Baby on Board(room)

November 17, 2005 7:34 AM

My boss just had a baby. It's a small company. She's bringing it to work everyday. How do I tell her that this is bad?

Call me old fashioned, but an infant should not be at work. I'm having a hard time dealing with a crying baby in my office, as well as someone changing diapers and also having my boss closing her door and breastfeeding while I'm trying to work. I need to somehow tell her that I have a big problem with this and how it is reflected on our companies' professionalism but I don't want to hurt her feelings, or worst even, look like a big grump. Got any pointers? I'm having a difficult time with this one.

posted by anonymous to work & money (132 comments total)

Is there even one HR person in your company to whom you could speak about this? I wouldn't mention the "company professionalism" but would make my case solely about not being able to work with a crying baby nearby.

If there's no HR person, does your boss have a superior to whom you could go about this?

If there's no HR person and your boss is the company owner, you have just two choices - biting the bullet and speaking to her directly (again, make it solely about how you are having a hard time concentrating) or sending her an anonymous note. But I recommend against the latter. Such notes are low.
posted by orange swan at 7:42 AM on November 17, 2005

If the company is super-small, then your boss may get to choose whether she brings the baby to work. Is your boss THE boss? You do get to let her know what disruptions to your work are being caused by the new arrangement. So, I'd focus on what the problems are that are created, not the "Bringing your baby to work is not okay" metaissue. So, breaking it down

- crying baby distracts you and makes it hard for you to work. possible solutions? let you work from home, move you to an office with a door, try to minimize baby crying if it's a possibility. Be sure you are firm and yet you make the noise the problem, not the baby. Most Moms I know would be defensive if you started with "make that baby be quiet!"
- diapers. if they smell or if work surfaces are used for baby changing, see if there is a way to mediate this. One problem with environments that haven't been set up for babies beforehand is that trash that doesn't get emptied too frequently may get stinky if it's suddenly filled with diapers. On the other hand, this is a totally solveable problem if there is an appropriate place to change a baby and dispose of the diapers in a way that doesn't make the office smell.
- breastfeeding. I feel more on the fence about this one. It seems that your boss is trying to be considerate by closing the door duyring breastfeeding, so I guess the question is: if you had to choose, would you pick her breastfeeding with the door open, or with the door closed. I'm not sure what the problem is exactly in this case.

So, the easiest way to not look like a big grump is not to be one. Your opinion that an infant should not be at work is just that, an opinion. If you have solid reasons why this infant being at your work is making it hard for you to do your work, try to work with your boss to solve those problems specifically and I think you'll go further than with a "the baby goes or I go" approach. You may even find out that the baby is only going to be an office fixture for some set amoutn of time before day care kicks in and/or her partner takes over childcare, so I'd make sure you know the lay of the land before digging in with ultimatums.
posted by jessamyn at 7:45 AM on November 17, 2005

Maybe you can ask what she's planning to do for child care in a subtle way...perhaps this is just a temporary situation until she can make arrangements.
posted by tetsuo at 7:46 AM on November 17, 2005

How small a company is this? When you say she is your boss, is she a board member or a founding partner or a VP or President? If so, it is her perogative to determine what is professional and what is not, not yours. I think this all depends on how small this company is and what the culture set by the owner/CEO is. If this is a very small company, to my mind it is up to HER boss to determine what is appropriate in the office, not you. Some of the perks of owning and operating a small company is that you can create a culture where work and personal life can mesh well, increasing quality of life. Things like bringing dogs or kids to work is entirely appropriate in this sense. For example, I worked a radio station that had a staff of about 20, including the owner/CEO. Nearly every day his kids were there, the secretary's dog was there, etc etc and it was a very nice atmosphere. Maybe you need to determine whether this woman's behavior is out of the accepted norms of your office culture before you get up in her grill.
posted by spicynuts at 7:46 AM on November 17, 2005

Call me old fashioned, but an infant should not be at work.

You're old-fashioned. A little, anyway.

I think you're being a bit of a crank as far as the breastfeeding is concerned, unless your boss's office has windows and you can see her breastfeeding. It's an activity that is soundless and could not possibly disrupt your work, unless there's a chance of you accidentally walking in on her while she's whipping it out, which doesn't sound likely.

For the other stuff, yeah, I agree it could be distracting. Diaper-changing should be done in the bathroom, not in the office. But if your boss has an office with a door that shuts, shutting the door when the baby starts crying should muffle the sound sufficiently.

Do you have a Human Resources department? If so, head over there and discuss the situation with HR.

If not, you might approach your boss the next time she does diaper duty on her desk and politely suggest that the fumes are pretty bad and maybe she should take it to the bathroom. Next time the baby starts crying, politely suggest that she shut the door.

And, what jessamyn said.
posted by Gator at 7:47 AM on November 17, 2005

Call me old fashioned, but an infant should not be at work

You're not old fashioned, you're right on the mark.
Taking your baby to work? WTF?

I find it difficult to believe there is not SOME sort of legislation about this.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:56 AM on November 17, 2005

There are very few people who have the opportunity to do what is best for their child. I am nervous that you are going to ruin it for your boss and her child.

What is it that you do at work? voiceover work?
Can you wear headphones? There are some great noise-cancelling headphones available for sensitive types like you. This way, your bosses baby can be where she is supposed to be - with her mommy.
posted by tom_g at 8:00 AM on November 17, 2005

You are absolutely not old-fashioned (or a "crank" about the breastfeeding). No one should have to put up with babies in the workplace unless you actually work with babies. I don't think I'd be terribly tactful in this case, because some parents really need a smack in the head with a clue-by-four to make them realise that not everyone wants to be around their kid as much as they do. She can't do anything about you complaining because it's a pretty legitimate complaint, though you might get some hassle if she's the only boss.
posted by speranza at 8:03 AM on November 17, 2005

I find it difficult to believe there is not SOME sort of legislation about this.

Maybe bringing your baby to a factory or an ironworks. I can't see how bringing an infant to an office job would be illegal.
posted by delmoi at 8:06 AM on November 17, 2005

if it cries a lot, then i can see how that would really grate. but apart from that, i don't really understand your problem. complaining that the door is closed sounds like you're having to really search around for things to complain about.

so if the child cries, or otherwise somehow actively makes your working conditions difficult, i would talk to your boss about those problems. be polite but clear. on the other hand, if it's just imaginary complaints because you don't like the culture, then i think you're being a bit intolerant.

but i may have understood something - are you working in the boss's office? because i can't make sense of how the boss can shut her door, but the baby is crying in your office.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:06 AM on November 17, 2005

Personaly I think you should just let it go. Maybe it's distracting, but she is your boss. The kid will only be a cranky infant for a few months.
posted by delmoi at 8:07 AM on November 17, 2005

and also having my boss closing her door and breastfeeding while I'm trying to work

And, after all, many women with infants breastfeed (in a sense) at work even if they don't bring their baby. With a pump. That makes noise. And I support that. Although she should try to use a room where the sound won't bother anyone.
posted by deadfather at 8:07 AM on November 17, 2005

Also, what about investing in an acceptably non-hipsterish iPod clone? Just bring some music to work to drown out the crying.
posted by delmoi at 8:08 AM on November 17, 2005

tom g - What a ridiculous thing to say. Anon isn't being "sensitive" here, and I don't see why s/he should be the one to make compromises when it's the boss who's made the decision to juggle work and a kid. If it's so important for the baby to be with mommy, then mommy should've stayed home instead of coming back to work with the child so she can be a mediocre mother (is a place of work/office environment the best place for a baby?) and a shitty boss.
posted by speranza at 8:08 AM on November 17, 2005

Um, I'm not sure how to put this, so I guess I'll be blunt: brand-new parents are frequently psychotic when it comes to their baby, so the best thing for your continued employment would be to find some kind of workaround that lets you minimize the distraction. Right or wrong, if you criticize the child then you're doomed. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but your boss will view you as the enemy and she'll find a way to get you away from her child -- probably by firing or transferring you.

That baby is the center of THE universe now -- in a few months, in my experience, the child will be merely the center of HER universe. It's an important distinction for the mom to grasp, and it takes a while for new parents to ramp down from the birth and reacquaint themselves with everyone else's reality. I dunno, maybe it's related to sleep deprivation or something.
posted by aramaic at 8:16 AM on November 17, 2005

I don't see why s/he should be the one to make compromises when it's the boss who's made the decision to juggle work and a kid. If it's so important for the baby to be with mommy, then mommy should've stayed home instead of coming back to work with the child

speranza, I think I love you. that's what I wanted to say, but better. No one should ever be forced to tolerate someone else's child.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:16 AM on November 17, 2005

and I don't see why s/he should be the one to make compromises when it's the boss who's made the decision to juggle work and a kid.

1. Because she's the boss, and the subordinate usually has to be the one to compromise in these situations.

2. Because it's nice when people recognize that raising the next generation of children -- your soon-to-be lawyers and teachers and doctors and judges and legislators -- isn't solely women's reponsibility, and maybe it's time we start recognizing that.

As for the question, I agree that you're making this a larger problem than it needs to be (though since I do the same thing fairly often, I understand where you're coming from). I had a bunch of managers bringing in babies for "playtime" for a while, which I found torturous, but this seems different -- she's not asking you to take time out of your day to play with or coo at her baby, she's doing her job, right?
posted by occhiblu at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2005

if she's been a shitty boss, complain about that. being a boss is about doing boss things. it's got no direct correlation with babies.

seriously - address the issues. if the boss is a bad boss, then take the appropriate action because she is a bad boss (talk to hr, document things, etc etc). but being a boss is about how she does her job, not whether she breastfeeds.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:18 AM on November 17, 2005

If the idea of her breastfeeding her child in her office with the door closed bothers you, I think that's your issue, not hers. Babies need to be breastfed; it's really not a big deal. My last employer had a Nursing Mother's Room because so many female employees had new babies. More than a few years ago, I had to pump breastmilk in the Ladies room, and while the room was clean, it was not a nice experience.

Changing a baby's diaper should be done in a location where there is a place to wash hands. The smell of used diapers is offensive. None of this belongs anywhere near your desk, and you should talk to her about resolving this problem. The sound of a crying also does not belong in the workplace.

Her choice to bring her baby to work is not your concern. I didn't choose to bring my infant, even when I could have, because I knew I couldn't do a good job of parenting and running a business at the same time. Once a baby is toddling, it becomes impossible. She'll figure it out.
posted by theora55 at 8:21 AM on November 17, 2005

IMHO, bringing an infant to work repeatedly is unacceptable.

The question isn't about whether it's good or bad for the baby & mother, it's about the effect on the work place.

Obviously having an infant in the workplace is having an effect on productivity.

If it's a tiny company, you are at the whim of the boss. If you have even a single HR person, you have an avenue to discuss your concern.

Like it or not, a work environment is simply not well suited as a parenting environment. Are you going to turn the phone ringers down while the baby sleeps? Are meetings stopped when the baby cries?

Again, IMHO, the boss is doing no one a favor by trying to multitask parenting and working.
posted by Argyle at 8:25 AM on November 17, 2005

tom g - What a ridiculous thing to say.

I am putting my last ounce of faith in humanity and stating that tom g was just kidding with that email.

You were joking weren't you?
posted by Frasermoo at 8:27 AM on November 17, 2005

If she's the boss, is she able to telecommute at least a few days a week? My brother and sister-in-law managed to negotiate alternating telecommute days and care for the baby at home while successfully fulfilling their work requirements. (They're both in IT.) Perhaps mention that as an option?

The baby'd be a lot happier at home among familiar things than she would at work, surrounded by fax machines and business suits. And i'm sure your co-workers would be happier as well.
posted by mochapickle at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2005

Frasermoo, I wasn't kidding, and it appears that my follow-up post was deleted as well. Anyway, I'm speaking from a progressive/feminist point-of-view, so I may alienate the more conservative here. I apologize if I offended anyone here (seriously). I'll keep my opionions to myself.
posted by tom_g at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2005

2. Because it's nice when people recognize that raising the next generation of children -- your soon-to-be lawyers and teachers and doctors and judges and legislators -- isn't solely women's reponsibility, and maybe it's time we start recognizing that.

Umm what? Where did that come from?
posted by antifuse at 8:40 AM on November 17, 2005

Where did that come from?

I was objecting to the "if she wants to be a mom, she should stay at home; babies are awful creatures that no one should have to put up with; she's a bad mother for trying to combine work and family" tone of some of the posts. People are jumping to conclusions that she's not getting her work done, which wasn't mentioned in the post, and the OP seems to be acting like nursing mothers should be quarantined far from polite society.
posted by occhiblu at 8:42 AM on November 17, 2005

In other words, compromise can be good, and could be good for society in general on some of these issues, and would certainly be good in this particular instance.
posted by occhiblu at 8:43 AM on November 17, 2005

I think this depends a hell of a lot on the type of office and work being done. If it's customer facing, then, yeah, having a baby in the office is probably pretty inappropriate. If the baby is interrupting meetings, then yeah, that's inappropriate. But if the worst impact the baby has is crying annoying people, then a closed door or a little better soundproofing is probably all that's needed to solve the problem.

When you're addressing this, please keep in mind that your productivity is your problem, but hers is not. Be prepared to accept changes (like you moving desks) that will solve the problem from your end. It may not seem fair, but it might be a much better move for you, career-wise. As someone else said, don't address the issue as one of the baby, but of noise or of interruption or of lost productivity.

I went to work with my mother during summers for years because once we were on break, there wasn't much else to do with us. Not while I was an infant, since she didn't start working until I started school. Her job was such that this was completely not a problem, and while there are obvious, significant differences between her job and anonymous's, there's not enough in his description of what they do to tell if it's truly inappropriate or he's just annoyed because he doesn't like kids.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:46 AM on November 17, 2005

I'm reading between the lines a little here, but I'm wondering if you resent her for inadvertently making you adapt to her new circumstances? Part of that comes from the fact that having a child is (usually) a choice. And now her choice is affecting your life in a big way. I would be a little annoyed, too.

Part of what's cool about working at a small company though, is the flexibility your boss is taking advantage of right now. You might need that same flexibility at some point for a family emergency, injury, or something similar.

Anyway, if I were in your situation, I would search my feelings and calm down a little bit before approaching her about it. If this is her first baby, she's probably a little stressed and might get defensive if you are confrontational. As mentioned above, you should have some concrete solutions in mind. "Hearing the baby crying makes me a little anxious and distracts me from my work. Can we try headphones/closing the door/taking the baby outside when he/she is fussy?"

Oh, and also, you said "I need to somehow tell her that I have a big problem with this and how it is reflected on our companies' professionalism." The first part, talking to her about your problems with the situation, is absolutely true. The second part, "how it is reflected on our companies' professionalism," is your opinion. It is up to her and her superiors to determine what's "professional." If a client or colleague says something about it, feel free to share it with management. Otherwise, that just sounds a little petty.
posted by whatnot at 8:46 AM on November 17, 2005

I really don't think this is about being liberal or conservative. I am extremely liberal and generally in favour of companies doing what they can to help mothers who want to continue their career, but that's obviously not what's happening here because it seems that anon's boss is doing all the caretaking while trying to work as well and it isn't working.

tom g, I feel that you are speaking from an extremely unfeminist point of view as you stated initially that babies should be with their mothers all the time (no mention of fathers) and you seemed to imply that it was more important for anon's boss to be a mother than to be anything else (like a good boss). As a feminist, I find it difficult to see what's feminist or progressive about suggesting that mothers bear 100% of parenting duties.

I don't want to derail any further, so I'll shut up now.
posted by speranza at 8:49 AM on November 17, 2005

it seems that anon's boss is doing all the caretaking while trying to work as well and it isn't working.

What do you base that on? Anon said nothing about the quality of his/her boss's work being affected. The only problems, as far as I can see from what was posted, are a bad smell and a little extra noise pollution, both of which can probably be taken care of with the application of a little tact.
posted by Gator at 8:56 AM on November 17, 2005

See, when anon mentioned breast-feeding with the closed, the first thing I thought of was interruption of direct information flow--having the boss suddenly unavailable with the door closed indefinitely would be irritating to me, but breast-feeding would not. Maybe that was the direction anon was going? It seems much more rational than complaining about something one cannot see or hear, anyway...
posted by hototogisu at 9:02 AM on November 17, 2005

2. Because it's nice when people recognize that raising the next generation of children -- your soon-to-be lawyers and teachers and doctors and judges and legislators -- isn't solely women's responsibility, and maybe it's time we start recognizing that.

Wait. What? The poster did not get his or her boss pregnant. Why is the baby the poster's responsibility? The poster's doing his or her part by indirectly paying for the Mom's maternity leave and the baby's daycare.
posted by malp at 9:05 AM on November 17, 2005

speranza:"I feel that you are speaking from an extremely unfeminist point of view as you stated initially that babies should be with their mothers all the time (no mention of fathers) and you seemed to imply that it was more important for anon's boss to be a mother than to be anything else (like a good boss). As a feminist, I find it difficult to see what's feminist or progressive about suggesting that mothers bear 100% of parenting duties."

Sorry to jump back in here, but I think I need to clear this up. My second (immediately deleted) post cleared this up, but let me try.

As a parent involved in a very progressive/feminist community here in Massachusetts (probably a bit sheltered - this isn't the midwest), women are fighting for choice. Choice regarding reproductive freedom and choices related to career and children. The "ideal" that almost every radical-feminist that I've ever encountered is the ability to - if you decide you want children and a career - bring your children to work.

That said, the ideal is not going to work (in this culture) 99.9% of the time. There are some small companies where women have some power (such as the boss in question) and decide to use that power to do what they have decided is best for their children and their career.

The old-fashioned 70s feminism of career or children has fallen out of favor - at least in activist communities here on the east coast. Women are striving for both. Even small steps, such as the ability to breastfeed their child in the office is seen as a good thing.

Anyway, my omission of the word "father" might have reasonably caused you some concern regarding who I think should bear child-rearing responsibilities. Let me assure you, however, that the omission was not intentional. My best friend is a stay-at-home parent. This was a decision that the couple made together. They weighed each other's earning potential, etc. and were able to make this choice. This is the great thing about progress. Women and families have the ability to make choices for what is best for themselves and their families.

hope that clears something up. Not sure it will, but hey - I tried.
posted by tom_g at 9:06 AM on November 17, 2005

What do you base that on?

Anon says it's a small company and the boss is bringing the baby in every day. So that means daily crying from the baby as well as multiple changings, and unless the kid sleeps a lot, how could the boss possibly be keeping on top of work if she has no other help with the baby at all? And even if the boss is doing her job properly (which she might be for now while the baby isn't mobile), it's still stopping anon from doing his/her job properly and it's likely that if anon is annoyed, then so are other people. I just think it's naive to think that a baby can be right in the middle of a workplace constantly without it being disruptive for the workers or distracting for the boss.
posted by speranza at 9:07 AM on November 17, 2005

Tom_g actually got at some of what I meant, but I mean this idea that no one is responsible for children except their parents, and society should not have to make any big accommodations for those parents, is fucked up.

We complain and complain about parents not taking responsibility for their kids' diets or TV watching or clothes or educations, then we declare that those parents are supposed to be working 60-hour a week jobs and not dealing with their children at all during that time, because it's "unprofessional." This woman's solution to combining work and family may not be ideal, but in my opinion we're going to have to start finding solutions as a society for doing so, and those solutions are going to require that *everyone* make some compromises -- including those of us who don't have kids.

It's not fair to throw all these problems on the shoulders of mothers, because in the long run, they affect us all, because these babies that we're declaring are not our responsibility are going to grow up and be responsible for our medical care and laws and etc etc etc.
posted by occhiblu at 9:13 AM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't think I'd be terribly tactful in this case, because some parents really need a smack in the head with a clue-by-four to make them realise that not everyone wants to be around their kid as much as they do.

Some employees really need a smack in the head with a clue-by-four to make them realise that their boss isn't just some anonymous jerk on the street they can insult with impunity. Unfortunately, if anonymous follows your advice he or she is likely to get one.

She can't do anything about you complaining because it's a pretty legitimate complaint, though you might get some hassle if she's the only boss.

Ahhahahahaha! Have you ever held a job?

My advice: suck it up and wait for the worst to pass. You will not achieve anything you wish to achieve by confronting the boss about this. And occhiblu has a good take on the situation.
posted by languagehat at 9:14 AM on November 17, 2005

There are some small companies where women have some power (such as the boss in question) and decide to use that power to do what they have decided is best for their children and their career.

And that's what I have a problem with - it isn't about what's best for their children and their career, it's about what's best for everyone who has to share that particular work environment *. I am supportive of working mothers, but I don't want their children around me when I am working. I believe that children are a choice, but not a choice that should be inflicted on everyone around you just because you think it's what's "best". I don't call that progressive, I call it unbelievably self-centred.


* The exception being if it's your own business - then you can do whatever the heck you like.
posted by speranza at 9:17 AM on November 17, 2005

Ahhahahahaha! Have you ever held a job?

Yes. But I've never held a job where I'm expected to shut up and not complain when my boss is behaving in a wildly inappropriate manner.
posted by speranza at 9:20 AM on November 17, 2005

Hrmm... a lot of you seem to be telling anon to suck it up, and just get over the fact that his boss' baby is noisy and stinky and making it hard for him to do his job. I'm thinking he/she is probably out of luck if his/her boss decides to say "screw you, it's my company and I can do what I want" but asking an employee to jump into a suddenly-much-noisier-and-distracting work environment is hardly without any complaints is hardly fair. Basically, it's the equivalent of having an airhorn go off in the office unexpectedly at random intervals during the day. He/she could very easily (in Canada, at least) go on worker's compensation, claiming stress in the workplace due to the loud and stinky child that has been brought in (I know this, because people are granted short term disability claims for MUCH less-real problems; a friend of mine has worked at an insurance company for years dealing with them). This baby was not part of the original employment contract, I'm presuming, since it seems as though the boss had the baby AFTER anon started working there.
posted by antifuse at 9:26 AM on November 17, 2005

Tom_g actually got at some of what I meant, but I mean this idea that no one is responsible for children except their parents, and society should not have to make any big accommodations for those parents, is fucked up.

I don't want kids, and I won't ever have them. I am not responsible for someone else's kids simply because they made a choice to have them. I hate that "it takes a village" crap. I made a conscious choice, and so did they. I don't have to share the burden of their children.
posted by agregoli at 9:30 AM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

If the boss gets to bring the baby to work, then EVERYONE at that company should get to bring their babies (toddlers, young children) to work. It shouldn't be a case of "well, I'm the boss, so I get to do it but you don't, and you still have to put up with it." The boss is unprofessional, quite frankly. You could always tell the boss that there have been customer complaints (if you deal with customers, that is).
posted by cass at 9:31 AM on November 17, 2005

a lot of you seem to be telling anon to suck it up

I think many of us are saying that he should address any actual problems that exist -- noise, smell, distraction -- but that a baby simply being in the office is not as catastrophically bad as he's presenting it, and that going to anyone (boss, HR) with that "The sky is falling!" tone will be counter-productive.
posted by occhiblu at 9:36 AM on November 17, 2005

Anonymous, I think your first step should be to find out from your boss whether this is a permanent solution or a stopgap measure until a slot opens up at a local daycare center. It's weird to me that your boss wouldn't have discussed this either way with you in advance.

If you decide to discuss the issue with your boss, I would focus on the difficulties you are having with the situation, not your perception of her professionalism. If clients or coworkers have complained, she probably should be made aware of this--not in any paranoid-inducing "people are talking about you" fashion, mind you. A "you may want to sit down with so-and-so to discuss this since they raised some questions about it" approach seems kinder but is still effective.

As for whether this a good situation for mom, baby or business, that really just depends on the type of work being done, the office environment and the workload.

I worked in higher ed for several years and people often brought their children into the office after school let out. The kids would usually hang out in the conference room and do homework. Sometimes they'd wander around looking for people to chat with. No one ever objected to the situation. But at the kind of office I work today this would never fly.

Personally, I am very frustrated (OK, enraged) by the lack of options available to working parents. That said, I do have a hard time imagining how caring for a newborn, which requires intensive, exhausting amounts of energy, and business concerns at the same time serves either well.

A solution your boss may want to consider (if you feel it would appropriate to suggest it) is to bring in a babysitter for a few hours a day or a few days a week. Boss/mom would still have the proximity to baby but she's also be able to devote her attentions more fully to the work of the business.

PS malp, see generativity. And, assuming anon is in the US, maternity leave is nearly always unpaid. That's why most folks I know can't even afford to take the full three months off allowed by the Family Medical Leave Act.
posted by Sully6 at 9:38 AM on November 17, 2005

Speaking as a manager and as a parent, I think you'd be best served by keeping your mouth shut. If you say a single thing about it to her, you go in the asshole column forever. Especially the 'you keep closing your door to breastfeed' thing. Man, you say that to her, and you'd better not ever make a single mistake ever again.

I'm not intending to sound so dire, but it's been my experience that most parents, especially new ones, consider people who complain about infants to be assholes. What she does with her new opinion of you is up to her, but it's a safe bet that she'll have that opinion, and it's usually not a good thing when your boss thinks that you are an asshole.

Suck it up. This won't last forever. The risk outweighs the benefit.
posted by ulotrichous at 9:40 AM on November 17, 2005

It's not anon's fucking job to deal with the myriad issues that come up with a baby around. Jesus Christ, a trained pig or weasel would be less distracting, but no one would think twice about the rationale for that. The boss has the option to get child day care. She is choosing not to. Whether anon can safely get this resolved is hard to say. In all likelihood any mention of the baby's presence that doesn't hail it as the best thing since Bambi took a shit in the meadow will wind up getting anon fired. It's unbelievable that the boss spent nine months pregnant and didn't contend with the issue of day care and maternity leave. Don't turn anon's problem into a soapbox for the wonders of infant rearing or the dilemma of affordable, accessible child care.
posted by docpops at 9:47 AM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

Speaking as a manager and as a parent, I think you'd be best served by keeping your mouth shut.

I'm a breeder. The world caters to ME ME ME and my baybeeeeeeeee.

Anon, if you have HR go to it. If not, instead of saying what really needs to be said- which is 'This is work, not Gymboree', see if you can have your office/desk moved and spin it someway so the broodmare thinks you're doing it out of courtesy for her.
posted by pieoverdone at 10:05 AM on November 17, 2005

Anon, I am sorry to say this, but I think it might be time to explore other career opportunities. Even if this is your dream job, the company is not meeting your expectations when it comes to corporate culture. Eventually, even after this baby is in daycare/pre-school, you will probably have to deal with other babies and similar "unprofessional" fixtures in your office. Obviously, these are perks of the job for your boss and that's not going to change. She'll only resent you for mentioning it or requesting that she re-think her baby-in-the-office choices. Time to think about continuing your career in an office that matches your view of professional.

For the record, I'd rather shove sharpened pencils in my eyes than listen to a crying, cranky baby while I'm trying to work.
posted by necessitas at 10:09 AM on November 17, 2005

I have to confess that I'm a bit surprised that no one here seems to have heard of this before - babies at work is the "hot new" HR thing for family friendly companies (see: here and also here).

I wish you had mentioned how long she's been bringing the baby in, and how old the baby is. My immediate thought is that this is a newborn, and while the Mom's leave has run out, her childcare of choice won't take the baby until it is X weeks old, so she's trying to bridge the gap. Of course, there is also the option that its just the choice she wants to make -- to spend as much time as possible with the child while she can.

Anon, I'm sorry, but frankly I think you're being a big grump. If you have specific concerns about the health or safety of you, the baby, or other employees (especially about human waste from diapers) then certainly express those concerns in a professional way directly to whomever your supervisor is. But distractions in the workplace are a reality. I find your comments about the mom breastfeeding particularly puzzling -- would it be distracting if she shut her door to make phone calls several times a day?

I wonder if part of your discomfort is that you've never been around babies before.

Again, if you have specific concerns about health and safety, or you have specific suggestions you can make about how to minimize "distraction" for you, then bring them up. But otherwise, I think what you're seeing is the wave of the future. Ride the wave, my friend. You might find that there are rewards in learning to adjust to this new situation that you never knew existed.
posted by anastasiav at 10:13 AM on November 17, 2005

Maybe she could breastfeed with the door open, so you can have access to her when you need her? I know that's exactly what I would do.

I think it's wonderful that you work for such a family-friendly company. You may not be personally reaping the benefits of that policy now, but there are many ways that it might work in your favor in the future.
posted by padraigin at 10:15 AM on November 17, 2005

There are a lot of assumptions being made here regarding what kinds of choices anon's boss has regarding what to do with the baby. Anon would know about these better than any of us, but even he/she can't know anything for sure without talking to the boss.

Anon, I'd suggest you take into consideration the fact that it is extremely difficult for women to have both a career and a child. Consider what compromises your boss would have to make in terms of career (time off or quitting entirely) or the baby (day care) if you force the issue. You should by no means be forced to work with a crying baby. But you might choose to.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 10:17 AM on November 17, 2005

Anon, you might consider checking out this article from a recent issue of Mothering magazine about bringing babies to work.

And if you're feeling brave, perhaps poke around in the forums at Mothering's website--maybe even post this question there. There are many women who bring their children to work, and perhaps they have some advice for you on how to raise this topic with your boss and workshop solutions with her. It may already be an open topic of discussion there.

If you do post there, forewarned is forearmed: they are the ultimate mamabears.
posted by padraigin at 10:25 AM on November 17, 2005

I'm a breeder. The world caters to ME ME ME and my baybeeeeeeeee.

pieoverdone, your parents were "breeders" too. Maybe your parents were jerks, and if they were, I'm sorry. But its a shame someone didn't teach you to treat all people with some degree of respect (or maybe they did, and you just didn't listen).

In an ideal world, we all make compromises to make the lives of the people around us better and more comfortable - you help and support them, and they help and support you. You really do reap what you sow, you know.
posted by anastasiav at 10:26 AM on November 17, 2005

This woman doesn't seem to be making her employees' lives better or more comfortable.
posted by agregoli at 10:30 AM on November 17, 2005

Go to HR and discuss the issue. How big is the officer? If you find it disruptive, then it is likely other employeees do to.

How long has this been going on? It could be a temporary measure, and it is unfair to assume your boss had NO child care plan in place before the child was born. Shit happens. Regarding the time spent breastfeeding, it may mean you don't feel comfortable barging into her office, but how often would you do that before the child was born? Personal calls, getting coffee, going to the bathroom, etc. take a boss's time for christsake and it is unlikely your boss was 100% available before now.

Are you sure it is a problem for your company's professionalism? I would gladly support a business that permits working mothers to bring their children to work. To each their own. If it is a problem for you, that doesn't necessarily make it a problem for your clients or whomever you are doing business with.
posted by birgitte at 10:43 AM on November 17, 2005

I am supportive of working mothers, but I don't want their children around me when I am working.
I think the common response here on MeFi to anyone who has a problem with their job is "Get a different job."

I just love the tantrums thrown by non-breeders when it comes to the question of balancing work and families. The homilies to "professionalism"...what bullshit.
I've worked in offices with strict "no children" rules (not so much as a visit) and I've worked in offices that welcomed nursing mothers and children who, perhaps, were on a day-off from school. I can tell you the more family-friendly offices were by-far the more appealing workplaces. Yeah, the occasional yelp from a baby can be a little distracting. But those more "professional" offices were almost uniformly soul-sucking and oppressive places.

Those who have a problem with a child in the workplace might best vent their spleens at our "family-values" lawmakers who see to turn deaf ears to the real needs of families trying to make ends meet in this "work-uber-alles" society of ours.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:46 AM on November 17, 2005

For those claiming how simple it is to get childcare for an infant, most daycares won't let you even apply until your baby has been born, and waiting lists for infants (less than a year) are often completely ridiculous and useless because by the time you make it up the list, your child won't even be an infant anymore.

Hiring a babysitter/nanny would work but it is considerably more expensive too.

I'm just happy to be in Canada where maternity leave is paid and a full year, and our family was able to take advantage of it.
posted by gfroese at 10:46 AM on November 17, 2005

Are you sure it is a problem for your company's professionalism? I would gladly support a business that permits working mothers to bring their children to work. To each their own. If it is a problem for you, that doesn't necessarily make it a problem for your clients or whomever you are doing business with.


I would, and do, choose to patronize businesses because of their family friendly policies. I pay very close attention to those lists when they're released, indeed.
posted by padraigin at 10:47 AM on November 17, 2005

Consider what compromises your boss would have to make in terms of career (time off or quitting entirely) or the baby (day care) if you force the issue. You should by no means be forced to work with a crying baby. But you might choose to.

Consider what compromises anon will have to make in terms of his/her career if led to distraction (and thus poor output) daily while attempting to conduct professional business in a nursery environment.

The boss made a choice to have a child, and if it means taking time off or quitting, well, then the boss needs to make some choices. I don't understand this mentality that women with children are entitled to all sorts of rights in the workplace just because they have children. Just because she had a baby, she is entitled to burden the entire office with baby sounds and smells instead of making sacrifices in her lifestyle?
posted by necessitas at 11:01 AM on November 17, 2005

I can't imagine how anyone could take care of a baby and work. I can't imagine how anyone could work with a young baby in the room. I have a baby and have had to wait about 45 minutes just to be able to write these three sentences. But babies do stop crying randomly after a few weeks and the situation you face may be temporary.

THat being said, this is your boss. I wouldn't press the issue. Maybe you can find out if this is a long-term set-up. It's possible that your boss had lined up a nanny or daycare provider who cancelled or posed some other issue. She may be waiting to get into another daycare -- in some areas, there are really long waitlists. She may not have wanted to come back, but her partner lost their job, and she negotiated this set-up with your company as a short-term measure while she finds daycare. Perhaps breastfeeding hasn't been established and she just needs a few more weeks to introduce a bottle, but your employer was desperate for her to return. I'm not trying to justify her decision, but maybe there are some reasonable factors at play. Obviously, if your productivity drops, you have a very reasonable explanation! I can appreciate how difficult it is for you.

However, I don't get your problem with breastfeeding. It's not something that should take place under cloistered circumstances. ANytime, anywhere. That's your problem, not hers.
posted by acoutu at 11:02 AM on November 17, 2005

i can't believe no one has suggested earplugs. :)
posted by clarahamster at 11:06 AM on November 17, 2005

My immediate thought is that this is a newborn, and while the Mom's leave has run out, her childcare of choice won't take the baby until it is X weeks old, so she's trying to bridge the gap.

This was my immediate assumption too. In the states, most maternity leave runs out after 12 weeks, but plenty of childcare facilities won't take babies till they're at least 6 months. The options for what to do in the interim are extremely narrow. Taking your child to work is one of them. My sister (the chair of a university department) had to do it for a few months when my second nephew was still quite tiny -- she was subtlely threatened with not getting tenure if she took longer than 3 months off after he was born, and my sis & BIL weren't able to line up daycare for him for a couple of months beyond that. So what else was she supposed to do? Forego tenure? Put the baby in a box?

On days where she absolutely couldn't take the baby with her, my BIL took a few days off from work (at a law firm), and he was basically told that he'd fucked up his chance at making partner that year. So men get screwed by this situation, too.

Those who have a problem with a child in the workplace might best vent their spleens at our "family-values" lawmakers who see to turn deaf ears to the real needs of families trying to make ends meet in this "work-uber-alles" society of ours.

AMEN.
posted by scody at 11:09 AM on November 17, 2005

Anon your company sounds like a real cool place to work but it obviously isn't a good fit for your idea of what a workplace should be. One of the joys of small companies is the possiblity of a much more fluid professoinalism standard.

Being a small company either your boss is The Boss or The Boss is aware of what is going on. Best thing would probably be for you to start seeking other employment. And what ever you do don't mention breast feeding at all, it doesn't matter what you say in an attempt to enact change it's going to come out badly for you.

If you decide to stay be glad your boss has a baby and not a pair of great danes.

I've got to say if you were my employee, I was The Boss, and you brought the tone in this post to me regarding my bringing my daughter to the workplace you'd collecting your things about as fast as I could write your salary in lieu of notice cheque.

On Preview ditto languagehat, necessitas and anastasiav.
posted by Mitheral at 11:09 AM on November 17, 2005

It seems to me that the key to this question are the first two words: "My boss." If you don't like the way your boss runs things, so long as she's within the law, you basically have but one alternative: quit. In my experience, challenging the boss only leads to a new job anyway.
posted by maniactown at 11:14 AM on November 17, 2005

There are essentially two types of people posting here-- the ones that think they have a right to make others accomodate them and their children; and the people who are aghast at the thought of burdening other people with their responsibilities. I am in the latter camp.

If you elect to have a child, the onus is on you to make the accomodations for it. If you can't do that without imposing on others, don't have a child. A baby is not special (unless it yours). If babies were a precious commodity, there wouldn't be so frigging many of them and the most wretched people wouldn't have most of them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:27 AM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

For once I actually agree with Mayor Curley. Stunning.
posted by agregoli at 11:30 AM on November 17, 2005

But the question is not "Should I bring my baby to work?" The question is, "My boss has done something I don't agree with. What should I do?"
posted by occhiblu at 11:31 AM on November 17, 2005

Maybe she could breastfeed with the door open, so you can have access to her when you need her?

... perhaps some different phrasing should have been used here. %)
posted by kindall at 11:32 AM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

But it certainly is worth taking a look at the prevailing attitudes surrounding this issue, is it not? I think the advice here so far is pretty sound. He can go to HR (if there is HR), find another job, or risk saying something that the boss will likely take poorly. I agree with a poster above that if he does say something, he should couch it in terms of what changes this brought to the office that affects his productivity. Not, "The baby is annoying me."
posted by agregoli at 11:34 AM on November 17, 2005

The huge discussion here is a great illustration of how strong peoples' opinions are on this issue. Since Anon's boss is bringing her daughter to work, she probably feels pretty strongly about the issue, too.

My advice would be to tread lightly. Casual chat with boss regarding her intentions, followed up with a discussion with HR. You might not be the only person who doesn't like it, and if other people bring it to HR as well, then action might be taken.
posted by MrZero at 11:35 AM on November 17, 2005

There are essentially two types of people posting here-- the ones that think they have a right to make others accomodate them and their children; and the people who are aghast at the thought of burdening other people with their responsibilities.

Not so fast there with the vast overgeneralizations. I have no children, AND I have no problem accomodating them in the workplace (I've had coworkers bring in their kids) because I understand that the childcare options in our society are shamefully inadequate, and affect men and women alike.
posted by scody at 11:37 AM on November 17, 2005

So you belong in the first group. I don't see how you don't fit in there.
posted by agregoli at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2005

If you elect to have a child, the onus is on you to make the accomodations for it. If you can't do that without imposing on others, don't have a child.

The problem is that you may have made accommodations which subsequently fell through. And you can't get rid of the child once it arrives.


If babies were a precious commodity, there wouldn't be so frigging many of them and the most wretched people wouldn't have most of them.

Actually, the babies of non-wretched people who actually do try to accommodate them and not burden others ARE a precious commodity. It's more of a quality control issue. :)
posted by acoutu at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2005

Don't turn anon's problem into a soapbox for the wonders of infant rearing or the dilemma of affordable, accessible child care.

Don't turn anon's problem into a soapbox for your hatred of children and those who bear them. This is not about the general issue of "Children: Threat or Menace?" This is a narrowly focused question about how the poster should best respond to a boss's behavior. Given that said behavior does not have a direct negative impact on the poster's job (and by "direct," I mean "keeps the job from getting done," not "waah, noise bothers me and I can't stand the thought of breast-feeding going on nearby"), the poster's best response is (as so often) Do Nothing. All of you who are being brave on the poster's behalf and urging Confrontation are giving answers likely to have a direct negative impact on the poster's having a job at all. And I don't want to hear about how things should be in the best of all possible worlds; if you think bosses have no options in dealing with "justified" complaints, you've never held a real job. Read and memorize ulotrichous's succinct comment.

By the way, kudos to ulotrichous for a great username! Means 'having crisp or woolly hair,' if anyone was wondering.
posted by languagehat at 11:40 AM on November 17, 2005

So you belong in the first group. I don't see how you don't fit in there.

I don't belong there because the Mayor's construction was such that he suggested only people with kids could possibly hold this point of view (i.e., be willing to "make" others accomodate them and their kids). My point is that I don't have kids, and yet I'm perfectly willing to accomodate as a matter of course -- not because I feel other people have the right to inflict their will on me in some way, but because I recognize we live in a society that makes the balance of children/work extremely difficult for millions of people.
posted by scody at 11:43 AM on November 17, 2005

Mayor Curley writes "There are essentially two types of people posting here-- the ones that think they have a right to make others accomodate them and their children; and the people who are aghast at the thought of burdening other people with their responsibilities. I am in the latter camp."

It's not like anon's boss is asking anon to change diapers and feed the kid.

There is at least a third type here too: People who realize that in a small company the boss may own either a significant portion of the company or the whole kit and caboodle. In which case they set corporate policy and if you don't like it your probably best off getting new employment. Geez, I often went to work with my Dad when ever I wasn't in school until I was old enough to drive. Not only was it not a big deal but I probably learned as much as I did in school. Obviously there are differences here but not to the point that everyone is going to fall into those two categories.
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 AM on November 17, 2005

(gah! hit "post" too fast! I had another 2 sentences to add:) frankly, I'd probably be a lot less accomodating if we actually had paid parental leave that lasted 12-24 months in the US, for example, or if most workplaces instituted on-site, quality daycare. But till those factors change, I understand why parents might need to bring their babies to work, even if it's not a choice I myself would necessarily make.
posted by scody at 11:48 AM on November 17, 2005

You willing to accomodate people who feel they should be accomodated. So you align yourself with the first group. I do see the divide he posted, and you seem to be in the first camp.
posted by agregoli at 11:53 AM on November 17, 2005

My only response to whether it's appropriate to bring a baby to work is the question: "Would it be appropriate if she kept bringing it, what about 4 or 5 or 10 years from now when it's older?" Unless it's a family business, I don't think it's right to have a kid running around at work. Unless you put them to work, and that opens up a whole nother can of worms.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:12 PM on November 17, 2005

What I honestly don't understand is how caring for babies in the office makes a company family-friendly and not just cheap. Affordable, on-site day care would be truly family-friendly, to my mind.

Even in the GMA article anastasiav linked to, one of the moms said she was totally exhausted while at work. An assitant to another working mom said that her job now involved being a nanny to two in-office babies.

Nearly all of my friends have babies under one year of age. I love the kids but they are exhausting to care for. They can't express themselves other than to cry; once they can sit up and grasp they'll grab anything within reach. (At dinner one night a friend's daughter grabbed a votive filled with hot wax and dumped it all over the table in about two seconds. It scared the crap out of me that a baby could do something that fast.)

It really does seem to me (admittedly, not a parent) that babies need near constant supervision. Is this not at odds with having to concentrate on work while in the office?

If we want to support working parents, I think the answer lies in affordable day care, flex time, telecommuting and job sharing, not putting a crib in your cubicle.
posted by Sully6 at 12:12 PM on November 17, 2005

well, we're apparently splitting hairs, then. I think he's saying (rather narrowly) that the first type of person is someone who expects to be accomodated regarding their children out of a sense of entitlement, while you read it rather more broadly; I simply think there's a third camp of people who don't themselves expect or need to be accomodated but are perfectly willing to do so when the situation is relevant to a broader context.

I certainly wouldn't simply accomodate on principle for the sake of accomodation. For example, a few years ago, a woman where I work used to periodically bring her young child in to "play" with her secretary because this woman thought her assistant was just "nicer" than the after-school program she had her daughter in. That was wholly inappropriate and the assistant eventually went to HR to have the situation stopped. I wouldn't have accomodated that woman, either -- indeed, I probably would have gone to HR more quickly than her assistant did.

In other words: I don't fit nicely and neatly into some oversimplified "there are two types of people here" binary (which is frequently just a setup to accuse one "side" of being assholes and the other side of being morally superior), and in reading many of the responses, it appears to me that lots of other people don't, either.
posted by scody at 12:12 PM on November 17, 2005

I've spent stretches of time working quite comfortably in close proximity to some very good-natured infants. I realize that some babies are noisier and crankier than others, but my experiences were fine.

Now and then a baby would vocalize a little - rarely more loudly than a ringing phone, frankly - and the mom would calmly and promptly take him/her outside for a walk. Diaper maintenance took place in the bathroom, with almost no smells; breastfeeding went on behind a closed door. For the first couple of weeks the novelty was distracting, but we very quickly adapted.

It's true that the babies took up some of their mothers' time attention, but it still worked out very well for our group. What minimal adjustments we all had to make were more than justified because we were glad we could keep working with trusted and experienced colleagues. Even distracted by babies, they were still much more valuable than temporary replacements asking a million questions.

But back to the actual question. Jessamyn and others have suggested ways to address each of the specific inconveniences you mention - noise, diapers, occasional breastfeeding. That's the only sensible approach to take, unless you are bizarrely upset by the very presence of a baby, in which case the short-term solution is to find a job where the culture is better aligned with your preferences and the long-term solution, since we can presume that babies will continue to exist and that you will occasionally encounter them, is to get some therapy.
posted by tangerine at 12:15 PM on November 17, 2005

For example, a few years ago, a woman where I work used to periodically bring her young child in to "play" with her secretary because this woman thought her assistant was just "nicer" than the after-school program she had her daughter in.

Unless more information is provided, this might be the exact same scenario - the boss thinks that bringing her child in to work with her is simply "nicer" than the alternatives, and doesn't mind bothering her co-workers with smells and sounds of baby. We don't know if this is the case, but these two scenarios sound similar to me - no consideration has been made for the fellow employees.
posted by agregoli at 12:15 PM on November 17, 2005

Unless more information is provided, this might be the exact same scenario - the boss thinks that bringing her child in to work with her is simply "nicer" than the alternatives

Well, considering that the situation I'm referring to involved bringing in an developmentally disabled 7-year-old and forcing another employee to take care of her (i.e., "Go play together for a few hours! Show her how to answer your phone and work the computer! I'll be in meetings for the next four hours, so you need to take her out for lunch, too!"), and Anon's boss is breastfeeding an infant, I'm pretty confident that the two situations aren't anything alike.

Also, as I said earlier, I assumed from what anon said that this is a young infant -- too young to be allowed into most childcare facilities. Many, many places will not take a child under 6 months. Parental leave, however, usually runs out after 12 weeks. Sure, we don't know (because anon didn't tell us) if that's really the situation. But a scenario where maternity leave has run out but the child isn't old enough to be put into daycare isn't some crazy, one-in-a-million anomaly.
posted by scody at 12:27 PM on November 17, 2005

Unless more information is provided, this might be the exact same scenario...
WTF??? This is not the same scenario. Dumping your kid on your secretary for play time is not the same as tending to your own child in the office. Jesus frigging christ. Anon's boss didn't ask him to change the diapers or rock the kid to sleep. That's a big leap from nursing the baby behind a closed door.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:28 PM on November 17, 2005

I think he's saying (rather narrowly) that the first type of person is someone who expects to be accomodated regarding their children out of a sense of entitlement, while you read it rather more broadly;

I am saying his independent of whether it applies to children or anything else-- some people are self-centered and think that whatever they do for themselves is justified, and other people are OBLIGATED to accomodate them.

Other folks feel strongly that it is wrong to impose on other people without asking, and couldn't imagine expecting other people to endure anything without asking.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:29 PM on November 17, 2005

Regardless if the situations are similar, both people didn't seem to care about the impact the child might have on the office. That's all that's similar to me. I still think it's unprofessional and rude and her accomodations don't seem to be working, since annoymous and possibly others in the office are having trouble concentrating because of it.

I know full well that he can't do much about it, but why is this dismissed so easily? If this happened in my office, I would consider it a serious problem. Thankfully, this would never fly here.
posted by agregoli at 12:31 PM on November 17, 2005

And many feel that as human beings, it is normal and good of us to help others when we can.
posted by occhiblu at 12:32 PM on November 17, 2005

And many feel that as human beings, it is normal and good of us to help others when we can.

So again: three types of people, at a minimum.
posted by scody at 12:34 PM on November 17, 2005

Well, that sure is a rude statement. I help others when I can, but I still find his situation annoying and inappropriate, mostly for the fact that he doesn't seem to have much recourse except find another job.
posted by agregoli at 12:40 PM on November 17, 2005

As an afterthought....I am having a hard time reconciling breastfeeding and a young infant with smelly diapers. Diapers only smell if the baby is on formula or solids.
posted by acoutu at 12:46 PM on November 17, 2005

nd many feel that as human beings, it is normal and good of us to help others when we can.

So again: three types of people, at a minimum.

No, no, no. You're justifying. You expect, expect, expect other people to accomodate you. Whether you think it all comes back or whatever, you think people are entitled to impose on others. You're in group one.

Don't dress it up as being "for the common good" or "for the children," because it's justifying. I didn't ascribe a motive, I just said that some people are comfortable imposing and others are not. Of course, you will never admit this, so you will refuse to see it in your response.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:51 PM on November 17, 2005

What do you mean by "doesn't have much recourse"? All he has to do is approaches HR or his boss calmly and courteously about his specific concerns about noise and smells. If, having done that, he's treated unsympathetically and his concerns are rudely dismissed, then he'll have a problem.

This reminds me a little of those relationship threads in which the self-styled injured party gets bulk-reminded to be articulate about what's bothering him/her and why.
posted by tangerine at 12:51 PM on November 17, 2005

I hope he has HR - it's a small company, so perhaps not. If not, he has to broach the subject with the boss, and that's going to be dicey. He's got good advice so far on how to do so, and I hope he does so that his valid concerns can be made known. Either way, I wish we could get an update about the whole thing, because this is an interesting AskMe.
posted by agregoli at 12:53 PM on November 17, 2005

Diapers only smell if the baby is on formula or solids.

As a child of the New Left who has been around many breastfed infants, I can assure you that you are full of it. The smelly kind. Poop is poop is poop no matter how much hippy-dippy midwivs want you to believe that mother's milk is purer than the virgin mary. When baby digests it, it becomes just as corrupt and foul as anything that passes out of an adult butthole. Maybe even worse.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:54 PM on November 17, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

If we want to support working parents, I think the answer lies in affordable day care, flex time, telecommuting and job sharing, not putting a crib in your cubicle.
posted by Sully6 at 12:12 PM PST on November 17 [!]

I've got to agree with that. Otherwise, the next thing you know, it's going to be considered obligatory to bring your baby to work, else you'll be a "bad mother."
posted by footnote at 12:55 PM on November 17, 2005

You're justifying. You expect, expect, expect other people to accomodate you. Whether you think it all comes back or whatever, you think people are entitled to impose on others.

Do you know me? I'm one of the least demanding people in the world; I *hate* asking for help. That does not prevent me from *offering* help to others, even when they have not asked for it, because I know how hard it can be to ask.

And I do think that a civilized society basically works by all of us imposing on others, to a certain extent -- there's not a single one of us who's totally self-sufficient.

This woman hasn't particularly asked anon for anything. He so far has not told her that her behavior is bothering him. I think we can safely assume that she cleared her actions with her own boss before bringing the kid in. Many of us here seem to think that anon's reaction is at least slightly overblown, which means she couldn't necessarily expect a reaction like that from her employees. As far as she knows, she's *not* imposing on anyone.
posted by occhiblu at 1:00 PM on November 17, 2005

As a child of the New Left who has been around many breastfed infants, I can assure you that you are full of it. The smelly kind. Poop is poop is poop no matter how much hippy-dippy midwivs want you to believe that mother's milk is purer than the virgin mary. When baby digests it, it becomes just as corrupt and foul as anything that passes out of an adult butthole. Maybe even worse.

As a parent of a 4-month-old infant and a toddler, I would have to disagree. If a breastfed baby does a poop, the only way you know is by the crying. My "hippy-dippy" wife (as you would probably refer to her) is also a La Leche League leader, so I've been around plenty of breastfed babies. Not once have I ever smelled a poop (until solid food is introduced - then all bets are off).
posted by tom_g at 1:04 PM on November 17, 2005

You're justifying. You expect, expect, expect other people to accomodate you. Whether you think it all comes back or whatever, you think people are entitled to impose on others.

Dude, I went to work while I was going through a significant chunk of my cancer treatment because I didn't want to inconvenience my coworkers. So you can take your presumptions about me and anyone else's motives in this thread and gently shove them up your morally superior ass.
posted by scody at 1:06 PM on November 17, 2005

Back at ya, scody.
posted by agregoli at 1:07 PM on November 17, 2005

Let's leave motives out of it. No one believes it's ok to impose on others. There is, however, constant disagreement over what constitutes imposition versus normal accommodation inherent in the social contract.

This is a never-ending theme among cultures, classes, families, and individuals. As we've seen over and over again, there isn't just one social contract, but many, with routine confusion about the terms.

Information helps. As occhiblu pointed out, the range of reactions here indicates that anon's boss couldn't possibly have known that her baby's presence would bother anon so much. If anon is kind enough to update us, we'll see what happens when she finds out.
posted by tangerine at 1:10 PM on November 17, 2005

Thank you occhiblu.
posted by davar at 1:14 PM on November 17, 2005

You're justifying. You expect, expect, expect other people to accomodate you. Whether you think it all comes back or whatever, you think people are entitled to impose on others.


Hey, let's not overlook the possibility that company policy allows parents to bring their children to work, and that, therefore, this is no more an imposition or a demand for accomodation than bringing a dog to work would be, at a company where policy allows for pets at work (Raise your hands, everyone who works at a company that allows dogs).

And breastmilk poop smells like angelfood cake compared to formula/solid food poop. That's neither here nor there though, as it is incredibly easy to change and dispose of diapers in a way that prevents anyone from having to share in the poopy joy, and also to maintain a sanitary environment in the process. Real life diaper changing is not like a scene from "Mister Mom".
posted by padraigin at 1:15 PM on November 17, 2005

Major Curley, I have a baby. His poop did not take on an aroma until he started solids. Are you sure the babies with whom you're acquainted are/were exclusively breastfed? Even one bottle of formula or spoonful of cereal makes a difference.

And, no, I do not think poop from a breastfed infant is pure (unlike some proponents of breastfeeding). I am acquainted with the science of the GI tract. But I have never noticed a smell from the diapers of an *exclusively* breastfed infant.
posted by acoutu at 1:16 PM on November 17, 2005

Gee, agregoli, it was Mayor Curley who actually said "You expect, expect, expect other people to accomodate you," and so I was (obviously, it seemed to me) responding to him with my last statement.

If you'd like the talk to turn to your morally superior ass as well, however, feel free to use a half dozen comments of mine to draw wholly inaccurate generalizations about my life, my character, and my interactions with every person I've ever encountered. Till then, I thought you and I were arguing/discussing pretty civilly.
posted by scody at 1:22 PM on November 17, 2005

Geez, I often went to work with my Dad when ever I wasn't in school until I was old enough to drive. Not only was it not a big deal but I probably learned as much as I did in school.
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 AM PST on November 17 [!]

Just going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that you were not being breast fed or diapered on your field trips to your father's office.
posted by necessitas at 1:28 PM on November 17, 2005

padraigin writes "(Raise your hands, everyone who works at a company that allows dogs). "

My comment about a pair of great danes wasn't a hypothetical.
posted by Mitheral at 1:31 PM on November 17, 2005

Invest in some Shure headphones. They supposedly block out all sounds.
posted by exhilaration at 1:31 PM on November 17, 2005

I don't have a morally superior ass - I'm curious to know what one would look like, and furthermore, how asses could have morals at all.

You seemed to agree with the "third" kind of person who, "as a human being" tries to help others. Sorry to lump you in with the rudeness if that is not your intention.

I'm surprised this whole argument got into character assessments at all. I never intended it to. I think that someone can be rude and inappropriate without them being a bad person, and that is all I ever commented on about the woman bringing her baby into the office every day.

Whether she is sanctioned or not, it would have been polite and considerate to check with her co-workers beforehand and during the situation to make sure she isn't an imposition - or at the very least, talk about her circumstances and how long this arrangement will go on. I'm getting the feeling this isn't a very communicative office.
posted by agregoli at 1:31 PM on November 17, 2005

agregoli, my helping others comment was not meant rudely. It was meant to break apart the false binary that Mayor Curley had set up between people who impose and think imposition is A-OK, and those who would never dream of it, as if there were no "some of column A, some of column B" types.
posted by occhiblu at 1:35 PM on November 17, 2005

necessitas writes "but I'm guessing that you were not being breast fed or diapered on your field trips to your father's office."

Which is why I added the next sentence you clipped : "Obviously there are differences here but not to the point that everyone is going to fall into those two categories."

I don't see what the big deal about breastfeeding and diapering is anyway. One is as socially acceptable as drinking coffee and the other is done in lavatories where I can guarrantee there is already a whole lot of #1 & #2 happening.
posted by Mitheral at 1:36 PM on November 17, 2005

agregoli, my helping others comment was not meant rudely.

Glad to hear it. It came across pretty crass to me, as the implication was that anyone who didn't want to put up with the baby arrangement was somehow less than a human being.
posted by agregoli at 1:38 PM on November 17, 2005

(Your comment jumped into the midst of mine and Mayor Curley's, despite my previewing, which may have made it look more like I was replying to you than to him.)
posted by occhiblu at 1:42 PM on November 17, 2005

Eh, whatever.
posted by agregoli at 1:45 PM on November 17, 2005

Major Curley, I have a baby. His poop did not take on an aroma until he started solids. Are you sure the babies with whom you're acquainted are/were exclusively breastfed?

It may not smell like adult poop, but it has an aroma. Very few things don't have any smell (like glass or distilled water). reastfed infant poop smells. It's reminscent of mayonnaise to me but more sour. I can definitely smell it if I think too hard. Just because it doesn't smell like my poop doesn't mean it doesn't smell like poop.

And scody obviously I can't continue the discussion any more because you've worked an illness into the conversation and any rebuttal now smells of attacking a cancer survivor. So you win. Because you had cancer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:59 PM on November 17, 2005

agregoli: I'm getting the feeling this isn't a very communicative office.

I definitely agree with that. The times we've worked it out in our office (one of my coworkers currently telecommutes one day a week because of various complications with her childcare situation), it's come from the group of us sitting down and assessing what all of our workloads, schedules, projects, etc. are, and figuring out what we can do (within the limits of company policy) to make sure everyone's needs are being met.

Mayor Curley: any rebuttal now smells of attacking a cancer survivor. So you win. Because you had cancer.

No, any rebuttal smells of desperation, because I completely refuted your assertion that I "expect, expect, expect" everyone to accomodate me as a matter of course. It's got nothing to do with me being some sacred, delicate flower because I'm a "survivor" (feh to that term anyway). But you are certainly correct that I won when I got cancer! I got a big shiny tumor, and a flying pink pony too!
posted by scody at 2:18 PM on November 17, 2005

Mitheral: One is as socially acceptable as drinking coffee

Not to everyone, it's not. Not to me, certainly, but then I am a man, so my opinions don't count and are perceived as an attack on reproduction in general.

half-kidding
posted by jenovus at 2:24 PM on November 17, 2005

I'm starting to wonder if she "just" had a baby or if it's been a month or two. I can understand people bringing the new baby in to show off to coworkers in the first couple weeks or possibly for a few minutes or hours if it's urgent and she needs to stop in the office, otherwise it puts an undue burden on someone doing an office job to juggle both a baby and work in a normal office environment.

If it's a small business and she has to deal with customers or clients regularly, I can see where the baby could have an impact on business -- no one wants someone who is doing work for them to say "oh, wait a minute, the baby is crying" during a meeting.

The bickering in this thread is a big tip-off: this is an emotional issue. People are very protective of their children and if your boss feels like you're threatening her ability to care for the baby she'll respond like any threatened mother would. If her job is one that she could do partially at home, ask if there is anything you can do around the office to minimize the time she needs to spend there. If this means picking up the slack by meeting with someone, or packaging up materials for her to pick up, or even dropping things off at her place, so be it. If it will help benefit the business and her interests she should be grateful.

In the end, remember that you want to help her and the business. There's a way to minimize the disruption to the office while helping her -- just remember that you'd probably have to do more work if she wasn't there at all, so doing a little more to keep the baby out of your hair is no big deal.
posted by mikeh at 2:26 PM on November 17, 2005

The real problem here seems the implied inability to complain about such matters to a third-party (namely an HR department). Parents are inherently attatched to their infants, and as others state often act illogical in caring for them. Thus the employee cannot effectively communicate his displeasure with the current situation on a non-emotive basis. If the boss had a radio that was loud, or other obstacles to communication the employee would feel more at ease at confronting the boss about it. Yes it is the boss, but a good manager will be aware of such things and be able to discuss them on the non-personal level.

Unfortunately without an HR department or someone who can properly communicate employee workplace concerns to the boss without fear of breaching the "My baby is perfect!" and subsequent labeling, I'm afraid you are SOL.

If possible I'd state something along the lines of, "I think it's great you are able to balance work and family and I think you're bridging the gap of the ultimate career woman, etc. I, unfortunately am easily distracted, and would like to move over here." How can anyone disagree with that?

Of course by some of the logic here, everyone should be entirely accomodating to children everywhere. What about bringing infants to class, or infants to study in the library?
posted by geoff. at 2:34 PM on November 17, 2005

The thing is, women who bring their babies to work aren't usually doing it to show them off, and aren't necessarily doing it because their other options for childcare fell through, or are not yet available: women who bring their babies to work often do so because that IS their chosen option.

Perhaps in some lines of work, telecommuting would be easier on everyone, but the fact is that this is a minor trend in modern workplaces.

I'm really, really hoping that despite the bickering this question has engendered, Anon finds a way to work with the situation, because I think it's a really interesting development, and I want it to succeed wherever it's practical. I want my attorney to argue my case while carrying her baby in a sling. I would adore having my accountant put me on hold to change a three-wiper. I might want my hairstylist to have both of her hands free, but, you know, that's where the practical comes in.

I'm sorry that Anon has to be the guinea pig in what I see as a grand experiment, because I know what it's like to have a workplace situation (mine was the aforementioned dogs--I was scared of my boss's Standard Poodle, and his farts were much stinkier than breastmilk poo, that's for damn sure). But like I said before, a family-friendly workplace policy can come in pretty handy, even if kids aren't on your personal radar.
posted by padraigin at 2:36 PM on November 17, 2005

Many people already do bring infants everywhere, whether it's inconsiderate to others or not.
posted by agregoli at 2:38 PM on November 17, 2005

padraigin, I admire your attitude, but don't you think you might be in the minority even when based on logic, let alone the minor annoyances faced by the original poster? I mean, can an attorney give an effective argument for keeping you out of jail when his/her baby spits up halfway through a closing argument? If I'm working through some terse accounting during tax season, will I want my accountant to put me on hold when I have my regular business to go through during the same day? I think you're looking at an idealistic level of practicality. A parent would have to put in an insane number of hours at the office to be even partly as productive as an employee without a kid in the room. In service-oriented jobs where there are others to pick up the slack you may get lucky, but I can't help but think that the kid is at some point going to get ignored in favor of business when things come down to the wire.

I'm not completely sold on the fact that nearly every parent uses daycare of some sort, but even one person's partial attention (when their job is to look after kids) would be better than my partial attention when I'm trying to have a meeting with business clients. This is part of why I am still iffy on the entire idea of having kids (well, that and I'm still young and not in a long-term relationship). I would rather be in a position where I could willingly give up part of my job to have the time to take care of my child. I'm in a job where I make enough that I might be able to do it. Trying to do both when you're not in such a job is shortchanging yourself and the kid.
posted by mikeh at 2:46 PM on November 17, 2005

I actually despise children myself, and people who expect others to bend over backwards for them. I just think there's a difference between "making reasonable accommodations" and "bending over backwards."

Reasonable accommodations would, in this case, allow the woman to bring her baby to work as long as (1) it doesn't keep her from doing her job, and (2) it doesn't disrupt other people's work. If it does disrupt other people's work, as in anon's case, being reasonably accommodating would mean talking with her about, say, changing diapers in the restroom where it's more appropriate, and closing her door if the baby is crying, as I and others have suggested upthread.

Bending over backwards would mean, in this case, sucking it up and saying nothing, no matter how rank the stench or piercing the shrieks.

And geoff., many libraries now have private study rooms. With doors that close. Like anon's boss's office.
posted by Gator at 2:53 PM on November 17, 2005

Mikeh, it's hard to say, isn't it, if we don't know what the nature of the business is that the anonymous poster is working for? We really don't have enough of the story for a lot of the comments and judgments that I, and others, have made.

I am terribly idealistic about it, I realize that. But I really am in favor of policies that allow women to bring their newborns to work with them (some of the best work of my life was done in the first four months of my older daughter's life, when all she did was eat, sleep, and poop), and more generally, in favor of policies that acknowledge and encourage a work-life balance.

My husband is in management for a Silicon Valley company, and in the past three years he's had several occasions where he's brought one of our daughters to work with him for part of the day--when alternative options weren't available and I had some appointment that required being child-free for a few hours, or bringing only one child with me. His company has been wonderful about accomodating this for him and other employees who've had similar needs. My older daughter has happily drawn on an unused whiteboard during a client meeting, and as babies my kids have slept peacefully in the corner of the studio during recording sessions. In many other situations he's been able to work from home on short notice, or rearrange his schedule to handle family obligations. Little things like this certainly go a long way toward making me feel better about the long hours he puts in, because I know that his company cares about him, and about his family.

I know that this is a short-term scenario compared to what Anon seems to be describing, but all of this is just to say that a company that is willing to be flexible with the needs of its employees vis-a-vis family is a company whose employees are going to be loyal as hell in the long term.
posted by padraigin at 3:06 PM on November 17, 2005

Oh yes on the overarching debate of babies in the workplace, much of it does depend on the workplace itself. I can't imagine an infant would do well in an office that manages hedge funds, where a more laid back and less time demanding academia job would a lot more conducive. I think as a whole in traditional jobs we'll never see this, as time constraints (trading can only be done while markets are open, briefs must be filed on time) will have a direct economic impact. Working overtime or working more hours are much more feasible in high tech industries. It's foolish to think women or men caring for a small child can function on the same level as someone without a child. There are places, however, that minimize this impact drastically and other places where job performance would seriously suffer. It is all relative.
posted by geoff. at 3:21 PM on November 17, 2005

This is off-topic, but I figure at this point it's okay.

padragin: If you really want to advance the cause of caring workplaces, you might find it advantageous to advocate for general flexibility as opposed to the baby-specific sort. It can really be the difference between having non-parents on board or having them fight you all the way.
posted by dame at 4:09 PM on November 17, 2005

If she's the owner of the company, I think it's great that she's found a way to have a baby and continue her career. The owner of a company can really dictate the tone of the office, as far as I'm concerned.

How ever, if she's just a middle-management type, then I think she's abusing her position of semi-authority.

That bit about closing her door to breastfeed. What the hell are you even complaining about?
posted by The Monkey at 4:10 PM on November 17, 2005

padragin: If you really want to advance the cause of caring workplaces, you might find it advantageous to advocate for general flexibility as opposed to the baby-specific sort. It can really be the difference between having non-parents on board or having them fight you all the way.


This thread is baby-specific. I would be championing similar flexibility in the case of aging parents, the health issues of a partner or relative, all sorts of various issues that would fall under the umbrella of "family-friendly" workplace policy.

I meant to make that more clear, when I alluded to the fact that Anon might find him/herself the grateful beneficiary of a workplace willing to extend itself to employees in need of unusual arrangements. If I seem one-note, I admit, it's because most of my personal experience in this area involves children.
posted by padraigin at 4:45 PM on November 17, 2005

You need to give her more time. More than likely she realizes she can't work and care for her infant at the same time and she's looking for other plans. If you were a gentlemen, you'd do some daycare research for her and make some polite recommendations. For now, just keep it to yourself and hope the situations resolves itself--I suspect it will. Being a new mother is hard enough; the absolute last thing she needs is you adding yet another burden to her load.
posted by nixerman at 5:01 PM on November 17, 2005

nixerman writes "Being a new mother is hard enough; the absolute last thing she needs is you adding yet another burden to her load."

Which is perfectly sound advice for anon, if he were her spouse and not someone sharing office space.
posted by chiababe at 5:34 PM on November 17, 2005

babies spread colds and flu.
posted by brandz at 7:03 PM on November 17, 2005

Brandz, given the occupation you list in your profile, I'd be interested in seeing some credible links that show that. Young babies tend not to touch other people and exclusively breastfed infants have far, far fewer colds and flus.
posted by acoutu at 11:35 PM on November 17, 2005

So let me get this straight; if I wanted to bring my 93 year old mother to work and keep her in my office so I could take care of her it would be okay? When my kitty needs medication during the day, can I bring her to my office and do it myself instead of paying someone to come in and do it for me while I am at work?

Some of you may find that a bit ludicrous but that's how I look at this mother's situation. We all have responsiblities and one of those responsibilites is to do the job we are hired and paid for with no distractions. And a baby is a huge distraction not only for co-workers but for the mother who is now cheating on her company by using company time for personal use. Even if she is the owner of the company she is still taking away from her business if she is not focused on it during business hours.

If this is just temporary for a few weeks it would have been nice of her to find out how her co-workers felt about the situation. She is obviously not only isolating herself with her baby but she is also isolating herself from her employees by being unconcerned about their feelings on the situation.

To the poster of this message, maybe you could get a feel for how the others in the office think by casually asking them. If most are of like mind all of you should speak up. If you are the only one who is bothered by this, you will probably have to deal with it. But I would suggest the minute she attempts to push her job or any part of it off on you, tell her you get paid to do your job and would expect her to do the job she gets paid for too.
posted by Minerva at 12:16 PM on November 20, 2005