Let Sarah Take Her Kids on Work Trips!

If women are going to avoid becoming road kill on the Mommy Track, things are going to have to change when it comes to what we're willing to give our leaders in politics and in Corporate America.

Sarah Palin wants to bring her kids on work trips because women are still the main kid watchers and kid nurturers in most American families.

Sorry folks, that's just the reality.

The women who are outraged that she used state funds to bring her kids along better shut up and shut up quick.

These are the types of accommodations that have to be made if we're going to get more women in the corner offices.

Women still barely make up 20 percent of the big jobs in the business world, and the numbers are even worse when it comes to political arena. (There are only eight female U.S. governors.)

There's no way around it, women are going to have to adapt, and make sacrifices if they're going to move up the ladder, but the workplace is also going to have to adapt to us.

I know, I risk having critics say this is exactly why women shouldn't be in leadership positions. Why should we change the game to accommodate women? It's been the same game for decades, just play by the rules.

That argument is a cop out, and it's one many women allow to derail them from their ambitions.

Don't fall for it gals. Keeping the game as difficult as possible for women, and for men who want to be more involved with their families, is how the Good Old Boys network is able to keep thriving.

In the latest Palin news, the Associated Press says the Alaska governor charged the state "for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel."

First off, where the heck else would a governor stay, a fleabag motel? And, if the "First Dude" was snowmobile racing, who the heck was going to watch the girls back home?

Welcome to today's family reality. If we want men and women with families to have thriving careers, this kind of expense has to be tolerated.

States and corporations spend plenty of money on stupid things. How about giving huge payouts to the heirs of dead CEOs for one? Why not spend some travel cash for the family of a CEO who is still alive?

"We can't continue to ignore the fact that there are women in the workplace and we have children," says Laura Lowell, editor of "42 Rules for Working Moms."

Most companies just don't want to deal with the issue of creating parent-friendly workplaces, she explains. Employers, she adds, typically have one mantra -- "manage the personal stuff on your own."

But with more women now in the workplace and so many companies saying they want to groom more women leaders, they're going to have to really walk the flexibility workplace walk. "Parents need flexible work arrangements, they need to take time off to take care of sick kids, and maybe even take their kids on work trips," she stresses.

"Why does there have to be such a hard line drawn between professional life and personal life," she asks.

But that doesn't mean women are going to take their eyes off of work.

"I believe women and men should be 100% focused on their work when they are at work," advises Gabriela Cora, author of Alpha Female: Leader of a Pack of Bitches - Winning Strategies to Become an Outstanding Leader.

Cora is concerned with fairness. "If I said I could concentrate on my work while I tend to my baby's needs, this may not be different from a male executive saying he can do the work while he checks on the tennis match. We should place no judgment as far as to what's important to every person but there needs to be some clear guidelines for everyone," she says.

So it's time to be fair and change the rules of workplace engagement.

"Rules are meant to be broken," Lowell notes. "We need to play by different rules or we'll get left behind."

Comments

[montanadan]

"Sarah Palin wants to bring her kids on work trips because women are still the main kid watchers and kid nurturers in most American families. Sorry folks, that's just the reality."

The reason it's "just the reality" is because of articles that propose extending perks to mothers, instead of expecting fathers to be kid watchers and kid nurturers. Why doesn't first dood Todd take the kids to the north slope with him, if hands-on parenting is so important to them? Circular reasoning much?

[ChrisWV]

Many people with a job in the REAL world have to travel far and long for it and do miss their home and family a lot. Most of them, if not everyone would like their kids and spouses with them on work related trips. However, if they would get cought only once with travel expense reports trying to hide that they entertained not only themselves, but their entire entoutage, they will likely end up getting fired - that's the difference ! Regardless of whether you're a man or a woman, these are the rules of the game. If you want to play - be welcomed, but don't start out by complaining about the way it works. You like your family around while on the road: feel free to bring them - at your expense !

P.S.: If you want to be credible as Joe the Plumber's BFF better get accustomed to his world - 150 K USD shopping sprees and overblown travel expenses don't fit in there very well....

[liguzman]

Ah! The power or Envy! EVERY single politician travels iwth family. Only Republicans get criticized!!!!!!!

[Chrisallalone]

Well, I have to suppose that it took a certain amount of guts to write this. The author is addressing an audience that's bound to contain professional women whose employers would never dream of paying for their kids to travel with them. They've found out that Palin did that on the taxpayers' dime, extending one-day visits into five and changing expense reports after the fact, things that people would normally get disciplined or fired for. Along the way, she gives Todd Palin a pass on taking care of his kids because he's going to be busy with the important work of snowmobiling.

Her response to readers who are angry about such behavior, which they could never get away with? She tells them they have to "shut up and shut up quick." This, apparently, in the name of advancing women's careers and professional standing. Yep, I think that shows some guts; not a lot of judgment or perception, but guts.

[liguzman]

Again! We need campaign reforms....we the tax payers pay for all the extravagances of the campaigns...including unnecessary displays such as the colums of THAT ONE!

[Pacific231]

Could this article have missed the point any further?

The issue is not Palin taking her kids with her on trips, but her falsification of records improperly noting the children were traveling for the express purpose of attending events so she would not have to personally pay for the kids' travel costs. This has all been covered here on HP very clearly.

Instead the author plays the "mommy track" card. "Cop out arguement" indeed!

No, the key point here is Palin's ethical impairedness, which goes to show women can be just as unethical and intgrity-impaired as men. Women can be equal with men in this regard. Forgive me if I hold my applause.

[Checquoline]

If everyone can do it, fine. But Sarah doing it and others not is the same as a CEO taking a huge bonus. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!

[KimberleyC]

Ms. Palin can take her children anywhere she wants, but it is not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for it.

And Ms. Tahmincioglu, since I will now "SHUT UP" as you so graciously ask, I will await your reply on where it is in Alaska tax code (or the IRS's for that matter) that provides for reimbursement of an employee's children's travel as an allowed expense, and how non-employees (underage even) can have "official" duties.

[CompetenceMatters]

You seem to be saying that women require special treatment in order to be able to compete in 'a man's world'. I don't agree. It's not the rules that need changing, but people's views about gender roles.

I think it's a great experience for kids to be able to travel. But saying that women's compensation should include the cost of their children's travel? Why not everybody? That would be fine in the private sector, if companies want to add that benefit to compete for top level employees. But a civil servant, male or female, I don't think so. Fact is, in families where both parents have high powered jobs, it is hired help that mostly cares for the children's needs. And when there's only one high powered job in the family, the other parent often assumes the role of caretaker and household manager. All we have to do is make that important role a gender-blind occupation.

Why can't Todd Palin take care of the children while his wife pursues a career that includes extensive travel and pays well enough for a family to live on? Many women have.

On a knitpicky note: the five-day shopping vacation with daughter was taxable income.

[Oregon Ivy]

Fine, bring the kids on work trips. But don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

My taxes paying for Palin's childcare? *gasp!* That's SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eve Tahmincioglu - Huffpost Blogger]

In the past, dad worked and mom took care of the household. The reality today is that both parents work. We have to now think about how to deal with this new reality. Homework, piano lessons, laundry, groceries and even hockey practice still need to be attended to folks. Expecting working women to take care of it all is why women are still a tiny percentage of the leadership in this country.

[qwr]

If the fact that both parents work is the new "reality," then why do you use "reality" in a different way in your article? That is, you claim that it is "reality" that women take a far greater role in upbringing. This is not the case with many of the couples I know. Here is your quote: "Sarah Palin wants to bring her kids on work trips because women are still the main kid watchers and kid nurturers in most American families. Sorry folks, that's just the reality."

You speak about changes, but you take for granted that this can't change. In this case then, you are asking that the business world change to support a system that itself should be changed. I suppose single fathers are to be left out of this new order of things. What, fathers are unable to take care of "homework, piano lessons, laundry, groceries, and hockey practice"? What makes these tasks gender-specific?

[tel8034]

No-one isn't saying that Palin can't take her children on trips with her .................. They are saying that if she does she should pay for it out of her own pocket (LIKE THE REST OF US DO) and not go back and FALSIFY RECORDS in order to illegally justify a reason for the TAXPAYERS TO FOOT THE BILL.

Also Ms. Beauty Queen should know by now that IT'S BAD MANNERS TO BRING UNIVITED GUESTS TO ANY FUNCTION. ......................... Seating arrangements, the number of dinner plates and the amount of food required, etc is ALWAYS planned in advance (even if it's just a dinner party at home) and uninvited guests just cause chaos, and their presence is just a RUDE GESTURE.

Palin could have easily paid for her children's airfare and hotel out of her own pocket and have the OLDER kids babysit the yonger ones in a hotel room for 2 - 3 hours while she attended to her gubnatorial duties.................... She has clearly shown that at least one of her girls is old enough to be a mother, and has told us that the daughter is capable of taking care of an infant.................... So why couldn't she babysit her younger siblings.

[ballina]

I have several problems with Palin's behavior. I can accept 1 night at an expense hotel in NYC while attending a 5 hour conference - but 5 days? I have a big problem with her altering her paperwork after she became the VP nominee to state the kids were on "official business"! Oh come now. If you add this behavior to charging the state a per diem for staying in her own home and it appears she treats the state coffers as her personal bank account.

[zkn0120]

I am all for women taking their kids on work trips. More power to working mums.BUT I do not want my tax money paying for a politician to stay in a five star hotel!!!!!

[noo]

How come when I, a scientist making less than 40,000 a year on an NIH stipend, has to travel, I pay out of pocket for my newborn infant to come with me, plus the cost of childcare on the trip as well as child care at home for my toddler?

That's why I am absolutely, absolutely outraged that she spent tax-payer money.

If she can provide these services to all of us, fine. But otherwise, it is just plain plain unfair. No matter how you cut it.

[Eve Tahmincioglu - Huffpost Blogger]

Maybe we have to start expecting more out of our employers. Maybe we need to change the game altogether. Why are we just accepting the system as it stands?

[skippypicasso]

You can want to change the system all you want. You can want employers to pay for your children to travel with you on business. But tying Palin's behavior to your desired changes--whatever they may be--seriously weakens your argument. The biggest obstacle to progress is contained in your piece: "women are still the main kid watchers and kid nurturers in most American families." This is what has to change, not placing the burden on corporations or taxpayers. Child care is the responsibility of BOTH parents. Until it is recognized as such--like it is our house--then no amount of added cost to governments or employers will make much sense.

[grailknight]

"Why does there have to be such a hard line drawn between professional life and personal life," I'll tell you why, having had that experience, you loose your personal life.

[DeeLight]

A FEW thousand dollars, SethBLiNK ? $21,000.00+ is QUITE a few thousand dollars.

No one said she couldn't take her kids with her but it should be on her dime and not the taxpayers.

And Palin herself knows that this was/is wrong because she amended the expense reports to give the appearance that the children were with her on official state business. Of course, she felt no need to justify her misuse until she became McCain's running mate.

One of the amendments was to show that the "official state business" for which the girls were present was "to draw two separate raffle tickets".

Taxpayers shelling out $700+/night room rates for Palin's children while their own children may be going to bed hungry at night in a room without heat?

Please. What a boatload of BS.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

By all means, she should take the kids along...but she needs to dig into her own bank account & pay for it, not the state. Period.