Working mornings with an infant at home?? [Archive]

milosophia

Aug 22nd 2007, 06:44 AM

I'm looking for some advice... I am considering a move to morning reporting, after the birth of my daughter.

I'm trying to reduce the number of hours she would spend in daycare every day, and be able to be home with her as much as possible. Morning reporting would put me home around 11:30a.m. to spend the rest of the day with her.

Wondering if anyone who's "been there, done that" has any input. I am also considering a move to nightside, but not too keen on that because I'd only see my husband on weekends and I'm not really a late night person.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Spike

Aug 22nd 2007, 08:16 AM

I'm sure TVMatt has some advice for you.

midwestnewsgirl

Aug 22nd 2007, 08:37 AM

I used to anchor the morning show and report after. What I can say is be prepared to stay much later than 11:30am. On average, I stayed until about 2pm, sometimes later. I've also been asked to front stories in the 5 and 6. Thanksfully, we started a mid-day show so my schedule is a little more concrete.

Unless you are able to work something out with your managers where they know it's essential that you leave at 11:30am every day, you'll most likely be staying later...

Good luck!

TVMattNYC

Aug 22nd 2007, 09:36 AM

I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.

I also don't understand the expectation that employers should give preferential treatment to women just because they squeezed out a puppy or two in their private lives.

DoneThatToo

Aug 22nd 2007, 09:36 AM

Not trying to slam the morning shift . . but . . don't expect to keep all the night side time as quality time with the family. Unless you are one of the few people who seem to do well on 4-5 hours of sleep with a small nap or two thrown in during the day your lights out time will pretty early. Plus having a newborn who will want to be fed at odd hours will interupt your sleep too. Not saying you have to be the one that feds her but if fresh and natural is what you plan on doing . . .

Tough call either way.

milosophia

Aug 22nd 2007, 09:59 AM

Actually, TV Matt, my husband and I would be raising her. She'd spend about 4 hours a day in the care of my sister. So buzz off.

TVMattNYC

Aug 22nd 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by milosophia:
Actually, TV Matt, my husband and I would be raising her. She'd spend about 4 hours a day in the care of my sister. So buzz off.You DID ask.

And you never answered my question.

Consider This

Aug 22nd 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
You DID ask.She asked opinions of people who had been in her situation, which you obviously have not.

And you never answered my question.You didn't ask a question.

News Is Broken

Aug 22nd 2007, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.

I also don't understand the expectation that employers should give preferential treatment to women just because they squeezed out a puppy or two in their private lives.I don't understand WTF a gay man who refers to parents like myself and the OP as "breeders" would be able to provide in the way of parenting advice to a new mom either, but then again, maybe that's just me. I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery, eh Mattilda?

foxravens

Aug 22nd 2007, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by milosophia:
Actually, TV Matt, my husband and I would be raising her. She'd spend about 4 hours a day in the care of my sister. So buzz off.He has no idea.
Don't be so hard on him.

Beentheredonethattoo

Aug 22nd 2007, 01:27 PM

I wish I had something really positive and encouraging to offer, but I'm afraid that I've seen too many new moms take morning shifts for this very reason, only to find themselves "asked" to work double shifts at least once or twice a week. At my old station, the morning show reporter invariably came in to do morning live shots, then was sent out the door after the morning meeting on a completely different story. If the producers liked that story enough, then the ND "asked" the reporter to stay to front it for the 5 or 6pm show. Not a big deal if it happens every once in a while, but when it's a couple times a week, childcare can get dicey.
My experience as a new mom in television news was a bit more extreme. I'd been a valued member of our newsroom for years. Always great evaluations, nice bumps in pay, VERY few sick days, etc. I got pregnant and everything was fine until I developed a serious complication. My doctors said I'd have to scale back my time on my feet if I wanted to keep the baby. My ND was wholly unsympathetic, and flat out refused a temporary change to my schedule. It was a moment of clarity for me, and I left my job without looking back. Fast forward a year, and I'm home with my baby all day long, and am even able to sneak in some part-time work (at double my newsroom rate!) It turned out to be a huge blessing because my baby was born with a medical condition that's meant regular checkups and therapy sessions. I could never have been here for him like this if I'd been working 12 hour days!
In your case, if you do move to mornings, I'd try like hell to get some commitment in writing about the length of your shift. And see if they'll put a cap on the # of times they can force you into working late (good luck with that.)
If not, go into the move with your eyes open, and remember that there is life after television! Oh, and congrats on the new baby!

Wise Old Producer

Aug 22nd 2007, 01:44 PM

I did the schedule for 4 years after my first child was born, and during my second pregnancy. I worked 3:30 to noon.

There is no better schedule for a new mom in a newsroom. My son was away from me for just a few hours and then we took a short nap together in the afternoon.

TVMattNYC

Aug 22nd 2007, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.

I also don't understand the expectation that employers should give preferential treatment to women just because they squeezed out a puppy or two in their private lives.I don't understand WTF a gay man who refers to parents like myself and the OP as "breeders" would be able to provide in the way of parenting advice to a new mom either, but then again, maybe that's just me. I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery, eh Mattilda?[/QUOTE]You don't understand?

Let me help you understand.

Since the popularization of the outsourcing of parental responsibilities, we now have a generation of young people who are drugged up on Ritalin (as well as a variety of ILLEGAL drugs), school crime is at epidemic levels nationwide (not to mention a Generation Y phenomenon: school shootings!), standardized test scores are SO far into the toilet they created a whole new scoring system for the SAT, and we're getting the first wave of 20-somethings who have ZERO work ethic and a sense of entitlement (most likely thanks to being raised with an open checkbook and plenty of maternal guilt).

In case you haven't figured it out, this affects ALL OF US.

So as long as it's in MY best interest for your children to grow up drug-free, non-violent, and productive ... I absolutely have EVERY right to advise you on your child-rearing (or in your case, the lack thereof).

Thank you.

Spike

Aug 22nd 2007, 05:32 PM

I knew Matt wouldn't disappoint me.

Roy Hobbs

Aug 22nd 2007, 05:44 PM

If you need legal advice, The Law Offices of James G. Sokolove stand ready to assist victims of Milosophia and other diseases...
http://www.lawmarketing.com/Content/Articles/James%20Sokolove.jpg

[ August 22, 2007, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

Oh Snap

Aug 22nd 2007, 07:45 PM

Haven't been there, but... the morning shift has worked best for the new mamas I've worked with. They say the biggest benefit is they don't have to pay for as much child care. Plus, they'd rather be at home at night to put the baby to bed than to wake her/him up.

The people who work on that shift though, RARELY get to leave on time.

Congrats on the baby!

Ferrycrossthemersey

Aug 23rd 2007, 01:36 AM

The job is TV NEWS! News cannot be scheduled. Best thing to do is have a dependable babysitter who can roll with you, i.e., if you get the call to go out of town for an unknown period of time, the sitter has to be able to step in for you, with no notice.

Can be done, but not easy...and that is the business we've chosen.

SamG

Aug 23rd 2007, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by News Is Broken:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.

I also don't understand the expectation that employers should give preferential treatment to women just because they squeezed out a puppy or two in their private lives.I don't understand WTF a gay man who refers to parents like myself and the OP as "breeders" would be able to provide in the way of parenting advice to a new mom either, but then again, maybe that's just me. I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery, eh Mattilda?[/QUOTE]You don't understand?

Let me help you understand.

Since the popularization of the outsourcing of parental responsibilities, we now have a generation of young people who are drugged up on Ritalin (as well as a variety of ILLEGAL drugs), school crime is at epidemic levels nationwide (not to mention a Generation Y phenomenon: school shootings!), standardized test scores are SO far into the toilet they created a whole new scoring system for the SAT, and we're getting the first wave of 20-somethings who have ZERO work ethic and a sense of entitlement (most likely thanks to being raised with an open checkbook and plenty of maternal guilt).

In case you haven't figured it out, this affects ALL OF US.

So as long as it's in MY best interest for your children to grow up drug-free, non-violent, and productive ... I absolutely have EVERY right to advise you on your child-rearing (or in your case, the lack thereof).

Thank you.[/QUOTE]Do you have anything to backup this "cause and effect" you're spewing out? Why couldn't the Ritalin, school crime, low test scores, etc. be blamed on more cell phones? What about global warming? What about over crowding in schools?

Wait, I know what the problem is... we didn't start having all these problems until gays started asking for equal rights!
:D

Midwest Met

Aug 23rd 2007, 04:28 AM

wxcookie

Aug 23rd 2007, 06:15 AM

Well I just want to say good luck, a year ago I went out on maternity leave and when I was scheduled to returned to work I was told that in 30 days i would not have a job. They waved a settlement of about $5000 in my face and it was over. Just as quickly as it began. I started working in public relations for a small nonprofit and a few months ago I wanted back in to the television game, I got an interview for weekends at a small station and when I found out how much it paid and the hours I would have to work I ran back to my job making 32,000 and working 8 to 4 M-F.I just want to say good luck and look at the long-term affects of the decision you make.

cinehead

Aug 23rd 2007, 06:37 AM

How does gay man with no chance of having kids and no experience raising kids have all the answers?
:rolleyes:

mothball

Aug 23rd 2007, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by News Is Broken:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.

I also don't understand the expectation that employers should give preferential treatment to women just because they squeezed out a puppy or two in their private lives.I don't understand WTF a gay man who refers to parents like myself and the OP as "breeders" would be able to provide in the way of parenting advice to a new mom either, but then again, maybe that's just me. I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery, eh Mattilda?[/QUOTE]You don't understand?

Let me help you understand.

Since the popularization of the outsourcing of parental responsibilities, we now have a generation of young people who are drugged up on Ritalin (as well as a variety of ILLEGAL drugs), school crime is at epidemic levels nationwide (not to mention a Generation Y phenomenon: school shootings!), standardized test scores are SO far into the toilet they created a whole new scoring system for the SAT, and we're getting the first wave of 20-somethings who have ZERO work ethic and a sense of entitlement (most likely thanks to being raised with an open checkbook and plenty of maternal guilt).

In case you haven't figured it out, this affects ALL OF US.

So as long as it's in MY best interest for your children to grow up drug-free, non-violent, and productive ... I absolutely have EVERY right to advise you on your child-rearing (or in your case, the lack thereof).

Thank you.[/QUOTE](sigh)

Okay, dear. Glad you have an opinion.

Mine? Why thanks for asking.

My mom worked 40-60 hour weeks raising me by herself. She still works like hell. She managed to instill in me a work ethic, good eating habits, a courteous attitude, and moral responsibility. I learned from her that you have to work hard to get the things that you want, and you sometimes have to sacrifice.

I've never been in jail, never had a speeding ticket, was a pretty darned good student (okay, so I failed volleyball -- one little class), eat my veggies, met and married a wonderful partner who I've been with for a decade and a half, and have a pretty decent career (maybe two, if this book deal works out).

Most of my friends fall into the same category.

While I'm not part of the 20-something crowd, chances are most of the kids you're talking about spent more, not less, time with their parents than I did with mine.

Sure, your opinion is appreciated! Now, carefully dab off the ink and put your rubber stamp away.

Consider This

Aug 23rd 2007, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by cinehead:
How does gay man with no chance of having kids and no experience raising kids have all the answers?
:rolleyes: This would be my question as well.
Matt?

Also, this portion of Matt's post may be the most ridiculous this I've ever read on this board.

"So as long as it's in MY best interest for your children to grow up drug-free, non-violent, and productive ... I absolutely have EVERY right to advise you on your child-rearing (or in your case, the lack thereof).

Thank you."

Hilarious.

[ August 23, 2007, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

TVMattNYC

Aug 23rd 2007, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Consider This:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.[/QUOTE]Even funnier is how everyone has managed to skirt my question.

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?

TVMattNYC

Aug 23rd 2007, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cinehead:
How does gay man with no chance of having kids and no experience raising kids have all the answers?
:rolleyes: This would be my question as well.
Matt?[/QUOTE]Actually, I *do* have experience raising a child.

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 10:40 AM

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cinehead:
How does gay man with no chance of having kids and no experience raising kids have all the answers?
:rolleyes: This would be my question as well.
Matt?[/QUOTE]Actually, I *do* have experience raising a child.[/QUOTE]You may want to claim that, but reading your posts indicates you don't have any experience, or any clue, about raising children.
Sorry. Ain't buying that one.

TVMattNYC

Aug 23rd 2007, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Consider This:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.[/QUOTE]Even funnier is how everyone has managed to skirt my question.

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?[/QUOTE]It's not that at all.
Pregnancy happens. Couples adjust. OF COURSE they want their children, they just have to work out ways to facilitate raising them. It's not easy.
Why can't you grasp this?[/QUOTE]Why can't YOU grasp the fact that raising a child is a "couple's" TOP PRIORITY.

"Working" a child into their lives isn't like "working" your Kiwanis club membership into your life.

The child needs and deserves full-time parenting ... not a subcontractor.

Are you finally getting a grasp of this?

SamG

Aug 23rd 2007, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Consider This:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.[/QUOTE]Even funnier is how everyone has managed to skirt my question.

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?[/QUOTE]Anyone else notice how Matt has skipped EVERYONE's questions and responses (except fox)?

And who says parents don't want to raise the kids? If they didn't want to raise the kids, they would be given up for adoption, or left to fend for themselves until they die.

Oh, you think having anyone OTHER than the parents have ANY control of the kids means parents don't want to raise them? I guess we shouldn't let kids go to school then because the school is "raising" them. I guess we shouldn't let kids be a part of organized sports because the coaches are "raising" them. Is that what you mean?

Even putting the kids in daycare is "raising" them. Hopefully parents are doing research to see what daycare is right for their child.

News Is Broken

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Why can't YOU grasp the fact that raising a child is a "couple's" TOP PRIORITY.

"Working" a child into their lives isn't like "working" your Kiwanis club membership into your life.

The child needs and deserves full-time parenting ... not a subcontractor.

Are you finally getting a grasp of this?Typical armchair quarterbacking from a guy who makes more money than most people and therefore doesn't have the first clue about what it means to be a working parent. Raise 3 kids on 40K a year like I do and then we'll compare notes, numbnuts.

Better yet, just STFU and go back to producing Movie and a Makeover while the real parents on the forum discuss parenting tips. Jeez! :rolleyes:

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Consider This:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.[/QUOTE]Even funnier is how everyone has managed to skirt my question.

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?[/QUOTE]It's not that at all.
Pregnancy happens. Couples adjust. OF COURSE they want their children, they just have to work out ways to facilitate raising them. It's not easy.
Why can't you grasp this?[/QUOTE]Why can't YOU grasp the fact that raising a child is a "couple's" TOP PRIORITY.

"Working" a child into their lives isn't like "working" your Kiwanis club membership into your life.

The child needs and deserves full-time parenting ... not a subcontractor.

Are you finally getting a grasp of this?[/QUOTE]HEY DUMBASS...

I've actually RAISED two children in this business, not just talked about it on a damn message board.
Go down to the market and check prices, then go get some gas and then pay your bills. It's EXPENSIVE out there. You need TWO INCOMES today.
The days of the stay-at-home parent have just about gone by the boards. Spare us the tales of your idyllic childhood...I had one just like it, but I know it's not possible anymore. Do you know why?
BECAUSE I'VE HAD CHILDREN AND I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
....Unlike you.
There is absolutely no way you can state anything with authority when it comes to this thread.
You're making a fool of yourself.
Please stop.
Damn.

TVMattNYC

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Consider This:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
I don't understand why women have babies they don't want to raise.
What I find particularly funny about this is that most of the people who think women should stay in the kitchen also think that gays should stay in the closet.[/QUOTE]Even funnier is how everyone has managed to skirt my question.

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?[/QUOTE]It's not that at all.
Pregnancy happens. Couples adjust. OF COURSE they want their children, they just have to work out ways to facilitate raising them. It's not easy.
Why can't you grasp this?[/QUOTE]Why can't YOU grasp the fact that raising a child is a "couple's" TOP PRIORITY.

"Working" a child into their lives isn't like "working" your Kiwanis club membership into your life.

The child needs and deserves full-time parenting ... not a subcontractor.

Are you finally getting a grasp of this?[/QUOTE]HEY DUMBASS...

I've actually RAISED two children in this business, not just talked about it on a damn message board.
Go down to the market and check prices, then go get some gas and then pay your bills. It's EXPENSIVE out there. You need TWO INCOMES today.
The days of the stay-at-home parent have just about gone by the boards. Spare us the tales of your idyllic childhood...I had one just like it, but I know it's not possible anymore. Do you know why?
BECAUSE I'VE HAD CHILDREN AND I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
....Unlike you.
There is absolutely no way you can state anything with authority when it comes to this thread.
You're making a fool of yourself.
Please stop.
Damn.[/QUOTE]Feel better now?

Whether you believe it or not, I have experience in child-rearing, thank you.

Take a chill, please.

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:22 PM

I feel fine, thanks.
Even if your claim is true, which I sincerely doubt, you have zero working knowledge of child raising.
I don't know you at all, I can only go by what you've posted.
What you're posting ranges from laughable to downright idiotic.
Please...stand down...you're kinda making a fool of yourself.

Let me elaborate. My own brother is gay, he has a longtime partner, nice house, good job, the whole nine.
When my kids were babies, he tried to do the same thing as you but he soon realized he did not know anything about it. He was just flapping his gums and offering opinions that were falling on deaf ears.
He learned to wisely leave the parenting to those who know something about it, and to withhold comment as well.
You cannot tell another person how to raise their child, and doing so will only make them dislike you.
Take the hint, ok?

[ August 23, 2007, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

Tripe Face

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
[QUOTE]Why can't YOU grasp the fact that raising a child is a "couple's" TOP PRIORITY.

"Working" a child into their lives isn't like "working" your Kiwanis club membership into your life.

The child needs and deserves full-time parenting ... not a subcontractor.

Are you finally getting a grasp of this?Matt, as the son of a woman who raised 8 kids without going to work... I can appreciate the value of full-time parenting. (Dad did work)

But I ask, why is raising a child the couple's FIRST priority? Isn't loving EACH OTHER and caring for EACH OTHER their first priorty?

After all you have that kid for 18 years... maybe 22 years at the most. However, a good marriage can last 50 years or more.

The original poster here is thinking of leaving this child with a relative for four hours a day on weekdays. That's hardly outsourcing the parenting roles.

She and her husband will be raising this child WITH HELP.

And there's no law of man or nature that says only a child's parents can have a beneficial influence on them. The Aunt may expose the child to all sorts of positive influences that the parents wouldn't have exposed her to.

And remember, by the time the child turns six, you are going to send that child to school, it doesn't hurt that they grasp the concept that other adults have something worthwile to teach them.

JMHO

TVMattNYC

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
I feel fine, thanks.
Even if your claim is true, which I sincerely doubt, you have zero working knowledge of child raising.
I don't know you at all, I can only go by what you've posted.
What you're posting ranges from laughable to downright idiotic.
Please...stand down...you're kinda making a fool of yourself.

Let me elaborate. My own brother is gay, he has a longtime partner, nice house, good job, the whole nine.
When my kids were babies, he tried to do the same thing as you but he soon realized he did not know anything about it. He was just flapping his gums and offering opinions that were falling on deaf ears.
He learned to wisely leave the parenting to those who know something about it, and to withhold comment as well.
You cannot tell another person how to raise their child, and doing so will only make them dislike you.
Take the hint, ok?God.

You ARE a pill, aren't you?

foxravens

Aug 23rd 2007, 12:38 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "pill"...
Please enlighten me.
I'm just trying to keep you from making a further ass of yourself.
I'm not even angry!

markminn

Aug 23rd 2007, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
]Actually, I *do* have experience raising a child.[/QB]OMG!! Paris Hilton's daddy posts on this board?!?!

Brain Cramp

Aug 24th 2007, 02:43 PM

I hearby declare this post a "Matt-free-zone."

Before I had my two children I was working a 4:30 AM to noon shift. It turned out to be a perfect shift after they were born as well since my husband didn't go into work until 1 PM. We each had equal time with our darling boys and since I was already used to the shift, it didn't make that much difference in regard to getting enough sleep.

Since you're going to have to get used to not sleeping with a new baby in the house anyway, it seems a perfect time for you to adapt to a new sleep schedule for your job as well.

I recently wrote on here that I was back to an early shift after years away from it and asked for some tips on how to adjust. I'm happy to report that I'm in the early morning groove now and am enjoying being home by 12:30 every day. I get to be home when the first son arrives home and I pick up the other one.

milosophia

Aug 24th 2007, 06:22 PM

thanks everybody for the info! it is much appreciated!

CKMD

Aug 25th 2007, 08:37 AM

I work Night Shift, my wife anchors an AM newscast and we have a 22 month old.

While it is difficult, we have managed to keep our child out of daycare and spend as much time as possible with him while keeping our careers intact so we can give him everything he needs. he also has medical issues which make it even more difficult...

I'm with the baby from 8am till 12:30 when i go to work.

We have a nanny who comes in at 5pm to 9pm so my wife can go to bed by 6pm to get up by 2pm to be at work by 3am. She wanted to be a mom and work in a job she loves...so I say that she is making huge sacrifices to care for a child and work.

So, Matt...it's possible and makes my wife not only a great mother but a great person and a martyr.

So you can take your self-righteous attitude and shove it. Your posts here reinforce my beliefs tha gays should in no way be allowed to raise children. Go ahead and marry and take role playing to new levels as to who will be the woman on Tuesdays and Saturdays and who will be the man, etc. You have no child rearing experience, you should NEVER have child rearing experience; leave those of us who can keep humanity alive to discuss these topics.

[ August 25, 2007, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

adam & doctor drew

Aug 25th 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
leave those of us who can keep humanity alive to discuss these topics.I don't have kids and therefore don't care.
and I don't know TVMattNYC.

but why isn't he entitled to his opinion, even if you disagree with it?

Roy Hobbs

Aug 25th 2007, 04:04 PM

I'm forced to agree with Admiral Cartwright; the Klingons have never been trustworthy.
http://www.paulmcelligott.com/images/undiscovered_country.jpg

CKMD

Aug 25th 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CKMD:
leave those of us who can keep humanity alive to discuss these topics.I don't have kids and therefore don't care.
and I don't know TVMattNYC.

but why isn't he entitled to his opinion, even if you disagree with it?[/QUOTE]He's entitled to think whatever he wants...as am I. it's more the idea that he thinks his opinion is right.

At least I am aware that my opinion is just that.
Matt seems to think, that as a gay man, he knows how us parents should raise children.

Give me a phucking break!
The question was posed to people that can have kids...not gay men who can't. That's what this thread is about.
If Matt wants to adpt a child and then come talk about raising kids, go ahead. But, until that happens, and he's an actual parent, God forbid, his opinion on this topic is pointless.

If I didn't have a child, i would've stayed away from this thread.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 25th 2007, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
He's entitled to think whatever he wants...as am I. it's more the idea that he thinks his opinion is right.
and you think yours is right.
healthy exchange of ideas....... isn't that what boards like this are supposed to be about?

Originally posted by CKMD:
If Matt wants to adpt a child and then come talk about raising kids, go ahead. But, until that happens, and he's an actual parent, God forbid, his opinion on this topic is pointless.
well by that logic then anyone's opinion on the war is pointless, unless they've actually served in the military.

[ August 25, 2007, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

gdiamante

Aug 25th 2007, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:

Why DO you have babies you don't want to raise?[/QB]Well, gee, Matt, the world needs to have the benefit of my genetic material reproduced, even if I can't be home to raise him. God said to be fruitful and multiply. Didn't you know that? Haven't you been paying attention?

That answer your question? Can we move on now?

Roy Hobbs

Aug 25th 2007, 10:48 PM

My...oh...Sophia!
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/170613~Sophia-Loren-Posters.jpg

Meaty Urologist

Aug 25th 2007, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by gdiamante:
God said to be fruitful and multiply. He only heard the part about being fruity.

TVMattNYC

Aug 25th 2007, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Meaty Urologist:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gdiamante:
God said to be fruitful and multiply. He only heard the part about being fruity.[/QUOTE]OK ... that one was actually funny.

hoosiergirl

Aug 26th 2007, 09:09 AM

Ignoring Matt's posts...

I did this schedule for several years and it worked out wonderfully for me. Especially when they're little and still taking naps. I napped with the baby in the afternoons and since the baby went to bed for the night by 8, I did too. Minimal childcare and I still got to have my job.

You have to have management though that understands the reason you're doing it. That you need to leave when your shift is up (barring some MAJOR news, that's a given). I would discuss it with your ND and desk ahead of time. As in, listen, I only have daycare until 12:30, so I have to be out of here relatively on time.

You also need to make sure there is some flexibility in your daycare situation for those days when things do come up. I did find myself staying over until 1 or 2 on days I was supposed to be out of there by noon.

Also, make sure you're a fast writer and reporter. Get in there, get what you need and get out. Also try to come up with your own story ideas if you have to turn something different for the afternoon shows. This way you can have everything set up ahead of time and have a photog reserved.

Waiting to set up a story after the morning meeting or waiting for a photog will kill your schedule and typically guaranteed I would be staying late.

I absolutely love the morning shift for being a mom. Now that the kids are older, they still go to sleep at the same time as I do so it still works out great. I'm tired, but can almost always squeeze in a nap when I need one. The positives FAR outweigh the negatives for me.

CKMD

Aug 26th 2007, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CKMD:
He's entitled to think whatever he wants...as am I. it's more the idea that he thinks his opinion is right.
and you think yours is right.
healthy exchange of ideas....... isn't that what boards like this are supposed to be about?

Originally posted by CKMD:
If Matt wants to adpt a child and then come talk about raising kids, go ahead. But, until that happens, and he's an actual parent, God forbid, his opinion on this topic is pointless.
well by that logic then anyone's opinion on the war is pointless, unless they've actually served in the military.[/QUOTE]I don't think mine is right...I think it works for me. Read how he positions his opinion...that we are all wrong! I just think he's wrong. I'm not saying mine is right.

And, I agree that anyone's opinion on the war is pointless as well...even mine!

production

Aug 26th 2007, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by hoosiergirl:
Ignoring Matt's posts...

You have to have management though that understands the reason you're doing it. That you need to leave when your shift is up (barring some MAJOR news, that's a given). I would discuss it with your ND and desk ahead of time. As in, listen, I only have daycare until 12:30, so I have to be out of here relatively on time.

So lets say I work the same shift as you, and someone called in sick for the afternoon shows. Should I be the one to have to stay late every time because I don't have a kid?

Maybe I have somewhere I have to be at 12:30...

[ August 26, 2007, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: production ]

foxravens

Aug 26th 2007, 04:13 PM

Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?

production

Aug 26th 2007, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I've been in this business long enough. All I'm saying is the pain of double shifts should be passed around evenly. What if I didn't have somewhere to be? Does it matter any?

CKMD

Aug 26th 2007, 04:53 PM

Production brings up a valid point.
As middle management, I'll answer it.

You should've gotten it written into the contract.
If AM anchor tells boss while negotiating that she/he has to leave at 12:30, barring major news, she/he leaves.

It's as simple as that.

If you don't think ahead about these things before you sign, it's not my fault.

Also, if you are that anchor who asks that and management refuses, I guess you don't sign that contract. Period.

But don't go *****ing that you get stuck working when you didn't think about these things prior to signing the contract.

Now, since it's a team, you can certainly voice your opinion about how you're getting the shaft...but, it doesn't matter. Also, if it's a co-worker who doesn't have a contract, then, by all means, travel to HR's office and mention it.

This is why agents get paid big dollars. This is why the smart talent have little things inserted into cotnracts and companies who see value in that talent agree to them.

foxravens

Aug 26th 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I've been in this business long enough. All I'm saying is the pain of double shifts should be passed around evenly. What if I didn't have somewhere to be? Does it matter any?[/QUOTE]How old are you?

production

Aug 26th 2007, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I've been in this business long enough. All I'm saying is the pain of double shifts should be passed around evenly. What if I didn't have somewhere to be? Does it matter any?[/QUOTE]How old are you?[/QUOTE]What does it matter?

29.

Now answer my question. Why is someone's time more valuable then someone else's?

adam & doctor drew

Aug 26th 2007, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by production:
Why is someone's time more valuable then someone else's?totally agree.
I've seen many parents ask for permission to duck out between shows to attend their kids' little league game, dance recital, whatever..

what would the response be if a single person said "hey I'd like to leave for a couple hours to go meet some friends"?

[ August 26, 2007, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

TVMattNYC

Aug 26th 2007, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I'm willing to work with people with kids in as much as I work with people WITHOUT kids.

The bottom line is, if your child care schedule is conflicting with your WORK schedule ... and it's continually requiring your co-workers to pick up YOUR slack ... then you are no longer a good fit for the job.

foxravens

Aug 26th 2007, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I've been in this business long enough. All I'm saying is the pain of double shifts should be passed around evenly. What if I didn't have somewhere to be? Does it matter any?[/QUOTE]How old are you?[/QUOTE]What does it matter?

29.

Now answer my question. Why is someone's time more valuable then someone else's?[/QUOTE]It's not that at all.
Your co-worker has a child, his/her time is needed for a very noble purpose. For you to whine about that reveals a certain immaturity, that's why I asked how old you are.
You are obviously childless. Should you have some you will understand, should you not, I guess you will not.
I just think you should display some basic human courtesy when a co-worker has children.

Matt: even though you apparently have a new ally in adam/dr drew, you should still stay out of this.
You do not know what you are talking about. Dozens of people have told you this is many ways the last few days and it just isn't sinking in.

For you people to complain about co-workers and their children is, at least to me, reprehensible.
Shame on you.

[ August 26, 2007, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

production

Aug 26th 2007, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by production:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Jeeeeeez
What kind of question is that?
If you have someplace to be, so be it, but if you can, help out!
There's no need to be hostile to people with children...christ, WORK with them.

You're not very old are you?I've been in this business long enough. All I'm saying is the pain of double shifts should be passed around evenly. What if I didn't have somewhere to be? Does it matter any?[/QUOTE]How old are you?[/QUOTE]What does it matter?

29.

Now answer my question. Why is someone's time more valuable then someone else's?[/QUOTE]It's not that at all.
Your co-worker has a child, his/her time is needed for a very noble purpose. For you to whine about that reveals a certain immaturity, that's why I asked how old you are.
You are obviously childless. Should you have some you will understand, should you not, I guess you will not.
I just think you should display some basic human courtesy when a co-worker has children.[/QUOTE]All I can say is so what?

What difference does it make if someone has a kid or not, if they should be forced to work a 16-20 hour day?

I don't mind working the occasional double shift... I just don't want to do ALL of them because I don't have a kid.

foxravens

Aug 26th 2007, 06:05 PM

Your position seems to be changing after you've been challenged. It's a little softer now.

No one should be required to work ALL the double shifts. No one is claiming you should.
I don't believe that was part of your original argument.

Was it?

TVMattNYC

Aug 26th 2007, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
[QUOTE]You do not know what you are talking about. Dozens of people have told you this is many ways the last few days and it just isn't sinking in.

For you people to complain about co-workers and their children is, at least to me, reprehensible.
Shame on you.Oh, but I DO know what I'm talking about.

What's reprehensible is YOU deciding whose purposes are "noble" and whose are not.

If you can't fulfill the time requirements of your job for personal reasons -- whether they be alcoholism, sex addiction, shopping addiction, Oprah addiction, or children -- you shouldn't be doing that job.

Period.

production

Aug 26th 2007, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Your position seems to be changing after you've been challenged. It's a little softer now.

No one should be required to work ALL the double shifts. No one is claiming you should.
I don't believe that was part of your original argument.

Was it?Nope

I originally said

"So lets say I work the same shift as you, and someone called in sick for the afternoon shows. Should I be the one to have to stay late every time because I don't have a kid?

Maybe I have somewhere I have to be at 12:30..."

So again I'm saying why should it be one vs the other?

You have kids, I don't.

Who works the double?

Spike

Aug 26th 2007, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Your co-worker has a child, his/her time is needed for a very noble purpose. When you write something like that, it makes me feel like siding with Matt. If the purpose is so noble, then shouldn't you have gotten a job that didn't involve an unpredictable schedule?

And even if the purpose is noble, why should it be forced on people who didn't choose it? The newsroom didn't decide to have children. The people in it don't owe you anything.

Desert Rat

Aug 26th 2007, 06:36 PM

I don't have children and don't mind filling in for someone who needs to leave early to tend to their kids every once and a while.

When it becomes a habit though, then it's a problem.

In our shop, it never has become a problem.

If having children is a noble purpose, then EVERYTHING else would come second after the bringing up of your child. Your primary reason for choice of career would be what suits the bringing up of your child the best.

Television isn't the best career choice for bring up children...in my opinion.

[ August 26, 2007, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Desert Rat ]

Bill Lumbergh

Aug 26th 2007, 08:45 PM

My God. This discussion is another example of why this business is becoming more and more of a turnoff.

IT'S JUST A JOB!! No one should be forced to stay late, forced to work a double, forced to do anything that falls outside their stated job duties, especially when it interferes with a family issue or something of the like. Just say no.

It's because so few have over the generations that management has become accustomed to taking advantage of employees at every turn. It's why you feel obligated to stay late, and guilty for leaving on time. Sickening, isn't it?

Roy Hobbs

Aug 26th 2007, 09:49 PM

Try being sent out at the last minute "with a boatload of children!"
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/stmagazine/kirk-saavik.jpg

TVMattNYC

Aug 26th 2007, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Bill Lumbergh:
My God. This discussion is another example of why this business is becoming more and more of a turnoff.

IT'S JUST A JOB!! No one should be forced to stay late, forced to work a double, forced to do anything that falls outside their stated job duties, especially when it interferes with a family issue or something of the like. Just say no.

It's because so few have over the generations that management has become accustomed to taking advantage of employees at every turn. It's why you feel obligated to stay late, and guilty for leaving on time. Sickening, isn't it?I totally agree.

What I DON'T agree with is the attitude (prevalent among women in particular) that the employer should "work with" a new mother's child care concerns.

No. No employee deserves special consideration over the others just because she CHOSE to have children.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 26th 2007, 10:56 PM

totally agree.

weird hours and surprises are part of the TV news business...... which probably means it's not a great job to have if you CHOOSE to have kids.

if you want a regular, dependable schedule, go work in a bank.

imported_Mr. Vengeance

Aug 27th 2007, 12:39 AM

This definitely presents a challenge to newsroom managers. Imagine a newsroom in which the majority of reporters and photographers have child care responsibilities. The minority of (lower-paid) staffers who don't have kids are forced to do the late/early hours assignments, or the late evening live shots in the middle of nowhere, and the pattern goes on and on.

The obvious solution for such staffers: start raising kids of your own to avoid such abuse. Agreed: televsion news is not the best career in which to balance child-raising with work. Period.

SamG

Aug 27th 2007, 02:45 AM

Matt, I will agree with you that parents shouldn't get any extra consideration over anyone else just because they have kids.

BUT, what's wrong with telling management "I need to leave by 12:30 to pick up my kids" as opposed to "I need to leave by 5:30 to get to my (pick one... softball practice, class, dentist appointment, etc)." And don't tell me childless workers DON'T do that.

Assuming the parent is scheduled for 8 hours, what's wrong with asking to be able to leave at the end of the shift? Obviously if there is "breaking" news, the parent could make sacrifices.

And Matt, you never answered the question about sending kids to school? Isn't that asking someone other than the parents to "raise" them? I guess you're against that too, huh?

Beentheredonethattoo

Aug 27th 2007, 03:04 AM

"What I DON'T agree with is the attitude (prevalent among women in particular) that the employer should "work with" a new mother's child care concerns.
No. No employee deserves special consideration over the others just because she CHOSE to have children."

Hey Matt--It isn't the statement above that rankled so many previous posters, including me. What ticked us all off was your rant about how working mothers are INFERIOR to stay-at-home moms. I've now been both, and I can tell you that I certainly prefer staying at home, but it's not always economically viable! My staying home with my son has had serious budgetary repercussions, and no, we weren't some BMW-driving, DINK couple before his birth. And for you to act as an authority on childrearing when you have no children or uterus yourself makes you sound like a pompous, bitter ass.
If the argument is about people without children being stuck with all the double shifts so that marrieds can go home to kids, then I agree that is patently unfair. But it's also not realistic. I've worked in 6 newsrooms and I can say that I never saw an ND give special treatment to a parent over a non-parent. To highly-paid anchors over younger, cheaper producers or reporters, yes. But the notion that parents are getting special breaks is crap.
I agree with the poster that it's all about negotiation. If you can get a reduced schedule in your contract, good for you, and bully for your co-workers.

Beentheredonethattoo

Aug 27th 2007, 04:29 AM

Just realized that my post above ended abruptly with the "Good for you, bully for your co-workers" line. I'm not saying that newsroom co-worker relationships should be adversarial. What I'm saying is that reduced schedules (and by this I mean a 40-50 hour workweek rather than a 50-60 hour one) usually go hand in hand with salary concessions. I had a friend who was a newsroom manager in another city who successfully negotiated an "out by 6pm" clause in her contract, but she agreed to take a pretty significant pay cut. Was it worth it to her? Of course. Her husband worked nights, so it meant the kids only needed 4 hours of childcare a day. Is it anybody else's business when she leaves the newsroom every day? Nope. If she has the ability and desire to get a contract like that, good for her. Good for you, too, if you can pull it off.

TAFKA wacowx

Aug 27th 2007, 07:03 AM

I agree with the above posters saying that TV is not a great industry for raising a family just from the nature of being on-call and spot news happening at any given moment. It's one of the reasons why I am now working as a non-TV meteorologist with a brand new baby (son born just over 2 weeks ago). My wife is choosing to stay home for at least a year or at worst working a part time job so I can take care of my son for the few hours she's not home.

For those who say they NEED two incomes I will ask do you NEED to pay $150-200 a month for cable/satellite? Do you NEED to pay $100-200 a month for cell phone and land line service? Do you NEED to go out to eat as often as you do? Do you NEED that Starbucks coffee? Do you NEED to feed the snack or soda machine at work? Just cutting back on these things would save you a few hundred and not having to pay for daycare is an incredible amount of savings too. PLUS, staying at home saves the gas and wear and tear on the car that would result from continuing to work. Heck, you may not need the same number of cars and could save the expense by selling one AND make some extra cash.

In our lives, our child has quickly become the most important thing...as he should be. If you feel that a career is equally important, that is your opinion, but you can't honestly say that you NEED two jobs to make ends meet. In just about everyone's budget, there is easily several hundred a month that can be cut...some of it more painful than others.

If the choice is made to work, then it's always better to have family take care of the child if at all possible. My wife had a single mom who had to work, but luckily she lived with her grandparents and had a terrific upbringing.

Spike

Aug 27th 2007, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Vengeance:
The obvious solution for such staffers: start raising kids of your own to avoid such abuse. That's an interesting comment. What's to stop a single person from using nonexistent kids to get out of extra work? "I'd love to stay, but I can't. I have to pick up my kid from daycare."

CKMD

Aug 27th 2007, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known as wacowx:
For those who say they NEED two incomes I will ask do you NEED to pay $150-200 a month for cable/satellite? Do you NEED to pay $100-200 a month for cell phone and land line service? Do you NEED to go out to eat as often as you do? Do you NEED that Starbucks coffee? Do you NEED to feed the snack or soda machine at work? Just cutting back on these things would save you a few hundred and not having to pay for daycare is an incredible amount of savings too. PLUS, staying at home saves the gas and wear and tear on the car that would result from continuing to work. Heck, you may not need the same number of cars and could save the expense by selling one AND make some extra cash.
You are forgetting some things:
Some of us live in cities where the taxes are extremely high. I own 9,000 square feet of property with an 1,800 square foot home and my taxes are $5,000 a year. Oh...and this is so-called "fly-over" country in the Midwest, not the east or west coast.

Everything you ask us to not do, we have done and we still NEED 2 incomes so that we aren't living in a van down by the river, or a crappy apartment...which, where I live, a one bedroom apartment is 875 a month. Let's raise a family in one of those!

I make my lunch daily, don't go out to eat.
As for cells, the 40 bucks a month for 2 lines and unlimited long distance doesn't bother me, nor would saving the $480 a year matter match.

Oh...and there's nothing like mom at home with baby and no transportation to get them where they need to be. Public tranpsortation here is not an option.

Let's move the topic back to how a mom or dad can have a career in TV and make it work as opposed to faulting those of us who do it.

Production: I answered your question about co-workers. You obviously chose to ignore it.

Here it is again for you.
Production brings up a valid point.
As middle management, I'll answer it.

You should've gotten it written into the contract.
If AM anchor tells boss while negotiating that she/he has to leave at 12:30, barring major news, she/he leaves.

It's as simple as that.

If you don't think ahead about these things before you sign, it's not my fault.

Also, if you are that anchor who asks that and management refuses, I guess you don't sign that contract. Period.

But don't go *****ing that you get stuck working when you didn't think about these things prior to signing the contract.

Now, since it's a team, you can certainly voice your opinion about how you're getting the shaft...but, it doesn't matter. Also, if it's a co-worker who doesn't have a contract, then, by all means, travel to HR's office and mention it.

This is why agents get paid big dollars. This is why the smart talent have little things inserted into contracts and companies who see value in that talent agree to them.

[ August 27, 2007, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

production

Aug 27th 2007, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by CKMD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known as wacowx:
For those who say they NEED two incomes I will ask do you NEED to pay $150-200 a month for cable/satellite? Do you NEED to pay $100-200 a month for cell phone and land line service? Do you NEED to go out to eat as often as you do? Do you NEED that Starbucks coffee? Do you NEED to feed the snack or soda machine at work? Just cutting back on these things would save you a few hundred and not having to pay for daycare is an incredible amount of savings too. PLUS, staying at home saves the gas and wear and tear on the car that would result from continuing to work. Heck, you may not need the same number of cars and could save the expense by selling one AND make some extra cash.
You are forgetting some things:
Some of us live in cities where the taxes are extremely high. I own 9,000 square feet of property with an 1,800 square foot home and my taxes are $5,000 a year. Oh...and this is so-called "fly-over" country in the Midwest, not the east or west coast.

Everything you ask us to not do, we have done and we still NEED 2 incomes so that we aren't living in a van down by the river, or a crappy apartment...which, where I live, a one bedroom apartment is 875 a month. Let's raise a family in one of those!

I make my lunch daily, don't go out to eat.
As for cells, the 40 bucks a month for 2 lines and unlimited long distance doesn't bother me, nor would saving the $480 a year matter match.

Oh...and there's nothing like mom at home with baby and no transportation to get them where they need to be. Public tranpsortation here is not an option.

Let's move the topic back to how a mom or dad can have a career in TV and make it work as opposed to faulting those of us who do it.

Production: I answered your question about co-workers. You obviously chose to ignore it.
[/QUOTE]Not everyone has a contract, nor an agent. There is more then talent to make a news room run.

Let's say Jack and Jill both work the morning show, and work identical positions. Jack has no kids, and Jill does.

Joe the afternoon guy calls in sick.

Who stays late?

Who stays the next time?

All I'm saying is share the pain of the doubles. Having a kid is irrelevant.

CKMD

Aug 27th 2007, 09:23 AM

You're right, having a kid is irrelevant.
And unless there's a deal written up, the pain is doubly shared.

But you never talked about that.

Ypu're right, it takes a whole lot more THAN talent to make a newsroom run...but, if someone is smart enough to get it in writing, then they have the upper hand.

You can't expect to get things for yourself unless you ask and have them written and signed.
If you can't get what you want, maybe you need to consider other options.

Here is where I agree with Matt. BUT, to imply what he does, especially about women, is flat out wrong.

I'm willing to bet, in the scenario you oultine above, that the duties would be shared and the person with the issue would have to deal with it on that one time basis.
If it's a constant that the afternoon guy calls in sick, that should be dealt with.
Again, though, if Jill has a better contract, it's not her fault...it's jack's for not getting one for himself.

[ August 27, 2007, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

cinehead

Aug 27th 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Spike:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mr. Vengeance:
The obvious solution for such staffers: start raising kids of your own to avoid such abuse. That's an interesting comment. What's to stop a single person from using nonexistent kids to get out of extra work? "I'd love to stay, but I can't. I have to pick up my kid from daycare."[/QUOTE]Your H-R department would likely know if you have kids or not, especially if you have medical coverage.

foxravens

Aug 27th 2007, 11:50 AM

Shame on you people. Your pettiness is just unbelievable.

I certainly hope co-workers treated YOUR mother/father much more kindly when you were small.

I'd also be willing to bet that each and every one of you *****ing about this is childless.

[ August 27, 2007, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

SamG

Aug 27th 2007, 12:33 PM

foxravens

Aug 27th 2007, 12:40 PM

Things are apparently MUCH cheaper in Waco.
I have no first-hand knowledge....thank god.

SamG

Aug 27th 2007, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Things are apparently MUCH cheaper in Waco.
I have no first-hand knowledge....thank god.Who are you responding to?

TVMattNYC

Aug 27th 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Shame on you people. Your pettiness is just unbelievable.

I certainly hope co-workers treated YOUR mother/father much more kindly when you were small.

I'd also be willing to bet that each and every one of you *****ing about this is childless.Growing up, my father never made child-care demands of his employer, because my MOTHER was home taking care of us.

They wisely chose to start a family when they knew they could afford to raise it properly.

TAFKA wacowx

Aug 27th 2007, 02:18 PM

All I know is that I cut my paycheck in half shifting jobs back in 2002 and I survived for a year with some significant cutbacks. I still live quite frugally, but I know for a fact I could easily save another 200-400 bucks a month if I really wanted to.

Heck...I could switch to dialup to surf medialine and save almost 400 a year. ;)

If living within your means isn't important to you that's fine, but it sure is to me.

Slipping back to the original topic...even being a new parent, I don't think it would be fair to ask co workers to fill-in for non-essential things like recitals, plays, soccer games but essentials certainly. I would even say that if you had a roommate who was sick and you were the only means of transport for him then even a non-parent should be able to get the same freedom that parents believe they deserve in the newsroom.

I am no longer in a newsroom for all of these complicated reasons and my family and new son are much more important to me than working in TV. I thought I might miss it, but I really don't. I have a much lower pressure job now that gives me a lot of freedom to take off if necessary, even heading out early in the afternoon. No on-call, pseudo bankers hours of 5:30a-3p and coworkers who mostly are also parents who completely understand. I make enough to cover the bills so my wife doesn't have to work, although she might do some evenings in the future so I can watch our son while I am home. If we got to a point where money was getting tight, we would make even more severe budget cuts and I'd pick up an extra part-time weekend job so she'd continue to be allowed to stay at home if she chooses. That's what's important to us right now, it may change in the future, but we feel being there for our child is the most important thing and we will do all we can to accomplish that.

News Is Broken

Aug 27th 2007, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by production:

Let's say Jack and Jill both work the morning show, and work identical positions. Jack has no kids, and Jill does.

Joe the afternoon guy calls in sick.

Who stays late?

Who stays the next time?Jack does. That's what he gets for falling down and breaking his crown.

production

Aug 27th 2007, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
You're right, having a kid is irrelevant.
And unless there's a deal written up, the pain is doubly shared.

But you never talked about that.

Ypu're right, it takes a whole lot more THAN talent to make a newsroom run...but, if someone is smart enough to get it in writing, then they have the upper hand.

You can't expect to get things for yourself unless you ask and have them written and signed.
If you can't get what you want, maybe you need to consider other options.

Here is where I agree with Matt. BUT, to imply what he does, especially about women, is flat out wrong.

I'm willing to bet, in the scenario you oultine above, that the duties would be shared and the person with the issue would have to deal with it on that one time basis.
If it's a constant that the afternoon guy calls in sick, that should be dealt with.
Again, though, if Jill has a better contract, it's not her fault...it's jack's for not getting one for himself.All I saying is take turns who has to stay. Outside commitments are irrelevant. Sick, vacation, and breaking news coverage should be shared equally among everyone.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 07:59 AM

Most certainly...unless someone worked something out and got it in writing.

Life isn't fair, folks. Stop hoping that this business will be friendly to you and that you "deserve" anything.

While you might not like that, it's the truth.

Spike

Aug 28th 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by CKMD:
Stop hoping that this business will be friendly to you and that you "deserve" anything.Only those people who realize they deserve better ever try for it.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Spike:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CKMD:
Stop hoping that this business will be friendly to you and that you "deserve" anything.Only those people who realize they deserve better ever try for it.[/QUOTE]And those of us who do deserve and try for it, get it. Either you get it or you don't...*****ing about co-workers doesn't get you anything or anywhere.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 28th 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known as wacowx:

I make enough to cover the bills so my wife doesn't have to work, although she might do some evenings in the future so I can watch our son while I am home. If we got to a point where money was getting tight, we would make even more severe budget cuts and I'd pick up an extra part-time weekend job so she'd continue to be allowed to stay at home if she chooses. That's what's important to us right now, it may change in the future, but we feel being there for our child is the most important thing and we will do all we can to accomplish that.very admirable.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 05:46 PM

It's completely admirable.
But why is it so bad for a woman...or even a man, to want to work a few hours even if they have a child?
WHy do people like our resident Gay Network Producer feel the need to degrade people who do this?

My wife doesn't have to work either...but she WANTS to do both and is doing it very well with nop harm to the child!

That is the issue I have with gayrantermatt. A mother working is apparently more evil than anything else in the world!

Edited to appease foxravens.

[ August 28, 2007, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

foxravens

Aug 28th 2007, 06:00 PM

Aside from that, Matt feels that only a full-time non-working mom can raise a child correctly.
He likes to use his own childhood as the example to examine.
I had the same childhood as Matt. My mom didn't work either. It was great.

Problem is, this is 2007...that model just doesn't work any more, and he just doesn't get it.

Never will, either.

Ignore him. He has no idea of what he's talking about.

One last thing: CKMD, that last line of your post was uncalled for. You shouldn't have written that.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 28th 2007, 06:10 PM

ok, I'm not gay.

but I now hope CKMD has a son/daughter who is.

foxravens

Aug 28th 2007, 06:17 PM

CKMD:
My problem with what you wrote is that it was way too graphic and in very poor taste.

I have corresponded with you, and I know you're a bright guy.
Bright enough to know you were wrong in writing that.

C'mon...

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
CKMD:
My problem with what you wrote is that it was way too graphic and in very poor taste.

I have corresponded with you, and I know you're a bright guy.
Bright enough to know you were wrong in writing that.

C'mon...And it's ok for him to bash and demean women and heterosexuals?
Shall I pull up all the posts from the past 4 years that he's done that?

I wish I had the time.....i need to play with my son who is more important than Matt and his lover trash from Chicago.

Smart is one thing. Sitting here and wasting time over whether or not someone is smarter because they don't denegrate their life choices is another.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 28th 2007, 06:22 PM

you realize you're making yourself look like more of a moron with each post, right?

foxravens

Aug 28th 2007, 06:23 PM

Again, the only problem I had was the graphic nature of what you wrote. I also thought it was in poor taste.
Thanks for saying you respect me too.
I appreciate that.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
you realize you're making yourself look like more of a moron with each post, right?You realize I'm not too concerned with what you or anyone else thinks about me, right?

In the end, I hold my head up high and laugh at you.

adam & doctor drew

Aug 28th 2007, 06:25 PM

as you continue to gay bash.
well done.
I'm sure you're a fine role model.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Again, the only problem I had was the graphic nature of what you wrote. I also thought it was in poor taste.
Thanks for saying you respect me too.
I appreciate that.No problem...that's why I changed it.
There are few people here that I respect. You and 6 others are about it.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
as you continue to gay bash.
well done.
I'm sure you're a fine role model.So, pointing out facts about homosexuals is gay bashing?
OK. and you wishing a child of mine ends up gay isn't "gay bashing"?
Good to know you are too politically correct to actually hold conversations with.
You're about as "bright" as Pooned Boy. Good!

PS: don't consider myself a role model for anyone else other than my son. DOn't need to be a role model for anyone else. Maybe you should consider that as you try to save all of us from the "gay bashers" of the world.

[ August 28, 2007, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

Spike

Aug 28th 2007, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
And it's ok for him to bash and demean women and heterosexuals?
Shall I pull up all the posts from the past 4 years that he's done that?I don't recall Matt ever bashing heterosexuals. I certainly don't remember him referring to straight men performing cunnilingus when he ran out of intelligent arguments.

Here's where your own bigotry gets in your way. On THIS issue Matt has repeatedly expressed his opinion that mothers should stay home with their kids. That has nothing to do with heterosexuals or homosexuals. I suspect that Matt feels the same way about gay couples who have children, that one of them should stay home full time. He has certainly not indicated otherwise.

In a heterosexual relationship, I don't know why he automatically defaults to the woman being the one who stays home. That seems sexist. But you can't really generalize that as an attack on heterosexuals.

CKMD

Aug 28th 2007, 07:16 PM

I'm certainly not running out of "intelligent" arguments.
I chose to be harsh and find myself funny.
I'm not here to argue "intelligently" with most of the people on this site. That would be a fruitless venture.

But, since you don't remember, I will refer back to several threads in 2005 where he berated heterosexuals on this same issue...wanting to raise children and have a career.

While he didn't refer to sex acts, he made references to "baby making machines".
But, what's the difference if it's "sexist" or if it's "racist" of if it's "homophobic"?

His opinion is fine if he wants to maintain that it's just that, an opinion.

This topic denegrated completely when he inserted his "2 cents" into it.
And because I am harsh and crude and use language meant only to incite, my point is invalid?
And we're supposed to converse "intelligently"?

I'm not going to waste time having conversations with people who aren't themselves intelligent.

The posters that get my intelligent feedback know why they get it. I admit to getting into the mud...and love it. I won't waste conversation like this with those who don't deserve it.

This is a forum for people to let off steam...not to show that they might be a part of MENSA.

Edited to add: I'd love to hear if Matt has the same opinion of gays with kids and one staying home. I wonder why that hasn't been a part of his argument?

[ August 28, 2007, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

mothball

Aug 28th 2007, 08:17 PM

And now, a man with three legs.

Oh, look, he ran away.

Randy Steinman

Aug 28th 2007, 08:44 PM

Have spent the last 10 minutes editing this thread for language.

C'mon people... it's getting late and I have much better things to do.

Another side

Aug 29th 2007, 01:47 AM

I'm not a fan of the prospect of newsrooms being staffed only by young, childless people or sanctimonious gay folks. It would only broaden the current (in general) disconnect with our audience.

And based on some the frequent complaintsaround here about veterans being replaced by young, cheaper, inexperienced, recent grads, I'm not sure a lot you are either.

But you seem to be arguing it both ways -- that hiring the younger, cheaper, inexperienced people who will work for less is tearing down the quality of news and, ergo, destroying the business ... but if (presumably, older) employees have families and/or young children, well, this business probably isn't for them.

On the other hand, I've worked in a lot of newsrooms and it's always -- always -- been my experience that staff members are happy to help each other out -- the single ones actually WANT to help a coworker get to his or her child's little league game ... or be home with his or her family for Christmas.

And the married employees DO agree to trade a shift or work extra so their single coworker can leave early or get an extra day off for a trip back home or a concert 300 miles away they've saved all year to attend.

I just haven't seen the staffing problems or employee discontent described by Matt or his followers on this thread.

And I've certainly never seen --nor heard of -- a situation where a single reporter had to work over EVERY TIME because a coworker had child-care care problems or a school play to attend.

This is much ado about nothing -- and it's not the first time Matt has led a thread in this direction. He doesn't like kids and he doesn't like women in the workplace -- that's his real beef. He just doesn't have the courage to say so.

Brain Cramp

Aug 29th 2007, 08:14 AM

During the interveiw for my new job I was asked how I felt about working nights, weekends and other hours when news necessitated it. I answered that I had no problem working those times as long as I had child care for my kids or I knew my husband could be home with them. I stated that my children were my number one priority in life and that the job was number 2. They had no problem with that. I'm pretty sure most employers will want to work with their employees, not against them. Unless they're just enjoying the whole power trip and like to mess with the underlings.

CKMD

Aug 29th 2007, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Another side:
This is much ado about nothing -- and it's not the first time Matt has led a thread in this direction. He doesn't like kids and he doesn't like women in the workplace -- that's his real beef. He just doesn't have the courage to say so.Thank you!

TVMattNYC

Aug 29th 2007, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by CKMD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Another side:
This is much ado about nothing -- and it's not the first time Matt has led a thread in this direction. He doesn't like kids and he doesn't like women in the workplace -- that's his real beef. He just doesn't have the courage to say so.Thank you![/QUOTE]On the contrary.

I LOVE children.

That's why I take child-rearing so seriously, and get upset when others do not.

foxravens

Aug 29th 2007, 11:29 AM

Please define "do not".

SamG

Aug 29th 2007, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by foxravens:
Please define "do not".PLEASE don't get him started again.

Another quote from you (referring to Matt)

Ignore him. He has no idea of what he's talking about. Practice what you preach sister! For the sanity of us all. :D

CKMD

Aug 29th 2007, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:That's why I take child-rearing so seriously, and get upset when others do not.[/QB]And, again, a sexist comment. He gets upset when women work rather than stay at home to raise kids.
Sounds like a kid who grew up with rich parents. Figures.

TVMattNYC

Aug 29th 2007, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:That's why I take child-rearing so seriously, and get upset when others do not.And, again, a sexist comment. He gets upset when women work rather than stay at home to raise kids.
Sounds like a kid who grew up with rich parents. Figures.[/QB][/QUOTE]Solidly middle class, thank you.

CKMD

Aug 29th 2007, 05:40 PM

and, grew up in a time where only Daddy needed to work to keep the family alive.
Same with me.
At least I can change with the times and understand that most women WANT a career and CAN raise children at the same time or, NEED to work to RAISE children and don't need a GAY MAN to tell them how to live their lives.

Beentheredonethattoo

Aug 29th 2007, 06:07 PM

Eeeesh, CKMD, enough with the "Gay man" stuff already! What are YOU saying by repeatedly bringing up sexual orientation? Do you think somebody who's gay doesn't get a say on parenting? I happen to think that Matt's viewpoint is sexist and dunderheaded, but I don't think that has anything to do with his being gay. I do wish he'd answer somebody's point about stay-at-home dads, though. Does that paradigm work for you, Matt? Or do women possess some sort of special hormonal voodoo that makes them the only good candidates for staying home?

TVMattNYC

Aug 29th 2007, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
and, grew up in a time where only Daddy needed to work to keep the family alive.
Same with me.
At least I can change with the times and understand that most women WANT a career and CAN raise children at the same time or, NEED to work to RAISE children and don't need a GAY MAN to tell them how to live their lives.Plenty of families right here in New York City are living on one income ... often less than $60K. Yes, I know some of them personally.

And finally ... YES ... in a gay male coupling, there should be at least one stay-at-home DAD.

CKMD

Aug 29th 2007, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Beentheredonethattoo:
Do you think somebody who's gay doesn't get a say on parenting? Yes...I do not believe members of the gay community who do not have kids and shouldn't have kids get to say how those of us who can get to raise our children.

I'm not afraid to say it. I'm not going to sit here and let him berate women or men who want to have kids and want to work and call them bad parents.

If you're OK with that, then fine. I'm not. And, yes, his sexual orientation has EVERYTHING to do with his stance on this subject.

Call me a homophobe, call me a gay basher. I don't care. I know I am neither. His gayer than thou attitude on this subject disgusts me and I'm not going to let him get away with it!

And, I'm glad Matt finally answered the question.
So, Matt, would that be you that stays home? WOuld you give up your "greater than everyone elses network producer" career? Sure...I bet. :rolleyes:

[ August 29, 2007, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

TVMattNYC

Aug 29th 2007, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by CKMD:
[QUOTE]
So, Matt, would that be you that stays home? WOuld you give up your "greater than everyone elses network producer" career? Sure...I bet. :rolleyes: In a PHUCKING heartbeat, baby.

After 20 years of working my a$$ off, I'm ready to be a Martha.

Roy Hobbs

Aug 29th 2007, 07:46 PM

First Fourth Page post!
http://www.page-ed.org/_mod_files/ce_images/PageAction_1__131x180.jpg http://www.page-ed.org/_mod_files/ce_images/PageAction_1__131x180.jpg
http://www.page-ed.org/_mod_files/ce_images/PageAction_1__131x180.jpg
http://www.page-ed.org/_mod_files/ce_images/PageAction_1__131x180.jpg

[ August 29, 2007, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

Another side

Aug 30th 2007, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
And finally ... YES ... in a gay male coupling, there should be at least one stay-at-home DAD.And in your basic, man-woman, husband-wife coupling?

Another side

Aug 30th 2007, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Beentheredonethattoo:
Do you think somebody who's gay doesn't get a say on parenting?Fair question. Here's another: Should anyone who's not (or hasn't been) a parent, have say on parenting?

I don't know the answer to either. They have their own growing-up experiences and parents to draw on ... but times change and so do parenting needs and skills.

And I don't believe Matt's dislike of women and children is based in his gayness -- I just think he's a gay representative of the single-cell, Dust-Bowl-era logic that says wimmin and chillun should be seen but not heard, 'ceptin when yer rightly beatin' 'em for plumb fergittin' their chores.

[ August 30, 2007, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Another side ]

Beentheredonethattoo

Aug 30th 2007, 04:21 AM

Agreed and well put! He sounds like my 90 year old Grandpa. He also could probably use some extra fiber in his diet.

CKMD

Aug 30th 2007, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CKMD:

So, Matt, would that be you that stays home? WOuld you give up your "greater than everyone elses network producer" career? Sure...I bet. :rolleyes: In a PHUCKING heartbeat, baby.

After 20 years of working my a$$ off, I'm ready to be a Martha.I'll give you this: you are at least honest.
Fine...we disagree.

Pro

Aug 30th 2007, 01:37 PM

I'm a parent. And I never sacrificed my work demands because of it.

Then again, maybe that's what I am now a single parent. :(

Wise Old Producer

Aug 30th 2007, 05:43 PM

Hmmm... all she really wanted to know was which news shift worked best for most working parents.

Who knew it would launch a 4-page rehash of the ages-old rancor about women in the workplace?

Truth is-- there's no set formula. Good kids come from all kinds of families. Behaviorally-challenged kids come from all kinds of families. Each parent has to make his/her own decision about what is in the best interest of their child and marriage.

Most parents would give anything to be able to be home with their kids full-time. Reality is this: over half of the marriages/partnerships in this country end in divorce. What happens to those stay at home parents when they are suddenly-- by no fault of their own-- thrown back into trying to figure out how to support those children? Especially if their only skills come out of a newsroom? Also-- not all of the breadwinners in single-income families are happy campers. They are stressed out. Who do you think they take that out on? Some marriages-- and therefore home environments-- are simply happier if both adults are bringing in an income. College isn't getting cheaper, nor is anything else.

The other issue is the biological clock. For women-- their prime years in the newsroom are also their prime years for bearing healthy children.

By the way-- I had strong opinions about this as a single person that were absolutely dead wrong.
I would have agreed with Matt.

Now, I speak from experience.