marriages
being very low, there is a better than 50/50 chance that an employee will
be able to use daycare benefits sometime in his or her career.  Granted
this benefit has not been available in the past, so not all current
employees will reap the advantage of it. Just remember the 40 hour 
work week was once considered an outrage, then a benefit, finally
a right.  Change is not an even process.  

SET flame/off !Surprised myself, when did it get turned on?

-B

One more note.  The Globe article noted that most two worker families are
that way simply to achieve an average income.  While the ubiquitous cry of
"That's a choice they've made" is already dunning my head, I have to wonder
what kind of choice it is.   With news that an even an average income
family may not be able to afford a college education for the kids what kind
of a choice is to have one parent stay home loving and nurturing child through 
infancy, preschool, elementary, middle, and high school and then have to
say, "When you were a kid, I had to choose between taking care of you at
home then, and working to earn enough so that college was even a
possibility now.  I choose to stay home." Yeah, it's not that simple, but ...

-B

    My husband works for Polaroid Corp.  They have subsidized day-care
    for those who make under $20,000.  This still exists even after
    Polaroid's layoffs.  Polaroid is listed in the book of the 100 places
    most employees are happy to work at (as is Digital).  It's certainly
    not because of job security, but because of their humanistic treatment
    of it's employees. 
    I am an engineer, so my salary is livable (considering housing costs
    in this area);  half of my after tax income goes to day-care expences
    for my two children.  How can anyone who makes less than I afford
    to work.  You may think the we all choose our circumstances, but
    this is not true.  I am fortunate enough to have an education that
    is in demand today.  Not all women postpone having children until
    they have their careers established.  As for not all employees
    benefiting from this, how about taxes?  I pay ~35% for federal taxes,
    ~8% for social security, and ~5% for state taxes.  I do not directly
    benefit from most of this money, and hope I never have to.  I don't
    even agree with how some of it is spent.
    President Regan has stated that government can't take on all the
    burdens of society, the overhead cost is too much.  It's up to the
    states, individual, schools, and corporations to take over where
    government leaves off.
    
    					Julia

    A personnel representative here mentioned that to have company-provided
    day care would take away from existing day-care business, and of
    course DEC wants to be a good neighbor in the community. I suspect 
    though that if this reason is valid, it's certainly not the only
    reason. It doesn't explain the lack of acknowledgement of the need.

    Also, if people seem to be getting along with out it, isn't it always
    the way that they can KEEP getting along without it? It's that way
    with job reqs, from my experience. Until someone fails, usually
    there's no change. If DEC personnel could prove with DEC statistics 
    that the company is losing phenomenal person-hours of work (and
    therefore dollars) due to day-care issues, maybe then an argument 
    could be made. But getting those statistics is a slippery process, 
    and making the argument to an already unreceptive audience could 
    be a nightmare. I don't think I'd want to make that presentation.
    
    Lisa

   >Note 13.22         Company Provided Daycare                     22 of 22

    >A personnel representative here mentioned that to have company-provided
    >day care would take away from existing day-care business, and of
    >course DEC wants to be a good neighbor in the community. I suspect 
    >though that if this reason is valid, it's certainly not the only
    >reason. It doesn't explain the lack of acknowledgement of the need.

Hoo Boy.  As a working mom of 4 years, half part time and half full time, I
feel qualified to point out from personal experience (not to mention lots of
media articles making the same points) that daycare OPENINGS are hard to find,
whether in daycare providers' homes or in daycare centers; GOOD daycare
openings are even more rare.  The market out there for good daycare providers
is HUGE and the supply very small.  So, DEC finding a way to offer SOME KIND
OF daycare benefit would not exactly flood the market.  This is just a new
color smokescreen.

	Sara

	I recently joined the child care committee that works under the
	Office for Children office in Marlboro, Mass.  I would be glad
	to pass on any issues or topics as they come up among us.

	The reason for this note is that a brochure was passed around in
	today's meeting for a workshop for employers to learn about
	different methods and aspects of corporation-assisted child care.
	Unfortunately I left my notes in the car, but the workshop is in
	October at the Sheraton-Andover. More than likely, someone at Digital
	got that brochure.  Do you think a group effort (letters, etc.) would
	be useful in urging someone to go to that conference?  I intend
	to write such a letter tomorrow. I can give the details tomorrow
	if anyone else is interested.

						Eileen Samberg
	

    IS THERE ANY NEWS FROM TH EWORKSHOP? IT'S BEEN MONTHS SINCE THE
    NOTE WAS FIRST WRITTEN, IS DEC ANY CLOSER TO SETTING UP DAY CARE
    CENTERS, EVEN ON A TRIAL BASIS?

    I don't know what's going on with day care at Digital but this might
    be an analagous situation.
    
    Here in Stow, the facility provides a room downstairs for exercise
    classes which are given at lunch and during the evenings.  All or
    part of the cost is paid for by the employees; the courses are run
    by an outside corporation (Health-Fit) and I believe the nurse's
    office coordinates these activities.  (It seems to me that liability
    might be an issue for this as well as for providing day care.) 
    It's certainly not something that all the employees in this building
    participate in but a room is set aside exclusively for that purpose
    (and for blood drives and other special events).
    
    Why couldn't each facility set aside some space for resident employees
    to use as a day care center, hire an outside vendor to run it, and
    have the people who use it subsidize it?  That removes the issue
    of providing a benefit to some employees but not all.  I realize
    that not all facilities have such a space.  I have a friend at PRIME
    who tried to set up something and was willing to have the employees
    not only pay for it but handle the administrative issues as well.
    No luck, unfortunately.
    
    Maybe it could be proposed on a trial basis at one site for a year
    or so.  A prototype?
    
    

    
    I meant to say "... the cost is paid for by the employees who
    participate; the courses are taught by an outside...".
    
    I haven't read PARENTING on this issue but it might be interesting.
    I'm expecting my first in 11 weeks!
    
    

    
    Re .26 & .27, I bet if every female over 17 suddenly disappeared
    off the face of the earth, and all that was left was men and children
    your plan would be implemented immediately.  I think the problem
    is that childcare is still thought of primarily as a woman's
    responsibility *or* problem.  Probably most, if not all, of the
    people who are in a position to do something are men who have always
    made so much money that their wives could take a few years off to
    take care of the children when they were young - the type of man
    who *expected* his wife to take a few years off even if it meant
    giving up a career.  I can only conclude that these men don't care
    about the problems the rest of us have with childcare.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>    Re .26 & .27, I bet if every female over 17 suddenly disappeared
>    off the face of the earth, and all that was left was men and children
>    your plan would be implemented immediately.  I think the problem
>    is that childcare is still thought of primarily as a woman's
>    responsibility *or* problem.  
    
    Good point!  I absolutely agree!  I also think that if anyone at all is
    going to change, we have to be the ones to do it.  We includes all
    of us with a family that we'd like to spend more time with each day,
    instead of trying to make ourselves cheerful in spite of being exhausted,
    etc.  I mean, in addition to having daycare on site, (gee, it would
    be nice to have lunch with my kids and know they were someplace safe
    and close), I think we should have 6 or 7 hour workdays, not 8.  I mean,
    after an 8-hour workday which may be satisfying, you come home and all
    you want to do is rest, but you also want to be with your kids.  Then
    you feel guilty about not spending enough time with your family, then
    you feel guilty about not doing as a good a job as you think you can
    at work.  Why do we have to work around the system?  Why, if we are
    the ones who are becoming more family-minded?  Shouldn't the system
    be trying to accommodate *us* a little more?  More fathers are wanting 
    to spend time with their families than ever before.  Yet, they (and
    working women as well) are treated as special cases, *not* the norm.
    I think the norm is going that direction, and the system ought to change
    as a result.
    
    set/mode from wishful thinking to realistic thinking: sigh...
    
    
    							Terza
    
    

I was just wondering if all of the people who would benefit from on-site
daycare have talked with their personnel reps, or the VP in charge of
personnel, or people in the policy-writing groups or Ken Olsen.  

There's no reason for them to go the the trouble of setting something up if
they don't hear a lot of people asking for it.  I don't know for sure, but I
suspect that the last year's new smoking policy came about because a lot of
people complained (Martin, you'd probably know: is that what happened?).

We hear a lot these days about the workplace adapting to the employes
instead of vice versa, but the workplace doesn't listen unless the employes
talk very loudly.

Maybe someone should introduce a resolution at the next shareholders'
meeting -- make KO state his views in public (I'd like to see *that* in the
next day's Globe: "Olsen thinks women should stay at home").

					-- hs

Strictly speaking, child care is a parents' issue, not a women's issue.
 We've got to impress that point on the higher-ups, probably by getting
  fathers more involved in demands for child care.

I'd help, but I'm not a father.  Is there a cat care movement anywhere?
 (-: <_Jym_> :-)

    Last year here in Colorado before the new building for the 
    CSC opened, we started a daycare committee.  We worked hard
    on it, turned the proposal over to personel.  That was the 
    last we heard of it.  I talked to a lady in personel about 
    what happened.  She said that 1) due to lack of interest
    there would be no action. Ha! I told her there were over 300
    employees who were interested. In CSC alone!  2) There would 
    be discrimination suits brought by the non parents. However,
    I had not heard the KO comment before that.  Maybe a concerted
    effort made by interested employee's would work.  Maybe a 
    petition?  I don't know what would work.
    Vivian
    

    Hi Viv,
    
    Don't start a petition, we worked together long enough for me to
    say this..... I can just see your files if you did, a big red "T"
    on the top, for troublemaker.  
    
    How many other things have you been invoved in, and I have as well,
    that got dropped by the wayside, because "somebody" didn't think
    DEC should do it???  Too many, and I won't go into it here! SORRY!
    
    Mary-Lynn

Re: 13.33  FLAME ON!
God in heaven! what's all this big red "T" crap?  If you can't stand up for
what you believe in then turn in your legs.  Don't clutter up an attempt to do
something worthwhile by spreading fear.

Re: 13.30  FLAME OFF!
DEC has ways open to affect upper level management.  Do a pilot study.

How many have contacted their VP's?  i think it might be premature w/o a pilot
study.  why not start one.  hard facts and statistics are not as hard to come
by as you think. a petition is not the answer, but a survey to determine
"how far along" the company as a whole is on this issue could help.  If those
with the "corporate mailing list" would apply themselves, this forum could help
put together the questions.  For example:

How many people in the company are currently pregnant?
How many are going to continue working full time?
How many are going to work part-time?
How many are planning to quit?
How much will it cost to replace the labor lost by part-time conversions?
How much will it cost to replace the labor lost by quitting mothers?
How much are the full-timers and part timers going to put out for daycare?
How many employees would be willing to take an elective deduction to support
a day care benefit?
How much stock is held by employees in favor of a day care referendum?

Just because the effort is hard shouldn't preclude it if it's worthwhile.  If
you can prove it's economic feasability - then you can start putting the VP's
and KO on the spot to make "socially gauche" (and economically unsupportable)
comments.

-rfl

	I don't remember the details, but a few years ago, a group
	in New Hampshire did a detailed proposal for a day-care center.
	A lot of time and effort went into it.  It was turned down
	flatly.

	I helped organize an after-school child care program in Southborough
	last year, and Digital donated $1000 towards the program.  In
	the Marlborough facility, there was a lunch-time seminar last week on
	selecting child care, run by a couple of social workers that
	give seminars as part of a business.

	Digital is willing to help in its established, standard ways,
	like donations and eap and such.  Corporate-sponsored daycare is a
	different thing altogether and it's fairly clear that current
	top management is going to wait until corporations are
	peer-pressured into doing it.

					Eileen


	

    In defense of :33
    M_L and I worked together for a couple of years and knew how hard
    I tried to get out of the manufacturing area into the CSC.  I had
    been told that the reason I didn't get the first 10 jobs I interviewed
    for was that I was a KNOWN troublemaker. Why?  Cause I spoke up
    when I felt something could be done better, when something was unfair
    I got out of there when I interviewed with a very "aware" manager
    who loved risktakers.  I admire him tremendously not only cause
    he hired me, but refined my techniques of "rabblerousing"....
    He said he only likes risk takers in his group.  If I hadn't 
    found that particular job working for him, I probably would have
    been set up and fired along time ago.  (that seems to happen quite
    frequently in the manufacturing area here)  
    I am still working around the daycare issue here in CS, still asking
    questions, and trying to get some apathetic people involved.  so
    if anyone has any success stories on how I can get something going
    here, I'd like to know what next to do (regarding daycare).
    
    Vivian
    (yes the T is still in my personnel file)
    
    

    I do not support DEC supplying daycare but believe DEC will supply
    daycare when it is necessary to attract and retain valued employees,
    as is the case with paying moving expenses, etc.
    
    Douglas

    re -1
    
    So let me understand what you're sayng?  You do not support DEC
    supplying daycare to attract and retain valuable employees?
    
    	-Ellen
    

    Re -1.
    
    Yes, I do not support DEC paying for daycare to attract and retain
    good employees.  I am also saying that DEC presently does not have
    to supply daycare but may in the future.
    
    I respect the need for some people (single parents, for example)
    to avail themselves of daycare, though do not believe I should provide
    financial support beyond that small percent of my taxes which are
    directed towards same.  Children should be raised by their parents,
    not daycare workers.  The decision to have children is a personal
    one and the cost of raising same is also personal.  One of the costs
    of raising children, in my opinion, is having one of the parents
    home to care for them.  I am not stupid.  I recognize the difficulty
    this presents to many families.  I also know many families where
    both parents work, leaving the children in daycare or making them
    latch key kids, because the parents do not want to stay home with
    the kids, or want lots of adult toys, etc.  Working for the basics,
    whatever they might be, is one thing.  Working for the Porsche/Volvo,
    brie, vacations in Europe, colonial in suburbia/home on Beacon Hill,
    etc. while leaving your children to be raised by someone else is
    quite different.
    
    Flame, if you must.  We, our society, will pay dearly in future
    years for leaving all these children to be raised by strangers while
    we chased something as stupid as money.

         RE:  .40
    
              Thanks for sharing your heartfelt feelings about
           raising children in this economy.
    
              There are certainly many sides and views to this
           particular dilemna, and fortunately we are free to
           answer to our own consciences (and make our own
           choices about how we raise our own children.)
    
              That's what I love about the 80's -- we can agree
           to disagree (and make the choices for our own lives
           for ourselves.)
    
                                                   Suzanne...

    re -2:
    
    >though do not believe I should provide financial support beyond that
    >small percent of my taxes which are directed towards same.
    
    And do you not belive you should pay taxes to educate children in
    grades K-12 also?  Or do you think parents should educate them at
    home?  Why can't this society recognize that children at
    every stage of development are our future and spend whatever amount
    of money it takes to care for them.  We are a *community*.  Whatever
    affects one of our children affects all of us.  Does it not seem possible
    that there could exist a loving, wonderful child care center where
    each child can become all that he or she can be?  Why does the mother
    have a premium on this?  There are many good folks who love children
    and are many times are better than many parents.
    
    >Children should be raised by their parents, not daycare workers.
    
    "Daycare" has become a good scapegoat for everything from the demise
    of the family to drug abuse.  I'm quickly becoming tired of "daycare
    bashing".  You downplay the fact that most families *need* two incomes
    in order to support children and send them to college.  On the positive
    side, children in daycare learn to socialize and share with their peers.

    >One of the costs of raising children, in my opinion, is having one
    >of the parents home to care for them.
    >I also know many families where
    >both parents work, leaving the children in daycare or making them
    >latch key kids, because the parents do not want to stay home with
    >the kids, or want lots of adult toys, etc.  Working for the basics,
    >whatever they might be, is one thing.  Working for the Porsche/Volvo,
    >brie, vacations in Europe, colonial in suburbia/home on Beacon Hill,
    >etc. while leaving your children to be raised by someone else is
    >quite different.
    
    To *you* these may be "extras", not for everyone.  You yourself
    stated "working for the basics, *whatever* they might be".
    
    >Flame, if you must.

    I must flame.  Let me ask you this.  Would *you* be willing to be
    that stay-at-home parent to care for the child for several years?
    If your answer is no, then your stated opinion is hypocrisy.

    >We, our society, will pay dearly in future
    >years for leaving all these children to be raised by strangers while
    >we chased something as stupid as money.
    
    Some children are better off in child care because if their parents
    really would rather work outside the home than stay at home, they
    would be miserable staying at home and make the child miserable too.
    
    	-Ellen

             Douglas,       
    
                 My Mother worked when I was a kid -- for the
             "extras" and because she had her own needs for a
             career outside the home.
    
                 She was a Super-Mom (in the sense that nothing
             was ever neglected at home in spite of her career.)
    
                 How did her children feel about it?  We *loved*
             having the house to ourselves in the afternoon!  She
             was always a very hyper person who could never sit 
             still (and always found some chore for *US* to do if
             we ever dared to sit still ourselves!!)
    
                  After school, all we wanted to do was to relax
             and goof around a little (we *NEEDED* that time away
             from the folks to unwind after school!)  About an hour
             before they were due home, we'd pull our acts together
             and straighten things up (and get ready for our evening
             dinner, dishes and homework obligations.)
    
                  Don't assume that children always suffer when
             parents work!  It isn't only *parents* who need space
             away from their kids!
    
                                                       Suzanne...

    I was what they now call a "latch-key" kid also.  I started this
    at age 6, by my choice.  I was proud that both my parents worked,
    and as I got older, I was even more proud.  My mother was very hesitant
    about giving me this responsibility at such a young age, but I WAS
    responsible, and lived up to her expectations.  I will judge my
    children on an individual basis, but I do not worry about them
    suffering because I need to work.

    Incidentally, Douglas, I'm glad you have the courage to speak your
    mind, even if some ideas may not be popular with some people.
    
                             Carol

re: latch-key kids

   We have a friend who's a social worker in Lowell, working with teenagers.
   One reason that she finds for increased use of drugs and sexual activity
   is that kids are left unsupervised after school because neither parent is
   home. That's not to say, of course, that all kids who are left at home
   will get into trouble.

re: .40
>    Flame, if you must.  We, our society, will pay dearly in future
>    years for leaving all these children to be raised by strangers while
>    we chased something as stupid as money.

   Sometimes people are chasing something as necessary as food and
   rent payments. In either case, it's their business, unless what they're
   doing is *clearly* wrong. And who knows if it's wrong or right? Does
   anybody actually know that being "raised by strangers" is damaging to a
   child? Assuming that the daycare providers are caring people (which seems
   to be a good assumption), is it bad for a child to spend the day with
   other kids in a daycare center instead of at home alone with her mother
   or father? Or do people just assume that a kid belongs with her mother,
   and anything else is wrong because that's not the way it's always been?

   Society doesn't have to take the place of the family, but it does have to
   supplement it when "the family" is no longer what it once was. I believe
   that we have a responsibility to each other, and if takes my tax dollars 
   to set up decent daycare centers, then that's ok.

   Given a choice, I think that kids should be raised by one or both
   parents, but I feel more strongly that women should be given the choice
   to work outside the home, and that men should have the choice to stay at
   home. If neither choses to stay home, then daycare becomes necessary. I'd
   guess that that kids seeing that their mothers have (and take) the
   opportunity to work outside the home will make a big difference in their
   attitudes about what's "right" when these kids grow up. (See the replies
   from former latch-key kids in this note, for example.)

    re: .4
    
    Check your facts.  There are over 10 million children between the
    ages of 0 and 6 in the United States.  Of those that reside in a
    two parent home, both parents work in 50% of those homes to maintain
    the median family income which is somewhere in the mid $20K range.
    
    In excess of 7 million kids under the age of 13 are left unsupervised
    for some portion of the day.
    
    At least 50% of *ALL* children born today can expect to live in
    a single family home before they turn 18.
    
    This information is taken from literature distributed by the "Child
    Care Action Capmpaign" headquartered in New York.  I personally
    have verified the head counts by cross referencing the 1980 Census
    as well as in the 1984 Statistical Abstracts of the United States
    as well as the world Demographic Yearbook.
    
    Two incomes to support the Volvo and the European vacation is clearly
    a statistical outlier.  From my personal research, the problem borders
    on the moral equivalent of a crisis. 

    Reply 46 is in response to reply 40 not 4.  Sorry for any confusion.

    Re: 42
    
    
    >And do you not believe you should pay taxes to educate children in
    >grades K-12 also?  Or do you think parents should educate them at
    >home?  Why can't this society recognize that children at
    >every stage of development are our future and spend whatever amount
    >of money it takes to care for them.  We are a *community*.  Whatever
    >affects one of our children affects all of us.  Does it not seem possible
    >that there could exist a loving, wonderful child care center where
    >each child can become all that he or she can be?  Why does the mother
    >have a premium on this?  There are many good folks who love children
    >and are many times are better than many parents.
   
    I recognize that children are our future and, in support of this
    position, contribute to their advancement through taxes, gifts
    to various schools and school collections, gifts to developing
    countries, etc.  

    The U.S., the last time I looked, was a capitalistic democracy.  Among
    many other things, this means ours is not a nation devoted to the
    financial support of the many but a nation which frees the many to
    achieve their own financial support.  We have not voted for 
    socialism, yet, though we do appear to be headed somewhat in that
    direction (increased talk of socialized medicine, etc.).  Therefore
    I do not accept your argument that I should accept financial
    responsibility for other people who are capable of caring for
    themselves or their children.  I do accept responsibility for
    those who for reasons other than their own are not in a position
    to care for themselves.  This includes, but is not limited to,
    the average family on AFDC, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

    >"Daycare" has become a good scapegoat for everything from the demise
    >of the family to drug abuse.  I'm quickly becoming tired of "daycare
    >bashing".  You down play the fact that most families *need* two incomes
    >in order to support children and send them to college.  On the positive
    >side, children in daycare learn to socialize and share with their peers.

    I have never read any serious, professional analysis on the state of
    family income in the U.S. which supports your contention "...most
    families *need* two incomes in order to support children and send
    them to college."  I continue my argument that a majority of families
    with two working parents are not working to support their children
    but are working for themselves - their Brie, Volvos, vacations,
    larger homes in the suburbs, etc.  I support my argument, recognizing
    the following is not scientific but personal observation:

	.  most food found in the average home is preprocessed
 
	.  many homes include such necessities as two or more
	   color television sets, stereo systems, two car
	   garages, VCR's, dishwashing machines, microwave ovens,
	   clothes dryers, the keys to vacation homes, etc.

    The above silly list is a longwinded attempt to say a goodly
    amount of our money is spent on many things which are not
    necessities and, to argue a second income which supports such
    non essentials is empty.  

    >					Would *you* be willing to be
    >that stay-at-home parent to care for the child for several years?
    >If your answer is no, then your stated opinion is hypocrisy.

    I am not a parent at present and have never been actively engaged
    in the raising of a child for an extended period of time but I
    would not support having children unless one of the parents was
    going to stay home.  The choice of which parent stays home is
    one each set of parents must make themselves.  

    >Some children are better off in child care because if their parents
    >really would rather work outside the home than stay at home, they
    >would be miserable staying at home and make the child miserable too.

    I neither understand or support the contention that raising a child
    should be passed to a non-parent because neither parent wants to stay
    at home.  The parents, when they agreed to become parents, assumed
    a certain level of responsibility.  I don't *know* that our children
    will be less well off for having been raised in daycare but believe
    this will be so based on observations, though very limited, of
    excellent daycare facilities (a sister-in-law manages one in West
    Roxbury) and experiences teaching first and second graders.

    There are many single parents who must utilize daycare and there are
    two parent families where both parents must work.  However, I
    argue that one parent should remain at home if at all possible.
    What makes humans so different that we alone can justify leaving
    our young to be raised outside the nuclear family?  How do we
    explain this action to our children?  Because we had to work
    for things of questionable value?  Because we had to keep up
    with the neighbors?

    We share a spot on this earth with all living things and should 
    accept some responsibility for the results of our actions.  Just
    as you argue I should assume additional financial responsibility
    for the children of people who may not be supplying as much
    financial support as they can afford, I argue it is not necessary
    to 'send' children to college or fill their lives with expensive
    toys of limited value.  We should teach children through example.
    Teach them love for all creatures.  Teach them that all actions
    bring responsibilities.  Teach them tolerance.  Teach them respect.
    Teach them the error in the saying of the 80's,"Whoever dies with the
    most toys wins."  Teach them what we get out of life is in direct
    proportion to what we put into it.

    Please, I believe a number of people who will read this reply have
    loving parents who had to utilize daycare and many of the readers
    are excellent parents who have to utilize daycare with their children.
    My arguements are addressed to concepts are not directed at specific
    people or special circumstances.  It is very easy, and intelectually
    (spelling?) lazy to respond to a philosophical statement or concept
    with personal attacks.
    
    	Douglas    

My mother stayed home and was a housewife personified while my Dad
got up at 5AM every morning to go to work, and was home by 6 every
night.  During my entire career as a "minor in school", from 1959 to
1972, my mother was home when I got home from school.  She came to
my school pageants, she attended my science fairs, but she never quite
made it to PTA, but I didn't really mind -- she was deaf and couldn't
understand the teachers anyway.  She also did this for my 5 brothers.

I had 2 friends who had working mothers:  Linda, whose Mom was divorced
and Linda resented having to care for her younger sister, and Donna,
whose father was a diplomatic officer in Africa (THAT confused me -- 
I always thought that be be in Africa, you had to be black!! :*)).
These two followed me home from school at lunchtime every day for nearly
an entire year.  They just wanted to be "... where someone's mother
was home...."

When we were sick at school, Mom always came and got us.  When we got
hurt, she always was there.  I can remember a moment of panic one afternoon
when I half-carried my partially damaged brother in the door and Mom was
not within a scream's distance (she wore hearing aids), but turned out to
be at the clothesline.

Based on my experiences growing up, I want to stay home for my children.
Mom and Dad struggled on Dad's salary, but we came out okay.

But, Douglas, based on my husband's experiences, I want to give them more
independence than I had.... He was chasing around East Boston at 8
years old, taking the subway to get to school, and doing book reports
from the Boston Public Library!!!  He grew up with a sense of independence
and joy of life that I never saw, simply because I never HAD to see.

My brothers and I grew up secure and loved, but the separation and
growing away was very difficult -- still is... And my mother is still
at home, waiting for kids to come home from school.

She has no life outside the family.... and that's not fair to her!!!
Do you know how hard it is to have someone trying to live their life
through you?  

We can have happy and productive lives without compromising the emotional
and physical needs of our children.  It's unfair to lump all of the
families together where both parents work.... there are lots of children
out there, and families where parents work is not a new concept, it's
just happening MORE now than it did before.  Amelia Earhart's mother had
a part-time job working in the library.  Where do you think Amelia GOT
her brass?? (Her sister Muriel was my neighbor when I was growing up,
and I still see her every once in awhile).

Raising children is just not the be all and end all for a woman anymore,
and it's unfair for anyone to try to ask us to go back to it.  And for
God's sake, give up on that "it's hurting the children" chestnut!
Men have been trying that one on us for years!!!!

The issue here is NOT who chooses to stay home and their reasons for
doing it.  The fact that they have reasons makes them valid...  and there
were PLENTY of kids in my school who were drunk during the day, or stoned
out of their minds, and their mothers were home!

DEC has decided arbitrarily to tell me that as an employee, my needs do 
not count.  I have asked several people about the possibility of a
completely employee-funded daycare.... they're not interested, stop
making waves, stay home if you want kids....  Funny, Uncle Ken wouldn't
say the same to my husband, would he...

Karen

    RE: .48
    
    Did you even read .46?  Your beliefs about why families need two
    incomes do not stand up to a comparison with reality.
    
    As for the nuclear family, it is a relatively recent sociological
    phenomenon.  For the vast majority of history, child rearing has
    fallen to members of the extended family, and in tribal and communal
    cultures, biological parents do not carry the bulk of child rearing
    responsibility.
    
    Also, nuclear rearing (ha, ha) does not guarantee that children
    will be well adjusted.  Biological reproductive capacity does not
    equate to parenting skill.  Parenting is learned which is why child
    and sexual abuse continues to manifest itself from generation to
    generation, the abusers are employing the parenting behavior they
    learned through example.  Recent studies support this from the other
    side in that children who are reared in part outside the home (ie.
    daycare, nursery schools, extended families, etc.) tend to perform
    better in school and tend to be more well adjusted overall. 

    Re: 48
    
    >The U.S., the last time I looked, was a capitalistic democracy.  Among
    >many other things, this means ours is not a nation devoted to the
    >financial support of the many but a nation which frees the many to
    >achieve their own financial support.  We have not voted for 
    >socialism, yet, though we do appear to be headed somewhat in that
    >direction (increased talk of socialized medicine, etc.).  Therefore
    >I do not accept your argument that I should accept financial
    >responsibility for other people who are capable of caring for
    >themselves or their children.  I do accept responsibility for
    >those who for reasons other than their own are not in a position
    >to care for themselves.  This includes, but is not limited to,
    >the average family on AFDC, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

    You already said it.  You pay taxes to educate children.  If you're
    not against paying taxing to take care of children aged 5 through
    17, then why are you against paying taxes to take care of children
    0-4 years old as well?  It seems to me that parents with college
    educations are *capable* of educating their children at home, and,
    following your arguments, then you should not have to pay taxes to
    educate them, their parents should do it, right?  I'm guessing that
    you are not against paying taxes to educate children because it's
    always been done that way.  But the idea of extending that model to
    include very young children and babies is new, so that's a little
    harder for some folks to think about.

    >I have never read any serious, professional analysis on the state of
    >family income in the U.S. which supports your contention "...most
    >families *need* two incomes in order to support children and send
    >them to college."  I continue my argument that a majority of families
    >with two working parents are not working to support their children
    >but are working for themselves - their Brie, Volvos, vacations,
    >larger homes in the suburbs, etc.  I support my argument, recognizing
    >the following is not scientific but personal observation:

    >	.  most food found in the average home is preprocessed
 
    >	.  many homes include such necessities as two or more
    >	   color television sets, stereo systems, two car
    >	   garages, VCR's, dishwashing machines, microwave ovens,
    >	   clothes dryers, the keys to vacation homes, etc.

    >The above silly list is a longwinded attempt to say a goodly
    >amount of our money is spent on many things which are not
    >necessities and, to argue a second income which supports such
    >non essentials is empty.  

    Well, it *is* true that most families need two incomes to support
    having children.  It's just not true within your limited yuppie
    experiences.

    You also didn't address what I said about some people *needing* some
    of those things you scorn - a nice car, brie, whatever.  If one has
    grown up with these things, then they may be a necessity.  Who are
    *you* to tell others what their necessities should be?

    I asked:
    >					Would *you* be willing to be
    >that stay-at-home parent to care for the child for several years?
    >If your answer is no, then your stated opinion is hypocrisy.

    You "answered":
    >I am not a parent at present and have never been actively engaged
    >in the raising of a child for an extended period of time but I
    >would not support having children unless one of the parents was
    >going to stay home.  The choice of which parent stays home is
    >one each set of parents must make themselves.  

    You did not answer my question which I have once again posted. 
    You did not answer yes, so I still think your opinion is hypocrisy.

    >What makes humans so different that we alone can justify leaving
    >our young to be raised outside the nuclear family?
    
    Many species of birds and animals raise their young together.

    >How do we explain this action to our children?
    
    You make it sound like having two working parents is a very bad
    thing that must be explained.  My dearest hope is that in the next
    generation no man or woman will have to explain why they worked
    outside the home *or* why they wanted to take care of children at home.
    No one should have to explain!
    
    >Because we had to work for things of questionable value?
    
    >I argue it is not necessary to 'send' children to college or ...

    Do you really think that sending a child to college is of "questionable
    value"?  I can't possibly see that education is a questionable value.
    
    The quarterly US Occupational Outlook says that 3 out of 4 jobs
    that will be created in the next generation will require education
    beyond a high school diploma.
    
    	-Ellen

    Reply to .48;
    
   > The U.S., the last time I looked, was a capitalistic democracy.  Among
   > many other things, this means ours is not a nation devoted to the
   > financial support of the many but a nation which frees the many to
   > achieve their own financial support.  We have not voted for 
   > socialism, yet, though we do appear to be headed somewhat in that
   > direction (increased talk of socialized medicine, etc.).  Therefore
   > I do not accept your argument that I should accept financial
   > responsibility for other people who are capable of caring for
   > themselves or their children.  I do accept responsibility for
   > those who for reasons other than their own are not in a position
   > to care for themselves.  This includes, but is not limited to,
   > the average family on AFDC, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
   
    Please check you civics book, the U.S. is a representative replublic,
    not a democracy.  This misconception leads to many other
    misconceptions.  Democracies are led by mob rule.  Please don't confuse
    the two. 
    
    Now the next problem is the confusion between company provided and
    government provided daycare. They are not the same. Corporations can
    and sometimes do provide daycares for their employees.  This is well
    within the scope of a corporations activities.  Government, on the
    otherhand, should not be in the daycare business unless mandated by the
    people.
    
      Mikie? 
    

  Ellen:

	I have a serious problem with you attacking me for my
  opinions when you should be responding to the position
  I am taking.  How do you determine if I am a yuppie?  Do
  you know something about me that I don't?

	Profile of a yuppie?

	.  not young (46)
	.  raised in a slum
	.  spent time in jail
	.  ran away from a bad home at 16
	.  volunteered for four years military service (enlisted rank)
	.  volunteered for Peace Corps (about two years)
	.  worked his way through school (no family or employee
	   financial support, but gov't support as a result of
	   military service)
	.  volunteered to teach in inner city school for one
	   year (no financial remuneration)
	.  volunteered to teach in experimental open classroom
	   in the suburbs (minimal financial remuneration)
	   (both of the immediately previous while recognizing
	    no desire towards a teaching career)
	.  worked actively in the abortion underground in Boston
	   while not supporting abortion for his family
	.  volunteers two evenings per week, plus most holidays, to 
	   assisting less fortunate people.

	The list could continue but it bores me.  Suffice it to say,
  if that is a description of a yuppie then I am a yuppie.

	To the question of would I stay home to raise my children the
  easy answer would be yes but I have not been fortunate enough to be
  in the position where the question must be answered therefore, I
  must honestly say I don't know.  Given my very strong beliefs,
  which are not religiously based, I conclude the answer would be yes
  if my partner and I decided I was the better one to assume the role.

	My stand on daycare is based on a simple belief that children
  are better served if one of the parents stays home with them.  I
  object to my taxes paying for the children of people who work through
  choice and not through necessity to attend daycare.  I fully support
  and approve of my taxes being invested in supporting daycare for
  families which must, through financial necessity, avail themselves
  of same.  DEC, as I stated in earlier replies, will support daycare
  centers when the competition for employees dictates the necessity
  of this action.  When this occurs, I will understand the why but will
  not agree with it because of my personal beliefs relative to how
  daycare is being used in the U.S.

	If you have access to objective research which supports your
  position that two incomes are necessary to raise children in the
  U.S. please supply same.  If all you care to do is continue personal
  attacks then kindly bother some other person.

    Doug:
    
    It seems as if my replies have fallen on deaf ears.  If you want
    the address of the Child Care Action Campaign in New York, let me
    know.  Again, I direct you to my reply .46 in which I jotted down
    a few pieces of information, and by the way the information which
    I noted I did not struggle to put together.  A thorough and well
    organized recounting of the current condition of our culture would
    be so compelling as to inspire you to action.
    
    Craig

    Craig:
    
    	Thank you for the statistics in .46  However additional information
    is clearly needed to support the seemingly prevailing belief that
    the majority of children in daycare as a result of both parents
    having to work for financial reasons:
    
    	.  what standard of living does a combined income in the mid
    	   20k range represent in relation to the geographic groupings
    	   of the people utilizing daycare ($25,000 is more than two
    	   of my brothers gross, is more than a number of relatives
    	   living in northern Maine gross, etc.  None of these families
    	   are on welfare.  This is not an arguement in favor of $25k
    	   being an adequate salary.  I have no knowledge of what an
    	   adequate salary is and have stated I support daycare for
    	   families where it is an economic necessity, provided it
    	   is paid for through taxes.)
    
    	.  Are you presenting an arguement for or against children being
    	   left alone?  I agree there is a problem with children being
    	   'left alone.'  Building more daycare centers, regardless
    	   of how we pay for them, will not solve this problem.  A more
    	   equitable distribution of wealth might.

          RE: .55
    
                Who gets to decide what constitutes "economic
            necessity" for any family?  You?
    
                If not, then how do you know (based on your
            observations) that so many families have two incomes
            because they want "extras."
    
                Incidently, I live in a small city whose cost of
            living is substantially lower than that of the "greater
            Maynard" area -- homeowners on my street can't possibly survive
            on a gross income of $25,000.  Why?  *Because* we own our
            houses (and *I* consider owning my house a "necessity"
            for my son and I at this stage of our lives.)
    
                Since I'm the breadwinner, my working "qualifies" to
            you as "economic necessity" (WHEW!) -- but if I were to
            marry a man who makes $25,000 I would have to continue to
            work (even if we had small children) because I would feel
            that keeping this house was "necessary" to us.  Would you
            tell me that I'm wrong?
    
                                                       Suzanne...

    re 53:
    
    Well, I have one figure anyway.  The median cost of a home in the
    U.S. in the mid $80K range.  In order to qualify for a mortgage
    of that magnitude an income of at least $30K is necessary.  I am
    sorry I do not know what the median U.S. salary is, but I do know that
    it's much lower than $30K.
    
    The median price of a house in the Boston area is about $130K (and
    I'm being conservative).  To quality for that kind of mortgage you've
    got to have at least a $50K income.  I have a BSCS and am a senior
    software engineer and I do not make even close to that figure. 
    If I cannot afford an average priced house on my own, I am pretty
    sure that most people cannot.
    
    	-Ellen

    Re: .56 and .57
    
    	I am not suggesting that I can dictate what constitutes necessities
    for any family save my own.  Neither am I suggesting how much money
    any family must earn, should earn or should be capable of earning.
    I have little idea as to the median cost of homes in any section
    of the U.S. or any place in the world.  I have little knowledge
    of how much it costs to purchase food in a supermarket.  I have
    little knowledge of any aspect of an 'average' family's economic
    requirements.  I do not sit in judgement of who should own what,
    where anyone should live, how anyone should live.  I am not preaching
    any economic position.
    
    	I am stating an opinion, based on my life
    experiences and my limited knowledge.  The opinion concerns paying
    for daycare with taxes.  I support gov't subsidies (spelling?) to
    daycare and support all needy people taking advantage of same. 
    I can't qualify needy and I hope such has not been attempted by
    me.  The people who are utilizing daycare centers know their needs.
    Any of them who are utilizing daycare centers because parenting
    is not a role they are comfortable with, I believe, are cheating
    their children.  Are they in fact cheating their children?  I don't
    know, only they know.
    
    	There are numerous people who disagree with many of my opinions,
    as there are many people with whose opinions I disagree.  I don't
    attack these people personally, nor do those with the strength of
    their opinions attack me personally.  We argue the various points
    of our opinions quite heatedly, sometimes shedding a little light.
    Both of you present compelling arguements without attacking me,
    for which I thank you.  Notes can be a good forum for airing views
    and learning what other people think only when we refrain from personal
    attacks.
    

    RE: .58
    
    Perchance the attacks come people who suffer the recipient's side of
    prejudice, and perhaps the character and style of your opinions
    resembles same said.
    
    Word for word from an "American Heritage Dictionary:"
    
    prejudice 1.a. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand
    or without knowledge or examination of the facts.  b. A preconceived
    preference or idea; bias.
    
    
    
    .  , which motivated the formation of this entire
    conference 

         RE: .58
    
                 Your arguments have quite a few holes in them.
             You've made statements in this note, for example, that
             *MOST* families could survive without a second income.
             (You failed to prove that.)  You also stated that the
             children suffer by being sent to daycare.  (You failed
             to prove that.)  You then said that people who could
             *afford* to stay home with children, but don't, are
             working because they cannot handle parenthood.  (You
             failed to prove that one, as well.)
    
                 Based on the logic you've been using in your recent
             notes, I could make an excellent case for the assertion
             that:

                  "Most 46 year old men have green and purple polka-
                          dots all over their stomachs."
    
                 Like you have done, I could qualify my statement with
             "based on my limited experience" and "as an observer of
             human behavior" (or whatever it is you keep saying) --
             I'm no more required than *YOU* are to state just exactly
             HOW limited my experience is with 46 year old men.
    
                 I could then go on to say that, since green and purple
             polka-dots don't appear naturally on people's stomachs,
             the 46 year old men must be putting them there on purpose.
             (That's a CLEAR indication that those men are mentally
             deranged.)
    
                 I could then go on a bit furthur to say that I feel
             that such men should NOT be allowed to SHARE in Digital's
             employee benefits (based on my personal opinion that any
             group of persons who would put green and purple polka-dots
             on their stomachs do not DESERVE to share in Digital's
             benefits.)  Therefore, all men at Digital that are 46 years
             old should be denied all benefits (til the age of 47.)

                 What is wrong with that argument?
    
                 What's wrong with it is that:
    
              1.)  it's a generalization about a group of people
                   based on a small sample (the actual number is
                   not provided)
    
              2.)  I've made assumptions as to why those people
                   MIGHT have adopted this behavior (which has yet
                   to be proven in the first place)
    
              3.)  I've made a determination on how Digital should
                   treat this particular group (based on my personal
                   feelings about the "motivation" for their "ACTIONS",
                   neither of which has been proven to have any basis
                   in fact)

                 In my opinion, that's exactly what your arguments in
            this note have done.  You have no basis in fact to argue
            any of the points you've made in this note about the condi-
            tion of the economy, the effects of daycare on children,
            *OR* about the motivation that people might have to utilize
            daycare in the first place (if in your opinion, it is not
            an "economic necessity.")
    
                 Making generalizations about hundreds of millions of
            people (about the specifics facts of their lives) is risky.
            All the disclaimers in the world (about your opinions being
            based on your limited experience, etc.) do not attone for
            an argument based on faulty premises.
    
                 As .59 said, this is very much the type of reasoning
            that has led to sexual and racial discrimination.
    
                                                       Suzanne...

    My last words on this subject?
    
    Re: 60.
    
    	There is more accuracy than falsehood in your arguement.  My
    opinions are simply opinions.  I hope I did not state otherwise.
    My opinions may or may not reflect a viable degree of accuracy
    but the sum of the opinions are comfortable to me until objective
    analysis presents proof to the contrary.
    
    Re: 59.
    
    	I again agree in principle.  However I do not admit to a prejudice
    for or against daycare or the use of same.  I admit to strong opinions
    concerning the manner in which children appear to be raised in the
    U.S. and a degree of discomfort with the materialism that appears
    to be growing stronger in our society.  If the level of personal
    debt in the U.S. was growing as a result of purchases for necessities
    my discomfort with materialism ("I want it all and I want it now")
    would be altered to concern.
    
    Douglas.

          RE:  .61
    
                   There isn't a thing wrong with having opinions
              (even strong ones that are basically unsupported by
              facts.)  If it's what you think, it's what you think!
              No problem at all!
    
                   It's all in how you state it.  If you had said
              that you are concerned over what you perceive to be
              a problem (with the individuals you know in particular)
              concerning child raising and the "quest" for money,
              I doubt if anyone would have objected.
    
                   Not trying to beat up on you, but I hope you can
              see that the problems come when you generalize your
              perceptions to include millions of people of which you
              have no direct knowledge (especially if those generali-
              zations happen to apply to one particular group.)
    
                   Live and learn, eh?
    
                                                    Suzanne...

Doug,
    
    Although I don't personally agree with your position on daycare,
    I have appreciated your calm repetition of your ideas and 
    positions on this topic.  Too often I have seen people turn 
    up the heat, turn on the flames, and resort to mudslinging when
    other people in the conference put pressure on them.
    
    Some of the things I like about you are that you respond to
    the points being made calmly, are able to reiterate the fact that
    your position is an opinion, and seem to retain your sense of humor
    throughout.  
    
    Holly

                 <DAYCARE IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE>
    
    For those of us who have already found good dyacare there is still
    the issue of time off to tend to a sick child.  The state of Mass
    has decreed that a daycare facility or in home sitter is not supposed
    to care for a child that is visibly ill or one that is running a
    temp. or is on medication (at least not for the first 48 hours).
     
    So where does that leave me, at home taking care of my 18 month
    son when he is ill (which is exactly where I feel I should be) but
    managers are not always understanding to this.  I have even been
    told by managers that my work should come first and that I should
    not let my personal life interfere.  That answer specifically is
    for the birds.  When my son is sick I do not want to send him to
    daycare and I don't feel that I should have to lie and say that
    I am sick when I am in fact healthy.
    
    For my family to so more than get by I need to work, and I have
    often wondered if this may not be part of the problem.  The higher
    up managers may be able to afford to have one parent not work to
    stay home full time but for those of us who cannot look at that
    option, I feel we should not be made to feel like working mothers,
    and/or fathers but as parents who work and who have a life and
    interests, and responsibilities outside the company that on occasions
    must come first.
    
    It is even harder for a single parent with children who are to young
    to stay at home all day by themselves.  My neighor was told by her
    manager that she should not feel that she can up and leave when
    the school calls and says that she must pick up a sick child.  Where
    does that leave her?????
    
    
    Good daycare is essential but so is a manager that is understanding
    to the needs and emergencies that arise to parents.  I.E. when your
    child is ill that  being with the child is truly where you belong!!
    
    *********A MOTHER THAT WORKS*********
    

    re. 64  I think you need to sit down and have a talk with your manager
    about your concerns.  Tell him/her: I'll try not to bring my personal
    problems into my job but my child is *my life* and in no way will
    reflect my performance.
    
    If possible, around the time that you child is ill and you need
    to miss work, offer to make it up during lunch or if possible, half
    hours before your usual dayly start.  If you show that you are willing
    to work with management, they may be more willing to work with you.
    
    If all else fails, get another job.  Remember, it's only a job,
    5 days a week but your kid needs you 7 days a week.  
    
    If *your* manager can't give you the support you need, as long as
    he/she isn't Vice President, you have higher people to go to.  Check
    with personnel to discuss these issues.
    
    I'll tell you this, though.  I don't have children but even so:
    if there's snow on the ground and I am fearful, I go home early,
    and if they (management) complain, I'll tell them that a "leave-early"
    worker is better than a dead one.
    
    Cathy

As a working parent, I am fortunate in that I am not in an organization that
watches the clock, and understands that an employee a has a life that
encompasses more than just my job.  Sick children and other family emergencies
are handled by the parent who can most conviently handle the situation, not
the one who should by some preconcieved societial notion.  I have made
job and career changes to get into this situation because I felt the
necessity, among other things.  In one respect, tho, I am quite lucky, in
that I am part of a two parent home and there is someone to share the
required responsibilities (This extends to more than just child care...it
includes who must stay home for a necessary repairman).

What I have found, is that of all the environments in which I have worked
(The least humanistic towards employees was working in hospitals, my
original college education and career goal), DEC provides me with the 
opportunity to find where I am most comfortable, and synergistically,
get up the energy to do my job for DEC.  Not all of the place I worked
for in DEC, worked the way my current situation work, (and some of them
couldn't by definition of the job, and some just refused to). BUT, given
a little of my own initiative, I could find that niche that worked.

Now, this note is addressed to childcare, and not a advertisement for DEC. I
note that examples of companies providing day care/ subsidies sited in this
note, are all examples of high tech companies not unlike DEC.  (Are we trying to
force DEC to keep up with our own Jones's?).  My comment here is to state an
opinion that corporations generally will only try and keep up with there peer
groups (other computer companies in our case) ONLY if a majority of them make it
a norm.  The real issue, as I see it, is for the population as awhole get the
country, as awhole, to reconize this as a national issue, not a corporate "find
a solution" issue.  In countries (i.e. Germany and France, from what I read and
half believe from newspapers) where the goverment has given support/subsidies/
tax breaks for families with DEPENDANTS (not just children, but they are the
"majority" of dependants),  bussinesses and corporations have responded in
positive fashion.  We can try with all our might to solve day care issues for
DEC employees, but that doesn't solve the "problem" in general.  If we get DEC
to solve the problem locally, are we forced to "stay" because solution does not
exist in very many places outside of DEC or our peer industry?  My solution
works for me, but, may not work for others, unfortunately.

This is just my opinion.
Nobody asked.

Alice

    Re: .64
    
    	I strongly agree with .65.  Your manager should realize work
    is important but not as important as family responsibilities.  I'd
    have a talk with Personnel - at the Corporate level if necessary.
            
    Douglas

    I hate to disappoint, but from what I've heard, talking to personnel
    will do zero good.  The official personnel policy is "no time off
    for sick kids".
    
    	-Ellen

    	Timing is everything!  Had I waited a few minutes, .66 could
    have been responded to in my .67.
    
    	I am uncomfortable with any call for the Federal Gov't to get
    involved with financial support of state, city, town or employer
    level decisions unless these decisions are the result of Federal
    dictate (then they aren't local decisions).  I am also uncomfortable
    with a call for the Federal Gov't to involve itself with the matter
    of daycare in any manner.  I don't believe this is an issue for
    the Federal Gov't.
    
    	Federal and State (at least Massachusetts) tax laws give wage
    earners deductions for all legal dependents.  The deductions may
    be too small but they do exist.
    
    	The desire to have the U.S. more like France or Germany might
    change if you were asked to pay the percentage of your earnings
    in taxes that these countries demand.  Also, recognize this is the
    United States of America - in a too simple definition, think of
    this as a country of united countries.  The Federal "Country' dictates
    certain standards to which each State 'Country' must abide.  The
    State 'Countries', in turn, have their own constitutions - qualifiers
    of standards which do not conflict with Federal standards.  The
    Federal Gov't is much too far removed from the day to day events
    in places like Massachusetts to properly deal with the day to day
    realities of the citizens of Massachusetts.            
    
    	My opinions on the daycare issue have been aired earlier and
    will not be repeated here.
    
    Douglas

    The cover story of the March issue of Ms. magazine is all about
    child care.  I read the whole thing and it seemed pretty surface
    (like most of that magazine), but it was interesting reading.
    
    	-Ellen

    Some time ago, when one of our children was sick, I asked my manager
    for some time (a day, personal holiday or vacation) off as my wife
    also works.  The answer was rather BRUSK AND ABRUPT who has the
    most important job.  (well mine is the most as my wife makes about
    one fourth the amount of my salary) I have not bothered to attempt
    that again, FOR THE RECORD MY MANAGER IS A FEMALE, NOT THAT I 
    THINK THAT MATTERS.  
    
      I feel since we both had a certain responsibility in the 
    conception of our children, there is nothing wrong with sharing
    in the care and welfare of the children.  I DO NOT KNOW WHAT
    THE POLICY AT DEC IS BUT, I DO KNOW THE POLICY IN THIS FIELD
    SERVICE OFFICE.
    
      I think times are right to promote the fairness of letting
    a father be equal on items with the mother.  I could not do
    more to help my wife due to the physical differences required
    in parenting but, I am very much in love with my wife and she
    is also my very best friend...as such we try to share all
    things in life.  I do not think that a job should place
    demands above parenthood.  We had adequate manpower and I had
    over 200 vacation hours available.  
    
      Comments soliciated and appreciated.
    
    Dave.
    
    P.S. THE CAPITALS ARE NOT FLAMES, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN WASTING
         TIME IN ANGER, THEY ARE USUALLY JUST USED TO MAKE AN IDEA
         OR PART STAND OUT.  AS ARE MY QUOTES AND OTHER ITEMS.
    
    

    Good heavens, you mean your manager wouldn't let you take a *vacation*
    day, never mind the reason? Unless there was a crunch at work, that
    seems a bit extreme to me.
    
    As for the "most important job" question: on the face of it, it
    might seem to make economic sense to employers for the parent earning
    the least amount per hour to be the one to take time off. What seems
    to happen in practice, though, is that the higher-earning partner
    may have a job in which it is much easier to make up the time later,
    and a low-income job may be very time-sensitive. In that case, the
    question shouldn't be "whose job is more important," but "who has
    more flexibility in scheduling his/her workload."
    
    -b

    RE .-1:
    
    Addressing the subject, not the particular reply - It's none of
    the company's BUSINESS who makes more $$. If a parent needs to leave
    to attend to a sick child, there oughta be some leeway for that.
    If the dad wants to/has to be the one to do it, then fine. Regardless
    of who makes more money. That's the couple's decision, and none
    of the employers' business.
    
    Yeah, I *know* there aren't any provisions for this type of leave,
    but a discussion of one's private finances shouldn't be the price
    for getting a "benny".
    
    Once again, if the employee's management is sensible, all is well.
    If not - well, tuff nuggies. Not everybody has the same "rights".
    I wonder if those 24 words which, if added to the constitution,
    would rot your socks, debase your children, and force us all to
    cohabit bathrooms together - if those words would help this kind
    of situation.....? hmmmm.
    
    Dawn
    

    as has been mentioned before single parents are in critical need
    of good daycare. Ihave two children ages 6 and 9 and cannot quit
    work to take care of them and i dont like them being home alone
    this summer ins going to cost $28 per day fortunitally i think the
    daycare center i use is excellent and worth the price(rockrimmon
    child care center colo. springs). As far as sick kids are concerned
    my boss has no problem with me taking off for kids illness so far
    this year i have lost about a week due to my children's illness.
    a new service though has become available to digital employees
    in colo. springs through the EAP program sick child day care is
    now available for digital employees at penrose infirmary
    penrose hospital 630-5737
    penrose community hospital 591-3281
    24 hours/day 7 days per week  2.25/hour 1 meal 1 snack
    you must call first each time.
    communicable diseases such as chicken pox, measles, mumps,ect will
    not be accepted. the have special rooms children are seperated by
    sex and age.
    i have not yet had an oppertunity to try this out yet myself.
    also i am male. single women aren't the only ones with day are problems
    fortunatly my boss is understanding
    
    		John

    re: all
    
    	I'm an infrequent contributor to this notes file, and I see
    company-sponsored daycare as a necessity that has to be dealt with
    fairly and quickly. I'm seeing a dangerous trend in the company,
    and if Personnel cant recognize whats happening, we're going to
    lose a lot of good people, whether they're female or male. 
    
    	I have a very young daughter, and to put it succintly, I havent
    gotten nearly enough maternity leave to prepare for the road back
    to work. I got back to work, and found, due to the pressures of
    being back on the job AS WELL AS the profoundly high cost of day
    care (very young children cost the most), I've had to leave my job.
    And I'm not the only mother put in this position.
    
    	If the company HAD at least either a day care center near my
    job, or helped out with the extreme cost of it, I would have stayed
    with the company. After all, I have more than 7 years logged in
    this company. BUT now I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
    SO I decided to leave. My daughter needs a whole mother, not just
    some stressed-out witch!
    
    	Sorry Ken, but all of us new (and "old") parents NEED HELP FAST.
    This issue is forcing a lot of people to leave the company in search
    of other situations (like WANG) that readily recognizes this prob-
    lem and offers a solution.
    
    	This weeks TIME magazine maps out the whole day care issue,
    if anyone cares to pick up a copy and read it.
    
    

    Wait a minute!  It was YOUR decision to have a
    child!  That child is not going to benefit DEC;
    it is not going to contribute to your ability
    to do your job better (which is why DEC pays
    tuition).  That's part of your private life and
    therefore YOUR responsibility.  
    
    I am a single mother.  Yes, it's very expensive
    to have my son in day care.  It's a burden I as-
    sume, simply because having that baby was my
    choice.
    
    Should DEC may for me to have time off when I
    get a new puppy and have to stay home with it
    until it's housebroken?  Should DEC subsidize
    my car payment?  After all, without that car,
    I couldn't get to work!  How come DEC isn't
    paying for my lunch?  
    
    

    Re .76:
    
    Methinks I detect a sore point...
    
    Having no kids, I have no particular reason to support
    company-sponsored - or any other kind - of daycare. However, it
    seems to me that it is in the best interest of an employer to be
    open to such things. If I have to choose between losing a senior
    engineer or coming up with some kind of plan, be it child care,
    half-hours, etc., and if that engineer is worth it - then I'd push
    to keep him or her. Yes, it's the person's decision to have a child,
    but the loss of that person's experience could cost DEC a lot more
    than the cost of childcare.
    
    Note that I'm not saying it's a right that we should demand of DEC.
    Like many of the other benefits - workout rooms, showers, VAXnotes
    conferences - any kind of daycare would be a bonus, a plus, something
    DEC might do because it wants to keep employees who might leave
    otherwise.
    
    I'll bet that if several of the top-level VPs suddenly announced that
    they had adopted infants and needed to bring them to work, arrangements
    would spring into being. But so far, the Powers That Be apparently
    don't see enough loss to the company for it to be worth their while.
    And I have to admit that if DEC is the best place to work hereabouts
    even *without* daycare, there isn't much incentive for them to
    implement it.
     
    It doesn't hurt to ask, though.
    
    -b

    40% of parents consider quitting when childcare is not available
    through work.  Most often, it is the woman.  If a company is committed
    to keeping valuable employees, and is committed to furthering
    opportunities for women in business, then they must show that
    committment in ways that are important to those employees.  If a
    cafeteria on site is what may keep employees from quitting, then
    put a cafeteria on, if the issue is daycare, then provide it or
    provide help for it.
                               Carol
    
    40% figure from recent Time magazine article.    

re: .75
    
    before you quit, be sure to let someone know that the reason (or one
    reason) was that you needed some help with daycare, and the company
    wasn't providing any. If no one complains, no changes will be made.

    < Note 13.76 by CSC32::WOLBACH >


    >Wait a minute!  It was YOUR decision to have a
    >child!  That child is not going to benefit DEC;
    >it is not going to contribute to your ability
    >to do your job better (which is why DEC pays
    >tuition).  That's part of your private life and
    >therefore YOUR responsibility.  

    Many things that are part of my private life are nevertheless paid
    for or adapted to by DEC.  When I'm sick, they pay me anyway.  When
    I need plumbing repairs done, they give me time off to deal with
    them.
    
    DEC hired me as I am.  DEC has the responsibility for dealing with
    me as a whole human being, not as a robot-like creature that does
    a job.  Presumably, DEC sees enough benefit in having me around
    doing my job to be able to accommodate my personal life.
    
    Day care should not be a special case.
    
    Bob

    re .76
    Tho I agree that the decision to have children is part of
    our private life it almost sounds like we either have to take
    an oath not to have kids at all - or at least one that they
    should never impact on our business day life....neither of
    which is really possible or even realistic in this day and age.
    BJ

    I think it should be pointed out to those who say they have no use
    for child care and thus why should "they" pay for it, that most
    firms which assist employees with child care do it through
    a "cafeteria style" benefits package where the employee chooses
    between various benefits offered.  In the particular case of
    child care, there is an option available to employers where the
    employee contributes before-tax income towards child care payments.
    This saves the employee tax, saves the employer social-security
    taxes.  It almost pays for itself.  But DEC has to actually start
    such a plan.
    
    As a single parent, I too join the chorus of women and men who urge
    DEC to assist us, even if it involves contributions from us (which
    we'd be paying anyway).
    					Steve

    >Wait a minute!  It was YOUR decision to have a
    >child!  That child is not going to benefit DEC;
    >it is not going to contribute to your ability
    >to do your job better (which is why DEC pays
    >tuition).  That's part of your private life and
    >therefore YOUR responsibility.  

    	Yes, It was my decision to be a parent. Its also my decision
    to be happy and fulfilled as a woman AND a mother. But shouldnt 
    Digital look upon my offspring as part of the future generation of 
    the Digital workforce? If the powers that be look at the problem 
    from that angle, I would be willing to bet that a hell of a lot more 
    would be done to help out the situation.
        
    >I am a single mother.  Yes, it's very expensive
    >to have my son in day care.  It's a burden I as-
    >sume, simply because having that baby was my
    >choice.
    
    	Yes, that baby WAS your choice. It is very expensive to
    put a child into daycare. However, since you are a single
    parent, I would be willing to bet that you would be more than
    just a little interested in either two provisions; 1.) DEC pro-
    vide a day care facility or 2.) That they help out with the cost
    of such services. If the number of people who I see as being ac-
    tively interested in this service were polled throughout the com-
    pany (and I'm not just talking about the continental U.S. either,
    this problem scopes DEC world-wide - just take a look at some of
    the other notes in other notes files on this same topic!), and if
    all of those people got together and even offered to PAY for this
    service, it would be a HELLL of a lot less expensive as a group
    than it is singularly. Hey, they do it with auto insurance, dont
    they? ANd you and I both know how expensive THAT is without a 
    group plan...AND not everyone is forced to get that, now, are they?
    
   

    
    

    There are several levels on which DEC could involve itself in daycare:
    1) Keep a "book" for each plant about nearby daycare centers. Providers
       could write in and list their services; parents could write in
       and mention likes or dislikes. (Hmm... Sounds like yet another
       notesfile)
    2) Keep lists of "approved" daycare centers
    3) Contract out to provide daycare on-site or nearby. (I suspect
       that this option is so attractive that parents would be willing
       to shoulder the entire cost).
    4) Subsidize daycare.
    
    There are probably lots of solutions in-between. The point is that
    DEC could do very little but still help out a lot. It's frustrating
    that DEC is apparently unwilling to do ANYTHING.
    
    SO, let's DO something! Any suggestions on what we as a group can
    accomplish that people working alone have been unable to do?
    Constructive suggestions welcome...

    
    Liz Augustine        
    

    The best explanation that I've heard for company- or government-
    supported daycare and parental leave (to generalize a little) is this:
    
    Times have changed, and [some/many/most] women no longer want to
    stay home and care for home and family, but want to work outside the
    home. Things haven't changed enough that they only have to do 1/2 the
    childcare and housework, so they're overburdened. 

    If employers want to have women working for them, they're going to have
    to bend a little, and change with the times. (We'll assume that they
    *do* want female employees). Providing things like childcare and
    maternity/paternity leave is not only good for the employes, as
    described by others in this note, it's becoming required to support
    society. Although fewer people are willing or able to care for their
    families full time, it must be done by someone. If we're going to have
    successive generations, some allowances must be made for caring for the
    children. We can either force parents to do it full time (and we know
    that'll be women, not men), or support them while they work.
    
    If employers don't provide some assistance, the government should. It's
    not that radical an idea; the USA is something like the last of the
    major industrial nations to have no subsidised childcare.

    It's interesting how far behind other nations we are in things like
    childcare, parental leave, sex ed and AIDS education.

    Re .85, some quibbles:
    
    While it's true that the majority of single parents are women, and that
    in two-worker households it's still usually the woman who "gets" to
    stay home with the kids and/or deal with the problem of child care,
    there are also a number of single fathers who could benefit by
    easily-available daycare. This does not seem to have occurred to
    K.O., who keeps talking about women staying home with their kids
    as if ignorant of the widowers and divorced fathers with custody.
    
    It's also a bit simplistic to say that [some/many/most] women don't
    *want* to stay home and look after the domestic side of things. Many
    can't afford to, especially if they're single parents; others don't
    have to, since modern conveniences have removed a good many of the
    chores that used to occupy full-time homemakers. 

    As it happens, a software-engineering environment is one of the
    most flexible job situations available, and DEC is usually reasonable
    about letting people take time off for all manner of personal chores
    as long as the work eventually gets done. Because of this, there
    is rather less pressure for daycare than there would be if we all
    had to punch timeclocks. (Caveat: I'm referring to the engineering
    community here. I suspect that other areas of the company may be
    more strict about hours, and harder to deal with regarding home
    emergencies.)
    
    -b

    I am not a parent yet, but the daycare issue is impacting me.  A
    support person is a similar position to mine has a young daughter
    and is often out/arrives lates/leaves early because of daycare
    problems.  That means that I have to provide backup support during
    these times.  My productivity is affected.  I'm sure that there
    are many similar situations throughout DEC.  Dealing with daycare
    logistics affects more than just one person's productivity.
    
    G

    Re: .89
    
    I think that the child care issue is decided, by most companies,
    strictly based on economics.  During world war two most all of
    the factories had day care centers.  The woman were needed to run
    the machines left behind when the men were sent to war.  You could
    not hire the woman without providing for their children.
    
    Currently we have things like flex-time because this is one of
    demands of the software engineers.  This is not a real good example
    because part of the reason for flex-time is to spread the load on
    the machines over a longer period of time.  The benefits will come
    when it is important enough for the company.
    
    When Digital is dependent enough on the female part of their workforce
    or when they start to lose because the male part of the workforce
    is doing more of the child care, there will be daycare.
    
    					MJC O->

    >When Digital is dependent enough on the female part of their workforce
    >or when they start to lose because the male part of the workforce
    >is doing more of the child care, there will be daycare.

    Exactly!  And not a second sooner, you can bet.
    
    	-Ellen

    According to the UK Managing Director's Quarterly Talk yesterday
    pm, UK Personnel have agreed to assess the daycare problem with
    a view to providing a solution (for the UK only, I presume).
    

O.K. I've read through all *92* replies and still don't have the 
foggiest notion about how to get the ball rolling...
We do have the data to indicate the critical shortage of *any* kind
of day-care across the nation. Employee interest is definitely there.
I'm not asking DEC to pay for an extra benefit--I'm willing to pay.
I've talked with my local-yokel personnel rep (no names used to protect
the guilty), he told me there didn't seem to be any real interest. I
asked him if he had children and he said yes, my wife stays home with them.
That's nice, but if I didn't have my position here, my family would be
without medical benefits. The personnel rep's last comment was, "Don't
worry about day-care. Corporate will let us know when we can sponsor
it."
I have heard rumors that a facility in New York is "piloting" a day-care.
Any noters know about this? I've also heard some manufacturing facilities
in MA have day-care available, but it's only for blue-collar workers.
Any truth to this one?
To get back to my main point, does anyone know something pro-active I
can do to initiate action?
--Ginger    

    <--(.93)
    
    Have you considered starting a "signup" note here?  People interested
    could state the number of children they have, the site most convenient
    to them, and their current arrangements/costs.  
    
    If such a note were replicated in =mennotes=, =parenting=, and
    =human_relations= and the results concatenated, the number of
    interested people would probably exceed critical mass.
    
    						=maggie

	Send mail to Corporate Employee Relations --
	CELICA::MURPHY (John Murphy) and CELICA::MARGOLIES
	(Laurie Margolies) with your concerns and interests.  Let them know
	you are out there.

						Eileen Samberg

    Re: .94
    
    I would suggest a two-pronged approach.  Do notify Corporate Employee
    Relations as mentioned in .95 and also make sure your management knows
    that you are concerned.
    
    As for petitions in conferences - please consult a moderator before
    starting something like this.  My opinion is that such things are
    better conducted by MAIL.
    
    					Steve

    um, I *am* a moderator, Steve ;')
    
    ...as to the acceptability of such a "signup sheet" approach in
    the other files I mentioned, that's why I said "If...replicated".
    
    *sheesh*
    						=maggie

    Yes, Maggie, I know you're a moderator of WOMANNOTES.  What I meant,
    but guess I didn't say clearly enough, was to consult the moderator
    of other conferences before starting petitions there.  (Though I didn't
    say so, since I am a moderator of the other two conferences you
    mention, you might already have a notion as to what I'll say! :-))
    
    In general, I feel you should ask a moderator before starting a survey,
    petition, vote, etc. in any conference.
    
    Sorry for the digression.  I am keenly interested in this topic, being,
    like Jim Baranski, a single father of a son, and I consider the
    availability and affordability of daycare to be a genderless issue.
    I HAVE made comments on this topic to my own management.  If I could
    not find affordable daycare, I could not work.  No thanks to DEC,
    I was lucky enough to find some.  There is absolutely no assistance
    here at ZKO.  All you get is an obsolete and incomplete list of
    telephone numbers to call.
    					Steve

    Well, I just sent CELICA::MURPHY and CELICA::MARGOLIES *my* letter.
    I hope others do the same, and that it does some good.
    
                             Carol

    This seemed like a good place to put this, if there's a better place,
    moderators feel free to move it.  If it's already appeared in
    womannotes, just delete it.  I've been out-of-touch for a couple
    of months and someone else may have entered the scoop on these
    programs.
    
    
This is an article from February's MGMT MEMO (written by Corporate Employee
Communication for the Office of the President).

DIGITAL ADOPTS PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY AND STARTS CHILD CARE RESOURCE AND
REFERRAL PROGRAM

Changes in society as a whole are reflected in Digital's work force, and
someones lead to the need for changes in policies and benefits.  Today,
over 40% of Digital's U.S. employee population are woen.  There are a high
percentage of dual-career and single-parent families.  Also, "new hires" tend
to be well educated and often are looking for a career, not just a job.  Many
employees want both to have families and continues their careers.  To help
them do so, the company recently introduced a parental leave policy and child
care referral program.

Also, demographic trends indicate that more and more employees will have
elderly parents.  Already, for the first time in history, the average married
couple in the U.S. hasmore living parents than children.  That means that
care for elderly dependents will soon become an important issues for employees.
Solutions to that issue are now under study by Digital's Dependent Care Task
Force.

Parental Leave
--------------
In response to increasing numbers of requests by many parents for personal
leaves of absence to "bond" with their new children, Digital has implemented
a new classification for leaves of absence in the U.S.

Called the "parental leave" policy, it is an extension of the existing leave
of absence policy (U.S. Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, policy 4.23).
The new parental leave policy allows all new parents, within six months of
birth or adoption, to request up to eight weeks opf unpaid leave with their
child.

Parental leaves can be requested by full-time (R40) employees, regardless
of length of service with the company.  Employees should give their managers
at least four weeks' notice of their intention to take a parental leave of
absence.  Managers do not need to approve a parental leave.

Parental leaves are offered in addition to short-term disability/salary
continuation plans.  Fathers as well as mothers can take advantage of the
parental leave policy.

Employees returning from a parental leave of absence of four weeks or less
are to be placed in the same position held prior to the leave.  Employees
returning from parental leaves of longer than four weeks will not be guaranteed
the same position held prior to going on leave.  However, these employees
are to be offered a comparable position in the company.

Child Care Resource and Referral Program
----------------------------------------
Digital will introduce a nationwide Child Care Resource and Referral Program
this quarter to help employees find quality child care providers for their
children.  Work/Family Directions, Inc., a Boston area company with a national
organization that specializes in child care resources, has been retained
to manage the program, which is scheduled for an early February start up.

"The program helps employees find the type and loation of care they want for
their child or children from infancy to 15 years of age.  For example, some
people prefer care in a home-like setting, while others prefere a pre-school
or nursery-type situation.  Still others need after-school care," says Bruce
Davidson, manager of the Employee Assistance Program.

The program provides:

o trained specialists who are familiar with area child care providers,
o referrals to child care providers,
o an updated list of child care vacancies, and
o information on child care choices, including a Child Care Handbook for
  those who use the program.

Employees who call the Resource and Referral Program speak with trained
specialists about their child care needs.  Specialists then supply referrals
to child care providers with vacancies, who are state licensed or have met
other minimum standards.  Specialists will also give information on how to
evaluation child care providers, as well as background information on the
providers that are selected.

Employees are responsible for following up on referrals by calling or visiting
the child care site.

"Keep in mind that your child care specialist makes referrals, not
recommendations.  Only your own observation and monitoring can assure that you
will find quality child care," says Erica Fox, manager of the Child Care
Resource and Referral Program.

In case an area lacks sufficient child care providers, Work/Family Directions
will assist local resource and referral agencies in encouraging and recruiting
new providers.

The Child Care Resource and Referral Program is provided free of charge for
all Digital employees.  Child care provider fees, however, are to be handled
by the employee.

Services will be available for use by the end of January, and a brochure on
the Resource and Referral Program will be available at Personnel offices,
site Health Services or local Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs).  Interim
questions can be addressed to those resources or the program manager, Erica
Fox, at DTN 251-1319 or (617) 264-1319.
    

        
    -Ellen