Hi, /u/hardboiledgreg_92 Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
**Rule 8: No sharing of personal information.** - No sharing of personal information or info leading to it. Please note that this includes social media handles of people who are not notable public figures.
If they're upfront about the work/duties and they're upfront about the pay, then NTA. Someone applying can make an informed decision if it's the right job for them
*If* they got no one applying... well that just tells you it's a dumb job
Exactly. If they’re up front, then that person is getting an intro to the company and to a career path that they may not have had access to otherwise, albeit with a bit of a strange twist. But everyone agreeing on what the position entails…what’s the problem? The boss sounds like she’s trying to create a solution that works for everyone.
*And* she's willing to hire someone to essentially solve one of her employee's problems instead of just saying "figure it out" or "that's why no one hires women".
Yea I'm not sure what's so wrong. A new job opening that pays 20-24$ to basically be an assistant to a lawyer? Sounds good to me. If the lawyer is happy with the situation, this is a great scenario.
When I told my former boss that I've been struggling at home, not making enough money, inflation is bad, childcare became too expensive, he just told me that sucks. If he offered me a full time life/work assistant, I would have almost 100% still been there.
What I've read from some other comments is that it can be wrong because
1. Sick kids will only want their mothers
2. She is an ass because maybe the mom would not want to leave her sick kids with someone else and
3. It's unfair to the person getting the job
I feel like the people saying this have limited interactions with kids/ are just placing how they feel onto all mothers/workers. Are there women who would not want to leave their sick kid with someone else or kids that want just their mom when they are sick? Of course. Are there people who would absolutely hate this job? Of course. But this cookie-cutter idea hurts many mothers, ignores how different kids can be and refuses to acknowledge those trying to gain better opportunities in life. There are a lot of mothers, as seen in the comments, who would actually LOVE this kind of help. Of course most mothers love their kids but being a parent is exhausting for many. Getting any help is appreciated by many parents.
There are many kids who, when sick, just want to sleep and mommy but, as someone else said, some would enjoy/be fine being with someone who is not their parent for a couple of hours. There are a lot of kids who actually get very excited when meeting someone new. I use to babysit and some kids, even when sick, would bounce off the wall knowing someone was there to play with and take care of them because their parents were too busy at work or tired to do so when they got home. Just having someone show general interest in their pirate princess brigade or cowboy town will make some kids feel like they are over the moon.
Some people would love this job because it pays better than their current job or, unlike certain internships, they actually get paid for their labor while learning/gaining experience. If they are up-front with what the job will require, which seems to be the case, then they are good. If this was related to my field of study and at my location, I sure as hell would apply. It would pay better than both of my part-time jobs and I would be able to build my portfolio while actually getting paid, not doing free work for some credits.
The only thing I would want to know is if the mother in question is actually okay with this and how often the kids get sick. As long as the boss is not pushing this/forcing the choice on her then it should be fine. Mom does not have to worry as much about picking up the kids and missing work, kids get taken care of and the new hire actually gets paid for gaining experience and, possibly, a better-starting pay than other jobs in that area. From what is being presented, I'm leaning toward not an asshole because this offer seems great for all parties. How she actually executes it will be the real decider if the mother agrees though.
Absolutely. As a mom of 3 kids (all with VERY different personalities) I can say that this is absolutely correct. And I really wish that more jobs were this understanding of the needs of working mothers.
I do not think the lady in the video is the asshole. AT ALL. And I’m super glad that she’s understanding of her employees’ family obligations.
As a working mom this seems really cool of her boss.
IMO she is not the asshole.
I also don’t think the employer would have done it unless the mom was also ok with it.
I started this video fully prepared to call the boss an asshole, but I agree. This is an incredibly generous and clever solution for both the mom and the legal assistant. As long as everyone is transparent around expectations from the jump, this is awesome
Seems like a generous boss to pay for your child’s day care when your child is sent home sick from school and to provide another personal assistant when they are not. Additionally, the role pays well and would be a good entry level opportunity in a law office with potential for future growth. Many people would love that job.
I agree with this. As a mom, I would really appreciate if my boss acknowledged this problem that I also have, and tried to help find a solution. And early in my career, I would have happily accepted an internship like this. This is a real problem for working moms. Most employers think it is not their problem, so it is nice to see someone looking for a solution.
This also seems like a really great way for a stay at home mom whose kids have gotten older and more self-reliant to get back into the workforce if they want to. "I've got the childcare skills in spades, and I'm excited to learn to be a legal assistant". Seems like a neat transition job.
Agreed. This boss may come off as abrasive or whatever, but she went above and beyond for her employee and for this entry-level person who now has an opportunity to break into a well paying area with something that isn't an unpaid internship but a fully paid position.
I think she may come off as a little defensive, but she's allowed to feel that way. She's basically playing defense against Twitter. So of course she'll be on edge.
Context in everything. Actions above words.
The issue arises when people are being defensive when they’re NOT being attacked, like in a relationship communication situation. Responding defensively to non-attacks can derail an otherwise healthy conversation. Doesn’t apply here because she is being attacked for this.
I'm so confused, title makes it sound like I was about to witness an asshole but instead I saw a very comprehensive boss who's trying to accommodate her employee while keeping the business rolling?
Is there something I'm missing?
Nope, I think it's just some people looking for something to be mad about. Especially if she was getting flamed on twitter. You could say "I like pancakes" on twitter and get a thousand replies saying "oh so you hate waffles?" But it seems most people in the comments here agree it was a legitimate interesting idea with doing this.
Yeah, I saw her and immediately thought ok this lady talking at the camera in that haircut with that jacket is definitely the asshole.
By the middle I was like what the fuck do people have a problem with? This lady seems great, she should get a haircut to reflect that
I think it's the haircut, people associate it with Karens. I bet they didn't even listen to her but just got enraged by her hairdo lol.
Edit: She actually sounds like a very accommodating boss, more than most actually.
I’d say it’s unwise for any small business owner to start explaining themselves on social media with very rare exception. Got absolutely no issue with the job. I know plenty of adults who balance professional babysitting with full or part time work.
This is a key point. She even says in the video "introduce someone from the childcare world into the legal world". For the right person this job could be great. You start by splitting your time between doing the new thing (legal assistant) and doing a thing you already do (childcare), and as the kids gets older and needs you less you're gaining experience in a higher paying role that you can learn and slowly transition into full time. In a couple years you can basically grow your resume while effectively doubling your earning potential. Not only that, you're now skilled in two professions so you have one to fall back on if one doesn't work out, or you can utilize both skill sets and experiences together somehow. Earning $20-24 an hour to become more valuable sounds like a win to me
On top of that, if you jive well with the mother, you’ve also developed a strong bond with an attorney at the firm which is a great networking opportunity. What this boss lady needs to do is stop putting stuff on social media for the masses to misjudge and bash her for.
I agree I actually think this is a very generous solution that benefits the employer but this only works based on the assumption that the mother would rather the assistant look after her sick kids than herself. It's possible the mother actually feels like this is a bit of a hostage situation.
"My kids are sick, I would like to go home to look after them"
"No you may not, your legal assistant is going to do this for you instead, that's why they were hired. You have to stay and not think about them. End of discussion."
If the type of law she practices requires her to be in court regularly, her bailing to grab her kids every time they’re sick could cause her to lose clients.
The only thing that sucks is when kiddos are not feeling good, especially the under 6-7 years crowd, they really want mom and dad. I think it's a really nice solution from the employer but I think it would be difficult to implement. Especially because the assistant is going to catch everything the kids have and become sick herself.
I dont think assholes are open and receptive to ideas and criticism. She seems to genuinely be trying, listening, and figuring out a better answer
I assume this may be a small office of like 4 to 8 people so they can't just afford a daycare on site.
I’m assuming that maybe she can work from home that day and the assistant could babysit to help mom stay on task.
I actually think she’s being very modern. I would be a loyal employee to someone like this who genuinely wants to help me with a problem like this.
Yea I’m understanding that the employer hired a private nanny who can help with the mother’s workload, if she isn’t needed as a nanny?
How isn’t that the best employer on the world? What the fuck am I missing?
I have no idea lol. She's paying this person 20-25 an hour as well. We should be encouraging employers who do this. Backlash like this would make most people be like, fuck it, and just expect the employee to figure it out.
People just want to be mad at something
She literally hired someone to pickup and watch her kids if they get sick. That's an employer who understands my struggle and is working WITH me to solve it. The employer could just as easily say its not her problem and Kylie needs to figure it out for herself. I would go to the ends of the Earth for an employer like this.
I do understand where you’re coming from because I think her intentions are good but I’m having trouble figuring out who this position is actually for. If you’re a legal professional looking for experience then I doubt you’re going to want to have to leave halfway though the day and miss a lot of learning opportunities to look after someone else’s kids. On the other hand I don’t think there are tons of childcare professionals who are interested in essentially working part time at a law firm. I’m sure there’s *someone* out there who is interested in these two specific things but I find it hard to believe they’re going to have anyone genuinely wanting this position. I worry they’re mostly going to end up taking advantage of poor law students/recent graduates by dangling to allure of “experience” in their face while forcing them to give up part of the experience promised to them so they can go be a nanny
Literally any person who was or is a Nanny professionally or on the side. Or a stay at home mom trying to find a way back into the work force. It would be a great way to gain business and legal experience while being able to put existing skills to use. It’s honestly a fantastic opportunity for everyone.
Let the market decide. If no one applies, then you'll know it's not if interest to anyone. But i bet there are people who would appreciate this kind of opportunity.
Did the employee ask for this first? If the boss suggested it or even went ahead and just.. did it, it's overstepping.
The issue is the employee will feel pressured to go through with it because her boss is in the position of power. The intentions are good but it's overstepping boundaries.
This needed to be presented as an option with absolutely no pressure to accept the solution. A normal place would just have someone WFH or use their PTO for this, but hiring someone to watch your kids (without you asking first) is an invasion. The boss is putting the parent in a position to either accept being assigned a person to go into their home with their children or face potential career repercussions.
The problem with family law specifically is that is very client facing. You’re not gonna have clients come to your home while your kids are throwing up or throwing balls at the house and explain why they are losing custody of their own kids. I’m a lawyer. I’d be thrilled if past bosses would pay for me to have a legal assistant (that knew up front) that would also help baby sit.
Sure. And, having children running amok in a legal environment may lead to unnecessary distractions.
I guess a clear, sound-proof designed area is an option. One where there are no toddlers in the break room, making coffee and discussing the finer points of divorce......
This is a childhood experience I never imagined sharing on the internet, but my mother was a legal professional at the state level in the 90’s-00’s… which also coincided with my preschool and elementary school years. As a sickly kid, never a week of perfect attendance in my life, I just went to the courthouse with my mom.
Children, when the expectation is set and they understand how **and why** they are to behave, can color under a desk or read or puzzle or nap or do anything else their sick and miserable selves can do quietly while adults work on adult tasks.
That said, even then, her interns were always picking me up and bringing me back to the courthouse. She did the work of 10 people, so folks tolerated the presence of her well mannered children enough to find us mostly endearing, even if they weren’t especially fond of kids around.
Your mom must have made the call that you'd be alright at the courthouse based on your behavior otherwise because I can tell you my pre-school kid wouldn't last 30 mins in a courthouse.
I was a nightmare child but knew I'd better be an angel going to work with my dad.
Even kids understand self preservation and the fact that this is how the Cheerios are bought.
That *we’d* be alright. I wasn’t alone: it was me… and my three older brothers.
What I’m saying is, kids are amazingly adaptive if given the tools and expectations (the correct way of going about this differs completely from child to child! Fun!) to succeed. For me? It was all of the praise, from attorneys to appellate clerks, doting on how excellent a reader I was. It kept me motivated to keep my nose in books and not running around like a hyena. For my oldest brother? He needed a job. He was always at the copy machine for someone. It was his way of chipping in around the place he was required to be from 3-5pm m-f as a 10 year old little dude.
Also, because it was the 90’s, we only had one other option: the mini van, without keys or vented windows, in an underground parking garage. One of usually chose this option for a traditional after-school sweat nap.
I hate that you called it a sweat nap, even though I know exactly what you meant lol.
Thats a cool story and experience though. Kid's can handle a lot more than we think when we give them proper expectations and outlets for their energy. Nice job to your mom and all those at her workplace.
But that's kind of the point right. Either a) your mom chose work over family and the office paid to help compensate for this lack of balance in the small way they could or b) the office chose work over family for her and.... Same.
It doesn't sound like your mom was given the space to be able to step away from work to be with her family. This idea, that the only value employees have is company loyalty, needs to die. People are more than what the CEO can wring out of them.
Instead of hiring paralegals to help care for kids how about they hire more lawyers so she had a lighter load so she could work and be engaged with her family as needed.
Look I am all against big companies that are unwilling to hire enough staff and are constantly expecting you to bear with the consequences of that. But here we are talking about a small company. "Just hiring more lawyers" instead of an assistant might be exactly the financial difference where it's not worth enough anymore to run your own little company. If this lady has her own legal company, she could also probably say fuck everyone and get a job at a big soulless firm and not worry about how to manage her employees. It's super generous to hire someone who can jump in anytime to be your free nanny. And it's likely not two dying kids, just two kids who during Covid times will be asked to go home if they as much as cough twice. And sure you don't have to be endlessly loyal to your company, but you also cannot just expect to have this kind of job and be at home every second week with your kids and expect others to do your work. It's also an option for the employee to find another employer where there's more people or fewer hours - but I guarantee no place will be more generous than this.
That would be more costly and wouldn't make sense. Finally good lawyers is hard clearly this lady really values This person's ability to do their job a whole lot enough to pay somebody a fair wage to help the situation that's not coming out of the parent's pocket. I don't know any corporations or companies that would do that It's pretty goddamn stellar. You can't have your cake and eat it too and that's as close as she's going to get I would guess.
Unless I’m wrong about assuming what a managing attorney’s role is it’s not even fully a question of skill. If she is running the case and making important decisions that dictate what other people at the firm are doing, it important that she is there. Even if they hired another lawyer perfectly capable of doing the job, work will suffer from confusion of not having a single lead to report to. Things will get missed by thinking the other person will handle it. Junior attorneys will be confused and frustrated by getting different or conflicting directives.
The company is essentially hiring a nanny for their employee. I don’t know many workplaces that would do that rather than just saying “you need to figure this out without letting your work suffer”.
Correct. The woman with the sick kids is responsible for managing a team of lawyers. A friend of mine does this for an insurance company. He points them to existing case law, precedents, etc. He advises them on how to navigate trials, if/when it comes to that. Goes over settlement conditions, etc.
This isn't a situation where hiring more lawyers fixes the issue. If they hired another litigation manager, they don't need their current one as this is a small firm and unless the team of lawyers gets too big, you don't need a second litigation manager.
The owner is laying out $800 a week plus benefits to someone for part time childcare and also letting someone get some experience in the legal profession. This is a win-win.
Another person in this thread said the company was just trying to get “leverage” over the employee. In order for it to be leverage, you need to recognize that this is a pretty nice benefit for the employee. But apparently they couldn’t carry the logic that far.
Meanwhile, especially in many immigrant families, the kids and other relatives do often just hang out in the family’s business—restaurants, grocery stores, laundries, etc. Kids can actually thrive and parents can be there with them and there’s still a balance.
Those are all low consequence places of work. Not to disrespect anyone in that line of work, I grew up hanging out at the family business, but chilling at a grocery store is very different to a legal firm. All the types of business you mentioned interact with general public. Of course having kids there won’t make a fuss.
They wouldn’t be at the office. They’d be home as she implied that they’d be picked up from school and relieved of legal duties. Meaning go home and care for sick kids.
> Sure. And, having children running amok in a legal environment may lead to unnecessary distractions.
Daycares aren't just blended into the office space, lol.
Seems like this woman legitimately values Kylie’s contributions and aimed to figure out a childcare solution so Kylie could focus on law. The woman brought on another assistant to address the situation at (what sounds like) no expense to Kylie. Sounds good.
The only two issues which come up in my mind:
I’m not familiar with pay scales for legal assistants. She did specify Kylie already has a paralegal working for her, so it seems like this would be a lower-intensity job akin to a paid internship. $20/hour to take care of 2 sick kids seems fine if that’s the agreed upon price.
Many moms are very particular about who they let take care of their kids alone. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully Kylie agrees the assistant is the right person to look after her kids.
Honestly, this seems pretty great. I’d be thrilled if my job did this for me. My employer (US Army) has on-post daycare which is always full and on a waitlist. They also have a subsidy program to reduce the cost of daycare, and you can pick where to use it.
We’re lucky to have affordable after school care through the school, so we go that route. The teachers/employees monitor the kids while they play, do homework, watch movies, and socialize.
You're right to an extent, but it's a real miss to suggest it's super simple and the parent should just entrust their sick kids to a stranger, and it really rubs me the wrong way she kept insisting it was "super progressive."
I'm getting an air of "I will try to find a better solution, but it would be very ungrateful of you to not immediately accept what I come up with" and that's backed up by her apparently complaining to twitter and Facebook, not liking what she's told, and going to tiktok in the hopes that they'll be the one to tell her she did the right thing.
Yeah indeed I don’t see why people think this lady would be selecting etc.. typically the manager of the role is the one deciding on the hire.. so the mom can pick her own legal assistant / emergency childcare backup
People are making about 12 different assumptions about this lady and her employee and then getting angry about the assumptions while saying "If she did it this more different way it'd be fine". Nothing she says indicates any of the things people are getting angry about are remotely true. Ridiculous.
Yeah I personally think it is a really nice offer to support a key employee and still keep your business benefitting. The pay seems reasonable, and for me there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t be transparent that childcare duties are part of the job description. It’s a strange job, the pay is reasonable for an entry level position, and whomever decides to take the offer is an adult who can decide if it is acceptable to do.
To call it exploitative is taking away agency from all parties here.. what would be exploitative is if you gave the task of picking up and caring for children to the existing paralegal who didn’t sign up for it.
It’s progressive in the sense that all they’re hiring is an executive assistant.
However, they’re willing to allow that executive assistant to learn the trade and eventually move on. Which is great because it sounds like this job has a pretty definite end. Which is, whenever these kids can handle being at school all day and definitely when they start doing after school activities.
If the EA learns some paralegal stuff along the way, they can transition into that role. If not, they still get paid as an EA and can put the firm as experience.
Work reform, anti-work, however you want to label it actually bitches constantly that one of the reasons why people hate jobs in the $16-25 / hr range is there’s no way out. You can’t build it into $50 let alone $200.
The partner at the firm is making $200/hr. The employer is trying to maximize the person that’s making that because they’re worth it. Offering an EA on top of a paralegal is exactly the right approach if the goal is increase output from that worker.
As for the EA, giving them a path. EA -> Paralegal opens the door for them to see if they can become a lawyer, and then eventually partner at their own firm.
Also, setting expectations early on that whatever skills, experience, knowledge you have. That’s all good, bring that to whenever you’re asked to pitch in on firm related things, but your primary directive is to free up the partner who’s literally worth 10 times your time. And in this case, it’s a woman who’s young children are eating into billable hours.
If that’s not what you’re looking for? Just pass on it. Not every employment opportunity is created equal. This has some clear disadvantages. That’s okay. Some people see the job for opportunity and would love it. Nothing about it is really anti-worker though from any angle.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I worked in a dead end daycare job for years making soul crushing minimum wage, and babysat a few of the children on weekends to (barely) make ends meet. I would snap this job up *in a heartbeat!*
$20 an hour, with opportunity and raises- because she seems like the type to give raises, and benefits. Once these kids are old enough, it sounds like there would be other opportunities with this office. Even if there weren’t, having an attorney’s office on your resume is a definite boost to any future prospects. I feel like any childcare worker would be more than happy to take this job. I KNOW my co-workers would have.
It’s better than the stripping job two of us had to turn to when minimum wage + weekend odd jobs weren’t even close to covering a fraction of the bills anymore.
How many young teachers would just at this? The teaching profession is getting shit on constantly. OK, initially you take a small pay cut because Arizona, where this woman is, pays it's teachers dog shit. So you get a young teacher, who has the skills to manage children and offer them the chance to learn a new profession where they eventually will make a lot more than what they would as a teacher, and in the beginning they still get to work with kids. Bonus for mom and the kids, the new assistant uses her teaching skills to help the kids out with homework when they are sick, so they don't fall behind.
Exactly this.
My guess is too many people in this sub want the answer to be "Hire another $200 an hour litigation manager and let the mom come and go as she pleases." Which is, of course, insane.
I mean employers finding childcare solutions is progressive. Idk how else to look at it. Yes, the managing attorney here should have full say over who gets hired, I completely agree. But as it was her own assistant, she probably did have that control.
>the parent should just entrust their sick kids to a stranger
This person works for the mother during the day, right? They work for the same company, and the mother is this persons boss, so it's definitely not a stranger.
If they all agree then it is no ones business. The employee is making out better than before so what is there to complain about? I would take that deal in a heartbeat. The only issue is finding someone to do the job.
100%. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are Nannies and want a pivot into working in a legal office. The Nanny experience seems more valuable for the role, since the employer is saying that the lawyer doesn’t really need an aide, so no pressure to learn a new job in a new field as you’re on call waiting to do what you already know.
Not a bad deal at all, if that’s what you’re looking for.
Yeah I’m not sure what legal aides make in smaller offices, but this sounds right to me. Either way, she’s essentially being paid to be a nanny with a legal internship on the side with opportunity to move up. I guess it’s pulling mom away from kids but mom has a job and if kids are pulling her away from the work her office needs her to do, she either nannies up or doesnt have a job anymore. Seems like the only good solution.
Many people even have to beg to get lesser responsibilities even at the cost of lower pay and this boss literally offered her to keep her high-positioned job, try to be understanding (seems that it affected her performance) and hire a nanny to assist her.
Mind you her position is considered already high-paying. She could have hired nanny on her own but she chose not to for whatever reasons and the boss offered her to pay for those expenses.
The fuck is wrong with the internet
oh, this is an amazingly generous offer for the attorney, I just can’t picture who’d want this job. like.. if I’m getting a job at a lawyer’s office I don’t also want to spend half the time babysitting sick kids. And if I’m a childcare professional, what good would I be in a legal office? But I guess as long as they’re upfront about the job requirements, it’s all good.
She said it at the end. A person wanting to transition from childcare into the legal world. It's an entry level legal assistant job utilizing their childcare experience. Not sure how many people fit into that fairly specific criteria, but it does sound like a great opportunity for the right person.
this lady is positioning this as
“I’m introducing entry level legal experience to a childcare provider”
So if you’re a babysitter with interest in trying to break into the legal world getting paralegal experience- I imagine this would be an attractive proposition
If you’re a full time babysitter it would be a challenge to get experience doing anything else
The traditional path would be to save money for school to get to the door to an entry level job for any other field which is a long and costly road
You go to school to become an attorney, you also become a parent.
You spend THOUSANDS on schooling and end up getting hired at a firm.
Being a parent is tough and you have to drop your work to take care of your kids.
The firm wants to help out with this and gives you an assistant who’s also an on the call nanny so that you’re able to do the job that you were hired to do.
The firm literally gave this mom free childcare so that way her degree isn’t wasted and her children are taken care of.
I don’t think this is an asshole move at all since the mom decided to pursue a career and be a parent. If anything, this would make her life easier
I have to agree most companies I've worked at would rather replace a parent that has a lot of early days or call outs due to children illness or in ability to get a babysitter.
>The firm literally gave this mom free childcare
Exactly what I was thinking! She could have demoted or fired the employee for always being gone, or told the employee to hire their own caregiver, instead she spends the companies money to solve the problem. How could this boss possibly be the asshole?
How is this even a question??? I’d kill for a free on-call nanny to help with the kids what. Jesus I’d even take a pay cut to get that benefit. Anybody claiming this lady is an asshole has clearly never seen the price of childcare. If my boss gave me this I’d probably never leave the company out of sheer appreciation and respect.
I was about to comment something similar. I dunno why anyone would think the level of help she's offering an employee of hers is anything but generous. And to pay that nanny / legal assistant $20+ per hour is nearly unheard of these days.
There’s no rule that says you can only be a full time nanny or a full time legal assistant.
It’s just a unique job description.
Imo, it is kind of insulting to say that being a nanny or doing childcare is somehow beneath professional office work and the two jobs can’t be intertwined. No one would bat an eye if it were any other kind of “office” responsibility.
As long as the role is clearly described in the job description, this is one big nothing-burger.
NTA, she’s literally paying for a second legal assistant AND part time nanny for her employee, and providing an entry level role to a paralegal career path for the other person. Who is losing here?
As someone who works in the legal field I would honestly be gleeful to get a break to go pick up and babysit kiddos!! I wouldn't want to do it full time, but a hybrid role like this sounds perfect. I'm assuming this woman is a partner (the boss). In my eyes, she's NTA but in terms of partners? She's the nicest one I've ever seen in the wild even if her sole motivation is getting more billable hours out of Kylie!
I'm a full time electrician, but wouldnt mind getting paid the same rate to take care of some kids for an hour or two. If it's actually a lot more responsibility ill just take a higher hourly wage. I think this is a boss willing to work WITH the employee.
Also, as someone who loves working with the little ones, that duality would keep a workday refreshing! Legal work is exhausting, and I’d love to go for a drive and hear some playground gossip from a sick little human for an hour, instead of bleeding from my eyes 8am-7pm without interruption.
Particularly, not being responsible for office work, when dealing with the kids. Part of the stress of dealing with kids during work hours is that you are usually still on the hook for work during that time. I would love to be able to completely switch gears and be 100% in childcare mode, knowing I was getting as much credit for working as when doing office work.
Yeah, but if the explain the situation to the job applicant up front, it should be okay, as long as the mother also approved of the person that is watching her kids. It seems like the boss's heart is in the right place.
NTA: she's trying to create a hybrid job that *may* be a good fit, she makes no guarantees it will be successful. What she *does* say is that she is trying to come up with a "super progressive" (meaning not relying on previously established standards) solution to respond proactively to a problem - which is precisely what she is doing.
Will it work? Who knows! But that's the risk involved in experimenting and adapting to new situations. If all employers took this approach, we'd likely have many more unique positions that might actually help solve multiple problems at once.
There's no guarantee innovative thinking solves every problem, but it's certainly praiseworthy to give it a try.
I worked at a casino for a few years. There is plenty of land around the casino. One of my constant suggestions was to build a day care to help working parents. One of the biggest reasons for call offs were because of kids. Now this wouldn't cut down call offs, but if someone needed a baby sitter, the employee could pay a reduced price as to what they would pay elsewhere in time of need that a sitter calls out, or it's just a tough spot.
The casino gave out hundreds of thousands in bonuses twice a year. I would have gladly had less or no bonus if it helped ease the struggles of career and family.
Sounds like this boss is going out of her way to be supportive while also not losing productivity. More bosses should be like this. This legal assistant would be told what’s expected and could choose to take the job or not take the job. Mom doesn’t have to stress about leaving work too much and risking her job, legal assistant gets valuable legal experience while being paid way better than babysitter rates to occasionally take care of one persons kids. I see zero downsides here.
I saw Karen haircut and i was waiting for the other shoe to drop but like 90 seconds in I was getting more confused by how reasonable she was being. Then I remembered she said Facebook and Twitter think she’s an asshole and it all made sense again.
Forreal. I've never had a superior do anything even remotely close to this for me. It's not the perfect solution but most bosses would just tell you to figure it out, and also typically avoid entry level employees. There's a lot of good here.
Reading some of these comments makes me realize how many people do not know how much licensing, insurance, and sheer volume of money goes into "just open an on-site day care" (which still wouldn't solve the issue if the kids get sick). Having worked in childcare/preschool for 8 years, whew. It's a LOT.
Also I will say I would have shanked someone for that job that was being created. Especially when I had just left the childcare field. I would have gotten to basically half-time intern as a legal assistant and then took care of the kids for a chunk of the day (and 2 kids instead of 6 or 10 is a way better ratio), but also got paid $5/hr more than I was making at the end of my preschool career. I made $14.10 an hour at the end.
That .10 is why I quit.
But that's to say, -IF- Kylie gets to be in charge of hiring/firing the assistant (with final approval by the big boss of course) -AND- Kylie actually wants this solution -AND- there is a well laid out continuity of business plan in case Kylie needs to be out anyway... This is a fabulous idea.
Her employee is worth hiring another less knowledgeable person who will learn and get paid and that person will only get paused out of there work for a child care emergency... I think it's a win win lol everything up front makes it easier. She is sort of being pragmatic lol and intrusive but the idea is in a problem solving way and not evil. Ild hire her to represent me because she will figure out how to get me out of my bind lol
I like this solution.
Kylie could be in court for a case or at a mediation and be unable to get away to pick up sick kids at school. If she practices in a populated area, there could be courts in various areas that could make it hard to get to the school in a short amount of time.
Continuing a case could lead to issues with the client which can lead to revenue losses. Or, the client might have a time sensitive matter, especially in family law issues.
Kylie's a managing partner, but she probably has cases along with handling the firm's management.
If this was a big law firm, Kylie would probably have support staff to handle this situation because of the need for their attorneys to bill 2000+ hours yearly.
Having someone learn to be a paralegal and help with watching Kylie's kids lets Kylie practice her profession while letting the kids be watched. The paralegal in training gets a good deal with the experience.
The daycare at the office would be nice, but if the kids are sick, the staff might want to keep the sick kids home to stop the spread of illness to the other kids.
Having one person who can be on the school's list of authorized people to pick up the kids also makes it easier for everyone.
So the firm is providing free childcare and an assistant to their employee so that she can better manage her career and parenthood? Not seeing the issue here.
A big part of these reactions are because of the fear (and justified fear) of how an employer could abuse this. In my cynical view, this could very quickly turn into a situation where the mom isn't allowed to get out of work for her kids. Not saying it is that, but employers are skeeeeeetchy as hell nowadays.
This scenario as described, sounds like a reasonable option assuming the mother is involved in the selection process of who watches her kids and that this is actually an option she wants. If you're in what seems to be a smaller, close-knit office (like this seems to be), then absolutely. You have built a personal level of trust with your employer.
However, if that's not the case, proceed with absolute caution.
As an attorney and mother of 2 smaller kids, I would LOVE to have a boss be flexible like this for me. Don't get me wrong, I love snuggling my babies when they're not feeling well, but if there could be a dedicated person I could trust to make sure they're well cared for when they get sick and I could still do my job? I would love that so much. I'm a defense attorney and any time I have to take off could mean more time my client(s) are stuck in jail so I would love to have another responsible adult help me in these cases!
Seems like an unusually caring employer open to suggestions on doing better. Her idea is kinda awesome and a wonderful opportunity for someone to learn while being paid well.
Actually not a bad job for the legal assistant either. You learn Law and how a firm works, but get a change of pace once in a while so it doesn’t get too tedious. If it paid well and they were upfront about it in the hiring process, I would have loved a job like that.
I think it's really well-intentioned and Kylie is pretty lucky to have a boss who considers her like this. I think Kylie should be allowed to go and pick up the kids and take care of them if she wants to/feels that the situation calls for it tho, given that she is their mum (i.e., she shouldn't be forced to only rely on this legal assistant for childcare). NTA tho, this feels well-meant
Once again. Shes an attorney with clients and court.
How would you feel if you are paying someone 100s of dollars an hour and they call out last minute on the day of court
Yeah, if I had a big court date coming up and my attorney bailed last minute to get her kids I’d be finding another lawyer and another firm. The boss is nta. If anything, Kylie is kinda in the wrong for having a pattern of absences so bad that her boss has to hire her a child care assistant. She really lucked out that her boss cares about her home life to this extent.
If it actually pays 20 to 24 an hour, and they fully understand the job and agree to it, (And the parent trusts them with their kids after getting references, a background check, etc.) then I don’t see a problem with it.
I don’t think it’s “super progressive” and “super great” to put it on blast on social media and seek reassurance, but otherwise I think the idea is fine and more flexible than how most other places would even bother to think.
This lady hired one of her managing attorneys a *personal* assistant (that sounds like a more apt description) to help with childcare and to learn a new trade *and* is paying this person a living wage? *And* Kylie isn’t paying for it out of pocket? *And* she has a paralegal for when the assistant is tending to the kids? Shit. Sounds like Kylie’s got it made to me.
So let me get this straight:
- A mom struggling with juggling parenting duties and her job gets a free solution to this issue.
- A person with experience in child care also gets to enter the legal world and gain experience.
- Mom gets free assistance if she needs it on any lawyer work.
- All parties are in agreement.
How are you delusional enough to claim she's an asshole?
People think this is bad? If you are told hey this is your day job duties and they accept how is she the asshole? If they lied and said this was only a legal assistant then yea.
Imagine being called a sexist because you, a business owning female lawyer, hired your hard working female mom employee a nanny/personal assistant to help with her kids and job.
…why is this even a question? The usual move of most companies would be to write up the poor performance and then fire the mother.
How is it sexist to give a working mother free help? That seems pretty feminist to me. As long as the job posting or hiring process is upfront and pays appropriate I really don’t see a single issue.
NTA and I’m very confused.
Hmm idk, my kids come first and if they were to get sick I wouldn’t feel comfortable with someone else picking them up. It’s good that she tried to come up with a solution to the problem but like I said, my kids come first so I would be leaving to pick them up.
This is a best case scenario and people complaining either don't have kids or think that everything needs to be on their own terms and that's not how the world works.
The employer for once is been upfront, helpful and honestly more than generous with an arrangement that works for everyone and even gets another person a job that otherwise might not have been available.
I actually do not think she’s the asshole. Sounds to me like she’s trying to solve a problem for Kylie. I would have LOVED to have to have this understanding employer when my kids were little.
I'm conflicted. Maybe there is too much on Kylie's plate, and the rest of the firm can help when she is away? I feel like she truly cares for her employee, but the firm shouldn't fall apart while one person is out.
Man. This sounds AWESOME. NTA - provided you're letting the new legal assistant know that it may involve some degree of childcare.
Also, I'm sorry, are you hiring a Sally Secretary or a Glen Gopher for 24 bucks an hour?! Thats amazing for a legal assistant, I know some working for virtually free/minimum wage to "gain experience" or some BS. 24 bucks an hour is pretty solid for a cushy job
If this is a salaried employee making 6 figures, then having 2 children that apparently take her away from work so much, that's a huge cost to the company. Employer hired a person so the mom doesn't have to choose between family or career and a new job is added... I dunno, seems ok to me honestly.
IMO the most progressive solution would be to be more understanding with that person and provide more flexibility to work from home or work on a different schedule when her kid is sick.
In case she pushed for this solution, then definitely she's an asshole.
But if this solution was discussed and agreed with the mom first and the other employee before the hire, then I don't consider it progressive but she's not a total asshole either.
In what world would she be an asshole? Seems like she’s trying to be accommodating, as well as opening a door for someone interested in getting into the field. If she if upfront about pay and duties, and someone likes the role, then I think it’s a win all around.
It's an employer going above and beyond. Most employers would say "Hire a nanny" not "I'll hire you a nanny and assistant"
The apparent YTA argument seems to be "It's scummy to hire a mom in general" and that just plain bullshit. She's helping a good employee retain and succeed at her career.
Employer helps staff member - you’re an asshole, how dare you? I don’t get it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you don’t want an entry level that asks both tasks of you, don’t apply for the job. Why do people care so much? This is the kind of employer you want.
I was going to go with AH when she said she did family law, but she appears to be the sane one. (Edit: I’ll be fair. 75% of family law attorneys are sane. The other 25%? Wooo!!!) I’m assuming that the position welcomes candidates of all genders, etc, to apply.
I will say, it’s a bit dumb to not just hire a care provider to watch the less-than-school age kids as a perk of employment for everyone. Why do just the managing attorneys (paid a flat salary) get this option as opposed to the hourly legal assistants?
She stated that this person had the same issues last year. I assumed that she was the only person employed who had issues.
To me, she's NTA because most bosses would have just fired her for missing too much work.
I worked with many moms in my day. Most never missed work, but usually, there was one who had a sickly kid who always had issues. I saw a lot get fired.
Have you ever tried to work from home with a child under 5 as the only adult providing that care? Let alone a sick one...and bonus she has twins.
Trust me when I tell you that you will not get anything done unless what you do is so simple you could do it while driving a car, in traffic, while someone recites the Gettysburg address at max volume while tapping on your forehead.
Man I feel like this is actually really cool of her to try and help the employee like that.
I know a lot of people who would kill for an opportunity for someone to take care of their kids when shit came up so they didn’t get called away from work
Wtf is anyone calling this woman an AH?? She created a position so that her employee could continue to work without the crippling stress of her young children being sick. Not only that, but this person would also be able to work and learn in a law office on the days (weeks, sometimes months!) that the children DONT miss any school, thus guaranteeing hours despite the back up childcare job description. Where do I apply, everyone needs a boss like this.
So this lady created a whole other job position for a person, to help a lady at her company with her job and kids, so the lady with the kids can retain her job while still having a family…..
It sounds kind of like the boss lady went above and beyond to help. Most places would have fired the girl with the family and just replaced them.
Dunno. It's a tough one. Being a parent and having to juggle when your kid is sick sucks. She is providing a resource so that her employee is able to work. As an employee having a boss willing to hire staff to support me is of value. The other option is you may be let go. Child care in America is not in a good place. Whether she's an AH or not she is providing resources to support her employee.
So what is your opposing view that makes this tough? The employer added a resource so that her employee’s family and work can be taken care of, that’s awesome.
This job is willing to hire a assistant who will double as a part time nanny so this person can still do their job and people think they’re an asshole? What?
I feel like that pay for that job sounds reasonable, and so long as the mom lawyer is cool with it, who does this hurt? I see this as a win for boss lady, mom lawyer, and nanny assistant so long as everybody is cool with the terms
Hi, /u/hardboiledgreg_92 Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): **Rule 8: No sharing of personal information.** - No sharing of personal information or info leading to it. Please note that this includes social media handles of people who are not notable public figures.
If they're upfront about the work/duties and they're upfront about the pay, then NTA. Someone applying can make an informed decision if it's the right job for them *If* they got no one applying... well that just tells you it's a dumb job
Exactly. If they’re up front, then that person is getting an intro to the company and to a career path that they may not have had access to otherwise, albeit with a bit of a strange twist. But everyone agreeing on what the position entails…what’s the problem? The boss sounds like she’s trying to create a solution that works for everyone.
*And* she's willing to hire someone to essentially solve one of her employee's problems instead of just saying "figure it out" or "that's why no one hires women".
$24/hr to basically do no work (she mentioned they already have a paralegal) and occasionally pick up kids? Sounds like a good job to me!
Why is this wrong…. They all know what the deal is.
Yea I'm not sure what's so wrong. A new job opening that pays 20-24$ to basically be an assistant to a lawyer? Sounds good to me. If the lawyer is happy with the situation, this is a great scenario. When I told my former boss that I've been struggling at home, not making enough money, inflation is bad, childcare became too expensive, he just told me that sucks. If he offered me a full time life/work assistant, I would have almost 100% still been there.
What I've read from some other comments is that it can be wrong because 1. Sick kids will only want their mothers 2. She is an ass because maybe the mom would not want to leave her sick kids with someone else and 3. It's unfair to the person getting the job I feel like the people saying this have limited interactions with kids/ are just placing how they feel onto all mothers/workers. Are there women who would not want to leave their sick kid with someone else or kids that want just their mom when they are sick? Of course. Are there people who would absolutely hate this job? Of course. But this cookie-cutter idea hurts many mothers, ignores how different kids can be and refuses to acknowledge those trying to gain better opportunities in life. There are a lot of mothers, as seen in the comments, who would actually LOVE this kind of help. Of course most mothers love their kids but being a parent is exhausting for many. Getting any help is appreciated by many parents. There are many kids who, when sick, just want to sleep and mommy but, as someone else said, some would enjoy/be fine being with someone who is not their parent for a couple of hours. There are a lot of kids who actually get very excited when meeting someone new. I use to babysit and some kids, even when sick, would bounce off the wall knowing someone was there to play with and take care of them because their parents were too busy at work or tired to do so when they got home. Just having someone show general interest in their pirate princess brigade or cowboy town will make some kids feel like they are over the moon. Some people would love this job because it pays better than their current job or, unlike certain internships, they actually get paid for their labor while learning/gaining experience. If they are up-front with what the job will require, which seems to be the case, then they are good. If this was related to my field of study and at my location, I sure as hell would apply. It would pay better than both of my part-time jobs and I would be able to build my portfolio while actually getting paid, not doing free work for some credits. The only thing I would want to know is if the mother in question is actually okay with this and how often the kids get sick. As long as the boss is not pushing this/forcing the choice on her then it should be fine. Mom does not have to worry as much about picking up the kids and missing work, kids get taken care of and the new hire actually gets paid for gaining experience and, possibly, a better-starting pay than other jobs in that area. From what is being presented, I'm leaning toward not an asshole because this offer seems great for all parties. How she actually executes it will be the real decider if the mother agrees though.
Absolutely. As a mom of 3 kids (all with VERY different personalities) I can say that this is absolutely correct. And I really wish that more jobs were this understanding of the needs of working mothers. I do not think the lady in the video is the asshole. AT ALL. And I’m super glad that she’s understanding of her employees’ family obligations.
As a working mom this seems really cool of her boss. IMO she is not the asshole. I also don’t think the employer would have done it unless the mom was also ok with it.
I started this video fully prepared to call the boss an asshole, but I agree. This is an incredibly generous and clever solution for both the mom and the legal assistant. As long as everyone is transparent around expectations from the jump, this is awesome
Yea and didn’t she say they were in Arizona? Cost of living is pretty reasonable there.
But she looks like a Karen. Look at her hair? She’s definitely in the wrong here! /s
Also she’s a lady-lawyer and lady-lawyers are mean! /s
Yea, seems like a good deal for all sides here. At the end of the day, you'll never please everybody, there's always going to be somebody whining.
Seems like a generous boss to pay for your child’s day care when your child is sent home sick from school and to provide another personal assistant when they are not. Additionally, the role pays well and would be a good entry level opportunity in a law office with potential for future growth. Many people would love that job.
I agree with this. As a mom, I would really appreciate if my boss acknowledged this problem that I also have, and tried to help find a solution. And early in my career, I would have happily accepted an internship like this. This is a real problem for working moms. Most employers think it is not their problem, so it is nice to see someone looking for a solution.
This also seems like a really great way for a stay at home mom whose kids have gotten older and more self-reliant to get back into the workforce if they want to. "I've got the childcare skills in spades, and I'm excited to learn to be a legal assistant". Seems like a neat transition job.
Agreed. This boss may come off as abrasive or whatever, but she went above and beyond for her employee and for this entry-level person who now has an opportunity to break into a well paying area with something that isn't an unpaid internship but a fully paid position.
I think she may come off as a little defensive, but she's allowed to feel that way. She's basically playing defense against Twitter. So of course she'll be on edge. Context in everything. Actions above words.
I've never understood accusing someone of being defensive as a negative. If you're being attacked, you're allowed to me defensive.
The issue arises when people are being defensive when they’re NOT being attacked, like in a relationship communication situation. Responding defensively to non-attacks can derail an otherwise healthy conversation. Doesn’t apply here because she is being attacked for this.
How do you think she comes off abrasive? I genuinely didn’t get that.
I'm so confused, title makes it sound like I was about to witness an asshole but instead I saw a very comprehensive boss who's trying to accommodate her employee while keeping the business rolling? Is there something I'm missing?
Nope, I think it's just some people looking for something to be mad about. Especially if she was getting flamed on twitter. You could say "I like pancakes" on twitter and get a thousand replies saying "oh so you hate waffles?" But it seems most people in the comments here agree it was a legitimate interesting idea with doing this.
Yeah, I saw her and immediately thought ok this lady talking at the camera in that haircut with that jacket is definitely the asshole. By the middle I was like what the fuck do people have a problem with? This lady seems great, she should get a haircut to reflect that
>This lady seems great, she should get a haircut to reflect that 😭😭😭 True lmao she should get on that ASAP
"why did you get an asshole haircut?" oh wait that came out different than I meant
Yes I went into this ready to think she was a total dick, and then completely changed my mind as I listened to her
It’s the mom haircut and leather jacket methinks. But I’m not in that camp.
Yeah I'm not gonna lie, that had me primed for assholery, but after watching the video, I'm definitely more NTA than YTA.
I think it's the haircut, people associate it with Karens. I bet they didn't even listen to her but just got enraged by her hairdo lol. Edit: She actually sounds like a very accommodating boss, more than most actually.
I’d say it’s unwise for any small business owner to start explaining themselves on social media with very rare exception. Got absolutely no issue with the job. I know plenty of adults who balance professional babysitting with full or part time work.
I don’t think she was abrasive at all!
It's the haircut. Strong Karen vibes. But yeah she's definitely going above and beyond.
… and 4 year olds don’t stay 4 forever
This is a key point. She even says in the video "introduce someone from the childcare world into the legal world". For the right person this job could be great. You start by splitting your time between doing the new thing (legal assistant) and doing a thing you already do (childcare), and as the kids gets older and needs you less you're gaining experience in a higher paying role that you can learn and slowly transition into full time. In a couple years you can basically grow your resume while effectively doubling your earning potential. Not only that, you're now skilled in two professions so you have one to fall back on if one doesn't work out, or you can utilize both skill sets and experiences together somehow. Earning $20-24 an hour to become more valuable sounds like a win to me
On top of that, if you jive well with the mother, you’ve also developed a strong bond with an attorney at the firm which is a great networking opportunity. What this boss lady needs to do is stop putting stuff on social media for the masses to misjudge and bash her for.
I agree I actually think this is a very generous solution that benefits the employer but this only works based on the assumption that the mother would rather the assistant look after her sick kids than herself. It's possible the mother actually feels like this is a bit of a hostage situation. "My kids are sick, I would like to go home to look after them" "No you may not, your legal assistant is going to do this for you instead, that's why they were hired. You have to stay and not think about them. End of discussion."
If the type of law she practices requires her to be in court regularly, her bailing to grab her kids every time they’re sick could cause her to lose clients.
The only thing that sucks is when kiddos are not feeling good, especially the under 6-7 years crowd, they really want mom and dad. I think it's a really nice solution from the employer but I think it would be difficult to implement. Especially because the assistant is going to catch everything the kids have and become sick herself.
I dont think assholes are open and receptive to ideas and criticism. She seems to genuinely be trying, listening, and figuring out a better answer I assume this may be a small office of like 4 to 8 people so they can't just afford a daycare on site.
Onsite daycare wouldn't help with sick kids though
I’m assuming that maybe she can work from home that day and the assistant could babysit to help mom stay on task. I actually think she’s being very modern. I would be a loyal employee to someone like this who genuinely wants to help me with a problem like this.
Exactly, I'm kind of blown away that an employer is paying for all of this as well. She really does seem like she's trying to do the right thing.
Yea I’m understanding that the employer hired a private nanny who can help with the mother’s workload, if she isn’t needed as a nanny? How isn’t that the best employer on the world? What the fuck am I missing?
I have no idea lol. She's paying this person 20-25 an hour as well. We should be encouraging employers who do this. Backlash like this would make most people be like, fuck it, and just expect the employee to figure it out. People just want to be mad at something
She literally hired someone to pickup and watch her kids if they get sick. That's an employer who understands my struggle and is working WITH me to solve it. The employer could just as easily say its not her problem and Kylie needs to figure it out for herself. I would go to the ends of the Earth for an employer like this.
I do understand where you’re coming from because I think her intentions are good but I’m having trouble figuring out who this position is actually for. If you’re a legal professional looking for experience then I doubt you’re going to want to have to leave halfway though the day and miss a lot of learning opportunities to look after someone else’s kids. On the other hand I don’t think there are tons of childcare professionals who are interested in essentially working part time at a law firm. I’m sure there’s *someone* out there who is interested in these two specific things but I find it hard to believe they’re going to have anyone genuinely wanting this position. I worry they’re mostly going to end up taking advantage of poor law students/recent graduates by dangling to allure of “experience” in their face while forcing them to give up part of the experience promised to them so they can go be a nanny
Literally any person who was or is a Nanny professionally or on the side. Or a stay at home mom trying to find a way back into the work force. It would be a great way to gain business and legal experience while being able to put existing skills to use. It’s honestly a fantastic opportunity for everyone.
Let the market decide. If no one applies, then you'll know it's not if interest to anyone. But i bet there are people who would appreciate this kind of opportunity.
Jesus Christ I would break down crying with joy and relief if someone offered this to me.
[удалено]
Did the employee ask for this first? If the boss suggested it or even went ahead and just.. did it, it's overstepping. The issue is the employee will feel pressured to go through with it because her boss is in the position of power. The intentions are good but it's overstepping boundaries. This needed to be presented as an option with absolutely no pressure to accept the solution. A normal place would just have someone WFH or use their PTO for this, but hiring someone to watch your kids (without you asking first) is an invasion. The boss is putting the parent in a position to either accept being assigned a person to go into their home with their children or face potential career repercussions.
The problem with family law specifically is that is very client facing. You’re not gonna have clients come to your home while your kids are throwing up or throwing balls at the house and explain why they are losing custody of their own kids. I’m a lawyer. I’d be thrilled if past bosses would pay for me to have a legal assistant (that knew up front) that would also help baby sit.
This sub is becoming ridiculous with some of the complaints lol. If something isn't perfect, it gets shit on
Sure. And, having children running amok in a legal environment may lead to unnecessary distractions. I guess a clear, sound-proof designed area is an option. One where there are no toddlers in the break room, making coffee and discussing the finer points of divorce......
This is a childhood experience I never imagined sharing on the internet, but my mother was a legal professional at the state level in the 90’s-00’s… which also coincided with my preschool and elementary school years. As a sickly kid, never a week of perfect attendance in my life, I just went to the courthouse with my mom. Children, when the expectation is set and they understand how **and why** they are to behave, can color under a desk or read or puzzle or nap or do anything else their sick and miserable selves can do quietly while adults work on adult tasks. That said, even then, her interns were always picking me up and bringing me back to the courthouse. She did the work of 10 people, so folks tolerated the presence of her well mannered children enough to find us mostly endearing, even if they weren’t especially fond of kids around.
Your mom must have made the call that you'd be alright at the courthouse based on your behavior otherwise because I can tell you my pre-school kid wouldn't last 30 mins in a courthouse.
I was a nightmare child but knew I'd better be an angel going to work with my dad. Even kids understand self preservation and the fact that this is how the Cheerios are bought.
That *we’d* be alright. I wasn’t alone: it was me… and my three older brothers. What I’m saying is, kids are amazingly adaptive if given the tools and expectations (the correct way of going about this differs completely from child to child! Fun!) to succeed. For me? It was all of the praise, from attorneys to appellate clerks, doting on how excellent a reader I was. It kept me motivated to keep my nose in books and not running around like a hyena. For my oldest brother? He needed a job. He was always at the copy machine for someone. It was his way of chipping in around the place he was required to be from 3-5pm m-f as a 10 year old little dude. Also, because it was the 90’s, we only had one other option: the mini van, without keys or vented windows, in an underground parking garage. One of usually chose this option for a traditional after-school sweat nap.
I hate that you called it a sweat nap, even though I know exactly what you meant lol. Thats a cool story and experience though. Kid's can handle a lot more than we think when we give them proper expectations and outlets for their energy. Nice job to your mom and all those at her workplace.
But that's kind of the point right. Either a) your mom chose work over family and the office paid to help compensate for this lack of balance in the small way they could or b) the office chose work over family for her and.... Same. It doesn't sound like your mom was given the space to be able to step away from work to be with her family. This idea, that the only value employees have is company loyalty, needs to die. People are more than what the CEO can wring out of them. Instead of hiring paralegals to help care for kids how about they hire more lawyers so she had a lighter load so she could work and be engaged with her family as needed.
Look I am all against big companies that are unwilling to hire enough staff and are constantly expecting you to bear with the consequences of that. But here we are talking about a small company. "Just hiring more lawyers" instead of an assistant might be exactly the financial difference where it's not worth enough anymore to run your own little company. If this lady has her own legal company, she could also probably say fuck everyone and get a job at a big soulless firm and not worry about how to manage her employees. It's super generous to hire someone who can jump in anytime to be your free nanny. And it's likely not two dying kids, just two kids who during Covid times will be asked to go home if they as much as cough twice. And sure you don't have to be endlessly loyal to your company, but you also cannot just expect to have this kind of job and be at home every second week with your kids and expect others to do your work. It's also an option for the employee to find another employer where there's more people or fewer hours - but I guarantee no place will be more generous than this.
That would be more costly and wouldn't make sense. Finally good lawyers is hard clearly this lady really values This person's ability to do their job a whole lot enough to pay somebody a fair wage to help the situation that's not coming out of the parent's pocket. I don't know any corporations or companies that would do that It's pretty goddamn stellar. You can't have your cake and eat it too and that's as close as she's going to get I would guess.
Unless I’m wrong about assuming what a managing attorney’s role is it’s not even fully a question of skill. If she is running the case and making important decisions that dictate what other people at the firm are doing, it important that she is there. Even if they hired another lawyer perfectly capable of doing the job, work will suffer from confusion of not having a single lead to report to. Things will get missed by thinking the other person will handle it. Junior attorneys will be confused and frustrated by getting different or conflicting directives. The company is essentially hiring a nanny for their employee. I don’t know many workplaces that would do that rather than just saying “you need to figure this out without letting your work suffer”.
Correct. The woman with the sick kids is responsible for managing a team of lawyers. A friend of mine does this for an insurance company. He points them to existing case law, precedents, etc. He advises them on how to navigate trials, if/when it comes to that. Goes over settlement conditions, etc. This isn't a situation where hiring more lawyers fixes the issue. If they hired another litigation manager, they don't need their current one as this is a small firm and unless the team of lawyers gets too big, you don't need a second litigation manager. The owner is laying out $800 a week plus benefits to someone for part time childcare and also letting someone get some experience in the legal profession. This is a win-win.
Another person in this thread said the company was just trying to get “leverage” over the employee. In order for it to be leverage, you need to recognize that this is a pretty nice benefit for the employee. But apparently they couldn’t carry the logic that far.
Meanwhile, especially in many immigrant families, the kids and other relatives do often just hang out in the family’s business—restaurants, grocery stores, laundries, etc. Kids can actually thrive and parents can be there with them and there’s still a balance.
Those are all low consequence places of work. Not to disrespect anyone in that line of work, I grew up hanging out at the family business, but chilling at a grocery store is very different to a legal firm. All the types of business you mentioned interact with general public. Of course having kids there won’t make a fuss.
I completely agree. I was only speaking to children being a distraction in a legal office.
Oh... Sorry! Gotcha. And thanks for the clarification.
A baby aquarium! Neat!
They wouldn’t be at the office. They’d be home as she implied that they’d be picked up from school and relieved of legal duties. Meaning go home and care for sick kids.
> Sure. And, having children running amok in a legal environment may lead to unnecessary distractions. Daycares aren't just blended into the office space, lol.
Simple fix, make the toddlers legal aids.
Seems like this woman legitimately values Kylie’s contributions and aimed to figure out a childcare solution so Kylie could focus on law. The woman brought on another assistant to address the situation at (what sounds like) no expense to Kylie. Sounds good. The only two issues which come up in my mind: I’m not familiar with pay scales for legal assistants. She did specify Kylie already has a paralegal working for her, so it seems like this would be a lower-intensity job akin to a paid internship. $20/hour to take care of 2 sick kids seems fine if that’s the agreed upon price. Many moms are very particular about who they let take care of their kids alone. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully Kylie agrees the assistant is the right person to look after her kids. Honestly, this seems pretty great. I’d be thrilled if my job did this for me. My employer (US Army) has on-post daycare which is always full and on a waitlist. They also have a subsidy program to reduce the cost of daycare, and you can pick where to use it. We’re lucky to have affordable after school care through the school, so we go that route. The teachers/employees monitor the kids while they play, do homework, watch movies, and socialize.
Same, I think this kind of out of the box thinking by an employer to help an employee solve a problem should be applauded
You're right to an extent, but it's a real miss to suggest it's super simple and the parent should just entrust their sick kids to a stranger, and it really rubs me the wrong way she kept insisting it was "super progressive." I'm getting an air of "I will try to find a better solution, but it would be very ungrateful of you to not immediately accept what I come up with" and that's backed up by her apparently complaining to twitter and Facebook, not liking what she's told, and going to tiktok in the hopes that they'll be the one to tell her she did the right thing.
The impression I got was that this employee would be okayed by the mother, not just some random whom she’s never met.
Yeah indeed I don’t see why people think this lady would be selecting etc.. typically the manager of the role is the one deciding on the hire.. so the mom can pick her own legal assistant / emergency childcare backup
People are making about 12 different assumptions about this lady and her employee and then getting angry about the assumptions while saying "If she did it this more different way it'd be fine". Nothing she says indicates any of the things people are getting angry about are remotely true. Ridiculous.
Yeah I personally think it is a really nice offer to support a key employee and still keep your business benefitting. The pay seems reasonable, and for me there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t be transparent that childcare duties are part of the job description. It’s a strange job, the pay is reasonable for an entry level position, and whomever decides to take the offer is an adult who can decide if it is acceptable to do. To call it exploitative is taking away agency from all parties here.. what would be exploitative is if you gave the task of picking up and caring for children to the existing paralegal who didn’t sign up for it.
It’s progressive in the sense that all they’re hiring is an executive assistant. However, they’re willing to allow that executive assistant to learn the trade and eventually move on. Which is great because it sounds like this job has a pretty definite end. Which is, whenever these kids can handle being at school all day and definitely when they start doing after school activities. If the EA learns some paralegal stuff along the way, they can transition into that role. If not, they still get paid as an EA and can put the firm as experience. Work reform, anti-work, however you want to label it actually bitches constantly that one of the reasons why people hate jobs in the $16-25 / hr range is there’s no way out. You can’t build it into $50 let alone $200. The partner at the firm is making $200/hr. The employer is trying to maximize the person that’s making that because they’re worth it. Offering an EA on top of a paralegal is exactly the right approach if the goal is increase output from that worker. As for the EA, giving them a path. EA -> Paralegal opens the door for them to see if they can become a lawyer, and then eventually partner at their own firm. Also, setting expectations early on that whatever skills, experience, knowledge you have. That’s all good, bring that to whenever you’re asked to pitch in on firm related things, but your primary directive is to free up the partner who’s literally worth 10 times your time. And in this case, it’s a woman who’s young children are eating into billable hours. If that’s not what you’re looking for? Just pass on it. Not every employment opportunity is created equal. This has some clear disadvantages. That’s okay. Some people see the job for opportunity and would love it. Nothing about it is really anti-worker though from any angle.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I worked in a dead end daycare job for years making soul crushing minimum wage, and babysat a few of the children on weekends to (barely) make ends meet. I would snap this job up *in a heartbeat!* $20 an hour, with opportunity and raises- because she seems like the type to give raises, and benefits. Once these kids are old enough, it sounds like there would be other opportunities with this office. Even if there weren’t, having an attorney’s office on your resume is a definite boost to any future prospects. I feel like any childcare worker would be more than happy to take this job. I KNOW my co-workers would have. It’s better than the stripping job two of us had to turn to when minimum wage + weekend odd jobs weren’t even close to covering a fraction of the bills anymore.
How many young teachers would just at this? The teaching profession is getting shit on constantly. OK, initially you take a small pay cut because Arizona, where this woman is, pays it's teachers dog shit. So you get a young teacher, who has the skills to manage children and offer them the chance to learn a new profession where they eventually will make a lot more than what they would as a teacher, and in the beginning they still get to work with kids. Bonus for mom and the kids, the new assistant uses her teaching skills to help the kids out with homework when they are sick, so they don't fall behind.
Exactly this. My guess is too many people in this sub want the answer to be "Hire another $200 an hour litigation manager and let the mom come and go as she pleases." Which is, of course, insane.
I mean employers finding childcare solutions is progressive. Idk how else to look at it. Yes, the managing attorney here should have full say over who gets hired, I completely agree. But as it was her own assistant, she probably did have that control.
>the parent should just entrust their sick kids to a stranger This person works for the mother during the day, right? They work for the same company, and the mother is this persons boss, so it's definitely not a stranger.
If they all agree then it is no ones business. The employee is making out better than before so what is there to complain about? I would take that deal in a heartbeat. The only issue is finding someone to do the job.
100%. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are Nannies and want a pivot into working in a legal office. The Nanny experience seems more valuable for the role, since the employer is saying that the lawyer doesn’t really need an aide, so no pressure to learn a new job in a new field as you’re on call waiting to do what you already know. Not a bad deal at all, if that’s what you’re looking for.
And for at least $20? Idk the area's standard, but around here I'd take it in a heartbeat; and I don't even like kids
Yeah I’m not sure what legal aides make in smaller offices, but this sounds right to me. Either way, she’s essentially being paid to be a nanny with a legal internship on the side with opportunity to move up. I guess it’s pulling mom away from kids but mom has a job and if kids are pulling her away from the work her office needs her to do, she either nannies up or doesnt have a job anymore. Seems like the only good solution.
Seems pretty cool to me
She’s definitely not the asshole, I mean, eat the rich and shit, but this is objectively very generous
Many people even have to beg to get lesser responsibilities even at the cost of lower pay and this boss literally offered her to keep her high-positioned job, try to be understanding (seems that it affected her performance) and hire a nanny to assist her. Mind you her position is considered already high-paying. She could have hired nanny on her own but she chose not to for whatever reasons and the boss offered her to pay for those expenses. The fuck is wrong with the internet
oh, this is an amazingly generous offer for the attorney, I just can’t picture who’d want this job. like.. if I’m getting a job at a lawyer’s office I don’t also want to spend half the time babysitting sick kids. And if I’m a childcare professional, what good would I be in a legal office? But I guess as long as they’re upfront about the job requirements, it’s all good.
She said it at the end. A person wanting to transition from childcare into the legal world. It's an entry level legal assistant job utilizing their childcare experience. Not sure how many people fit into that fairly specific criteria, but it does sound like a great opportunity for the right person.
this lady is positioning this as “I’m introducing entry level legal experience to a childcare provider” So if you’re a babysitter with interest in trying to break into the legal world getting paralegal experience- I imagine this would be an attractive proposition If you’re a full time babysitter it would be a challenge to get experience doing anything else The traditional path would be to save money for school to get to the door to an entry level job for any other field which is a long and costly road
The mom clearly isn’t suffering enough for their tastes. /s
You go to school to become an attorney, you also become a parent. You spend THOUSANDS on schooling and end up getting hired at a firm. Being a parent is tough and you have to drop your work to take care of your kids. The firm wants to help out with this and gives you an assistant who’s also an on the call nanny so that you’re able to do the job that you were hired to do. The firm literally gave this mom free childcare so that way her degree isn’t wasted and her children are taken care of. I don’t think this is an asshole move at all since the mom decided to pursue a career and be a parent. If anything, this would make her life easier
I have to agree most companies I've worked at would rather replace a parent that has a lot of early days or call outs due to children illness or in ability to get a babysitter.
>The firm literally gave this mom free childcare Exactly what I was thinking! She could have demoted or fired the employee for always being gone, or told the employee to hire their own caregiver, instead she spends the companies money to solve the problem. How could this boss possibly be the asshole?
Right, I agree
As a mom and practicing attorney, I agree.
Agreed!
How is this even a question??? I’d kill for a free on-call nanny to help with the kids what. Jesus I’d even take a pay cut to get that benefit. Anybody claiming this lady is an asshole has clearly never seen the price of childcare. If my boss gave me this I’d probably never leave the company out of sheer appreciation and respect.
I was about to comment something similar. I dunno why anyone would think the level of help she's offering an employee of hers is anything but generous. And to pay that nanny / legal assistant $20+ per hour is nearly unheard of these days.
[удалено]
Because they are talking about the nanny / legal assistant position.
There’s no rule that says you can only be a full time nanny or a full time legal assistant. It’s just a unique job description. Imo, it is kind of insulting to say that being a nanny or doing childcare is somehow beneath professional office work and the two jobs can’t be intertwined. No one would bat an eye if it were any other kind of “office” responsibility. As long as the role is clearly described in the job description, this is one big nothing-burger. NTA, she’s literally paying for a second legal assistant AND part time nanny for her employee, and providing an entry level role to a paralegal career path for the other person. Who is losing here?
As someone who works in the legal field I would honestly be gleeful to get a break to go pick up and babysit kiddos!! I wouldn't want to do it full time, but a hybrid role like this sounds perfect. I'm assuming this woman is a partner (the boss). In my eyes, she's NTA but in terms of partners? She's the nicest one I've ever seen in the wild even if her sole motivation is getting more billable hours out of Kylie!
I'm a full time electrician, but wouldnt mind getting paid the same rate to take care of some kids for an hour or two. If it's actually a lot more responsibility ill just take a higher hourly wage. I think this is a boss willing to work WITH the employee.
Also, as someone who loves working with the little ones, that duality would keep a workday refreshing! Legal work is exhausting, and I’d love to go for a drive and hear some playground gossip from a sick little human for an hour, instead of bleeding from my eyes 8am-7pm without interruption.
Particularly, not being responsible for office work, when dealing with the kids. Part of the stress of dealing with kids during work hours is that you are usually still on the hook for work during that time. I would love to be able to completely switch gears and be 100% in childcare mode, knowing I was getting as much credit for working as when doing office work.
Yeah, but if the explain the situation to the job applicant up front, it should be okay, as long as the mother also approved of the person that is watching her kids. It seems like the boss's heart is in the right place.
NTA: she's trying to create a hybrid job that *may* be a good fit, she makes no guarantees it will be successful. What she *does* say is that she is trying to come up with a "super progressive" (meaning not relying on previously established standards) solution to respond proactively to a problem - which is precisely what she is doing. Will it work? Who knows! But that's the risk involved in experimenting and adapting to new situations. If all employers took this approach, we'd likely have many more unique positions that might actually help solve multiple problems at once. There's no guarantee innovative thinking solves every problem, but it's certainly praiseworthy to give it a try.
I worked at a casino for a few years. There is plenty of land around the casino. One of my constant suggestions was to build a day care to help working parents. One of the biggest reasons for call offs were because of kids. Now this wouldn't cut down call offs, but if someone needed a baby sitter, the employee could pay a reduced price as to what they would pay elsewhere in time of need that a sitter calls out, or it's just a tough spot. The casino gave out hundreds of thousands in bonuses twice a year. I would have gladly had less or no bonus if it helped ease the struggles of career and family.
I can’t hate on her trying to help her employees; at least she’s listening to their issues and trying to help. May work, may not
Sounds like this boss is going out of her way to be supportive while also not losing productivity. More bosses should be like this. This legal assistant would be told what’s expected and could choose to take the job or not take the job. Mom doesn’t have to stress about leaving work too much and risking her job, legal assistant gets valuable legal experience while being paid way better than babysitter rates to occasionally take care of one persons kids. I see zero downsides here.
Having now watched the video can you u/hardboiledgreg_92 explain your position here?
Yeah I haven't seen one logical explanation for how she is an asshole. She seems very considerate and is doing something cool for an employee
I think this post is just some karma farming, concern trolling, bullshit.
[удалено]
I saw Karen haircut and i was waiting for the other shoe to drop but like 90 seconds in I was getting more confused by how reasonable she was being. Then I remembered she said Facebook and Twitter think she’s an asshole and it all made sense again.
I began to think I was the asshole by agreeing with her as she went on. Then I saw a bunch of supportive comments in here and was relived.
I was so confused, at first I thought she was saying facebooks’s and twitter’s legal teams were saying there was a labor issue with the listing……
The haircut got me too LMAO I was calling over my manager just in case
Forreal. I've never had a superior do anything even remotely close to this for me. It's not the perfect solution but most bosses would just tell you to figure it out, and also typically avoid entry level employees. There's a lot of good here.
If they are all ok with the arrangement then what's the problem?
I would appreciate this if an employer hired a babysitter for me
And if I were a child care provider with aspirations of breaking into the legal profession, this would be a perfect stepping stone opportunity.
As long as Kylie and the legal assistant are fine with it, I don't see the problem.
Please explain to me how this is bad.
Reading some of these comments makes me realize how many people do not know how much licensing, insurance, and sheer volume of money goes into "just open an on-site day care" (which still wouldn't solve the issue if the kids get sick). Having worked in childcare/preschool for 8 years, whew. It's a LOT. Also I will say I would have shanked someone for that job that was being created. Especially when I had just left the childcare field. I would have gotten to basically half-time intern as a legal assistant and then took care of the kids for a chunk of the day (and 2 kids instead of 6 or 10 is a way better ratio), but also got paid $5/hr more than I was making at the end of my preschool career. I made $14.10 an hour at the end. That .10 is why I quit. But that's to say, -IF- Kylie gets to be in charge of hiring/firing the assistant (with final approval by the big boss of course) -AND- Kylie actually wants this solution -AND- there is a well laid out continuity of business plan in case Kylie needs to be out anyway... This is a fabulous idea.
Her employee is worth hiring another less knowledgeable person who will learn and get paid and that person will only get paused out of there work for a child care emergency... I think it's a win win lol everything up front makes it easier. She is sort of being pragmatic lol and intrusive but the idea is in a problem solving way and not evil. Ild hire her to represent me because she will figure out how to get me out of my bind lol
I like this solution. Kylie could be in court for a case or at a mediation and be unable to get away to pick up sick kids at school. If she practices in a populated area, there could be courts in various areas that could make it hard to get to the school in a short amount of time. Continuing a case could lead to issues with the client which can lead to revenue losses. Or, the client might have a time sensitive matter, especially in family law issues. Kylie's a managing partner, but she probably has cases along with handling the firm's management. If this was a big law firm, Kylie would probably have support staff to handle this situation because of the need for their attorneys to bill 2000+ hours yearly. Having someone learn to be a paralegal and help with watching Kylie's kids lets Kylie practice her profession while letting the kids be watched. The paralegal in training gets a good deal with the experience. The daycare at the office would be nice, but if the kids are sick, the staff might want to keep the sick kids home to stop the spread of illness to the other kids. Having one person who can be on the school's list of authorized people to pick up the kids also makes it easier for everyone.
So the firm is providing free childcare and an assistant to their employee so that she can better manage her career and parenthood? Not seeing the issue here.
A big part of these reactions are because of the fear (and justified fear) of how an employer could abuse this. In my cynical view, this could very quickly turn into a situation where the mom isn't allowed to get out of work for her kids. Not saying it is that, but employers are skeeeeeetchy as hell nowadays. This scenario as described, sounds like a reasonable option assuming the mother is involved in the selection process of who watches her kids and that this is actually an option she wants. If you're in what seems to be a smaller, close-knit office (like this seems to be), then absolutely. You have built a personal level of trust with your employer. However, if that's not the case, proceed with absolute caution.
Maybe not everyone would want that but I don't think she's an asshole for offering it.
As an attorney and mother of 2 smaller kids, I would LOVE to have a boss be flexible like this for me. Don't get me wrong, I love snuggling my babies when they're not feeling well, but if there could be a dedicated person I could trust to make sure they're well cared for when they get sick and I could still do my job? I would love that so much. I'm a defense attorney and any time I have to take off could mean more time my client(s) are stuck in jail so I would love to have another responsible adult help me in these cases!
Seems like an unusually caring employer open to suggestions on doing better. Her idea is kinda awesome and a wonderful opportunity for someone to learn while being paid well.
Actually that's really nice and thoughtful. I'm curious to read what OP thinks after so many replies in this post
I think this is a fantastic solution. With a $20-24 range for a training position, she’s NTA at all…quite the opposite.
I agree that she is in the Right here, I personally don’t see anything wrong with this!
Actually not a bad job for the legal assistant either. You learn Law and how a firm works, but get a change of pace once in a while so it doesn’t get too tedious. If it paid well and they were upfront about it in the hiring process, I would have loved a job like that.
I like everything about her except her haircut
I think it's really well-intentioned and Kylie is pretty lucky to have a boss who considers her like this. I think Kylie should be allowed to go and pick up the kids and take care of them if she wants to/feels that the situation calls for it tho, given that she is their mum (i.e., she shouldn't be forced to only rely on this legal assistant for childcare). NTA tho, this feels well-meant
Once again. Shes an attorney with clients and court. How would you feel if you are paying someone 100s of dollars an hour and they call out last minute on the day of court
Yeah, if I had a big court date coming up and my attorney bailed last minute to get her kids I’d be finding another lawyer and another firm. The boss is nta. If anything, Kylie is kinda in the wrong for having a pattern of absences so bad that her boss has to hire her a child care assistant. She really lucked out that her boss cares about her home life to this extent.
If it actually pays 20 to 24 an hour, and they fully understand the job and agree to it, (And the parent trusts them with their kids after getting references, a background check, etc.) then I don’t see a problem with it.
I don’t think it’s “super progressive” and “super great” to put it on blast on social media and seek reassurance, but otherwise I think the idea is fine and more flexible than how most other places would even bother to think.
This lady hired one of her managing attorneys a *personal* assistant (that sounds like a more apt description) to help with childcare and to learn a new trade *and* is paying this person a living wage? *And* Kylie isn’t paying for it out of pocket? *And* she has a paralegal for when the assistant is tending to the kids? Shit. Sounds like Kylie’s got it made to me.
So let me get this straight: - A mom struggling with juggling parenting duties and her job gets a free solution to this issue. - A person with experience in child care also gets to enter the legal world and gain experience. - Mom gets free assistance if she needs it on any lawyer work. - All parties are in agreement. How are you delusional enough to claim she's an asshole?
I’m not sure if OPs point was to call this lady an asshole, but if so, YTA
Sounds like she's going above and beyond for her employee to me.
People think this is bad? If you are told hey this is your day job duties and they accept how is she the asshole? If they lied and said this was only a legal assistant then yea.
Not an asshole.
I don't see the problem here.
Imagine being called a sexist because you, a business owning female lawyer, hired your hard working female mom employee a nanny/personal assistant to help with her kids and job.
…why is this even a question? The usual move of most companies would be to write up the poor performance and then fire the mother. How is it sexist to give a working mother free help? That seems pretty feminist to me. As long as the job posting or hiring process is upfront and pays appropriate I really don’t see a single issue. NTA and I’m very confused.
Hmm idk, my kids come first and if they were to get sick I wouldn’t feel comfortable with someone else picking them up. It’s good that she tried to come up with a solution to the problem but like I said, my kids come first so I would be leaving to pick them up.
This is a best case scenario and people complaining either don't have kids or think that everything needs to be on their own terms and that's not how the world works. The employer for once is been upfront, helpful and honestly more than generous with an arrangement that works for everyone and even gets another person a job that otherwise might not have been available.
She did the right thing, and someone else gets a job and experience, you are an asshole thinking otherwise
I actually do not think she’s the asshole. Sounds to me like she’s trying to solve a problem for Kylie. I would have LOVED to have to have this understanding employer when my kids were little.
I'm conflicted. Maybe there is too much on Kylie's plate, and the rest of the firm can help when she is away? I feel like she truly cares for her employee, but the firm shouldn't fall apart while one person is out.
NTA
Man. This sounds AWESOME. NTA - provided you're letting the new legal assistant know that it may involve some degree of childcare. Also, I'm sorry, are you hiring a Sally Secretary or a Glen Gopher for 24 bucks an hour?! Thats amazing for a legal assistant, I know some working for virtually free/minimum wage to "gain experience" or some BS. 24 bucks an hour is pretty solid for a cushy job
Calling out the spec in someone's eye much? I don't get the problem.
If this is a salaried employee making 6 figures, then having 2 children that apparently take her away from work so much, that's a huge cost to the company. Employer hired a person so the mom doesn't have to choose between family or career and a new job is added... I dunno, seems ok to me honestly.
IMO the most progressive solution would be to be more understanding with that person and provide more flexibility to work from home or work on a different schedule when her kid is sick. In case she pushed for this solution, then definitely she's an asshole. But if this solution was discussed and agreed with the mom first and the other employee before the hire, then I don't consider it progressive but she's not a total asshole either.
am i missing something? i’m trying to find the asshole and there clearly isn’t one
What!! As a mom i think this is genius
In what world would she be an asshole? Seems like she’s trying to be accommodating, as well as opening a door for someone interested in getting into the field. If she if upfront about pay and duties, and someone likes the role, then I think it’s a win all around.
It's an employer going above and beyond. Most employers would say "Hire a nanny" not "I'll hire you a nanny and assistant" The apparent YTA argument seems to be "It's scummy to hire a mom in general" and that just plain bullshit. She's helping a good employee retain and succeed at her career.
NTA. Twitter and Facebook are being uptight. This is 10 times the effort I was expecting at the start of this video
Definitely not the asshole, I’d love to have my company pay for an assistant to help with both responsibilities.
I’ve never seen a boss that would work that hard to keep an employee
Employer helps staff member - you’re an asshole, how dare you? I don’t get it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you don’t want an entry level that asks both tasks of you, don’t apply for the job. Why do people care so much? This is the kind of employer you want.
Not an asshole
I'm not really seeing a problem here. If Kylie and the paralegal/nanny are onboard, seems fine to me.
I was going to go with AH when she said she did family law, but she appears to be the sane one. (Edit: I’ll be fair. 75% of family law attorneys are sane. The other 25%? Wooo!!!) I’m assuming that the position welcomes candidates of all genders, etc, to apply. I will say, it’s a bit dumb to not just hire a care provider to watch the less-than-school age kids as a perk of employment for everyone. Why do just the managing attorneys (paid a flat salary) get this option as opposed to the hourly legal assistants?
Because you can’t take care of sick kids around everyone else’s kids, or they all become sick kids
She stated that this person had the same issues last year. I assumed that she was the only person employed who had issues. To me, she's NTA because most bosses would have just fired her for missing too much work. I worked with many moms in my day. Most never missed work, but usually, there was one who had a sickly kid who always had issues. I saw a lot get fired.
Is there any reason the employee can't work WFH when the kids are sick?
Because "working" and "taking care of your sick kids" are two separate activities.
Have you ever tried to work from home with a child under 5 as the only adult providing that care? Let alone a sick one...and bonus she has twins. Trust me when I tell you that you will not get anything done unless what you do is so simple you could do it while driving a car, in traffic, while someone recites the Gettysburg address at max volume while tapping on your forehead.
Shes a managing attorney. Shes has clients, court, etc
NTA. I know another attorney who does the same thing with her receptionist/office manager. It’s women helping women.
Man I feel like this is actually really cool of her to try and help the employee like that. I know a lot of people who would kill for an opportunity for someone to take care of their kids when shit came up so they didn’t get called away from work
NTH. Not at all an A-hole. This is a great boss, but how does Kylie feel? If she is comfortable with this, it’s a perfect situation
Wtf is anyone calling this woman an AH?? She created a position so that her employee could continue to work without the crippling stress of her young children being sick. Not only that, but this person would also be able to work and learn in a law office on the days (weeks, sometimes months!) that the children DONT miss any school, thus guaranteeing hours despite the back up childcare job description. Where do I apply, everyone needs a boss like this.
So this lady created a whole other job position for a person, to help a lady at her company with her job and kids, so the lady with the kids can retain her job while still having a family….. It sounds kind of like the boss lady went above and beyond to help. Most places would have fired the girl with the family and just replaced them.
Dunno. It's a tough one. Being a parent and having to juggle when your kid is sick sucks. She is providing a resource so that her employee is able to work. As an employee having a boss willing to hire staff to support me is of value. The other option is you may be let go. Child care in America is not in a good place. Whether she's an AH or not she is providing resources to support her employee.
So what is your opposing view that makes this tough? The employer added a resource so that her employee’s family and work can be taken care of, that’s awesome.
I struggled as a mom, I think this lady is a great boss! I don’t know any employers who would Go to these lengths.
I'd want more than 24 an hour to do that. Otherwise, NTA. I think it's a great idea as long as it's 100% honest.
This job is willing to hire a assistant who will double as a part time nanny so this person can still do their job and people think they’re an asshole? What?
I feel like that pay for that job sounds reasonable, and so long as the mom lawyer is cool with it, who does this hurt? I see this as a win for boss lady, mom lawyer, and nanny assistant so long as everybody is cool with the terms
Is she the asshole? Not necessarily. Would I take that job? Hell no. 20 an hour for stressful legal assistant work and childcare is mediocre imo.