letting new parents bring babies to work every day

by Alison Green on July 22, 2015

A reader writes:

I’m planning to make a suggestion/proposal to HR to ask them to consider implementing a policy which would allow new mothers to bring their infants to work for a certain number of months after they are born. This has been done successfully at other organizations, including some government agencies and financial institutions, and I think that my office would be a good candidate.

I’d like your perspective on what kind of information you would want and need to see so that I can make a compelling argument in favor of this policy. What would be your primary concerns?

Call me an ogre, but I’m not a fan.

I’m not a fan because of the distraction and disruption it’ll create, both for the parent and for other employees. Most babies don’t sleep all day; they require attention and care and interaction. And a lot of people don’t want to try to work or conduct a conference call over the sound of a baby crying, let alone try to focus while they hear baby talk coming from the office next to them.

On the other hand, I’m sure it does build loyalty and retention among at least some employees, as well as making it easier for some parents to return to work after having a baby. (Note that I’m saying parents here, not mothers; if a company does this, they shouldn’t restrict it to women.)

But I’d rather see companies find other ways to be family-friendly — or rather, personal-life-friendly; we don’t need to restrict it to families. Flex time, reasonable hours, good health insurance, and generous time off would be a better start than babies in the office.

What do others think?

You may also like:
{ 1,328 comments }

{ 1,328 comments… read them below }

  1. PEBCAK*

    I’m not clear on the proposal…is this in lieu of childcare, or is this on occasion when there is a specific reason that the regular childcare is unavailable?

    1. Just Another Techie*

      I’ll post a link in a separate comment, but bringing babies to work (typically only until they are self-mobile) is something some companies have tried. I’m curious how it actually works in practice, and not dressed up for clickbait.

      1. Michelle West*

        I work in a cubicle office and the woman next to me has brought her baby to work every day for weeks. If the baby starts crying a lot she does take it away which happens a few times a day and much of the rest of the day the baby is gurgling and squeeling off and on. It really interrupts my focus but I don’t want to be the bad guy and complain. But I find it odd that management did not fill us in or give us any options like moving to a quiet area. We can sometimes telework but I need to be in the office most days. I have headphones but they bother my ears if they stay on too long. I find myself being annoyed most of the day. I guess a gurgling, squeeling baby are happy sounds to some and maybe I am just bothered more. Do most people feel this would not be a disruption? Or do I just need to get over it and accept this is the new, modern office?

      1. fposte*

        Interesting. Though the article is just about the one workplace, I’m sure it isn’t the only one to have tried it.

        However, I cringed at the notion that work offers “a built-in support system of coworkers, willing to scoop up a baby if mom or dad needs to jump into a meeting”, and I thought that “We had to rejigger seating to create private areas that were out of the fray which benefited both parents and the rest of our staff” was a recipe for annoyance for non-parents who still had to sit and work within the “fray.”

        1. LBK*

          Oh my god, this sounds like a complete nightmare. I would love to hear the unfiltered thoughts of those in the “support system” – I’m wildly skeptical that they were as gung ho about serving as babysitters as the article claims.

          1. JulieB*

            I would be horrified if I were expected to tend to someone else’s infant at work – especially if it were sprung on me mid-way through the job and not at the time of involvement.

              1. MashaKasha*

                Me three. Try explaining to a client or end user that I’m behind on their request because I had to babysit a coworker’s infant on last-minute notice.

                And it’s a bit of a liability too, isn’t it? What if, heaven forbid, something happens, or appears to happen, to the baby on my watch?

                1. Kristine*

                  Me four! “Supportive coworkers,” meaning all of the WOMEN in the office. Men will not be expected to take up this task – I guarantee it. And the peer pressure of being “the only one who didn’t hold the baby” – no, thanks.

                2. LucyVP*

                  I’ve been “the only one who didnt hold the baby”, and its not a fun position to be in.

                3. Rose*

                  Kristine that was my first thought also. For men it will be optional for women you will be the bitch who doesn’t want to help with the baby.

                4. Davey1983*

                  Kristine, perhaps I have worked at different places, but I find your remake insulting.

                  In my prior place of employment, when a coworker brought in their new baby, it was the men in the office who lined up first to hold the baby. Every place I have worked shared the workload evenly– I was never asked to carry something heavy, for example, because I was a man.

                6. Rose*

                  But there is a huge difference between holding a baby for fun once in a while and being expected to regularly help out with childcare at work.

            2. AnonAnalyst*

              Me too. My jaw literally dropped reading that. “Nightmare” and “horrified” are my exact reactions to that proposal.

              1. Tyrannosaurus Regina*

                I would go out of my way to learn how to moonwalk specifically to moonwalk the hell out of there.

              2. Windchime*

                It’s my version of hell, not only as a coworker but as a parent. When my kids where tiny babies,there is no way I would just hand them off to some random coworker as I dashed off to a meeting. No way.

                Put me in the “no babies at work” camp. I love babies. I love it when babies come to visit at work, and I love having a chance to hold them and coo at them. But visiting time has an ending. Listening to someone’s baby crying in the office or dealing with diaper smell….no way.

                1. Working Girl*

                  My husband actually worked at T3 and his coworker had a baby (before we had kids). He LOVED it. The environment is definitely “cool ad agency” and there were more than enough people to watch the baby while she went to meetings, etc. And they were in a separate area. Of course, not everyone came around to see the baby or anything, but my husband said it was awesome. That kid is 11 now!

            4. eemmzz*

              I would also be worried about getting sued if you accidentally harm another person’a baby or they think you have

            5. aebhel*

              Also, as a parent, I don’t necessarily want whatever random coworker happens to be on hand taking care of my kid? Especially a young infant? They’re kind of fragile??

          2. Stranger than fiction*

            Right? This would be wildly distracting and can you imagine the uptick in office chat between cooing over how cute so and so’s baby is to omg janes baby does nothing but cry is she feeding it enough…

            1. LucyVP*

              I had experience with coworkers bringing babies and the cooing only lasts a day or two. The cooing/oohing/awing was not as much of an issue as I expected it to be.

          3. Brandy*

            Id soooo hate this. Im not a kid person. I can fake it when someone stops by but overall Im not into kids. I choose not to have kids don’t foist yours on me.

            1. The Cosmic Avenger*

              Hey, I love babies, I’m the first one to want to hold a new baby when someone shows up with one, but that only happens once a year or so. Multiple times a day?? No thank you! I need to, you know, focus, concentrate, complete complex tasks without interruption….I can’t always take a break any old time and still get work done.

          4. stellanor*

            I have never cared for a baby and have absolutely no idea what the accepted protocols are for handling a baby, so if someone handed me one and ran off to take a conference call I would probably have a panic attack and pass out.

            Or somehow accidentally kill or grievously harm the baby, either.

              1. Rebecca*

                Same! I would have no clue what to do with a baby. I’ve never baby-sat in my life. I can picture myself propping the baby up in my extra office chair. “Okay, baby, if you need something just let me know. I’m going to run out and get some coffee, need any? No?”

                1. AthenaC*

                  Hehe – I’m now picturing Samantha from Sex and the City trying to babysit Miranda’s baby – “WHAT do you WANT?!!”

                2. oldfashionedlovesong*

                  I am giggling to myself as I imagine this playing out over a day’s work.

                  “Okay, baby, can you please collate and staple these packets for me? Wait, why are you crying? It’s just stapling, it’s not a heavy lift. Jeez, baby.”

                  “Lunchtime, baby! Did you bring your lunch? No? Well did you bring cash for the cafeteria? … Baby, it is rude to expect others to buy you lunch just because you are a baby.”

        2. Chocolate lover*

          I am most definitely not comfortable (nor willing) to “scoop up a baby if needed.” Just no.

            2. cv*

              Not to mention the fact that strangers are probably not as good at soothing a fussy baby as the parent, who is more likely to be able to read the baby’s hungry/tired/whatever cues. There are definitely some people who are great with babies in general, but there’s no reason to think that Wakeen from accounts payable is one of them.

              1. Adam V*

                Nor is the baby necessarily likely to calm down if a complete stranger picks them up when they’re already crying.

              2. Stranger than fiction*

                Oh that just gave me a wild thought of the office women nursing each others babies

              1. RG*

                Well, no, when you have a daycare or babysitter, you still have one person or small group of people providing care for the child in lieu of the parents. It’s not the same as the parental bond, but it is still intentionally building a bond with the child you’re caring for.

                1. Green*

                  And if they don’t stop crying, at least at daycare they don’t have other business they need to be conducting…

              2. aebhel*

                Uh, no, because I actually vetted my daycare and have some reason to believe that they know how to take care of a child.

            5. Kelly O*

              Agreed totally. No offense to anyone, but especially with a newborn/infant, I was super-cautious about who picked her up.

          3. Ezri*

            I know enough about babies to hand them to someone else – that’s it. I’m that person in comedies who stands there holding the kid at arms length with a panicked expression.

            1. LBK*

              “Just hold him like you would hold a football.” “This IS how I would hold a football!”

              1. Ezri*

                Ha, I’d completely forgotten that episode – yes, that’s me. :D I’m sticking to cats for now.

            2. T3k*

              Same here. I won’t even hold relative’s babies because 1) I don’t like babies and 2) they immediately start to go for my hair EVERY. TIME. Ugh.

            3. Gamma*

              I’m an experienced wife/mother/aunt/great aunt/grandmother/great-grandmother and don’t ‘scoop up’ any of the babies without checking with their mother. I wouldn’t even dream of ‘scooping’ up a co-worker’s infant!

          4. GOG11*

            Yup. It’s one thing to have a baby there in the workplace (not a fan, but not terrible), but being expected, either by the parent or through company culture, to take on any responsibility, however minor, regarding an infant is not something I’m willing to do. If I wanted to work with children, I’d get a job working with children (or individuals in nursing homes or people with severe developmental disabilities or people recovering from surgery or accidents – any population of individuals who require any more care or skilled attention from me than any of my coworker’s would require). It’s just one of those things that’s too far afield of the skills many jobs require, so I really don’t really think coworkers should be expected to jump in in the spirit of “other duties as assigned.”

            I do want to say that it would be one thing if a coworker volunteered, and that could be what the person in the article was noticing, but if that’s the sort of intervention the company relies on to make the policy work…that doesn’t work so well.

            1. Green*

              I don’t mind having kids in the workplace for the purposes of introducing them to coworkers, for take your child to work day, or the occasional snow day/teacher work day/babysitter is very ill day, but if the employer is OK with parents potentially being distracted by children I would MUCH rather the employee be given the flexibility to work from home (with their kids) than bringing them into the office on the regular.

          5. MegEB*

            Right? I love babies and all (although I don’t currently have any) but when I’m at work, I’m working. I don’t want to be responsible for a baby. I already work for a bunch of doctors, so I’ve got my babysitting duties as is, thanks.

          6. april ludgate*

            I would have the opposite reaction, I adore babies and I’d probably be the first to volunteer to look after one. However, I’m also easily distracted so I would get very little of my own work done if there was a baby around.

        3. Mike C.*

          “a built-in support system of coworkers, willing to scoop up a baby if mom or dad needs to jump into a meeting”

          What in the hell are they smoking if they think it’s the responsibility of the coworkers to provide adhoc childcare?!

          Look, just about every other nation on Earth has solved this issue already – it’s called paid p/maternity leave. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel.

          1. Susan*

            Good point. This is a worrying way for employers to get more out of their employees who are parents. :/

          2. Adam V*

            + 1000000.

            My baby is less than three months old. I would jump at the chance to stay home with him for 12 weeks, instead of the two weeks I got (that I used my PTO for).

          3. Charlotte Collins*

            What do you want to bet that this falls more to employees of one gender than another?

            The ironic thing – babies kind of freak me out (I get along great with toddlers – but until they start to walk and talk, they seem like little aliens to me; also, very, very fragile), but my boyfriend totally understands babies and their needs, as he’s the oldest of a large family. But everyone tries to hand kids to me… I feel like they are handing me a rare and valuable piece of china and wait for someone to take it away…

            1. FormerEditor*

              +100
              I’m not as awkward around babies now, but in my first job after college, all the new parents for the newsroom were in my workgroup. When we had group after-work get-togethers, I felt like everyone expected me to coo and ask to hold their kids because I was the lone young, single woman, and didn’t expect that of the other interns.

          6. MashaKasha*

            Yeah but it’s so much cheaper than paid p/maternity leave! in the short term anyway, and who the hell cares about the long-term, right?

          9. Chinook*

            “Look, just about every other nation on Earth has solved this issue already – it’s called paid p/maternity leave. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel.”

            This exactly. Parental leave allows not just for caring for the child and bonding, but allowing the parent to adapt to the child’s sleep schedule (because infants do not adapt to yours). I couldn’t imagine being up all night with a crying or active infant and then having to go in and take care of my work AND my child at the same time. Isn’t there an ongoing trope about new moms feeling lucky if they can get a shower during the day with an infant?

            1. zora*

              seriously!!

              And I would add ‘on-site childcare’ to ‘paid p/maternity leave’ bc that is also a lot more common in some other countries.

          10. Kristine*

            Bravo, and it’s called “civilization.” I wish the U.S. would catch up.
            We should have as much vacation as Europeans do as well, but I know I’m dreaming here. (Good eldercare… Single payer… etc.)

          11. aebhel*

            Or on-site daycare. That would be great! My life would have been so much easier if I could have just gone and nursed instead of taking 20 minute breaks to pump!

            But ad hoc childcare from random coworkers? Hell no.

          12. S*

            Yes! Yes! Yes!

            Got to say, looking at the USA from the UK, the fact you have to paid a shit ton to give birth and then have no maternity leave unless you’re in a really well-paying job – wow! How has there not been revolution in the the streets about this? Do poor parents have to choose between starving and a sibling for their child?

            1. S*

              Pay, not paid, but in my defense, the idea of no statutory maternity leave makes me lose the ability to talk/type coherently

        4. BRR*

          With certain managers I imagine the support system falls under “additional duties as assigned.” I’m not in favor of this policy and I definitely don’t want to have to watch a coworker’s child. I don’t want the distraction and I’m terrible with children. But I can see that one manager out there who thinks that everybody in the office is a support system.

          1. Adam V*

            I wonder if that means I would need to bring in a doctor’s note so that I could say “I have a medical condition that says I can’t pick up babies” before this manager would acquiesce.

            1. Chinook*

              “I would need to bring in a doctor’s note so that I could say “I have a medical condition that says I can’t pick up babies” before this manager would acquiesce.”

              The irony is that they may end up being required because there are medical conditions that mean you shouldn’t pick up infants (ask any woman who has had a C-Section) never mind other times when you shouldn’t be near them because a mild cold to an adult would be horrible for an infant still developing their immune system.

          2. OP (Denise)*

            No one is simply assigned childcare duty. The model policies specify that the parent must have an agreement with a specific coworker who has volunteered to act in that capacity.

            1. Jeff A.*

              So my immediate question is, if that specific coworker is out unexpectedly due to illness or unforeseen circumstances (e.g., a meeting running late), and you as the parent have no specific person to watch the child but need to get yourself into a meeting you can’t miss…what happens from an operational standpoint?

              1. Merry and Bright*

                Also, all my coworkers are busy juggling their workloads without ‘volunteering’ for standby childcare.

                Also, your childcare buddy couldn’t be at the same meetings etc as the parent by the sound of it.

              2. OP (Denise)*

                You have to problem-solve. I think that most people figure out how to manage their work lives, including conflicts or unexpected situations that happen without babies. If employees don’t know how to handle such situations then bringing a baby may not be the best thing for them to do.

                1. Jeff A.*

                  I think the existence and popularity of this blog (and the letters and comments therein) are evidence enough that workplace conflicts and problems are difficult enough to manage without adding the extra dynamic of babies in the workplace!

                2. Green*

                  I would quit if there were babies in my workplace on a daily basis. I would be thrilled if people were given the flexibility to work from home/flex hours to balance their lives and/or paid family leave.

                  Not everyone likes kids. I like my much younger cousins. For a few hours. And then I like to give them back to my aunts.

                3. UK HR bod*

                  The operative phrase for me here is ‘work lives’. Babies are only part of your work life if you are a childcare professional. Thankfully this is rare to non-existent over here – except for places that provide creches.

                4. Adam V*

                  So first it was “you must have a designated backup”, now it’s “figure it out as you go along”.

                5. Kfish*

                  So what happens to the career prospects of that child-care buddy when they’re suddenly spending all that time child minding rather than doing their job or acquiring extra skills?

                6. S*

                  I don’t understand why you don’t just institute maternity leave! Sure it’s more expensive, but these workarounds you’re talking about are less economical in the long run and likely to make everyone in the office incredibly unhappy and stressed

            2. Jeff A.*

              And from a liability standpoint, what happens if something happens to the child while in the care of a coworker? (e.g., hot coffee or tea spills and burns her, she swallows a small office supply like a staple or paperclip, etc etc etc…or are you creating a specific daycare space to have the coworker go to while monitoring the child?)

                1. MashaKasha*

                  +1000. Daycare centers have on-premises accident insurance exactly for this kind of incidents (happen to know this firsthand as a mother of a very hyperactive, very careless child who became the first kid to break a bone at daycare in its 20-year history). I doubt that the office has this insurance and I’m 100% positive that the coworkers do not.

              2. Editor*

                Whose standards of child-rearing apply? Back in the antidiluvian day, my first child was switched from nursing to some formula feeds after a rough transition to full-time daycare. The formula diet was causing some problems. After switching brands a couple of times, the pediatrician recommended serving the formula chilled. Things improved.

                A couple of years later, I’m left holding the baby of a co-worker one day, along with the diaper bag and food stash, and told to feed him if he gets cranky. He winds up to cry, I grab the bottle and he starts to suck, then begins to wail. A minute later mom walks in to retrieve crying baby, takes bottle and baby, and looks at me in horror: “You didn’t warm up the bottle! How do you expect him to swallow this! It’s so cold!”

                Nobody, but nobody, believed I had fed my child cold formula on the doctor’s orders. They all thought I was some kind of secretly negligent parent.

                My first child would also not sleep when there was action anywhere near. Other people took their infants to picnics and concerts in the park and scout meetings and the library and life went on, but my child did not sleep and disliked being away from the action (and as an adult still prefers to be in the thick of things). When your child gets tired and cranky but refuses to give up, it’s no fun for anyone.

                I’d like to think babies at work would work fine, but I can see exceptions that drive everyone nuts. In my case, bringing the baby to work would not have worked and I wouldn’t have worked so hard to arrange for daycare before my unpaid month ended and would have been upset that things at work did not work out. I agree with those who endorse better leave policies for parents.

                1. simonthegrey*

                  I had colic for the first six plus months of my life. I only quieted down when I was held by my grandmother, or when put in my carseat. Strangely the sound of the vacuum soothed me, so mom would put me in my child rocker and turn on the vacuum and just let me lie there and listen. I highly doubt that a running vacuum would be conducive to work, if someone had a baby like me.

            3. Adam V*

              Can the same person volunteer to be the backup to two babies? Can two parents volunteer to be each other’s backups? In those cases, what happens when both babies cry?

              What happens if your backup is on vacation, traveling for work, calls in sick, or just goes home before the parent does? Can the parent still bring in their baby?

              I feel like this policy is rife with negative possibilities.

            4. Kate M*

              Yeah, but, I could see people being pressured into this or being taken advantage of. Not to mention, no matter if they have volunteered or not, it’s still taking up their work time to take care of someone else’s kid. I don’t really see how that’s acceptable.

                1. Cats over Kids*

                  For the child free ones, they can bring in their pets of any type. People can debate whose cat is more adorable, same way parents try to one up each other. The experiment will end when Tom’s prized Burmese Python goes after James and Lily’s son, because the kid was antagonizing the snake.

                3. Brandy*

                  Ok I have 6 pups and a couple cats. Im getting their leashes now. Ones a barker if he sees you have food he wants.

                4. Green*

                  I am very excited to hand over my pitbulls to coworkers to care for when I have a meeting. Some people like dogs but only like their dogs? Some people don’t like pitbulls? Some people like pitbulls but may not be thrilled to pick up my dogs’ poop? WHY DO YOU HATE PUPPIES? THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

                6. Honeybee*

                  Ooh, just wait until my dog gets the zoomies for the first time in the office. That will be fun for everyone.

            5. BRR*

              While that makes sense policy wise, my concern about this specific rule is that it could always just not be included.

            6. Dr. Johnny Fever*

              Child care workers must be trained and licensed – CPR and the works. Who will pay for training the coworkers willing to support?

              No way am I leaving a baby with a coworker, especially one with no experience or safety training.

                1. Honeybee*

                  Gooood point. Actually that would be the MMR if they didn’t have it as a child, DTaP booster, meningitis, probably varicella if they don’t have it, hep B, and flu vaccines every year…

                  Actually, most adults do need a Tdap booster every 10 years.

                2. Cactus*

                  That would be another worry, in the alternate universe where I have kids–exposure to anti-vaxxers and their kids.

            7. Tyrannosaurus Regina*

              I don’t mean to pile on, because in some ways this would be lovely if everyone were truly on the same page, but I can’t think of a single workplace *I’ve* been at where there would be true volunteers for this kind of duty. It would get guilt-trippy and even coercive almost immediately for most folks—and these weren’t even particularly dysfunctional or unfriendly workplaces.

              I mean, what if there’s no one at your level who’s eager to be your go-to baby-scooper? Do you ask a subordinate? Does that person now feel that her good relationship with you, even her long-term job security, rests more on how good a baby-minder she is?

              1. Honeybee*

                I feel like I wouldn’t mind doing it every once in a while, but I’d be afraid that if I volunteered I’d end up being the go-to person for this coworker and/or other coworkers wold start asking me and I’d never get any work done. Also I am one of those people who does not know what to do with babies anyway.

        5. Anna*

          The only time I’ve ever been party to this was when I was 20 working in a tiny architect office with a total of 7 people, including the two partners, and they let the office manager bring her new baby in. I would scoop him up when I felt like it, but it wasn’t required and it didn’t interfere with greeting people or answering phones. I can see it for small companies, but never if it’s expected.

        6. LPBB*

          Oh my god, no. I like children well enough, but I am child free for a reason and a big part of that reason is that I don’t like caring for babies/children unless I’m related to them or connected to their parents in a way that’s more meaningful than simply working together.

          I would also be concerned about cultural/social expectations and how that plays out in the office. There are a lot of people who still buy into the idea that ALL women love babies and want babies and love to take care of babies. Would women in the office be expected to do the majority of the support system work? If that’s not a concern because your office culture is egalitarian, are you going to get dinged as Not a Team Player if you don’t want to hold someone’s fussy baby while they go to a two hour meeting?

          We do a piss-poor job in the US of supporting working parents, but this is most definitely not a solution.

          1. anonanonanon*

            I really wish people would stop assuming that all women love babies. I can’t count the number of times someone has forced me into holding a baby just because I’m a woman. If I say I don’t want to hold your baby, it means I don’t want to hold it.

            1. Career Counselorette*

              Once when I was in college my parents had a clearly-indicated no-kids party, and this one woman ignored the invitation completely and brought her 4-year-old son anyway. My mom was like, “Oh, will you play with him?” and I matter of factly said, “No, I won’t.” Because no, I’m not an automatic babysitter, especially not for people who don’t listen. Plus, by the time you’re 4, you can play by yourself.

            2. Gene*

              And when they try to hand it to you, just keep your arms limp at your side.

              No one can force you to do anything but die.

                3. Saturn9*

                  Thank you for reminding me about sexual assault by clumsily inserting it into an unrelated comment thread on a blog about workplace issues.

            3. MashaKasha*

              My (now-ex) husband used to tell people, “don’t let her hold a baby, that’ll make her want another”. What? No. I’m done. I might be convinced to hold your baby, but I’m still done. And coming from a person who’s supposed to be closer to me and know me better than anybody else in the world, that assumption is a bit disturbing.

              1. folklorist*

                Maybe that’s his cutesy way of getting them to leave you alone without saying “she doesn’t want to touch your stupid sticky baby”? (And he doesn’t actually believe it?)

            4. BeenThere*

              This!!! I’ve had the same thing happen, baby shoved into my arms despite my protests while no one does the same to my husband. I’d much rather hold that glass of wine than do free child care for you. We had guests show up early once and the first thing they did was shove their child into my arms, I said hello then shoved it right back and returned to cleaning and preparing for the rest of my guests. I swear they showed up an hour early to get a break from parenting.

              Here’s the thing I’m likely to have children in the near future, holding a strangers baby is not going to make that happen sooner. I rather be able to enjoy the glasses of wine, that I’d have to give up in the near future, while I can that hold the

              1. Ad Astra*

                I have shoved a baby (well, a 15-month-old) into my husband’s arms and his reaction was pretty hilarious. He’s always convinced he’ll break a baby if he holds it, and refuses to believe my explanation that babies are surprisingly resilient.

                But yeah, I agree with your point that people assume all women want to hold babies all the time, and it’s icky.

            5. T3k*

              My female relatives probably think I’m a freak because they absolutely adore babies and can’t comprehend why I don’t like them. They’ve tried numerous times for me to hold one and I’m just “Nope” and give it back.

              1. Alison Hendrix*

                I think it’s partly cultural. Back in my homeland every single female I know loves babies. Someone brings one to work, and they all flock over, cooing at it. I’m the only one slinking as far away from it as possible.

                Same with my current office. All but two of us in my team are parents (the other person has two dog-kids and I have my cat-brats). When they stop by to bring their infant to work everyone will surround the baby while I politely stand at the edge of the circle, just so I wouldn’t look as stand-offish.

                I think I’ve only held a couple of babies in my lifetime. I just feel really uncomfortable with carrying one (especially if it’s not mine). So bringing infants in the office on a regular basis is not my thing.

                Now if someone brings a new kitty at work, I’d be squealing and running to it LOL…

            6. aebhel*

              I *have* a baby and I still don’t love all babies. I love my kid, but that doesn’t translate to every small child ever.

            7. Honeybee*

              Ugh, me too. Babies are fine, and I want to like them, but I don’t ever know what to do with them and I feel awkward and anxious holding them.

          2. K.*

            You’re totally right about cultural expectations. Many, many people still see babies as women’s work (see also: when fathers are described as “babysitting,” which I hate. You cannot babysit your own child), and I bet the expectation that someone tag in and take the baby would fall largely to women. We’ve talked about this here re: party planning, office “housework,” etc. I’d bet child-minding would fall under that umbrella too.

            I love kids but I don’t like babies, especially when they’re really little and not mobile, so I would absolutely say no, I can’t watch him while you’re on that call. And I would indeed be concerned that people would assume I’m not a team player … but that would cause me to leave, not to suck it up and take the baby.

            1. Charlotte Collins*

              Thank you for the “babysitting” comment. This drives me crazy, too! And I’ve only heard it used that way in the past few years. I thought we were supposed to be going forward, people!

          3. Excel Slayer*

            You read my mind.

            I do not want to be expected to care for other people’s children, and I don’t want people to think I’d enjoy it because of my gender.

          4. Biff*

            I’m concerned that this policy will also unfairly color a man who is gah-gah (goo-goo?) for babies. I can see the conversation going something like this:

            Manager #1: “You know, since we’ve implemented Babies At The Office, I’ve come to realize Charlotte really isn’t a team player. She never takes Paul’s kid during client calls and she’s often away from her desk when it’s time to find someone to watch the baby. She doesn’t seem to understand that we all need to pitch in to make this work!”

            Meanwhile, back at Team #1 Headquarters, Brian who just got a raise hasn’t looked after Paul’s kid either.

            Manager #2: “Well, I think it’s going pretty well on my team, except Richard always wants to watch Leticia’s new baby girl. He’s always playing with the baby and has even offered to change her. I think he might be a creep!”

            Meanwhile…. Marla practically lives in Leticia’s cube and hasn’t really been getting her work done.

        7. Clarissa*

          If I had to help out with a coworker’s childcare in the office I would find a new place to work, pronto.

          1. AndersonDarling*

            Exactly what I would do! After a week of crying babies and “Can you take her for a minute” I would be interviewing at a new company.
            I guess this is a good policy if you want to whittle your organization down to just baby lovers.

          2. ali*

            Yep, same here. In fact, I’d probably do it if babies were in the office at all, much less if I were expected to help out with them.

            There’s a reason I don’t have children. I sure don’t want to deal with anyone else’s and it definitely should not be part of my job.

            1. Stranger than fiction*

              Yes, and while we’re at it when are we going to get over the notion that everyone has to procreate? This planet is beyond that need. I had two children in my early twenties before i even knew what i was doing because, well, that’s just what my family does. And it was hard and done 80%with no financial support from the ever evasive father so looking back, i much would have rathered finished my degree and had time to make something of myself before even contemplating motherhood, but that’s just my rant today

          3. MashaKasha*

            Aaand that’s the long-term consequences I was talking about a bit upthread. Yay, we can now save on maternity leave by just letting everyone in the office watch new babies… wait, where did everybody go and why are we shortstaffed?

          4. Jeff A.*

            Even if I didn’t have to help out per se, but were subjected to baby crying, screaming, goo goo noises. Ugh, just NO. New job would be forthcoming as fast as the resumes could fly out.

            1. Cordelia Naismith*

              THIS. If there’s a baby crying anywhere withing hearing distance, it is impossible for me to concentrate on work. Even if I’m not expected to help with the kid, the noise is a major disruption.

              If paid parental leave is out of the question, why not start up a full-fledged on-site daycare facility? That would go over so much better than parents bringing babies into the office.

          5. Merry and Bright*

            Exactly. And if you wanted this you would have done childcare for a living.

            1. Brandy*

              Thanks exactly what the OP needs to hear. She apparently loves babies in the workplace. None of the rest of America does, judging by our comments.

            2. Amy UK*

              Even those who like kids enough to go into childcare probably don’t want to spend time with (unrelated) kids when it isn’t directly part of their duty.

              I’m a primary school teacher. I like all my students, but I still don’t want to be around them much the school setting. I’m not going to shun them if I see them in the supermarket, but I’m also not going to let them trail around after me for an hour while I shop. Random children I’ve never met? Even less so.

        8. MissC Melanie*

          I would probably not work for a company with this expectation. There would have to be some large pay bump over competing industries to expect me to have to deal with crying babies, constant mom-talk, and possible baby sitting. Nope. if Chocolate Teapots instituted this policy I would make a career change to Chocolate Silverware Industries stat.

        10. Heather*

          Yeah I don’t have kids because I don’t want kids nor do I want to be looking after a coworkers kids! If I wanted to look after kids I would have had my own!

          This is a terrible, terrible idea. You know what – start implementing decent parental leave after baby is born or adopted.

        12. lowercase holly*

          eek. when i was an admin asst at a law firm, once in awhile other attys (not mine!) would bring their kids in and have their assts watch them. how could you guarantee a good standard of care in that situation if it wasn’t originally part of the job description? i do not know how to childcare, i’ve never done it.

        13. Lily in NYC*

          Oh hell no! Somehow it will always be the women and admins expected to help out and the men will all be able to get away with pretending like the babies aren’t there. I was expected to babysit coworkers’ kids so often in my early days as a junior admin and I hated it. I had one job that expected it so often (it wasn’t part of my job duty; it was a “favor”) that I just started letting the kids run wild and play with pretend guns so that some of the more uptight parents wouldn’t want me around their rugrats. I’ve mentioned this here before – one woman who I didn’t like told me her precious wasn’t allowed to play with guns (they weren’t plastic ones, they would use things like rulers or their fingers to “shoot”) and I told her then she should stop dumping her kid on me and get her own damn babysitter. I put a stop to it after one of them expected me to watch her kids at her house overnight FOR FREE and was furious when I refused. She complained to my boss (the worst offender) and another boss overheard and flipped out and I never had to watch another kid there.

          2. Not So NewReader*

            I had a volunteer job, it was a short term thing but there were a lot of problems. The icing on the cake was the leader of the whole group brought her kids into the area all of us were working and then she vanished. After a day of her young children running here, there and everywhere all the the volunteers (over 50 people) were complaining about these children. The leader remained oblivious to the whole matter. People were very angry.

        15. Erin*

          What about the poor co-workers that aren’t particularly fond of babies? Like me? I would be wary that it might end up reflecting badly on me if I didn’t enjoy scooping babies up (!)

      2. Muriel Heslop*

        I noticed the “graduation” for babies was when they are mobile which I translate to mean crawling. Also, a very small, privately owned company with a lot of people in the same boat. I would still find it distracting.

      3. Bwmn*

        What I’m most confused by is how this type of policy would work across an organization to ensure equitable access to the policy? Where I work some people are in cubes, some in offices. Some of those offices are large, some small. As well as a receptionist who sits at the office’s entrance.

        In addition, some staff have few to no external meetings (aka baby unfriendly) where some have a lot. So even provided that an “office friendly” area was arranged for crying/fussing – it’s hard for me to not see this as a policy that heavily favors certain teams. I imagine that whatever offices take this on perhaps don’t have such a distinction in terms of internal/external facing employees, but it’s hard for me to imagine the kind of office where this doesn’t end up appearing to favor some teams over others.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          I think it’s like any type of workplace policy–some positions will be better suited for it than others. For instance, an employer might offer flex time across the board, but the front office receptionist probably can’t take advantage of it. I don’t think policies have to suit all positions, as people can make career choices or internal transfers based on what will work best for them.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              I don’t have employees, but my understanding is that no one is assigned any type of childcare duty unless they willingly sign up for it, as specified in an agreement with their coworker. If people have the impression that the employer is assigning coworkers to babysit, I think that’s a misunderstanding.

              1. Mike C.*

                There’s still going to be pressure in the “you have to be a ~team player~” sense of the word. Why not offer paid leave instead of pissing off all of your employees?

                1. Brandy*

                  Il’ll be counted against in reviews “Brandy doesn’t watch the kids, not a team player” = lower raise.

              2. Algae*

                Why not look into on-site childcare by a licensed program with reduced costs, subsidized by the employer, for employees?

                1. Knit Pixie*

                  This I think could be a good idea. Maybe your company could consider something like this Denise?

              3. Stranger than fiction*

                What happens when the baby gets hurt while in the care of the coworker?

              4. INTP*

                This kind of thing can still be not-100%-voluntary even if it’s opt-in. See studies showing women are viewed more unfavorably for not helping out with office admin work and housework (like washing the dishes) than men. This could result in people’s reputation at work relying on their willingness to babysit so no, it’s not voluntary. If you need babysitters at work you should hire them.

              5. Honeybee*

                Are employees going to be allowed to watch babies from people who are above or below them on the chart? Because I can see that being rife for abuse.

          2. Clarissa*

            OP, can you clarify what other family/personal benefits your company provides? Is this replacing flex hours, p/maternity leave, etc.? As you said, not all positions are suited for all policies. But many of the suggestions that could replace the “bring babies to work” idea are much more broadly beneficial regardless of position.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              We have a 35 hour work week that the organization sticks to, meaning no one is expected to work more than that unless really absolutely necessary. So if you have children in daycare, that’s pretty comfortable. Other than that, there’s nothing really besides the standard maternity leave. We don’t have flex time or telecommuting.

                1. Merry and Bright*

                  Until an online meeting with a homeworker present gets messed up because a baby starts crying. Been there, done that, got the t-shirts. To be fair, same goes for barking dogs.

                  It is a challenge – to say the least – for parents but I don’t think babies in the office (or online) is the answer.

                2. lawsuited*

                  WFH policies often require you to have childcare so that your employer can be sure you can do your work while at home rather than spending your work day caring for your child(ren). The reality is that you can’t do two things at once. If you’re caring for your child and working at the same time, whether it’s at home or in the office, something’s going to give. I think m/paternity leave is the best solution so that you can focus on your child, and focus on your work, but separately.

                3. MashaKasha*

                  I didn’t say it’d be a far better solution than everything else. I said it’d be a better solution than having everyone haul their babies to work every day. Granted, I’d be hard pressed to come up with a worse solution than that one.

                  OP sounds like she doesn’t have the finances/clout/whatever to open an on-site daycare or to change the company policy to extend maternity leave. So I went with whatever seemed like the most available solution.

                4. Honeybee*

                  @lawsuited: I don’t see how WFH with a baby is possibly worse than working from the office with a baby. If OP’s company is willing to allow people to bring their babies into the office, they should be willing to allow people to WFH with baby nearby (perhaps with the stipulation they have some on-call care in case they need to run into a meeting).

                  But I think the better solution here is paid parental leave.

              2. Jeff A.*

                So why not lobby your company for additional maternity/paternity leave time, as others have suggested? It strikes me as the much cleaner, more readily-implemented solution that causes the least disruption to your employer.

                1. Stranger than fiction*

                  Yes exactly law suited and jeff work from home means just that WORK not work a bit go play with baby work a bit go take nap…

          3. fposte*

            I think that’s true, but this is a heck of a perk to be cut off from, especially because it’s likely to be the lower-paid positions that can’t make it work–and those are where women of child-bearing age are most predominant. If you’re going to implement this, I’d really encourage you to try hard to find a way to make this available to employees across the board.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              I’m not sure about that. Some of the places that have adopted the policy are credit unions with tellers who have brought their babies to work with them. This particular policy is, I think, fair in terms of what levels of seniority are able to do it. It is more a reflection of function and work environment than experience level. I’m sure there would be middle managers and executives who couldn’t make it work at all because they are in meetings or with clients all day.

              1. fposte*

                It’s your workplace, so you know it better than I do. I just think that’s something to be aware of if you’re planning implementation–this is a big thing to cut people off from. (If tellers can do it, why couldn’t a receptionist?)

                I might consider identifying a max amount of babysitting hours allowable and then letting people figure it out the workability for their own positions as long as they’re legal and safe; any time you’re implementing something like this it’s going to be fluid, with rules changing as you find out this way works and this way doesn’t, so why not start broad and see how it works?

                1. Bwmn*

                  @fposte – this was my concern. Just that it would be a significant perk to be cut off of for relatively arbitrary reasons. If you work in accounting, tax season will always be busy – if you work in reception, teleworking is likely entirely out of the question, but those are fairly concrete relations to the needs and demands of the position. The fact that accounting is better able to use “baby at work” while sales would be cut off feels far more arbitrary.

                  My organization is in a building that is semi-shut for the two weeks around Christmas/New Years. In past years, the two weeks were given off to staff with the reality that some departments would still have to come into the office for necessary tasks whereas other teams got the full extra time off as long as someone would symbolically be on call. (no one who had to work was paid anything more/less than those with the extra vacation days) New management decided that this system felt grossly disparate across teams, so this year they increased our number of vacation days by 7 and those two weeks will be treated as normal weeks with holidays.

                  I’m just saying, if it feels like it’s just certain teams that benefit (as opposed to some employees opting in and some opting out), that’s something to watch for long term.

              2. KJR*

                Maybe I’m thick as a board today…but I just don’t get this. I stayed home for 12 weeks with each of my babies, and I could barely take care of myself during the day, much less anything around the house (laundry, etc.), so I don’t understand how anyone would get any work done in the office, much less 8 hours worth. It’s not like the little darlings sleep peacefully all day! I mean seriously, how would this work? I’m not going to go into all of the possible scenarios here, but babies are messy, noisy, and highly unpredictable. They do not belong in an office, period. And this is from someone who LOVES babies.

              3. Dr. Johnny Fever*

                Do you means tellers at the window with babies with them? All the crying echoing into the customer lobby AS WELL AS the employee area?

                No. Just no. Bad idea all around.

                1. Windchime*

                  My local bank is already a nightmare when I go in there. Long lines, echo-ey, and all the tellers just lined up at a tall counter instead of each having his/her own little section. Add screaming babies and distracted parents to the mix? Ugh.

                2. anonanonanon*

                  Yeah, I’m wondering about the logistics of this as well. Plus, money is dirty. Really dirty. When I worked at a bank during college, I would wash my hands so much more because some of the money coming in was gross.

          4. Chronic Snacker*

            It’s a bit more alienating than flex time. It would be upsetting to have to transfer or change my otherwise enjoyable position because of a policy that is more imposing than answering the receptionist’s phone while they’re out.

            Please consider researching and gathering some feedback from the rest of your office before presenting this idea. Any concerns will be voiced and you might garner some ideas that would better suit the team.

        2. fposte*

          One article suggested that people in cubicles liked using Pack and Plays, and I thought that office must have the widest aisles ever. Or the most lenient fire codes.

      1. Nerdling*

        Nope, nope, nope. Pretty much my entire office encouraged me to bring my kid in after he was born, offering to hold/play with as needed, and the same was offered with the other mom in the office when hers was little. But neither of us ever took them up on the offer – we just don’t have a job that is conducive to that sort of setup, and I wasn’t going to force my colicky munchkin on anyone else. I honestly can’t imagine being able to do my job while attached at the hip to a baby, having to feed him/her every two to four hours, changing diapers, etc. There’s too much undivided attention required!

        Seriously, paid p/maternity leave makes far more sense than this!

        1. Chinook*

          “we just don’t have a job that is conducive to that sort of setup, and I wasn’t going to force my colicky munchkin on anyone else.”

          This brings up a good point – if you happen to have a colicky infant who would disrupt the work at the office, this type of perk could mean that you risk losing your job because you won’t come to work because the boss can say they have found a way for you to balance childcare. But, with paid parental leave (I noticed OP only referenced maternity leave – are there exceptions available if the mother is, for some reason, unable to care for the infant and the father needs to stay home?), the stress of a colicky child is born only by the parents and not the entire office while still guaranteeing a job at the end.

          1. LucyVP*

            I had the ‘bring your baby’ arrangement with two co-workers at my old job. One had the easiest baby ever, we almost never even knew he was there.

            The other had a more challenging baby, a lot more crying and general noise and accommodation needed.

            The personality (and health) of the baby is a big unknown in these arrangements.

  2. Anonicorn*

    Call me an ogre too. Having a baby in the office all day is a fantastic method to annoy most of your coworkers. And I can’t imagine it would be an ideal environment for the baby either.

    1. MicheleNYC*

      I am also an ogre. This is one of my biggest pet peeves in the office bringing your kids to work. It is so disruptive.

    2. Helka*

      Offices, like schools, are germ factories — I sure as heck wouldn’t want to have a baby of mine here all day!

      2. eee*

        Right? Even before “yikes, I love babies, but I would find that wildly annoying” was the thought that offices are a breeding ground for germs. Do you really want your infant in the same workplace where people might have to come in sick??

        1. Anx*

          And conversely, do you really want to expose your employees to a baby? How would you police things like letting diapered babies on desks and countertops.

      3. Ife*

        To be fair, so are daycare centers!

        But, yikes, if my office adopted this policy I would run hard and fast in the opposite direction. Even as someone who this policy would potentially benefit, no. Just. No.

        1. Stranger than fiction*

          True but in my office theres also loud printers that reek of hot toner when they get hot, which brings up the issue of noise in general which also isn’t conducive to sleeping babies

      4. MJ (Aotearoa/New Zealand)*

        This is what I was thinking! What if your coworkers aren’t vaccinated and baby gets exposed to something?

    3. SH*

      Call me an ogre too. I’m not a baby/kid person so I’d quit if I found out they were going to be around.

    4. Lanya (aka Camp Director Kim)*

      With respect, there’s no need to sound apologetic for not wanting a baby in the workplace, especially by calling oneself an “ogre” for having that opinion. I really hate the fact that culturally (in the United States), if you ever say anything that is anti-baby, anti-kids, or anti-motherhood, that somehow makes you a terrible person (hence, “ogre”).

      Some people love kids, some people don’t, and it’s 100% OK if you do or if you don’t.

      1. Cactus*

        Thanks for this. I’ve been pretty irritated by this type of thinking lately; the “you HATE kids clearly you are AWFUL!” sort. No. I would hate a policy like this, and I’d imagine that some parents might not even be fans. Write up a brilliant flex-time, work-remotely, PTO, maternity/paternity leave, sick leave-that-includes-kids’-sick-days policy. Pay enough so parents can reasonably afford daycare, and/or have in-house daycare!

  3. NK*

    I am ALL for family-friendly, flexible policies, but I’m not a huge fan of this idea either. Bringing in a baby very occasionally for a single day when you’re in a childcare pinch? Sure. But every day? I just don’t see how that would be feasible in most office jobs (or almost any other job). I’d also much rather see other types of family-friendly flexibility. I know some companies offer transitions back into work after maternity leave on a part-time basis, maybe that’s another idea you can offer up?

    1. Anna*

      Your suggestion makes way more sense. Or think long-term and investigate setting up an on site nursery with paid staff.

      1. Vicki*

        “an on site nursery with paid staff.”

        This is exactly what I was going to suggest. We’ve seen letters from people whose companies have this. The mother can visit the baby. The mother can feed the baby. The coworkers do not need to have a baby n their workspace. Everyone wins.

        1. Sarahnova*

          I would have some serious loyalty to a company that had a subsidised on-site creche, and I’m sure I’m not the only mother in that position. That would be a HUUUUUUGE perk. And I could skip pumping, just drop in to breastfeed – and still get my work done.

          I’m at home with an 8-month-old currently, and I can barely manage to take the occasional work call during naptimes.

    2. AVP*

      Another idea that might work better – my mother’s job has a partnership with a daycare center that is just offsite from their campus. The daycare primarily takes kids of parents who work at the site, and has licensed caretakers. If something goes wrong with your kid, it’s right outside so it’s easy to run over at lunch and check in. Perhaps the OP can try to advocate for their company to set something like that up instead?

      2. Alison Hendrix*

        Best Buy HQ has a huge day care within their building (complete with two coffee shops, dry cleaning pick-up/drop-off, and a bank branch). I think that was pretty awesome. They cart the little toddlers around the campus during lunch time, in a little train cart that could hold about eight of them. :)

    3. J.B.*

      One huge thing would be that there are a very few daycares set up to take sick kids, and some companies partner with these. Huge relief if your kid is sick to not have to take yet more time off work!

      1. majigail*

        And infect the whole office? I mean, I totally get it, kids get sick, but a sick kid (or adult) has no place in an office setting.

        1. blackcat*

          No, she’s saying exactly the opposite: have the company arrange for some place for the sick kid to be able to go so that the parent can go to work.

    4. Charlotte Collins*

      I’d be OK with it if the workplace were a daycare or some other type of baby-oriented place, where there would already be an expectation that you’d encounter babies…

    5. Mints*

      This just seems like a lose-lose to me. Coworkers wouldn’t work well (I’m young and smiley, I’m 1000% sure I would be shamed into holding the baby), parents don’t get parental leave where they can focus on the baby, parents in a professional sense can’t focus on work either (I didn’t get to the TPS reports, Baby was having a bad teething day).

      Generous p/maternity leave and flex time and working from home options all solve this.

      Specifically about working from home, I don’t think it should be in lieu of childcare, but if childcare falls apart, having the option to work a half day from home during naps is a win win too.

      Kids deserve childcare where someone is really focusing on them. I don’t like this idea from any perspective.

      1. Anx*

        Oh man.

        I’m about 30, but look a lot younger. I’m pretty sure people look at me and see “good with kids.”

        And while I’ve worked with kids of different ages in a lot of my jobs, I’m not a natural with children. They stress me out so much. I volunteered at an emergency shelter once and I’m pretty sure I just got pigeon holed into the childcare role. I didn’t mind so much because it was a short-term assignment and my professional development was the last thing on my mind. But in my actual job where my professional development mattered? I would not want to have to deal with countering any expectations to watch a baby for a few minutes.

    6. Honeybee*

      My workplace does this (the part-time transition) and is fairly flexible on how you fulfill it. We had a new mom who was on mat leave 3 months, then started coming in at noon for 3 months, and now she works 3 full-time days.

  4. Mike C.*

    So OP, how do the other employees deal with the constant disruptions a newborn is apt to cause at your other sites?

    Also, will you ensure that all of the adults working there are up to date on their vaccinations so that they don’t pass on anything dangerous to the newborn?

    2. Muriel Heslop*

      I can totally imagine some people wanting to bring their babies to work, then bugging all of their colleagues about making sure their vaccines are up-to-date. Or conversely, not vaccinating their own babies and then bringing whooping cough to the office.

      1. Kyrielle*

        Well, there’s that, but in the age window we’re talking about – newborn to 6-12 months based on other comments – there are a lot of vaccines baby flatly cannot have gotten yet, or won’t be at full effectiveness until the last booster, which baby can’t get until they’re older because of the necessary spacing. In this case, it’s very likely the baby won’t have had all sorts of vaccinations, just because they can’t – they’re very vulnerable. (And yes, if they catch anything, they’ll bring it in and share. We do say we want to teach kids to share, but this isn’t what we mean!)

          1. Anna*

            Not so much. Newborns are less of a concern with vaccinations because they are generally less susceptible to the kinds of illnesses that hit older kids. If vaccinations were that much of a concern, doctors would recommend you never take a newborn anywhere.

            1. Kyrielle*

              One of the big concerns expressed *by doctors* with several diseases that receive vaccinations is that newborns are especially vulnerable because they’re not vaccinated and their immune systems aren’t strong. Infants under 1 month of age are especially likely to die from pertussis, and 50% of those that get it will have to be hospitalized.

              I was advised (by his doctor!) to hold off on taking my 8-month-old to his first day of day care because they had RSV going around – it’s a real problem for the littlest, though there’s no vaccine for that one.

              I wish what you are saying were true, but according to my understanding and based on what my children’s doctor has told us, it’s not.

              I think doctors also understand that parents have lives and have to get things done, which is the reason they don’t recommend you not take them anywhere.

              1. Anna*

                One of the reasons is not only herd immunity but the idea there’s a lot of protection coming from mother’s breast milk. Most illnesses are not airborne, as was mentioned below. It’s about putting strange things in their mouth, which would be a concern at 8 mos and not so much at 1 month.

                1. Kyrielle*

                  I’ve heard that, and it’s great, but the fact remains that a newborn that does catch something is likelier to get quite sick from it than an older child, with most such “something”s. Pertussis is the particular bad guy here, and is airborne and can look like “just a cold” in adults, especially in its first phase. Others are also unpleasant.

                  And of course, not all infants will be breast-fed, for a variety of reasons – and while I would guess that breastfeeding mothers would be most likely to want their infant in the office with them, I wouldn’t count on it as a guarantee.

                  And relying on herd immunity is a real crapshoot. It depends on where you are, where the people around you came from, etc. Measles and pertussis outbreaks lately suggest we’re dropping below the critical threshold.

                2. Chinook*

                  “Measles and pertussis outbreaks lately suggest we’re dropping below the critical threshold.”

                  Statistics Canada confirmed Tuesday that we have dropped below the critical threshold in Canada (in a place with universal healthcare and vaccinations at no cost to infants). I can only imagine it is similar in the U.S. Link to news article in next post.

                4. Anna*

                  Yeah, I was working with some other assumptions and I can see that there would be concerns but I think I would be more concerned about possibly not knowing anyone at work well enough to want them to care for my baby. What I mean is when I’m assessing someone, my assessment might not include the specific question about vaccinations but more how would I feel about this person handling my kid, period.

            2. Mike C.*

              Uh, no. There’s a reason why new mothers are being advised to ensure all the adults visiting are up to date on their shots, especially measles and whooping cough.

              You can generally take them places that aren’t suffering from an outbreak because of herd immunity of having nearly everyone else vaccinated.

              1. Honeybee*

                And whooping cough is one of those things that most adults are NOT up to date on. You need a booster every 10 years and most adults are not aware of this.

            3. LBD*

              They do! Until they’re two months old, if a newborn spikes a fever they get a spinal tap to rule out meningitis so our daughter’s pediatrician recommended limiting her outings where she might encounter crowded conditions until she was 8 weeks old.

            4. Natalie*

              I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that newborns are less susceptible to disease than older kids? Infants are absolutely just as susceptible to many illnesses, and actually more at risk for some (Hib and whooping cough come to mind in particular). One of the purposes of high vaccination coverage is preventing the spread of illnesses to populations that can’t be vaccinated, including infants.

              1. J.B.*

                IME the littlest ones get more of the airborne diseases. The ones passed around on surfaces come later, when they’re all drooling and chewing on things.

      2. Jeff A.*

        I previously worked at a large university coordinating clinical placements for nursing students. All our clinical sites required that they receive verification that every student they placed on one of their floors was UTD on all vaccinations and immunizations…let’s just say you would be amazed and/or horrified at the number of adults (American adults!) who are not up-to-date on their vaccinations.

        1. Anx*

          I don’t think it’s that surprising. If you think about it, most people get up to date on the vaccines for school, work, or volunteering. Older adults who aren’t students or are employed by hospitals/schools etc don’t have that system in check anymore.

          It’s very common for adults to go years, even decades, without going to the doctor.

        2. Honeybee*

          Not surprised…I had to get 6 vaccinations when I started college in 2004 because I was moving into the residence halls and was behind on a whole bunch of them. We weren’t even aware that adults had to get vaccines.

    3. MicheleNYC*

      The vaccination thing would be a big one for a lot of people. It would mean the entire office would have to go get I think it is the whopping cough vaccine to accommodate a small percentage of parents.

      1. ExceptionToTheRule*

        Whooping cough (pertussis) is part of a combined booster with tetanus & diptheria. You should be getting a booster every 10 years so that your arm doesn’t fall off if you cut yourself with a dirty knife (or so my mother always told me).

        1. Kyrielle*

          Yes, though often you get tetanous-only, rather than the TDaP (which is the one you’re thinking of). It’s entirely possible to renew your tetanous every ten years and not get the other two, which I learned when told that *I* wasn’t protected against it when I was pregnant with my first. I had to get that one specifically.

          Given the anti-vaccination movement, I’d argue that every adult who needs that booster to have immunity should get it, though. Yes, pertussis can be deadly for babies and is usually not for adults, but that doesn’t mean it’s fun either.

          1. ExceptionToTheRule*

            Really? It’s not even an option at my clinic – they only give the cocktail.

            1. Honeybee*

              Yes, there is one version of the tetanus vaccine that is tetanus-only. But it seems most clinics don’t have access to it, or simply don’t order it because the vast majority of people want/need the combination vaccine. (there are also versions with just tetanus and diphtheria.)

        2. Biff*

          More people than you might think get advice to not get certain vaccinations. While I’m up-to-date on a lot of them, I can’t get a flu vaccine. So please — don’t be down on adults who don’t get vaccines. I’m not in the habit of explaining my medical issues and I doubt they are either.

          1. Not So NewReader*

            Ditto from me. A communicable disease specialist told me that getting some shots would be too dangerous for me. Fine by me, I can just stay out of certain situations. Likewise, I do not explain the details to people.

          2. Knit Pixie*

            Yup and people can be jerks about it. A flu shot could hospitalize my husband, yet he had a boss (of all people) who was trying to require him to get one, when the company had a nurse come to the office to administer them as a courtesy. This boss got nasty and was ready to suspend my husband, write him up for insubordination etc. So my husband went in, told the nurse his contraindication and she agreed it was not in his best interest to have this shot. Still boss ranted and raved and retaliated until HR was forced to step in and told him he could not mandate this.

            The fact that my husband was allergic made no matter; looking back it is comedic to remember it snowballing from a “lame excuse” to a “conspiracy” (since the nurse chimed in) and the fact that a medical professional said it wasn’t a good idea, “still not a good enough reason to skip it.”

            Like really. I have no idea where some people get off.

      3. ineloquent*

        And even if you were to check the vaccination status of your entire office, you might still miss something important. My very good friend’s mother was a nurse, and she falsified his immunization records so that he could go to school without being vaccinated (she bought into the autism/vaccine hysteria). He didn’t find out until he was an adult.

    4. Kyrielle*

      The vaccinations thing would deeply worry me, as a parent. If the idea were tenable in all other ways – IMO it’s not – that alone would cause me not to use it for any child of mine.

    5. OP (Denise)*

      Companies that have done it have found that the newborns aren’t actually as disruptive as people think given that their needs can be immediately addressed. Model policies written on the issue state that if after taking the infant to a separate area designated for such, the infant cannot be calmed within a half hour, the employee must take the infant home and use personal/sick/unpaid time to do so.

      1. OP (Denise)*

        Also, on the vaccinations issue, I’m pretty sure most all adults in the workplace would have been vaccinated already. I can’t recall the last time I actually had a vaccination (college maybe?) I guess there will be some who aren’t but given that schools require vaccinations, the great majority of adults who have attended high school will have been vaccinated. So I don’t see that really being an issue.

        I will say that I worked in a company that had onsite daycare integrated with office space and I did feel somewhat pressured to get the flu shots they offered. I’m sure it was out of concern for the kids. I didn’t get one, though, and no one said anything to me about it.

        1. jhhj*

          There are huge anti-vaccination groups and you can in many places opt out of vaccinations for your children to go to school, so I would not assume that any given adult is vaccinated or that, if they were, they have kept up to date.

            1. TL -*

              Yes, but vaccinations aren’t always effective as time goes on. If they haven’t gotten boosters and if your office is in a hotspot for non-compliant vaccinations (affluent west coast neighborhoods, for example), they could easily be bringing in whooping cough or measles via contact with a largely unvaccinated population of children + lack of vaccine boosters in adults.

              Many adults don’t get boosters because it’s generally only pushed if you’re in a high-risk area/population. That being said, you should get your TDaP every 10 years.

            2. HB*

              How would you possibly know that, though, as that is private health information? There are many exemptions to the vaccine requirements for public schooling and perhaps your coworkers got those and were never vaccinated.

              It’s also very common for adults to forget about boosters (tetanus, people!).

            3. Ezri*

              The majority isn’t all, and you have no way of knowing who has and who hasn’t. It’s not something you can make assumptions about when establishing a policy.

            4. zora*

              but weirdly, keeping vaccines current is just not really common here. Even among adults who have had consistent health insurance. I know that I was surprised at what I was behind on when I checked on my immunizations when planning an out of the country trip. It’s just not something most doctor’s offices talk to you about on a regular basis when you are an otherwise healthy 20/30 something adult.

              1. zora*

                and if you haven’t had a vaccine since college then you are probably not up to date on everything you should be.

            5. Green*

              Most adults don’t have whooping cough vaccinations. And probably the majority of adults haven’t kept up with boosters. You’re kind of making stuff up here now…

              1. UK Nerd*

                I didn’t realise that the whooping cough vaccine requires boosters until three years ago, when I caught whooping cough. I had no idea what was wrong with me and probably coughed bacteria all over a lot of people before the antibiotics did their job.

              2. Cactus*

                Yep. The only reason I’m up on mine is because my doctor was so freaking awesome and proactive about reminding me (and now I know to get TDaP every time I have a birthday ending in a “5”). It was a lifesaver when my husband ended up with pertussis this past fall.

        2. LBK*

          There are immuno-compromised or allergic adults who can’t be vaccinated. I think those cases are pretty rare, but I still would hesitate to assume that all adults are fully vaccinated.

            1. Fuzzyfuzz*

              You’re making some big assumptions here; honestly, you never know what’s going on in your coworkers’ private lives. Plus, it’s a lot more common than you think. I am currently pregnant and it was discovered at my first pre-natal that I lost my immunity to measles during a chemo regimen for leukemia in my mid 20s (a whole other kettle of immuno-compromised fish). I cannot be vaccinated until the baby is born. They test for immunity now during prenatal appointments, so I certainly cannot be the only one.

              1. HB*

                Yep! Also pregnant and had to be tested to make sure I was sill immune to rubella and chicken pox. These things wear off for some people.

              2. Judy*

                I lost my measles immunity sometime between my last booster and becoming pregnant. I didn’t even have chemo. My younger sister was still in college in the early 90s when measles was happening on campus, but I was just old enough that I didn’t get the additional booster.

                I even had gone in to my previous doctor the year before we were going to start trying, and asked if there was anything I needed to do, and besides the prenatal vitamins, nothing about this testing was mentioned.

            2. UtahEditor*

              It’s not as rare as you think. Anyone with an immune disorder or a transplant has a compromised immune system and there are a LOT of both these days. Also, anyone who has such a person at home (I do) has to also take efforts to avoid diseases.

              1. Kara*

                Anyone who takes a medication like Humira for arthritis (like my ex) or who is or has undergone chemo or radiation has compromised immunity. I guarantee you none of my ex’s co-workers know he takes Humira (it just doesn’t come up in every day conversation) but he is immuno-suppressed because of it. He has to take a TB test every 3 months and be careful about being exposed to communicable conditions (including colds and flu). He looks the picture of health and in fact competes in kickboxing, so there’s no way to tell that he is vulnerable.

                People who say “it’s rare, don’t worry about it” are the people who scare me the most, because they’re making all kinds of assumptions about other people’s health from a position of complete and utter ignorance.

            3. Green*

              People with compromised immune systems are rare? They’re not the majority, but it’s not a rarity.

        4. sam*

          Contrary to what most people believe, many vaccines actually aren’t “permanent”. Most adults are protected by herd immunity, but the full protection requires boosters periodically, and adults are also able to fight off or deal with many illnesses that are simply more dangerous to children – but when I went to India a few years ago, I actually had to get boosters of a whole host of vaccines that I had gotten as a kid. I think polio is permanent, but I had to get an MMR booster, a tetanus booster (thats 10 years as stated above, and I got the full TDaP), as well as some other fun vaccines for things like hepatitis A and typhoid.

          By the way, did you know the typhoid vaccine is only good for 2 years? I didn’t, and neither did my brother, who found out the hard way while he was living in Afghanistan.

          1. Mike C.*

            I have a friend who had to get the smallpox vaccination due to the work she does her lab. She thought it was the coolest thing ever.

            2. BananaPants*

              My brother’s smallpox vaccination scar is very cool looking. (He’s active duty military and was vaccinated during the time period when all service members were vaccinated.)

              1. zora*

                my parents have the smallpox scars, they are old enough to have had to get it when they were kids.

                1. Jessica (tc)*

                  My parents have them, too. I asked what it was when I was a little kid, and my mom tried to explain why she had the scar, but I probably wouldn’t have to have it. I didn’t get the concept fully until I was older, but I was glad she assured me, because I was terrified of needles and that was a scary thought considering the size of the scar!

          2. Natalie*

            Just a clarification, for many people Hep A & B vaccines appear to be lifelong. However, they are fairly new vaccines (compared to measles or whatever) so some adults may have never been vaccinated as children. I didn’t get a Hep B vaccine until college.

            1. blackcat*

              Or the Hep B sequence was an old type.

              I’m pretty young (27) and my grad school institution made me do the entire Hep B cycle again, given that I had only gotten 2 vaccines as a kid and the standard is now 3. They also insisted on a new TDAP–the tetanus only boosters I had been getting weren’t acceptable to them.

              1. blackcat*

                Oh, and I fought them on the chickenpox vaccine. I had the chicken pox when I was 3, but kids just 1-2 years younger than me got vaccinated in most places.

                I also wasn’t horridly ill, so my mom didn’t take me to the doctor when I had it. I went back and forth with the health center saying “But I HAD the chickenpox! I remember having the chickenpox! I was miserable!” Eventually, they accepted a signed letter from my mom, swearing that I had had the chickenpox. If there wasn’t a not insignificant chance of the chickenpox vaccine causing shingles in me (it happens in my age bracket), I would have just accepted the additional shot.

              2. Jessica (tc)*

                I was a little mad I had to get an updated tetanus (the TDAP) at my last checkup. I have a nasty reaction after the tetanus shots that affects me for several weeks, and I just had the regular booster a couple of years before and thought I was good for my 10 years. Grrrr on them for realizing that the whooping cough from my last childhood booster wasn’t working any longer! (Not really, but I was really hoping I was set for at least 8 more years, so it was a nasty surprise that my doctor sprung on me.)

          3. OP (Denise)*

            No, they aren’t all permanent, but the necessity of updates also relates to their general prevalence in the populace or, as you shared, your particular geographic area. So I think it would be easy to talk about the permanence or impermanence of a vaccine without putting it into context.

          4. Cath in Canada*

            Ugh, and the typhoid shot is really painful. They told me “you will experience soreness in your arm” and I assumed it would be like a flu shot. It was not. I felt like my left arm was about 20 times its usual weight, and it ached so much I could barely move it.

        5. cv*

          If you haven’t had a vaccine since college, then your immunity for some things has likely diminished over time and you’d pose a risk to babies in your office. You should have a TDAP booster every 10 years, and you can typically graduate from high school without getting the meningitis vaccine (it’s recommended for students in dorms, people in the military, and that sort of thing).

          Also, the flu is no joke for infants. If the fact that you want infants in your office but are unwilling to get a flu shot is representative of your overall approach, then I can’t imagine the program is going to go smoothly.

          1. Ezri*

            Having the children in a separate daycare area isn’t the same as having them in the office, as well… you are much more likely to spread germs to a baby in the next office than you are to one on the other side of the building.

          2. OP (Denise)*

            I didn’t work with the children nor did I get the flu. To my knowledge companies that provide onsite daycare do not require their employees to be vaccinated or get flu shots, so I don’t think your implying that this is somehow negligent on my part is at all on point.

            1. Poppy*

              Pretty much anybody who works in a medical capacity with infants, babies, or children is strongly encouraged to get an annual flu shot, in addition to complying to the CDC’s vaccination schedule. By strongly encouraged, I mean they can either be up-to-date with their vaccines or they are fired/forced to take leave until they are fully vaccinated. I imagine the same policy is in place for many daycares. I’m also thinking of the recent measles outbreak at the daycare in Palatine, IL — it’s risky not to require up to date vaccines of all individuals working so closely with young children, no matter the environment.

            2. SystemsLady*

              The fact that you didn’t get the flu shot has nothing to do with the fact that you didn’t get or have never gotten the flu.

              If a close contact of yours had contracted the flu, you’d have been wishing you had gotten the vaccination, that’s for sure.

              And it surprises me that daycare employees are not required to get a flu shot, though I guess I don’t know how young the children at the facility you’re attached to average.

              Those who will be in close contact with infants at least are basically required to get the shot, to the maximum extent that you can be required to do so in your circumstance.

              I wouldn’t call you negligent per se in your situation, but I find this common blase attitude towards flu vaccines frustrating.

              1. Ezri*

                I commonly hear people who never get sick say they don’t need boosters or vaccines… my Dad is one of them. The problem is, me and my sisters and my stepmom DO get sick. So my Dad would pick up something nasty and carry it around infecting people while claiming he ‘never gets sick’. After a couple of months of passing strep around my house my Stepmom forced everyone, including him, to get vaccines. That put a stop to it, it’s been years since we had a household outbreak.

                My husband is the same way – he never gets sick, but he still gets a flu shot because I catch everything he brings home.

              2. Tyrannosaurus Regina*

                Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding how the flu shot works, but I was under the impression that although it protects many people from contracting influenza at all, for others it’s still possible to get it—but you get a much *milder* form of it. …which, to my mind, would still make you a risk for spreading it to babies or anybody else. (Isn’t that how the bordatella vx works in dogs? Reduces their chances of getting kennel cough but not to 0%, but if a vaccinated dog does get it, it’s a less severe case?)

                I should probably look this up instead of assuming…

        6. Ezri*

          “Also, on the vaccinations issue, I’m pretty sure most all adults in the workplace would have been vaccinated already.”

          That’s a big assumption, depending on the size of your organization. It needs to be considered.

          1. OP (Denise)*

            It’s really not an assumption. You can calculate the probability given the vaccination requirements for US public and private schools.

            1. Jeff A.*

              Actually, you might be surprised at how frequently this is not the case, even in the US. I used to work in higher education for an American university (dealing with students who were ALREADY admitted and enrolled in a post-baccalaureate program), and I can tell you that you’d be astounded by the number of American adults who are not up-to-date on their immunizations and vaccinations.

              I had to screen all our nursing students and verify their vaccination records prior to their being accepted at affiliate clinical sites for rotations, and there were MANY of them who had immunizations lapsed…and these are adults who are dialed-into the healthcare world.

            2. Kat M*

              Yes-but the point everyone is making is that people let their vaccines slide as adults (from forgetfulness or thinking the ones they received as a kid would last forever). So, even if you get the vaccines as a kid, your immunity might have worn off. A lot of healthy adults-particularly young adults-don’t always get a physical every year so their doctors might not have the opportunity to remind them and, even if they do, you get so little time with the doctors when you go in that you might not think to ask if it’s not on your radar and they might not think to ask if they’re trying to juggle a day full of patients.

              Vaccines do wear off and even pro-vax folks don’t think to get things updated. It happens. And people travel to developing countries or might come into contact with people who choose not to or could not be vaccinated. Not a liability anyone should have, no matter how small.

              1. Colleen*

                I’m in my mid-40s and none–not one–of my routine-care doctors has ever mentioned vaccine boosters to me, or asked when my last vaccinations occurred. Since my teens, the only times I’ve been asked about my vaccinations are: 1) when I was pregnant and 2) when I went to urgent care after I accidentally cut myself.

                1. Andrea*

                  It’s possible that this is changing. I’m in my mid-30s and my doctor asked me about tetanus; I remembered that I’d had one in 2005 and so I got another earlier this year (the one with the pertussis booster, too). She’s my primary care doctor, and she knows that I spend a lot of free time working in the garden, digging in the dirt, growing veggies, etc., so that is possibly why she asked. But she also mentioned to me that there’s been a push recently to make sure adults are up to date on these things.

            3. GigglyPuff*

              But aren’t you really referring to the vaccination requirements for now? What about ten, twenty years ago?

              I have a friend who never got vaccinations, went to public school and college, and her parents certainly didn’t opt out for religious reasons. Now in her early thirties.

            4. Xay*

              Also, depending on the ages of your staff and when they were in school, they may not be current on all recommended vaccinations. I wasn’t vaccinated for Hepatitis A and B until I was an adult. Similarly, many adults don’t bother to get the flu vaccine every year – I didn’t until a flu outbreak at my son’s school.

            5. Ezri*

              It IS an assumption. Probability does not constitute fact on any given sample size in the real world. Other commenters have already provided circumstances where an adult may not be vaccinated, and unless you see the medical records of everyone you meet you can’t tell who is and who isn’t.

            6. Biff*

              For someone who came here looking for straight talk, you seem oddly adversarial when you got what you came for. Is there a reason for that? Clearly before this topic came up you thought we were all reasonable, somewhat well-informed workers. Now we’re all wrong somehow? I think you need to realize that we actually represent a reasonable slice of the working world and if all of us are telling you this is a bad idea, in a myriad of different ways then the best response is to not try to write the policy with a bunch of caveats and assumptions in it, but to not have this policy.

        7. BananaPants*

          Nope, not in the US. While vaccines are required for school and college attendance, in most states it’s extremely easy to be exempted on “religious” or philosophical grounds. The parent or student fills out a one page form, and they don’t have to be vaccinated for ANYTHING to go to school.

          We can only hope that other states follow suit with California’s recent passage of a strict new law that closes the loophole on most non-medical vaccine exemptions.

            1. fposte*

              But also when they want to school and college, because requirements change and, as noted above, immunity fades.

          2. OP (Denise)*

            The fact that someone “can” be exempted actually doesn’t address the probabilty of any given adult having been vaccinated or not. The fact of the matter is that the percentage of individuals whose parents chose to file an exemption is small.

            1. TychaBrahe*

              That depends on where you live. I don’t have any information on vaccination rates in adults, but in “crunchy” areas of California like West LA and Marin County, there are schools where vaccination rates have dipped into the low 30% range. Fortunately California has recently passed a law eliminating the personal belief exemption.

            2. TL -*

              That is extremely, and I mean extremely, region-dependent.
              If your company is in state with a high percentage of low-income adults, that is very likely to be true (Mississippi, for example, has great compliance rates). If you’re in a state with a lot of high-income adults, it’s very region-specific and some counties have compliance rates that are between 50-80% at various ages.

              1. Algae*

                Wow; I didn’t ever hear about income levels and vaccination rates, but it makes a ton of sense. Private insurance means you can doctor-shop more than Medicaid patients are able to.

            3. Ezri*

              Even if it’s small, it’s still a possible risk. If someone isn’t vaccinated and a baby in your office gets really sick, how will this policy handle that?

              1. Cactus*

                Seriously. Very young kids have died from catching communicable, vaccine-preventable diseases. Do you want to risk this?

            4. ineloquent*

              But really, do you want to put a bunch of delicate infants at risk because your perception is that most office workers are vaccinated (regardless of whether that is the case)? It just takes one person to pass on something deadly, and the paerents don’t and can’t know enought about their coworkers to make a truely informed choice. Kids are safer at home with a limited number of people who interact with them until they get a bit older.

              1. Kyrielle*

                Or at a child care provider, where the workers *do* have to certify that they have the immunizations, etc. Though there, they are exposed to other children, of course. (So are babies who stay home but have siblings in school, though.)

        9. Kyrielle*

          That’s a potentially dangerous assumption, actually. The effects of some vaccinations can attenuate over time, and the list of “standard” vaccinations has changed over the years. I had to get 6-8 vaccinations, to protect my newborn, when I had my first. I had all the regular childhood vaccinations – some of the now-regular ones weren’t when I was little, while others wear off over time.

        10. Kiryn*

          What if they didn’t go to high school in the US? Most of the tech offices I’ve worked in have had plenty of people who moved to this country as adults after attending school elsewhere, and I have no idea what the vaccination laws are in their various countries of origin.

          1. Cassie*

            I just checked – there are vaccination requirements for people coming to the US as a permanent resident (or getting PR from a different visa type). You can apply for exemptions, e.g. for religious reasons. I was going to say that I’m not sure my parents are vaccinated (they moved to the US in their mid-30s) but apparently they would have had to be in order to get PR status.

            I was a toddler when we moved to the US – I had the necessary vaccines for my age and then got additional vaccines before entering the 1st grade (or maybe it was kindergarten?). I also got some booster in high school (don’t remember for what), but I have not had a booster since. Oops. I have not had a chicken pox vaccine. Didn’t get a Hep B vaccine (my college started requiring them just as I was about to graduate).

        11. Engineer Girl*

          No, adults may not be vaccinated, especially the older ones. A lot of vaccines didn’t exist when older adults were children. Polio for those over the age of 65, Measles and Chicken Pox for those over the age of 55.
          It could actually be risky to ask an older adult to be vaccinated, so you’re in a sticky situation. It would be wrong to ask someone to endure a medical risk for your convenience. Note that I said convenience, not need.

          1. Honeybee*

            Not even that for chicken pox. The varicella vaccine was developed in 1995, and it didn’t become part of the recommended cocktail of childhood vaccinations until 2006. I’m only 29 and I wasn’t vaccinated for varicella – I got my immunity the hard way. I’m betting that the majority of working adults never got a varicella vaccination; most of them probably had chicken pox, but some of them might not have.

            Not to mention that even if you did have varicella as a child, it can reactivate as shingles as an adult. You’re supposed to get a shingles vaccination if you’re over around 55, but not everyone knows that, and I do believe that an adult with shingles can pass it in the form of chicken pox to a child (although admittedly you’re only contagious when the blisters are oozing, and people are unlikely to be at work then).

        12. Adam V*

          > Also, on the vaccinations issue, I’m pretty sure most all adults in the workplace would have been vaccinated already.

          Do you want to be in the business of verifying everyone’s vaccination records? Would you be on the hook (legally) if you don’t?

        13. snuck*

          There actually is a genuine concern around vaccination.

          Newborns can’t have the full pertussis (whooping cough) amongst others…

          and that’s the one that most people need re-immunising every 10yrs on. Quick poll of your office… how many people have had a DTP in the last 10yrs? You’ll find it’s very very few. They won’t be up to date. And in adults whooping cough presents differently – a very nasty “100 day” cough. Without the whoop.

        14. Sarah in Boston*

          A ton of people at work had to get vaccinated against measles last year when we had an exposure at one of our buildings. We had people who couldn’t confirm vaccination because who knows where the paperwork is and we had people who got checked and were no longer immune (older version of the vaccine). So even if you have been vaccinated, you might not a) be able to prove it or b) still be immune in some cases.

          1. Kyrielle*

            As an aside, for many of these, your doctor can run titers to measure if you’re immune, if your vaccination status is unknown. (Which I had done when I was pregnant with my first, since my records from before about age 22-23 are long gone into the annals of history…and thus we found out I needed a bunch of shots. Whee. And I’m pro-vaccination, but like many adults, I didn’t know anything other than tetanus needed renewing, and *doctors didn’t really discuss that with me*. Until I was pregnant…well, now I know, at least!)

            1. Loose Seal*

              I actually asked my doctor about this and he said the titer is a very expensive test and insurance is unlikely to cover it unless you have a good reason (like pregnancy). (This was before the ACA kicked in; it might be different now.) If my office implemented this idea of bringing babies to the office, I certainly would not want to shell out a lot of money to see if I could pass something on to someone else’s baby.

              And OP, since you are so sure that all adults are vaccinated, I’ll tell you that I’m in my mid-forties and I’ve never had the chicken pox vaccine (although I had the disease in kindergarten) or any of the hepatitis vaccines or the meningitis vaccine (no personal exemption, they just weren’t required when I was in school and I’ve never been in a situation where they were required). I did have the TDaP this year because I keep up with that but the nurse said that most people get their tetanus shots in the ER after being stitched up and the local ER only gives tetanus, not the combination. If that’s true in your area, those adults might think they are up-to-date on their tetanus and not be aware they should be getting the pertussis too.

        15. Honeybee*

          If you can’t remember the last time you had a vaccination, then you’re already probably out of compliance…you’re supposed to get booster vaccinations at different points. And being around children makes the flu shot of heightened importance, but I know a lot of people are not going to want that every year.

      2. Laurel Gray*

        ” Model policies written on the issue state that if after taking the infant to a separate area designated for such, the infant cannot be calmed within a half hour, the employee must take the infant home and use personal/sick/unpaid time to do so.”

        This is something they wouldn’t have to do if they had child care outside of work. Small babies are usually pretty good when they are healthy and their needs are met but even the healthiest “good” baby has her bad day and wants to fuss and scream. This policy creates a disruption as it attempts to solve another.

        1. ToxicNudibranch*

          Also, subjecting the office to a half-hour “calm down” period (even if the child is taken to another room!) before the employee is allowed/encouraged/forced to go home sounds mighty disruptive.

          Not only because of the noise factor, but because the employee is now out of work for the rest of the day. They may or may not be able to telecommute once they leave the office, but their schedule (and that of the coworkers or clients they were going to be working with) is now changed in a very real way.

      3. Sadsack*

        Unless there is soundproofing or the designated screaming baby area is a separate single unit building, it seems really unfair to subject other employees to have to overhear a baby cry for even a few minutes, never mind a half hour. I am curious why this is being proposed over onsite day care or better paternity/maternity leave.

        1. Moss*

          I say no to the babies, but yes to the designated screaming area. I personally could use a room like that!

      4. sittingduck*

        I was going to comment the same thing – I think people have this idea that babies are very disruptive – but in my experience, newborn babies are not remotely disruptive.

        I had 3 months of Grad school left when my son was born, and I took him to classes with me – all he did was sleep in the carrier I had him in – because 90% of what newborns do is sleep, which they do much better right next to Mom. I gave presentations, and fully participated in m y 3 hour long Grad School classes with my son strapped to me. My professors were nervous that he would be a disruption, but after seeing that all he did was sleep, they had no problem with me bringing him to class.

        1. Mike C.*

          That’s great for you, but there are a ton of mothers in this very thread talking about how disruptive it would be had they done the very same thing. We can’t make policy based on the very best possible outcome, it needs to be judged on what is likely to happen.

          1. Tyrannosaurus Regina*

            Also, graduate school (while taxing and potentially exhausting and a lot of hard work) is a very different environment from a typical office setting.

            1. Honeybee*

              Not the least because you’re usually in class intermittently. Most babies probably could sleep through a 2-3 hour graduate class, but an 8-10 hour workday?

        2. cv*

          I agree with you about newborns, but the sample policies allow babies until they’re mobile, which is often in the 6 or 7 month range. I’d hope that any company that wants to be family friendly would start with parental leave policies that cover those first couple of months and that this is being proposed for months 4-6, but maybe that’s too optimistic.

        3. LBK*

          The problem is that even if 99 out of 100 babies are dead silent and sleep through the day, there are some babies that are loud and I think you’re getting into a pretty sensitive area when you start judging whose baby is too noisy to stay in the office.

        4. Myrin*

          I feel like that shows that you’ve been blessed with a very quiet and calm child rather than that children generally are said to be more disruptive than they really are.

          A few semesters ago, a young mother attended one of my lectures and brought her baby with her. The child started crying and fussing almost every single lesson and the young woman had to leave halfway through the lesson all the time. I later heard friends of hers say they copied their own notes for her as she didn’t come to the lecture anymore because it was too stressful with the child.

          1. edj3*

            I feel like that shows that you’ve been blessed with a very quiet and calm child rather than that children generally are said to be more disruptive than they really are.

            + infinity

            My older son did not sleep more than two hours straight the first six months of his life. He was loud, interactive and not at all quiet. So that’s great if your baby was a quiet baby but be grateful for that rather than assume all babies are that way.

          2. einahpets*

            Amen! My daughter was not a quiet nor calm baby. She was never to the point I’d call colicky, but I can’t imagine having to manage a regular working day when she was young. I took 3 months off for maternity leave and then she was in daycare — even on the days where I worked from home (I was allowed to work from home 3 days a week at first, now it is 2). Even 1 hour of church on the weekends was a struggle, no matter if it was supposed to be at a regular nap time when we went, etc. The kid liked to mix it up and stretch out her lungs at a moment’s notice.

            I am in my second trimester with my second now and I am hoping that we might be blessed with one of these mythical quiet, calm babies. Hoping, hoping, hoping…

            1. Alma*

              There was a new Mom who brought her baby to class with her. The baby was not quiet, had croup most of the time, was often nursing, Mom was walking around the back of the room cooing and trying to soothe the baby, and ummmm, besides the normal baby output odor, Mom was probably opting to sleep rather than shower. The rooms were heated by radiators, and over-hot. It was an unbearable semester.

              I can tune out a lot of sounds, but babies who wail, spit up, and cry while I’m trying to concentrate … can’t do it.

          3. katamia*

            Yeah, I apparently cried non-stop even as a newborn (no colic or anything, I was just easily ticked off, apparently). There’s no way my mother could have brought me to work like this.

        5. Ad Astra*

          Some newborns really aren’t very disruptive, but but others are, and I wouldn’t want to be in charge of deciding which babies could come to the office. (FWIW, I did attend many college classes with my mom when I was a toddler and only caused trouble once, when someone mentioned Plato and I exclaimed “Play-Doh?! Where?”)

          Bringing a baby to classes feels different from bringing a baby to a typical office. Most classes are three hours or less (often only an hour or 90 minutes), and many schedules would allow you several breaks between classes to handle feeding, changing, and entertaining the baby. It’s also easier to walk out of a lecture hall when the baby gets fussy (or smelly) than it is to leave most offices. Every college campus I’ve been on was more baby-friendly than any office I ever worked in, but YMMV.

          1. Lillie Lane*

            “only caused trouble once, when someone mentioned Plato and I exclaimed “Play-Doh?! Where?”

            That is hilarious.

            1. Not So NewReader*

              Too cute for words. I would have laughed out loud if I had overheard that comment.

        6. Snowglobe*

          Every baby is different; my first baby could go anywhere and never cried or fussed. He was happy to go down for a nap and woke up without crying. I was a very smug parent who thought it was because I was so good about keeping him on a schedule. Karma got me with Baby #2, who proved that I was just lucky the first time.

          1. Ezri*

            I was my parents’ first, and apparently I was a nightmare marathon crier of epic proportions. On top of having colic and ear infections, I was a grump – nothing made me happy. It’s a wonder they had three more kids (who were all much quieter, apparently).

        7. Charlotte Collins*

          When I’ve taken classes, I’ve never been bothered by people bringing in babies (or even young, well-behaved children), as they’ve always been good about taking the kids out if they get fussy, and that’s no different to any other public place (like church or a museum), but a class only lasts for about an hour or two a few times a week, so it’s not that same as bringing a baby into an office. Also, I figure that in that case, the adult leaving with the baby might be missing something but is not necessarily vital to the working of the class (I’ve never seen a professor/instructor bring a kid to class).

          1. ThursdaysGeek*

            My dad took me to class when he was a professor. I would have been 2 or 3, although he might have done it when I was younger too. I think it was a fairly regular event, and I have vague memories of sitting in a college classroom. But I was also a quiet and still child.

          2. Excel Slayer*

            One of my lecturers brought her daughter in once when I was at uni (it was half term and I figure her child care must have fell through). She was this angelic little six/seven year old who sat at the front of the class and alternated between reading and drawing.

            1. Honeybee*

              One of my professors brought her child to class a few times, too. She was 5. I was sitting behind her, and noticed that she was taking notes on what her mom was lecturing on (with some supplemental drawings and creative spellings). This was a biology class.

        8. Clever Name*

          I am so happy that your newborn was able to sleep soundly in a carrier while you attended to other things. I think you’ll find that your experience is not universal. I have friends whose babies had awful awful colic/reflux and would scream for hours, even while being carried or worn. My son, who didn’t have either, would sometimes fuss for no discernible reason. So, some babies are quiet. Some aren’t. They’re all different. Just like adults.

      5. LBK*

        I find it really, really hard to believe that the babies aren’t as disruptive as people expect. Are those studies based on what the parents say or what their coworkers say?

        1. Anlyn*

          I had colic for the first six weeks of my life. I was not at all a calm baby, because I was miserable, and mom was miserable. It would have been a disaster to bring me to an office.

          1. Charlotte Collins*

            Me, too! And I apparently was an early presenting introvert. My mother discovered that taking me out in the buggy for a walk was NOT what I needed to calm down. Too many people!

          2. MashaKasha*

            I was thinking that! My youngest had colic for the first three or four months. He screamed 24×7. My husband and other son were on edge from all the non-stop crying, and they were that kid’s blood relatives. Can you imagine how coworkers might react?

            1. Ezri*

              Yep, I was a colic baby. My Dad tells me that he and my Mom called my Grandmother in a panic because I had cried for twenty-four hours straight at one point and they thought I was never going to sleep again OMG.

              It’s kind of fun to picture my parents at my age freaking out about things I could see myself freaking out about. I feel bad about them never getting any sleep during my first years, though. XD

        2. zora*

          Yeah, it really depends on the baby. My mom had a daycare in our house when I was younger, so I saw more babies than most adults my age. And they really vary. Some babies are so calm and easy, and others are crazy amounts of disruptive, poor little things.

        3. fposte*

          I think there’s a fair amount of self-selection, in that people with quiet babies are likelier to be doing this. I also noted that the organization’s statistics didn’t say anything about co-workers.

      6. Clarissa*

        Doesn’t this favor “good” babies (ie babies who sleep regularly, don’t cry, don’t fuss)? Some babies are just fussier than others. If a parent is unlucky and has a fussy baby they won’t even be able to take advantage of this and will end up using personal/sick/unpaid leave, which defeats the entire purpose.

        2. jmkenrick*

          Apparently I was the easiest child in the world…slept for hours, would make this face prior to crying to people could expect it, easily calmed down by rocking.

          My sister would cry and cry and cry if people didn’t constantly hold her. Babies have personalities, just like everybody else…

        3. OP (Denise)*

          Well, this doesn’t take the place of maternity leave. If it works it works, and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. If the baby is crying all day so you have to continually go home, then per the policy, continuing to bring the baby to work would not be a viable option. I don’t think that anything about this suggests that people *must* bring their babies to work. But if it *can* work, it is permissible.

          1. zora*

            I get what you are saying and I feel bad that there’s a bit of a pile on happening here, but I want to point out another thing you would have to take into account based on what you said here. So, who would make the decision that this particular baby is not a viable option to be in the workplace? Where would you draw the line and who would have to enforce it?

            If you think it would work for your workplace, then that’s great, you should do it. But really make sure you are thinking through all the possible angles and problems, and figuring out ahead of time what the solution would be so that everyone knows before getting started.

            1. fposte*

              Yeah, that part worries me. We already have people who don’t want to tell their staff unpleasant things; “Your baby isn’t welcome here” is going to be a horrible message to deliver on its own, even before you get into the implications for leave and/or day care.

              1. afiendishthingy*

                Yeah, I feel awkward telling my coworkers their MUSIC is bothering me, let alone their children.

              1. fposte*

                I think she is listening–she’s responding, after all. She’s not agreeing, but surely she doesn’t have to?

                I don’t think the response is out of line either, as it happens; it’s just that a lot of people have opinions and it’s a high-impact subject.

                1. Green*

                  There’s a difference between hearing and listening. (Or whatever the internet analogues are.)

                  OP asked what people’s primary concerns would be. Her response throughout has been to respond to and easily dismiss other people’s concerns (even to the point of wildly unfounded assumptions about vaccinations, willingness of colleagues to jump in, “just set boundaries”, people rarely drop babies so no liability!, but dogs are more distracting than kids, telecommuting isn’t an option because she personally would give in to distraction from home???) rather than internalize those and thoughtfully consider them. This is one of the OP questions where she’s certainly not required to agree, but to get what she wanted out of the original questions, she needs more than flippant kneejerk dismissals of valid concerns.

                  And she has yet to respond to any one of the numerous people who flat stated they’d quit their jobs if this happened, while touting productivity and employee retention as benefits.

                2. fposte*

                  I think you’re treating this as if it were more a courtroom-like exchange, though (IIRC, you’re a lawyer, so that would make sense). She didn’t write in to hash the issue out with the commenters and come to conclusion here; she wrote in to find out what people thought and share what she did. It’s a read of the landscape, not a work toward a verdict.

                3. zora*

                  I agree with fposte, I also think she is listening. Her responses don’t mean she’s ignoring everyone, she is trying to provide more info and context.

                4. Green*

                  I think you’re making a big assumption based on the lawyer thing from other threads. People love to cast lawyers as argumentative and always expecting things to be like “a courtroom.” I have not been in a “courtroom” in my entire professional career because that’s not what I do. I wasn’t expecting OP to “hash it out” but to be more along the lines of “Interesting; I hadn’t considered that” not “Oh, that’s not a problem because X!” And that has nothing to do with me being a lawyer but is based on the question OP asked.

                5. Kira*

                  Green, we could view all the counter arguments as practice for OP. If the boss says X, would Y be a suitable counter to sway the decision? Can I come up with solutions and plans for the various opposing points to show that I’ve thought it through and comprehensively?

              2. OP (Denise)*

                I’m not sure what you expect. There are already dozens of companies where this has been happening, so the fact that it can work is fact. I appreciate fposte’s point in that just because you or 1000 people would hate the policy does not mean that I have to hate it and you seem to feel that I am supposed to based on that. What would work for you is not necessarily what would work for someone else. Understanding people’s concerns is just that. I said I was thinking of making a proposal/suggestion for consideration, not unilaterally implementing this policy. I have listened and if you read through you might see that a bit more, but some people read with the intention of finding fault and I am sensing that here.

                1. Green*

                  You absolutely don’t need to hate the policy you want to implement. You do need to consider that the vast majority of people very strongly opposed the policy, and you need to try to seriously address their concerns in order for your proposal to have any chance of success. If you were interested in doing that, a better approach might be to ask people whether your arguments are addressing their specific concerns and seek more feedback rather than dismissing their concerns or assuming that your arguments address the concern.

                  (And the “dozens” of companies aren’t evidence it’s working.)

                2. OP (Denise)*

                  Green, the many companies that implemented the policy and continue to follow it are definitely evidence that it *can* work. Now you’re simply dismissing what doesn’t affirm your POV. What many seem to forget is that just because it would be unworkable in their context does not mean it would be unworkable in another.

                  I made where I was coming from clear in the op. I asked for peoples concerns. I don’t have to convince anyone here, nor do I intend to do so, and no one here has insight into my particular employment situation, which means you could not adequately address my arguments. The comment above about you expecting a more adversarial courtroom style exchange was correct. But that only reflects what you want to see, not why I’m here.

                4. nona*

                  There are more than dozens of companies with open office plans. And we can all agree they are terrible.

                  The number of companies doing this doesn’t make it a good idea.

                5. OP (Denise)*

                  nona, you might feel that an open office plan is terrible, but you know what, there are others who would disagree with you.

                  I am starting to become a bit bothered by people’s narrow-mindedness in terms of being totally unable to accept that there is even *somewhere* that this has been a good thing. All the op asked was for your particular concerns, not to try and prove that no one should ever do this. You don’t have the information necessary to make that judgment.

                6. Ask a Manager* Post author

                  To be fair, though, studies consistently show that the majority of people hate open office plans and find them distracting. You can find some people who will like everything, but that fact doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea overall.

                  It’s possible that you have one of the very rare offices where this will work and everyone will like it, including future hires who you don’t currently know. It’s possible that your company will decide it values the ability to do this over objections anyone might have, and that’s their prerogative. But I think you’ll be doing yourself a disservice if you don’t really take in the overwhelming dislike for this idea that you’re seeing here!

                7. Anna*

                  OP, not even in countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, do they have wide-spread company policies like this. Your suggestion is not the norm nor the majority, and I think for good reason. People have brought up a lot of concerns, such as feeling pressured to look after the baby, distractions, quality of work ect. To me, you seem to be the narrow minded party. Particularly in regards to what actually supports new mothers and fathers, which is more paid time off, flexible work schedules, and better daycare options.

                  Why does it HAVE to be bring your baby into work? Why is this the only solution?

                  The way you’re being dismissive of how many of us dislike the program, also worries me. Of course I don’t know you or your company and how your work culture functions, but this seems oddly personal to you.

                8. OP (Denise)*

                  Anna, I said I was going to submit a suggestion. I didn’t say it *had* to be this. But I asked a question about this specific idea, not about a different one.

                  To AAM, I wrote because I wanted perspectives and I’ve said multiple times that I would take them into consideration. And I mentioned narrow-mindedness because many have responded as if even discussing the idea is a threat to them and their workplace sanity and it is not.

          2. Mae North*

            “Continuing to bring the baby to work would not be a viable option”

            Daycares have long wait times. Like months-long, reserve a place while you’re pregnant. If you didn’t arrange daycare because you were able to bring your infant to work, or if you have a spot for when the baby is too old for the policy but the daycare can’t take them earlier, the parent is pretty much screwed.

            What options or solutions would the company offer in these situations?

      8. ali*

        Disruptive or not, I just don’t want to be around babies, if I did I would have some.

        And I don’t want to work with coworkers who feel it’s okay to “immediately address” a baby’s needs if there is something I need from them or if they are under deadline. If the parent feels they need to take care of the baby, they need to not be at work. If they need to be at work, the baby needs to be in alternate care. This is the same reason working from home while also taking care of a baby doesn’t work. You cannot do both without one suffering. When you’re working, you need to be focused on working.

        1. Andrea*

          Agreed. I would quit if my workplace was going to do this. I’m not interested in being around babies at work, and I’m especially not interested in dealing with their noise.

      9. Anna*

        OP, is there a reason why you seem to be very attached to this idea? I think there’s multitude of different ways to help new parents transition back into the workplace, much of which is listed by my fellow commenters.

        Personally for me, if I was interviewing at your company and found out that this policy was in place, I’d immediately cross the company off my list. It doesn’t seem fair to subject other people to your child. If that makes me a monster, then so be it.

        2. eplawyer*

          I agree. OP seems to just want to hear why this will work, not why it will be a problem.

          Personally, my view is work is for work. home is for home. If I am a manager, I expect my team to be able to do the work I have assigned. Not go take care of a baby. Babies don’t care about the deadline. And expecting co-workers to not only pick up your slack because you are half parent/half team member while also caring for your child is just not fair to the co-workers.

          Sure, the parents may love this policy. Not all of them though. And some co-workers will love the policy but a lot more will hate it. You have to think about all the employees not just the ones with babies.

      10. Stranger than fiction*

        So if they have a weeks long bout with collick or teething there goes all your sick and vacation time

    6. Engineer Girl*

      This goes with a common theme I’m starting to see. That is asking others to share and support the normal adult burdens of life.
      I’m a big fan of helping out and bearing each others burdens. Burdens are big things that are out of normal life – your family member is seriously injured in an auto accident, someone has cancer, Someone’s family member dies. These are the big crippling things of adulthood. Raising kids is hard, but it is not a burden. Transportation to work is hard, but not a burden. A managed medical condition is hard, but not a burden. As an adult, we are expected to handle our own adult stuff. Do not make them other people’s business. It’s OK to ask for the occasional favor, but you have no right to expect me to help out.
      If you want to get the perks of adulthood, you need to put up with the crud that comes with it. If you signed up for children you signed up for the crud parts too. Do not fob those off on others.

      1. einahpets*

        But is that really how society should be? I personally don’t want to spend most of my adult waking hours at a workplace that doesn’t appreciate and support me for all the adult things. Because, by supporting employees when one of those normal burdens do arise, my workplace has actually helped to retain quality employees that they have already spent the time and $$ to train.

        Frankly, I think this will be an increasingly more common theme in our workplaces now because people are waiting to start their careers now before having children, vs delaying starting a career until those children are school aged.

        Great for you if you never have a day where your car breaks down and you can’t make it into the office for a meeting on time/don’t have reliable public transit to use until the car gets fixed or replaced. Or get diagnosed with a chronic medical condition that requires you take a few months of sick leave or reduced hours to learn how to manage. Or have children that, remarkably, don’t always not get sick on workdays. We should all be so lucky.

        1. Engineer Girl*

          Those are all part of adult living. You should always have a plan B, because that is what responsible adults have. Of course it’s OK to ask for occasional help. But you need to be responsible for your stuff. Life crud is normal and you should expect it. If you want society to help you out on the whole, you need to do your part too.
          Again, I’m making the distinction between burdens and normal life crud. Burdens happen – someone loses their job at the same time they discover they have cancer. That’s when the community swarms around them to support them. But people need to realize that they need to be responsible for their life crud.

          1. einahpets*

            I just think it is a little weird to respond with a comment along the lines of “society nowadays with its’ parents obviously out to ask for more accommodations ” when this post was from a NON PARENT / EMPLOYER thinking of new ways to support a portion of their workforce that they’ve already spent time/money training.

            I am also glad that you always have a Plan B for everything. Not everyone has that luxury.

            1. fposte*

              She says she doesn’t have any employees, so I don’t think she’s an employer.

              I could be wrong, but my impression is that she is indeed thinking of what would be good for her, if she had a baby. Which is fine–she gets to advocate for herself, and I don’t think she’d get a different amount of points if she were never thinking of having kids.

              1. einahpets*

                Ack, I guess I kind of misread the original letter, thinking the OP was a manager going to her HR with a proposal. I still don’t think it matters, as all she is doing is proposing something to her employer to decided on.

                And making the leap that one person planning on asking her workplace about this says something about parents these days is a little overboard to me…

        2. Mike C.*

          Perhaps, but I think there’s a wide berth between supporting things like paid leave, flex time, a solid safety net, worker protections and having to directly deal with someone else’s screaming newborn at work.

          The former I’ll support and champion any time of the day, but that doesn’t mean I should have to regularly put up with a screaming newborn in the workplace. The occasional emergency? Sure, I won’t like it, but I’ll suck it up because shit happens. But not every day.

          1. einahpets*

            … my comment was in relation to what the previous commenter’s said here: ‘As an adult, we are expected to handle our own adult stuff. Do not make them other people’s business. It’s OK to ask for the occasional favor, but you have no right to expect me to help out.’

            I am not saying I agree with this idea in particular of young babies at work. I am just saying that it isn’t a sign that society is messed up for an employer to be coming up with a way of supporting employees that are handling these situations.

            I don’t think we disagree at all, to be honest.

      2. RG*

        Do you think that we as a society (here in the US) tend to be more individualistic in terms of how we expect people to handle their responsibilities?

        1. einahpets*

          Also, to add to RG’s question — do you really think that parents are the only ones that will get a ‘perk’ (and therefore should bear the ‘burden’ of raising) from supporting quality raising of children within our society? Not to get all “children are our future!” on the group, but that is pretty much NOT how society is built now.

          But I do witness that attitude A LOT nowadays, and worry sometimes that it is going to spill into our support for education and healthcare for minors in the coming years…

          1. Engineer Girl*

            I am the director for a children’s program. I pay my school taxes even though I have no children in the school system. I look out for the neighbors kids and get to know them.
            I think I see the blurring of boundaries on what is required to raise a child. Every child should get a hot meal at least once a day. They should get vaccinated and have access to health care. They should get a free education.
            It isn’t my job to babysit or watch your kid.

            1. einahpets*

              I have already commented in other threads to say that I don’t think this policy would work everywhere. It definitely wouldn’t work in my office, and I am pregnant with #2 at the moment.

              But I also dont know how smart it is to have a policy of judging every adult for not always having a Plan B for everything you listed. Sure, if you are the manager / employer you can make that call. But as an employee, a company that doesn’t understand that worker-bees have lives / troubles outside on the office ever is not going to be an employer I want to work for.

              My employer would have had to pay to replace me and/or train someone new if they weren’t supportive when I had my daughter. Sure, that might have been OK with a department the size that I am in. But the year I had my daughter 7 other women also had kids (including our department’s director and associate director). So yeah, they looked for ways to accommodate new moms / dads, and all 7 parents are still here 3 years later.

          2. Mike C.*

            It’s one thing to fulfill the Societal Contract, but it’s quite another to have to change diapers.

            1. einahpets*

              UGH. I never said that I supported this idea of babies in the workplace. Did I? I, in fact, don’t plan on asking anyone other than my fellow parent and other caregivers to change my daughter(s) diapers.

          3. fposte*

            I think, at least in the US, there’s a tendency to want it both ways right now. We are more than ever frantically opposed to anybody other than parents disciplining or even coming near our children (and no, crime isn’t worse now, so that’s not a justification), and we are also desperately in need of assistance with the challenges of caretaking (and not just for the young).

            And sure, we’re not all the same “we” up there. But it doesn’t have to be your viewpoint to shape the narrative, and the narrative matters.

              1. OP (Denise)*

                “Listen,” she said at one point. “Let’s put aside for the moment that by far, the most dangerous thing you did to your child that day was put him in a car and drive someplace with him. About 300 children are injured in traffic accidents every day — and about two die. That’s a real risk. So if you truly wanted to protect your kid, you’d never drive anywhere with him. But let’s put that aside. Now, people will say you committed a crime because you put your kid ‘at risk.’ But the truth is, there’s some risk to either decision you make.”

                “The problem is,” she goes on, “there’s some risk to every choice you make. So, say you take the kid inside with you. There’s some risk you’ll both be hit by a crazy driver in the parking lot. There’s some risk someone in the store will go on a shooting spree and shoot your kid. There’s some risk he’ll slip on the ice on the sidewalk outside the store and fracture his skull. There’s some risk no matter what you do. “

          4. Alma*

            …and healthcare for our elders, too? If my parent’s caregiver can’t show up for a day or two, and I am unable to make other arrangements immediately, I have no option but to stay with my parent and care for them at home/in their home.

            1. einahpets*

              But as an ADULT you should obviously have one or two back-up caregivers that are definitely able to take care of your parent on a moment’s notice. Right?

              When people make comments about how ‘responsible adults should always have a plan B’, I wonder if they are either hyper-planners or just lead more simplified lives than others. I try, for my part, to realize that my coworkers are adults with plenty of non-work responsibilities that can’t always reasonably have a plan B.

              If absences become a work performance issue, they should be approached as a performance issue with one’s manager. Otherwise — we all have things happen and saying that they should never be an issue that affects work seems naive to me.

  5. Colette*

    That sounds really disruptive to me, too., as well as neglectful Either the parent is spending their day looking after the child, or they are focusing on work at the expense of the child. Babies need age-appropriate stimulation – just because they can’t move independently doesn’t mean they’d like to spend their day in an office.

    And I’m trying to figure out where the child spends her day. Do parents bring in a playpen? Leave the baby in the car seat? What happens when the parent has a meeting or needs to go to the bathroom? Where do diaper changes happen?

    1. Sadsack*

      Yes, unless there is onsite day care, I can’t understand how this works well for anyone, parent or coworkers.

    2. OP (Denise)*

      Do parents bring a playpen? –> What I have seen is that the mothers (or fathers) practice baby wearing. The policies state that once the child is crawling he/she can no longer come to the office.

      Willing co-workers volunteer to cover for the parent in meetings or other times, which to me is the trickiest part.

      Diaper changes would probably happen in the same place breastfeeding does.

      1. cv*

        If you’re babywearing, breastfeeding may well happen at the person’s desk – I can imagine that this policy would appeal to mothers who would enjoy the opportunity to breastfeed on demand once they go back to work. If they’re in an open area, that’s really not where you want diapers being changed. And where do the diapers get disposed of? Wet diapers aren’t a big deal, but dirty ones can be pretty awful to have in an open trash can.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          So, I think that people are jumping to a lot of conclusions, which I think is due to the fact that details were not given.

          One, there’s no reason to think that diapers would be out in the open. They would be separately disposed of in specific containers. Breastfeeding would also happen in designated breastfeeding areas.

          Again, there are rules to establish boundaries.

          1. Engineer Girl*

            You need to establish all of the rules and boundaries before you present this to management. People are giving you lots of scenarios and you need to address every last one of them if you want this to work. Details are critical – absolutely critical – if you want success in this idea.
            The concerns raised by others deserve more than a “oh, it will all work out” attitude. You are messing with people’s livelihoods. When you say that things will “all work out” you are essentially saying that you are pushing the responsibility for solving the problem off on others.

      2. Dot Warner*

        “Willing co-workers volunteer to cover for the parent in meetings or other times, which to me is the trickiest part.”

        Tricky doesn’t even begin to cover it. I like kids but if I wanted to work at a daycare, I’d work at a daycare.

        Also, what if the parents are not willing or able to wear their babies?

        2. OP (Denise)*

          Not willing or able to wear their babies? I’m not sure what you mean. If a parent is unable or doesn’t want to comply with some aspect the policy, then that parent doesn’t bring the baby to work. I mean, that part is not really at all difficult.

          Coworkers decide whether they want to participate or not. No one is conscripted into service.

          1. Mike C.*

            There are tons of examples of “v0lentary” work tasks that are in reality mandatory if someone doesn’t want to suffer consequences.

          2. Chinook*

            ” If a parent is unable or doesn’t want to comply with some aspect the policy, then that parent doesn’t bring the baby to work. I mean, that part is not really at all difficult. ”

            Actually it is because you are penalizing the parents of difficult children by costing them their leave time. What if the parent doesn’t have leave time to cover 3 months off? Obviously, they will be unpaid for that time but will this cost them their job?

            1. Chinook*

              I should add that one of the important aspects of parental leave is the guarantee of a job when you return.

            2. JPV*

              And what if a high percentage of the difficult children or their parents *just happen* to be part of a minority group? Would you be concerned that it may appear you’re discriminating against Hispanic people/LGBT people/people with disabilities/whatever?

              1. oldfashionedlovesong*

                The “people with disabilities” group is important here. The vast majority of parents whose infants are born with disabilities would likely, per this concept, be excluded from bringing their children into the office after one or two difficult days. So in practice, what this would turn into is healthy babies and their parents happily inhabiting the workplace, while parents of infants with disabilities have to figure out their own costly, time-consuming strategy for home care for their child. Even putting aside the obvious discriminatory aspects, the optics on this would be pretty terrible.

          3. Windchime*

            If someone’s baby is crying or making noise all day long, then I am indeed conscripted into service. I might not be handling the baby, but I would be dealing with the disruption that the baby is causing.

            Many companies have requirements which state that parents must have daycare if they are working from home; in other words, working at home is not to be used as a substitute for childcare. So it seems weird to me that most companies understand that caring for babies mean that work isn’t getting done, but other companies are encouraging people to bring their babies to work.

          4. Honeybee*

            But then you get into some sticky and potentially discriminatory aspects here. For example, what if the reason a parent doesn’t baby wear is because he or she is disabled and can’t physically do it?

      3. CaliCali*

        So I was someone whose newborn really did NOT like babywearing. He was happiest sprawled out on the floor, where he could (try to) roll around. He also didn’t like sleeping very much either, so there’s that. And let’s be real, babywearing is very much part of attachment parenting, which puts a big emphasis on breastfeeding and physical togetherness with the infant, and ALSO puts a big emphasis on being immediately attentive to the child’s needs — which is very hard to reconcile with a work environment.

        My newborn would have been a poor candidate for this policy, and it has the implications that only non-disruptive babies would be allowed in. It could create a lot of strife between parents.

        The best way to support parents in a work environment is to give them adequate parental leave, flexible schedules to accommodate the needs of their family, child care stipends or discounts to local care centers, and sick leave to accommodate the child’s illnesses (or their own, as a result of being exposed to all those new germs).

      4. LawBee*

        “Willing co-workers volunteer to cover for the parent in meetings or other times, which to me is the trickiest part.”

        That’s the thing right there – did you hire these coworkers to do their jobs, or to babysit? And if there’s more than one baby, will Coworker Q who loves babies be always volunteering at the expense of working, or will Coworker A be “volunteered” because someone has to do it, etc..

        It just seems like a really bad idea unless it’s exactly the right environment for it. It’s not even office size – there are <10 people in my office, and adding babies would be the WORST. I'm not even a fan of when the older kids come in, although they at least can be plopped in the conference room with a PSVita or a book.

        1. ali*

          This. Unless “babysitter” is in the job description, I’m not doing it. And I’m pretty sure the parent wouldn’t want me to anyway, assuming they want their baby’s diaper changed. This goes far beyond “other duties as needed”.

        2. StarHopper*

          Also, would babysitting fall mostly to the women of the office? We don’t need yet another reason to be held back professionally.

      5. Hlyssande*

        Would the coworkers truly be willing, though? There may be a lot of pressure to just take a turn and do it along with everyone else for fear of not being a team player.

        I loooove the idea of on site childcare, or a partnered childcare that is cost effective (maybe grants/subsidies from the company as an incentive to return after leave?). I just could not deal with babies in the office on a frequent basis.

        1. Marcela*

          +1 to your first paragraph. I’d add it the pressure of the coworker who asked you and you know will get offended if you refuse.

      6. fposte*

        I think the idea discussed above, where you gather a list of volunteers privately, is probably the best way, but I also think you have to be ready for the possibility that the volunteers aren’t available and the parent has to skip the meeting or bring the baby. Which may not be the end of the world (I might have an imaginary baby if it gets me out of meetings), but I think it’s worth expecting.

        1. RG*

          Oh, I can’t make it to the meeting, I have to watch my baby

          …Didn’t you say the other day that you never want to have kids?

          1. fposte*

            “And that’s why! My baby is horrible!” (Let other people’s imaginary kids be perfect; mine will be a terror.)

          2. afiendishthingy*

            I used to take non-smoking breaks when I worked at a restaurant and everyone got to take cigarette breaks all the time. I WANT TO GO OUTSIDE TOO

        2. Today's Satan*

          I have promised myself that at my next job, I will bring photos of other people’s kids and put them on my desk and pass them off as my own. Then I will have lots of soccer practices, sick children, parent-teacher conferences, etc. so I can get out of boring meetings, or having to pull all-nighters to complete an important project, or just to leave work early whenever I want to. With the added bonus of everyone feeling sorry for me instead of getting miffed.

          1. Ginger ale for all*

            YES! I was actually told that I should do extra things ‘because it’s not like you have anyone in your life or anyone cares about you”.

          3. Loose Seal*

            There was a CSI:Miami episode where a guy in the office did exactly this and it came out during the murder investigation. He would bring in framed pictures of a kid torn from a catalog and even had a “world’s greatest dad” mug with the kid’s picture on it. He would take off from work occasionally to “chaperone a field trip” or go to a “parent-teacher conference.” That part of the episode where he’s explaining that he’s always born the brunt of being the only person without kids in every office he’s every worked was right on the nose. It was a great episode. Another office worker was saving on rent by living in the space in the suspended ceiling.

      7. Stranger than fiction*

        You cant wear your kid all day they get hot in those things and it’s hard on your back

      8. eplawyer*

        Babywearing? So the kid is strapped to the parent all day? Yeah, have fun typing, copying, etc. while that is going on. And I really don’t want to discuss the teapot delivery schedule to someone with a baby hanging off them. I need the person to concentrate on the schedule, not what the kid is doing.

        1. aebhel*

          Also, lots of newborns have reflux. My desk, chair, floor, and work clothes would have been covered in spit-up by 10 AM. Not such a big deal at home, where I could sit around in ratty pajamas and just toss them in the laundry. Kind of a big deal at work, unless I’m also keeping a full wardrobe on-site.

      9. Cath in Canada*

        So are the “volunteer” caretakers also expected to wear their colleague’s baby when colleague is busy?!

        I like smiling and waving at babies every once in a while. I’ll even hold one, if I’m close to the parents, or if there’s some kind of emergency. But I aint wearing anyone else’s baby unless it’s literally a life-or-death situation.

    3. Natalie*

      I would assume diaper changes would happen in the bathroom. Seems like the logical place for it, plus they usually have those baby holders on the wall.

        1. Natalie*

          I guess I’ve mostly worked in multi-tenant buildings, so the bathrooms are basically public and have all the usual public restroom accouterments. But you’re right, buildings that are strictly office usually don’t have them.

          1. Charlotte Collins*

            I just had a horrible thought. Our bathrooms don’t have changing tables, but they do have little vanity-type areas where people can put their bags/papers/coffee mugs/what have you while using the facilities then get out of the way to fix hair and makeup in that mirror so they aren’t crowding the sinks. I can see that becoming the de facto changing area. Eww…

        2. afiendishthingy*

          I work for an organization that serves children with special needs; my building is primarily office space but we do have programs for clients held there at times. Our bathrooms have changing tables. That wouldn’t be my primary concern with this plan. My primary concern is that for the few hours a week there are multiple small children on the other side of the building the screaming can be as annoying and distracting as hell. It’s acceptable for those few hours a week, since they’re actually our clients, but no way would I want them there all the time.

    4. Natalie*

      I’m not really pro-baby-at-work, but I think calling it neglectful is a bit of a stretch. Infants don’t need non-stop attention. They’re usually pretty happy figuring out how to focus their eyeballs or move their hands without hitting themselves in the face, while adults bustle around them. Women have been working with infants strapped to them or laying down nearby for millenia.

      1. Colette*

        I’m inclined to think that the job would get neglected more often than the baby. But I could also see a parent leaving the child to run to get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom. (If they’re baby wearing, they wouldn’t, I realize.) you can do that at home, of course, but that’s usually a shorter
        distance with fewer people who will be annoyed if the child starts screaming.

      2. SR*

        Neglectful is a strong word, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous to bring neglect up as a concern (which is in my opinion prohibitive) – in fact, I think it’s necessary to bring it up. This is a really bad idea for the wellbeing of the babies, in addition to the very important points Alison made about it being a big problem for other coworkers.

        It’s true women have been working with infants strapped to their chest for millennia, but women also drank alcohol through pregnancy for millennia. Clearly the human race survived, but still – we know way more about child development now, so we can take steps to implement that knowledge.

        1. Natalie*

          I’m not sure what information on child development suggests infants need to be the focus of attention at all times? Even SAH parents are generally doing things besides coo over their infant.

          1. SR*

            It’s true that they don’t need constant attention (and most infants do sleep a lot) but at the same time, there’s a reason childcare is a job you can get paid for. They do need a lot of attention and age-appropriate stimulation and learning, and there’s simply no way to give 100% of the attention your job needs and 100% of the attention a baby needs at the same time.

      3. LPBB*

        Women have been working in small scale sustainable farming, family cooking, and cottage industries with infants strapped to them or laying down nearby for millenia, not in modern office jobs. Plus, most of those women had extended family members – sisters, grandmothers, older children, other wives – to help care for the children. I totally get your point that people are a bit over the top and modern parenting has made something that wasn’t very complicated into a very complicated thing, but the two situations really are not comparable.

        1. Natalie*

          Of course, as I said I’m not pro-babies-at-work. Just pointing out that’s not neglectful to focus on something other than your baby. (I’d actually argue the opposite is harmful, but that’s a personal opinion and beyond the scope of this blog. :) )

      4. OP (Denise)*

        “Women have been working with infants strapped to them or laying down nearby for millenia.”

        Thank you for this. It’s really a mark of modern luxury to believe that once a woman has a child, all other work stops and she does nothing but coo at the baby all day. There are millions of women around the world that have never experienced such.

        2. Colette*

          I don’t think anyone is saying that. What I am saying is that you’re on a conference call or working towards a tight deadline and the baby starts fussing, something’s got to give.

        3. Ask a Manager* Post author

          Yeah, but come on, they’re not in office jobs. It’s really a different context with different cultural expectations (from coworkers and clients, among others).

          1. OP (Denise)*

            I think this particular point was speaking to the question of whether proper mothering requires undivided attention to be given to the infant. Historically and globally that has not really been the case on the whole. Our expectations that childcare and work happen completely separately is a relatively novel idea on the global scale.

      5. EmmBee*

        Thank you.

        Clearly a lot of commenters here saying that aren’t parents! (Which is fine, it’s just that it means they don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to how infants act.)

        1. Mike C.*

          No, I’m quite sure I know what I’m talking about when I say I don’t want to work somewhere that regularly has newborns floating around. I don’t need to knock someone up to verify this.

        2. Engineer Girl*

          Oh, please. Most of us have been around babies. We’ve been around babies enough to know that their actions are random. There are good days and bad days. Easy babies and colic babies. We know that some solutions are better than others.

        3. Windchime*

          I’ve been around babies plenty, including two of my own. Some babies sleep alot and spend their days quietly looking at their mobiles. Others scream with colic (mine did) or have fussy personalities, or don’t like being around strangers. Just because we don’t feel like being around babies at work doesn’t mean that we aren’t parents or we don’t know what we’re talking about with regards to infants.

          There is a reason that many workplaces state that working at home is not a substitute for childcare, and require parents to have childcare if they work at home. It’s because babies and children are distracting, and can make a person way less productive.

        4. Knit Pixie*

          Yeah my husband and I get the “How would you know you are not are not parents” bit, All. The. Time. With all due respect EmmBee, you don’t have to be a parent to know that babies affect everything. Frankly it’s because I know how babies are that I don’t have any.

        5. S*

          Weirdly, all commenters here have BEEN babies, and some of us have heard the stories about our colic/24 hour screaming etc etc, even if the non-parents among us have have miraculously got to our 40s (eg) with not a single friend/family member/colleague/neighbour having had a baby, or seen one out in public anywhere at all.

      6. Chinook*

        ” Women have been working with infants strapped to them or laying down nearby for millenia.”

        I agree but those women were probably not expected to do the same workload as everyone else when their child was an infant. Or there would have been others who were designated watch over the children (maybe even those with infants?) It would also have been task dependent as it wouldn’t have been effective to have one of the hunters wear his infant son while stalking a deer, after all.

        What the OP is suggesting may work in certain work environments but also seems to imply that the parent’s work output should be at the same level it was pre-child, which just isn’t going to happen unless the parent is blessed with a quiet baby.

        2. Amy UK*

          Those mothers also tend to work “for themselves” more – or rather, they weren’t employed by people outside their family. If your role is working the family land then you obviously have a fair amount of independence in deciding to pause to tend to a baby. And of course, in non-rural areas the women were employed in the home doing washing, seamstressing or such- which again, allows them to manage their own time around the baby if necessary.

          Outside of slavery or poverty, I can’t think of any situations where women were routinely doing hard labour for an employer with a baby strapped to their back. And I can’t think of a modern society where women routinely work within the “modern” workplace of an office, and boss-employee hierarchy with babies in the vicinity, nevermind strapped to them.

  6. Melissa*

    Oh… I would hate this… to the point of looking for another job! The last thing I want to deal with at work is my coworkers’ children. I’m a firm believer that my coworkers’ personal life choices, including the decision to have children, should not affect my work life (i.e., I should not have to take on less desirable assignments, travel more, work a disproportionate amount of holidays/off hours just because someone else has children). I’m all for personal-life-friendly offices. I think that’s great. But, leave the kids at home.

    3. OP (Denise)*

      ” I’m a firm believer that my coworkers’ personal life choices, including the decision to have children, should not affect my work life ”

      I understand where you’re coming from but also feel that we have overly compartmentalized lives. So much is said about “balance” but perhaps what a lot of people are seeking is some sort of integration.

      1. Sadsack*

        Unless the employee works from home, you’d be forcing fellow employees to participate in integration. That is very burdensome.

      2. DBA Girl*

        How many folks are really seeking integration with their coworkers’ child-raising sphere?

        I suspect not that many.

      3. LBK*

        I’m interested in integrating my personal life with my work life. I’m not interested in integrating my coworker’s personal life with any part of my life.

      4. Ezri*

        I really disagree with this. Work-life balance (to me) means that I’m given the tools I need to manage my professional and personal lives, separately. I don’t consider compartmentalizing home and office a bad thing.

        2. ToxicNudibranch*

          Agreed. I would further state that maintaining healthy boundaries between your Home Life and Work Life is an essential part of maintaining that Work/Life balance. Employers should (within reason) be compassionate and supportive of their employees’ varying needs by offering flex time, telecommuting, generous vacation and leave policies, good benefits, etc, but it is a very reasonable expectation that Work Time should be focused on actual Work.

      6. SevenSixOne*

        Maybe, but a lot of other people AREN’T seeking anything like that! To me, work-life balance means keeping my personal life and work life as separate as possible.

      7. Marcela*

        Eh, no. For me, balance is not about mixing my work and live spheres, but being able to have a life around work (as opposed to working too many hours and being dead tired to do anything else but work). And really, if for my coworker balance means “I want to bring my baby to the office”, I would be very pissed and I’d start looking for another job. After all, why can’t I take my cat to the office, then, and ask my coworkers to clean his litter box? (Yea, I’m being obtuse with the comparison).

            1. Sparky*

              I would also like to bring my cat to work, but my cat wouldn’t really enjoy that, and my cat is mobile. So maybe I wear a plush stuffed cat and insist all of my coworkers treat my cat like they treat the babies in the office? That couldn’t be any more distracting than having babies in the office. And I’d wear that thing until I retired, not for 6-7 months.

        2. Windchime*

          Yes. I want to bring my cat, too. I don’t really care if anyone is allergic or otherwise objects to cats; my cat is an important part of my life and I want to integrate it. And yeah, if he uses his litterbox while I’m in a meeting, I’m sure someone will come and “scoop it up”.

        3. Anx*

          I have a cat. I love kitties. I might even enjoy going to a retail store that has a cat or 3 hanging out. I don’t mind cleaning out all manner of animal cages.

          But no way in hell do I want to work with cats in an office. Trying to type with cat butt in my face? Litterbox toes on my desk? Gross.

      8. OfficePrincess*

        No, we need more compartmentalization. My work and personal lives are far too integrated as it is.

      9. kozinskey*

        I love compartmentalizing. It keeps the stress of my job from interfering with things I do outside work, and vice versa. It is really freeing to be able to leave my work problems at work, and my outside problems outside work. That way, I can do a good job wherever I am, without interference. I would hate a workplace that discouraged this.

      10. fposte*

        I understand what you’re saying, but I would say that more broadly they’re looking not to be savagely torn between the two; it’s not so much that they’re craving integration (workplaces that offer the perk of sleeping there are really integrated, but I don’t think that’s anything to cheer about) as the ability to transition smoothly between the spheres, to go see Billy at his school play mid-morning and come back to work, or to rearrange schedules to pick the kids up. (And the people who aren’t seeking integration need to be considered too, if only from the standpoint of how much it would cost to replace them if they leave.)

        That doesn’t mean I think you can’t make the decision–of course you can, and some organizations have. Same as dog-friendly workplaces, there will be people who like working that way and people who don’t, and you’ll probably be able to stock your workplace with the former category. And I’m glad you seem willing to think through the considerations that are being offered here.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          You mentioned dog-friendly workplaces. I worked in one. Dogs everywhere. Running, playing, barking. I can guarantee you infants would be less distracting than the dogs were. And you know what, you’d be surprised what simply becomes background noise or commotion. I would bring babies into the office waaay sooner than dogs. That experience is a part of why I feel like this is not such a huge deal.

            2. OP (Denise)*

              Yes, the dog situation was just a big deal that I found surprisingly easy to adjust to, as all. Some days were pure craziness, and looking back on those, I think it is highly unlikely–based on my experience with babies in general–that infants would ever cause such a ruckus. At least babies wear diapers!

              1. Anonicorn*

                Unless your previous job was related to dogs or pets in some capacity, it sounds like you’ve been working under some outlandish circumstances.

                1. fposte*

                  Start-up land is full of dog-friendly workplaces these days; it’s a hip thing to do.

                2. Windchime*

                  We have the occasional canine visitor here at work. On days following holidays, we usually have a very small crew and one or two people will bring their dogs. Dogs are expected to be contained, quiet and well-behaved. People put up baby gates for the smaller dogs and big dogs are expected to lay quietly next to their owners. It happens maybe 3 or 4 days a year and I think most people enjoy seeing dogs when they visit, but if they were running and barking and playing and growling, I’m sure the practice would be ended. Because once people are distracted or having to step over dog crap, then the inconvenience to others outweighs the convenience to the owner.

                3. Anony-turtle in a half shell!*

                  I work at a school, and we regularly have dogs running around. Teachers and other employees bring them in on a regular basis. (I’m not sure why this is so common at this place of employ, given students may have allergies, but it happens at least weekly and some weeks daily.)

                4. Honeybee*

                  @fposte – yep, my husband works at a dog-friendly start-up. It is nothing like what the OP describes, though; the stipulation is that dogs need to be well-behaved. There are only a few at a time and they mostly just sit around and chill. In fact, we joked about him taking our dog to work once, but it was only a joke because our dog is fairly hyper and wouldn’t do well in an office with lots of people 8 hours a day (she’d think they were all there to pet and play with her).

              2. Sunny*

                Actually, dogs are way easier than babies. You can tune out a dog barking but science has shown that people literally cannot tune out babies cry. Millions of years of a survival mechanism don’t vanish for a new trend.

          2. BRR*

            I think that’s debatable and subjective about dogs vs. babies (totally agreeing though that dogs can be disruptive).

            I think there will also be far from a minority who will just be accustomed to the noise. I tend to notice noises more the more I’m exposed to them.

            About feeling like this is not such a huge deal, it IS a huge deal. It’s not a coincidence most offices don’t do this (same as how most offices don’t allow non-service animals).

          3. Clever Name*

            I work in a dog-friendly office, and we have a policy in place to prevent this kind of distracting behavior. Dogs are kept in their owner’s offices (everyone has shared offices) behind baby gates. Dogs are not allowed to play/bark/run inside. At least half of my office brings in their dogs. There are currently two dogs down the hall, and I only know they are here because I saw their owners walk in with them. I haven’t heard a peep from either.

      11. Nerdling*

        I work in a field where it is absolutely necessary to compartmentalize work from home life. It’s how we stay sane. Work is work, home is home, and I would prefer that never the twain shall meet. For me, a healthy work/life balance is one that allows me to take leave as necessary without judgment, work that I don’t have to subject my family to, family that I don’t have to subject my work to, and a decent salary that allows me to do those things. That’s why I work here. It’s been incredibly healthy and supportive from the perspective of work/life balance.

        Nowhere in my equation is “working with my or my coworkers’ babies”. I’m another who would have had to forgo this “benefit” because I had a baby with colic who once cried for six out of eight hours. Just give me leave that I can use to take care of my child without having to sacrifice my work quality or my parenting quality.

      12. Engineer Girl*

        Expecting me to share in your child rearing is entitlement. If I chose to help you then fine. But it is not yours to expect.
        You’ve crossed boundaries when your choices become mine to resolve.

      13. Jeff A.*

        If you think that what I want is to be integrated with my coworkers’ personal lives, you do NOT understand where I’m coming from

      14. EmmBee*

        I LOVE your final sentence here.

        I have a 9 month old. I am an executive. I had above-average maternity leave for the US. I would have loved to be able to bring my baby into the office with me — it would have made nursing much easier (and I would have last longer — all of which is for the baby’s benefit, of course), to say nothing of the increased mother-child bonding. And I work at a company that publishes children’s books so it would really support our mission.

        I think many people forget that raising healthy, happy infants is in literally EVERYONE’S best interests. Everyone. Full stop. Whether you have/want/like kids or not, having the next generation be well-raised and bonded to their parents is for everyone’s benefit.

        1. Anon, Nurse, Anon*

          What would be in literally everyone’s best interest from a global perspective on overcrowding and resource depletion would be for a significant portion of parents to not have had their children in the first place.

        2. Engineer Girl*

          And we do that by supporting schools, children’s vaccines, education program, volunteering on kids programs, health initiatives.
          In short, I’m already supporting your kid. Expecting help in day-to-day child rearing is entitled.

        3. Mike C.*

          Why should I have to directly care for your children? Why isn’t it enough that I support a Scandinavian-style social safety net to support the next generation? I don’t even grumble about “my taxes” or any of that garbage, I happily do it and advocate for more!

          I don’t want to have kids, raise kids, care for kids or have to be bothered at my workplace by a constant parade of screaming newborns. Why are you so insistent on directly forcing this on people who clearly want no direct part in it?

          Why should I have to deal directly with your screaming kid? Why can’t I just go to work in peace?

        4. Today's Satan*

          That is an incredibly entitled viewpoint.

          “Whether you have/want/like cats or not, having them raised well and spayed/neutered is for everyone’s benefit, so I expect you to go with me into flea- and tick-infested areas, during all kinds of weather, to trap feral cats and take them to go get fixed, then pick them up and drive them back and release them. I also expect you to contribute your own personal funds for this. Because it’s for the good of the *planet*, you selfish, narrow-minded person. Don’t you all know that you’re required to support me in all of my life choices? Because planetary benefit.”

        5. Green*

          I am NOT saying that parents need to choose between work and raising healthy, happy children that are bonded to their parents.

          I *AM* saying that if you believe that raising healthy, happy children that are bonded to their parents requires constant contact during the workday, then you may need to choose between work and raising your ideal children. Or you should find a job where you can work from help. Freelance. Start your own business. There are lots of other options that keep the “burdens” of this decision concentrated where the “benefits” are: with you and your family.

        6. nona*

          No. I like kids just fine, but I’m not very good with them. I wouldn’t apply for a job that involved childcare. Please, please don’t try to dump that on someone like me FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY or something. It’s really not a good idea for anyone involved.

        7. Honeybee*

          Maybe, but you don’t have to bring your children to work to bond to them and raise them to be healthy and happy. Let’s be frank; proposals around bringing children to work isn’t about the health and happiness of the infant (who would probably do just as well or better at a day care with attentive adults and lots of stimulation). It’s about convenience for the parent.

      15. BananaPants*

        My coworkers were basically picked for me/assigned with me – they aren’t my friends, they aren’t my “village”, or whatever you want to call it. Be careful not to take this to the extent of thinking that workplaces are a big happy family (i.e. Michael Scott of “The Office” fame).

        As a working parent I want actual balance; not a crazy number of work hours in the week, some flexibility to deal with a sick kid or school holidays, decent medical insurance for my family, and a dependent care spending account so I can get a little tax break on the high cost of quality child care. I don’t want or need Jane from accounting to feel like she has to babysit at the office when she’s just trying to get her work done, too.

      16. zora*

        I understand where you’re coming from but also feel that we have overly compartmentalized lives. So much is said about “balance” but perhaps what a lot of people are seeking is some sort of integration.

        I get what you’re saying about integration, OP, and I kind of agree. But I would think that onsite childcare would be just as good integration, don’t you think? It would work for a longer period of time (not just till the baby is crawling) and parents can still take breaks to see the kid whenever they want, easy access for breastfeeding, etc. For a small businesss that can’t support it’s own childcare, I’ve always thought it should be possible for all the tenants of an office building to be able to come together to fund a childcare for the building. Is that an option?

      17. Justin*

        This is ridiculous. Work/life balance means I am allowed to balance the two and NOT impose one on the other.

    5. Anon Accountant*

      I’d look for another job too. I’d be so ticked if I was on a call with a client or important conference call and had to hear Jill from down the hall baby talking to the baby or cooing at the baby. Or a coworker that wanted to give you a “play-by-play” of what the baby was doing. “Oh, he yanked his sock off! He just did threw his rattler at George. What a smart baby”. Sorry yes I have a coworker or 2 that would do this.

      I like kids and all but don’t think an office is appropriate for them. When you are in a bind and it’s unusual? Completely understand. A daily occurrence? No way

    6. sam*

      Also, I know plenty of parents who hate parting with their kids, but I also have several friends (not being a parent myself), who greatly enjoyed the respite that going back to work provided – being able to have actual grownup conversations and basically getting a break from 24/7 motherhood. I could see this policy (even if voluntary) leading to either (a) peer pressure to bring their own kids in even if they don’t actually want to because god forbid they not get judged on what kind of mother they are for wanting to spend some time away from their precious snowflakes and (b) a lot of people getting seriously annoyed at the fact that they now have to deal with other peoples’ children when they’ve either got their own or chosen (or not chosen!) not to have their own.

      Also, what happens if a child gets injured at a worksite? workers’ comp isn’t going to cover that and it opens up all sorts of insurance/liability issues.

        1. sam*

          That was what my poorly worded “or not chosen” was trying to get at.

          When I was in college, I worked in a university administrative office (office of the dean of the graduate school) with several women. One woman could not have children but desperately wanted them. Another woman was married and happily child-free. The amount of rancor that the woman who could not have children exhibited toward the happily child-free woman for choosing not to have children when she was physically capable of it was kind of unbelievable – and explicit. To the point where the Dean had to get involved and tell the first woman to cut it out or she was in danger of losing her job.

          I can’t even imagine what that office would have been like had other women been able/expected to regularly bring actual babies into the environment on a daily basis.

          (The woman was also an unbelievably unpleasant, bullying person in all sorts of other ways – my personal favorite was the time she assumed a tenured professor was a grad student and so told him to sit down and just wait his turn while she talked loudly on an obviously personal phone call with her sister).

          1. Marcela*

            That is very strange: we don’t know we are physically capable to conceive until we do it successfully. I was supposed to be child-free by choice until I underwent a surgery to remove a cyst. Suddenly there wasn’t a choice anymore.

            1. RG*

              But nobody ever thinks about that. We all just act like women can get pregnant any time they want to and that unprotected sex automatically leads to a baby. But the odds of getting pregnant and then successfully carrying the baby to term are actually pretty low. We’re all technically miracles, we just seen commonplace because people like having sex.

            2. sam*

              Well, it was more of a “you’re a horribly selfish, self-indulgent person for choosing to not even try to have children and live your hedonistic lifestyle (by working in a state university office and living in your condo with your nice husband?) while there are people in the world who can’t have children”.

              Every time this poor woman (the target of the vitriol) would plan a vacation, or buy something even halfway nice for herself, or make plans to go out on a Friday night, it was all about how she was making the wrong “choices”. Seriously. I know several people who can’t have kids or who have had a lot of trouble conceiving, and none of them are like this. She was really a piece of work.

              It was gross. The target finally got out of there and got a job in a different part of the university.

    8. Not everyone likes kids*

      This sounds like my personal idea of hell. I only welcome children I am related to. On the whole, I’m not a fan, and I despise the fact that as a woman, I am expected to be warm and welcoming. So, there’s stress of having to conform to gender roles, and the added pressure to conform to be seen as a team player. I chose not to have kids and I chose not to work in a daycare center. If I chose to work for an office, and that office suddenly thrust this horrible policy upon its workers, I’d quit. Kids are a deal-breaker. Kids make noise. More or less noise is irrelevant- there will be noise. There will be germs. There will be bodily fluids and smells. Not everyone is up for that, and some people would pretend to be rather than lose their source of income. Power imbalance is a thing, and this policy basically says, “if you don’t like it, tough cookies”. So, quit, and lose your income, or fake it, and feel completely drained at the end of the day.

      4. Mike C.*

        Yeah, at least I have social room to be somewhat distant and still I feel the pressure. I can’t imagine what women have to go through.

        1. Hlyssande*

          I had to specifically tell my parents that I was not okay with them pushing my brand new nephew into my arms with no notice the first time I was in town after he was born.

          All girls like to hold babies, don’t you know???

  7. Sandy*

    My initial inclination (as the parent of an infant!) is to say that this is completely bonkers. Then again, I think the fact that most employees in the U.S. don’t have access to paid leave is shocking.

    To me, the solution isn’t to let women bring their babies to work, it’s to let them stay home with their babies and come back to their original jobs.

    1. NYC Redhead*

      And to provide generous paid leave to all parents and to allow them to take it when they need. My company gives 3 mos paid leave but only immediately after the baby is born/adopted. So the baby gets two parents for three months and then none, as opposed to one parent for six months.

      1. Ad Astra*

        Oh, man, three months sounds luxurious (though I realize, compared to most European countries, it’s nothing). I’m not planning to have a baby any time soon, but I often worry about having a surprise baby when I don’t have enough sick and vacation leave to tide me over until short-term disability kicks in. Not to mention the fact that I’d be returning to work with absolutely no PTO left to use for normal sick days or a cousin’s wedding or whatever.

      2. the_scientist*

        I have to agree. I think this is a nice idea in the abstract, but in practice it’s likely to be a nightmare. It also doesn’t strike me as being particularly well thought out- the heart of the issue here is that most parents only get a few weeks off after they bring a baby home. Offer generous paid mat leave, flexible working hours, generous benefits and sick days. Even better? Have an onsite daycare centre or offer childcare subsidies to affiliated daycare centres.

        Literally every other industrialized country has mandated paid maternity leave at this point, so it’s not like it can’t be done.

    2. Lizzy May*

      This! The best work-life balance measure I can think of for new parents is not paid parental leave. I’d quit a job if there was a baby there day in day out. I could never be productive in an environment with a crying baby and every baby cries sometimes.

      1. JMegan*

        Or if the baby was colicky and cried ALL the time, as some babies do. In which case, not only is the parent not getting any work done while they tend to the baby, but nobody else is getting any work done either due to the crying.

        1. OfficePrincess*

          And then, while the parent is desperately trying to calm their baby, Betty in accounting is glaring at the parent’s “ineptitude” because her baby never cried.

    3. kozinskey*

      +1. This smacks of the same line of thinking that says on-site gyms/restaurants/sleeping rooms is a perk, or including egg-freezing in the health plan should attract women. Both of those are red flags to me that the company believes work always should come first, at the expense of an employee’s personal life. If the office allows new parents to bring babies in, wouldn’t that create pressure for parents to not take any parental leave? As someone who’s a firm believer in a healthy separation between work life and home life, I’d hate to be penalized in my career for wanting to take some time off to be with a new baby.

      1. Ad Astra*

        Bingo. I don’t want on-site perks (except maybe a cafeteria and a daycare center). Instead, I want my employer to expect me to leave the property at a reasonable hour to tend to my working out/sleeping/shopping/reproducing/ping-pong playing/beer drinking. If you really want to make sure I’m doing one or more of those things in my downtime, offer a discount to a local gym or something. I don’t want to live my life at work.

      3. Excel Slayer*

        Tbh, I’d like an on-site gym simply because I can’t drive (and I’m lazy). But I totally agree with your comment.

        1. Ad Astra*

          If my company had a really nice on-site gym that also wasn’t too crowded, and I worked for a large enough company that not every person in the gym would be my coworker, then I’d at least consider the office gym. But I live in an area where you pretty much have to drive to get anywhere.

      4. Here, here*

        Well put! I like having home at home and work at work. Just like I wouldn’t want my boss hearing my gushy love talk, I wouldn’t want kids or my family in general to be part of that sphere, either. I absolutely need that down-time to function, and someone forcing me to “integrate” because they think it’s a good idea… Hell to the no.

      6. aebhel*

        Yeah. This is the kind of ‘integration’ that more or less says ‘what do you mean, maternity leave? just bring the kid in and do all your regular work with a baby strapped to you!’

        It forces the workplace to be the absolute center of employees’ lives. That sounds like hell to me.

    4. Random Canadian*

      The US is the only country in the world where someone can seriously suggest babies at work with a straight face. I’m glad that I live in a country where 1 year of government paid leave is the norm.

      1. MP*

        I agree. I laughed so hard when I moved to the US and they described a “generous maternity/paternity leave policy”. The recruiter honestly couldn’t fathom that I considered it a horrible downgrade.

    5. Anon Accountant*

      I’d love to see more companies make it easier to work part-time or flex time and return to their original jobs too.

      2. Cat*

        Yes, but . . . I want to push back a little there that while this is a great thing, it doesn’t actually help women (mostly) who want to work full time and want to maintain their careers at their prior level after having children. It kind of bothers me when all the solutions are “oh, we’ll make it easier for you to step back from your career.” We should also be looking at solutions that make it possible for women (again, mostly) to keep working if they want to.

    6. Worker Bee (Germany)*

      In theory it is great to have paid leaves and being able to return to your job. We do have this perks here in Germany. But the reality is: Because of these perks, women of a certain age are not hired/men are prefered for promotions ect. (Certain age equale to “becoming pragnent, leave the job”) Which translates to the employer to having to find a temporary replacement, keep the job available for the mother. If you employ more then 15 people you also have to agree if the mom wants to return not full time but parttime ect.. Just saying it isnt peachy either..

  8. NYC Redhead*

    I worked for a small business where the owner brought in her baby for about a year. I do not think the firm did any work for the entire year between the cooing and passing the baby around. Babies are a magnet for distraction.

      1. Liane*

        Baby feet! Made for tickling! But I still don’t see this plan working out very well, so I am on Team Ogre much as it pains me. I would be cycling between cooing over baby & complaining about All. The. Distraction. Which means that even if the babies were quiet I’d be making some sort of fuss.

        @Adonday Veeah – been wanting to tell you for longest time how much I love the username. Been a fan since high school, at least.

    3. Accountant*

      I totally agree, and on top of the distraction… how do I say this delicately… In some industries women have a hard enough time being taken seriously by their male bosses (who conveniently had SAHM wives), especially once they have kids. I see this type of policy being harmful to women. I don’t want my bosses to see my with my kid because I don’t want them to think of me primarily as a mother. I want them to think of me primarily as an accountant who is focused and professional and doing good work. I cant comprehend having my daughter at work with me and being able to do work in a competent manner let alone be taken seriously when I’m overheard smooching her cute little face and singing silly songs to her.

    4. Num Lock*

      I can totally see it. Our office is open to the public, which means children sometimes come in. Whenever there’s a baby I swear there’s some secret subliminal message that goes out and my coworkers come flocking! Even if the baby is sleeping silently and NOT causing a ruckus*, now the office is disturbed by the crowd of people cooing and gurgling at the infant.

      *Maybe it’s the wall color or lack of windows, I don’t know, but something about our office causes 90% of children to go absolutely insane and start wailing their heads off/running about/destroying property the second they enter the building. This is so frequent that it’s really contributing to my decision to get sterilized. Even the best parents can’t quite seem to keep them in line.

  9. Muriel Heslop*

    I have two small children and I hate this idea. I cannot imagine any scenario in which my children’s presence wouldn’t have been a distraction for me, personally, and I really don’t want to have to plan my workday around other people’s children’s needs. (I taught school for years – it’s not like I’m incapable of that; I just don’t want to do it in my current role) Plus, who wants to be the ogre who has to tell the new mom that her baby’s crying or fussing is a work distraction? I don’t. A mom in my office started bringing her baby without approval and it was quickly nipped in the bud (she thought because she had her own office, it wouldn’t matter.) Just too distracting for everyone. The only person I know who brings her baby to work is employed at a day care.

    If people really want to have their children at work, then I think lobbying for onsite childcare or longer maternity leaves are better avenues.

    Plus: germs. In general.

    2. Witty Nickname*

      Seriously. I mean, I love my children, but I come to work to get away from them. ;) I’m in CA, so I got a very generous (compared to the rest of the country not the rest of the world) 12 weeks maternity leave, paid through the state short term disability fund. I would have loved to have more time, but I also wasn’t too sad to go back to work either.

      But I work for an employer who really understands work-life balance and is very flexible (working from home if my kids are sick, taking time off for dr. appointments/school plays/etc). If I didn’t have that, I may have felt stronger about having more time off.

  10. fposte*

    I’d like to hear more about the places that do this–is it only mothers, or can fathers bring babies in too? Is this a perk only for parents with offices?

    Ultimately, I think onsite daycare is brilliant but this isn’t that. We allow parents to bring in babies/kids sometimes, but I wouldn’t authorize it as a daily plan; I just don’t think it’s tenable.

    1. esra*

      Agreed about onsite daycare. I think there are just so many better options than this. I mean, speaking as a Canadian, I’d think mat/pat leave would just be better, then combined with free/cheap onsite daycare would be the best solution.

    2. OP (Denise)*

      There is an organization dedicated to this that lists dozens of companies and government agencies that have done this successfully. I’m not at all affiliated with the organization, just appreciative of what they are trying to do. It’s called Parenting in the Workplace.

      1. esra*

        Do they also support better mat/pat leave, or just consider this an alternative? It just seems really needlessly complicated.

        1. ScotlandLove*

          That was what I was wondering too. I don’t WANT to be at work when I have a newborn. I need that time off for my family and I would be furious if I was told “come to work or nothing”.

        2. some1*

          I just read the website for the org that promotes this and their second heading is that women will return from mat leave earlier. Nothing is mentioned about paternity leave.

          1. Nerdling*

            And there we have it: They just want to push mothers to get back to work so they can get their pound of flesh in lieu of providing actually beneficial benefits.

            1. fposte*

              Unless it’s really good astroturf, I don’t think that’s what the org is about; I think they’re considering this a genuine benefit for parents and babies. If they are the advocacy group they appear to be (and they’ve been around for a while), they don’t have a financial incentive.

            2. Marzipan*

              Yeah, as someone from somewhere (the UK) where maternity leave isn’t blink-and-you-miss-it, the idea of ‘bring your new baby to work!’ is pretty grotesque. It just sounds like a smokescreen for not providing decent parental leave and other family-friendly policies.

          2. Avocado*

            So in an org that treats mothers and only mothers as the primary caretakers of children, anyone want to guess which co-workers are going to get drafted into taking care of the babies?

            I’m betting it’s going to be the female coworkers. More unpaid, undervalued housekeeping work for women! Yay!

      2. MK*

        OP, you realise that an organization that is trying to promote this might not be offering impartial information, don’t you? A list of companies that have supposedly implemented this “successfully” is meaningless, unless a) this has been in practise for a number of years, b) it has actually been a widespread practise, not just the occasional employee doing this, c) there has been no reduction in productivity, d) there is impartial data that not only the employees, but the customers have not been inconvenienced by this. Try to get both sides of the story before implementing something like this. And be realistic about whether your own work environment is suited to it.

        1. some1*

          Yeah, I googled the org and didn’t see any tangible success stories. Also if you click on the “ROI for Business” it clearly states that women will return from mat leave sooner.

        2. OP (Denise)*

          Well, here are some numbers for you: http://www.babiesatwork.org/baby-inclusive

          One woman who is a credit union teller was actually more productive than her non-parenting co-workers. I think that we have to step away from what we assume must have happened in order to see what has actually happened in these companies.

            2. OP (Denise)*

              I provided a link to the organizations with the numbers associated with it. In addition to objective, quantified info, I also added an anecdote. Some people like them.

              1. Mike C.*

                Quantified info from an advocacy organization. Come on now, you can’t expect us to ignore the obvious conflict of interest here.

              2. Honeybee*

                OP, with all respect, those numbers are essentially meaningless.

                It’s just a listing of companies that have babies in the workplace and how many babies they have. There’s no indication of the success of the program – worker productivity, money saved, that kind of thing. There’s also no indication whether the organization removes the names of companies who have discontinued their program because it doesn’t work. We don’t even know how long any of these companies have been doing it.

                Numbers in and of themselves don’t provide any information – the data have to make sense in context.

          2. MK*

            Eh, the numbers show how many employees these companies have and how many of them brought their babies to work so far. Whether it has worked well or not is purely anecdotal.

            OP, my point was that this organization won’t be publishing testimonials about disgruntled coworkers who resent the inclusion of babies in their workspace and leave, or annoyed customers and clients. You need to dig into that yourself.

            1. Green*

              Yup. I would be disgruntled and quit soon as I had another job. What’s the “increased productivity value” of training my replacement?

          3. Stranger than fiction*

            Oh gawd she’s probably one of those superwomen that has tons of nervous energy and has no problem working full time, going to school, rearing children, keeping an impeccably clean house, cooking dinner, and all while operating on 3 hours of sleep…most of us just cannot

            1. Lillie Lane*

              Or she was more productive than the coworkers because the coworkers were busy providing childcare?

      3. Marcela*

        I don’t think they are as successful as they claim. For starters, there is this group of people, to which I belong, who is too polite to say that they don’t want to interact with the babies. We are often forced to take them, mostly because we are female, and we know from experience we have to endure a few seconds or the parents would get offended and the relationship damaged. But I can assure you, after being forced once, we tried as hard as we can to avoid that person/situation. Probably that means we are looking for another job, so these companies are selecting employees with a very specific mindset. Probably that’s not bad, but I don’t think it’s good either, for different people create a richer environment that just people with the same characteristic.

        1. Marcela*

          Bah, I forgot to say: People like me rarely would talk about the inconvenience of such an arrangement. Parents would get offended, how can I think their precious snowflake can be disruptive or a distraction? So how would a parenting organization know about my level of satisfaction at work? Or, since I’m not a parent, I don’t count?

      4. BananaPants*

        Yeah, they give away their motivations by saying in their “Benefits for Employers” section that it encourages new mothers to return to work from maternity leave much earlier, resulting in cost savings for the company.

        “Companies with baby programs report that mothers are more dedicated to their jobs when
        they can bring their babies to work. This results from gratitude toward the organization as well
        as from mothers being able to avoid the emotional and hormonal trauma of being separated from
        their babies at very young ages and incurring exorbitant day care costs.”

        This organization are a bunch of greedy employers not wanting to pay for parental leave and thinking that women should be “grateful” to their employer for “encouraging” them to come back to work early with a newborn in tow. If they actually gave decent parental leave in the first place they wouldn’t need to make the offer for employees to bring newborns into the workplace!

        Also, there is nothing traumatic to either parent or infant from being in a high quality child care setting (or with a grandparent or nanny, or even with the other parent). Daycare has been great for our kids.

        1. Chinook*

          “as well as from mothers being able to avoid the emotional and hormonal trauma of being separated from
          their babies at very young ages and incurring exorbitant day care costs.”

          Ummm….wouldn’t longer parental leave do the same thing?

        2. Honeybee*

          At the very least, this organization seems that it’s run in part by a woman named Carla Moquin. At least, she’s written both of the books referenced in the “research and resources” section, and most of the testimonials are praise for her book. And in the testimonials to their service, 3 out of 4 of them referenced a single person (Carla, specifically). The “we” in the organization might actually just be her. And also, a little bit of sleuthing hasn’t turned up that she has any particular credentials to perform the research necessary to write those books, particularly with the outcomes she claims. She/they seem to rely primarily on testimonials from businesses, which are of course selective (and seem to emphasize how happy employers are that their new mothers are only taking 6-8 weeks off instead of their full 12).

      5. Honeybee*

        The website is long on platitudes and short on evidence.

        This is a new concept so I’m sure there hasn’t been extensive research, and they can be forgiven for not having huge amounts of evidence. But the organization is making claims that they can’t support. For example, they have a document that talks about the return on investment, and the first point is that mothers who are allowed to bring their babies to work are less likely to quit. I’m skeptical of that claim, and they offer nothing to back it up – their only citation in that paragraph is for the costs to replace the employee. They also talk extensively about the lost work that might happen if a mother stays out longer on maternity leave but are very dismissive of the potential distractions and lost work from a baby being in the workplace (again, without any concrete evidence showing that babies are not a distraction).

    3. aebhel*

      Yeah, having the flexibility to allow it once in a while in desperate circumstances is one thing, but this is a bad, bad idea.

  11. Jennifer*

    I know of a place that does this. I’ll give it a go at what kind of things need to be figured out, based on what I kow about the employer who offers this benefit:

    Both men’s and women’s restrooms need to be equipped with changing tables
    In order to get approval, the parent must find 2 fellow employees who do not typically work on the same projects (and therefore not on the same conference calls and in the same meetings, etc.) who will agree to keep the baby in their office while the parent attends any conference calls or meetings
    There must be an office or other workspace available with a door that can be closed, where the parent can work on the days baby is in the office (or the appointed babysitter, if the parent is attending a meeting or call)
    Determine how long this benefit can be offered (at the place I know of, it’s until baby is 6 months old)
    The parent must provide the employer with up to date medical history for both the parent and the child, as well as multiple emergency contacts
    There may be other rules, but that’s the ones I can remember.

    1. fposte*

      Oh, those are really interesting, thanks.

      I know there are lots of adoring office babysitter types, so I could just be speaking from personal curmudgeonhood, but I think #2 has a high problem potential.

      1. Kara*

        My problem with the “adoring office babysitter types” is that I do know women in my own workplace who would likely spend the ENTIRE DAY holding and fussing over the baby and handing it back and forth and none of their work would get done. These are the same women who spend a half a day each month putting together the office “birthday party” and just expect their work and deliverables to be put on hold because they’re contributing to office goodwill.

        1. fposte*

          Yeah, I was thinking that; it might level out if the babies become a regular thing, but then again it might not.

        2. Office Babysitter*

          Right. And then, what happens when it’s time for their yearly review and promotions?
          It just seems like a lose-lose. If you say no, you are the “bad guy” socially, but you get a lot done work-wise. If you say yes, you get the social kudos, but your productivity drops.

          1. Cat*

            And guess who’s going to be asked more and more socially penalized for saying no? Probably the women in the office.

        3. Engineer Girl*

          And these women get really offended when you won’t help them because your audit has a hard deadline that you must meet. Surely you can do both!! Well, no, I can’t. Not if I want work/life balance.

        4. aebhel*

          Yeah, I actually think most of my coworkers would be happy to babysit my kid while I worked, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

      2. Ama*

        Yeah, I see a potential for entry level employees to be “voluntold” for this role by their superiors or because they feel they need to volunteer to be seen as a team player.

    2. jhhj*

      Those seem like reasonable rules. I don’t think the idea is great, but absent a national policy on parental leave, this seems like as good a stopgap as you can get.

      But are there rules about productivity? What happens when you need more breaks or get less done?

      1. Chinook*

        “Those seem like reasonable rules. I don’t think the idea is great, but absent a national policy on parental leave, this seems like as good a stopgap as you can get.

        But are there rules about productivity? What happens when you need more breaks or get less done?”

        I agree with the rules being good but also concerned about the consequences for the loss in the productivity (which will probably happen) of both the parent (which will be obvious) and the babysitters (which may be forgotten come review time). Plus, there is no guarantee of job security for those who choose to stay home for the same period of time (without pay) because they have child who they know is disruptive (i.e. colicky) or has a medical condition not conducive to being out in public.

    3. Ezri*

      It’s good that they would try to preempt the meetings problem by having a backup, but… at that point you are basically asking your coworkers to babysit your kid for free. Which can’t be good for productivity – what if the kid pitches a fit while the parent is in the meeting and the backup can’t calm him or her down? I know nothing about babies and I generally have nothing against babies, but I’m pretty sure crying and noise are part of the newborn package.

      Also, isn’t liability a concern? What if coworkers are watching / handling the baby and it gets mishandled or dropped? Or made sick by coworkers who won’t keep germs at home? I mean, I think we assume people will be cautious with babies, but it’s an added risk that has no reason to be in the workplace.

      1. Ezri*

        Erm… I just realized that I referred to said imaginary baby as ‘it’ several time. I meant no offense to him or her, it was just the simplest pronoun my brain came up with. Like I said, I don’t have kids so babies are somewhat like aliens according to my subconscious. :)

        1. Charlotte Collins*

          I think that’s fairly common in English. Babies aren’t seen as gendered until they’re about a year old. Now, if you called a 5YO “it,” I’d wonder about you, but an infant can be “he,” “she,” or “it.”

      2. Cat*

        Yeah, I don’t like the idea of asking coworkers to babysit. A lot of people are going to feel awkward about saying no while still not wanting to do it. I legitimately don’t mind watching coworkers’ children for a few minutes when they’re in a bind, but we had someone who was doing it too regularly for a while and it gets weird and disruptive really quickly. A semi-official arrangement like this would lead to pressure and hard feelings, I think.

        1. Ezri*

          Especially since it allows a personal life choice to impact people who might not have made that choice. I don’t have kids, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to place an expectation on me to care for nearby children.
          If an employer wants to provide an incentive benefit for parents, give them leave.

          Also – don’t daycare providers have specific credentials authorizing them to watch other people’s kids? I thought that was the case. Does anyone know if that could be a problem?

          1. fposte*

            I don’t think that would extend to somebody watching a baby for a short time without receiving extra pay for it. (But *I*’d want extra pay for it.)

          2. Mike C.*

            I asked my brother since his wife runs an in-home daycare. A situation like that would simply be treated as temporary babysitting.

          3. Chinook*

            ” don’t daycare providers have specific credentials authorizing them to watch other people’s kids?”

            Since infants essentially need supervision to make sure they are still breathing and to intervene when they cry (and they don’t move on their own) and nothing else, I think the only thing that would be good for a coworker is some type of infant first aid (because CPR on infants is different from on adults).

            But that thought process makes me wonder about what would happen if a case of SIDS happened in the office. Who would be liable? If it is while in the care of a babysitting coworker, what type of support would there be for them as well as the parent?

      3. Jerzy*

        I definitely thought about the liability issue. Most parents really scrutinize any childcare they consider paying for to make sure everyone is licensed, etc., but sure, let’s let Barry from the mailroom watch the newborn and trust him not to sneeze on her face or rest his coffee cup on the soft spot on her head! Great idea!

        2. Jeff A.*

          You bring up a good point. Many workplaces do not conduct criminal background checks on their employees, but this is standard for childcare providers.

        3. Chinook*

          Silly Barry – doesn’t he know that the perfect place to keep your coffee warm is on the belly of an infant, not their head, atleast until they learn to roll over.

        4. Honeybee*

          In my case I’d be liable to leave a pill or a sharp object or something else out where baby can easily grab it. My mind is just not wired to be mindful of children, lol.

    4. Meg Murry*

      I have a friend who was allowed to bring her babies to work when newborns. It was a very small non-profit, so the rules weren’t quite so formal, the logistics above are basically what was worked out.

      In her case, it was basically understood that since she was going to be taking care of the baby, she wouldn’t be working at 100% capacity, so it was effectively like her coming back part-time. By allowing her to do so, she came back sooner than she otherwise would have (somewhere in the 8-10 weeks timeframe) rather than taking her full 3 months maternity leave plus all her accrued sick and vacation time to take 4-5 months off total, or potentially even quitting altogether to be a SAHM.

      I think a huge part of this is what if the kid turns out to be really high needs? Some babies need a lot more hands on attention than others, and if the employee’s baby turns out to be one of those, what is the company supposed to do? It’s not like the employee can just say “ok, this isn’t working, I’ll take baby to daycare next week” – many daycares have months long waiting lists.

      1. Boboccio*

        “effectively like her coming back part-time”… but being paid full-time presumably?

        1. OfficePrincess*

          But in the company’s eyes it’s more productive than paying her to be out on maternity leave.

    5. littlemoose*

      I don’t really like the idea of relying on coworkers to take care of baby while the parent is in a meeting or whatever. I don’t want to babysit while I’m at work, but I would feel so rude telling a coworker no if they asked me to do it in the scenario you gave above. I think there would be some pressure, conscious or unconscious, for people to agree to watch baby even if they didn’t want to or didn’t feel comfortable doing so. And what if the coworker does something wrong or the baby gets hurt? What’s the company’s liability there? And more practically speaking, will the relationship between those coworkers be strained for that reason? I just think the whole idea is fraught with pitfalls. I would never allow it, and I would not want to work anywhere that did.

      1. Anna*

        I understand entirely where you’re coming from, but I think it’s important to make the distinction that no one could FORCE you to babysit. I think that what it hinges on is people who are willing to partner with their coworker. That doesn’t make it a great idea, but it would be a really different conversation if people would have to watch the kid while parents were in meetings rather than someone volunteering to be that person.

          1. littlemoose*

            Exactly. And even if the request is made between peers, there’s still the feeling of being put on the spot when asked. Most people want to help their coworkers, and cooperation is an essential part of almost all types of work. But when you throw in something external and possibly emotional like caring for someone’s child, I think it’s easy to see how relationships could get strained or dissolve. And with respect to the “list of the willing” for people who are OK with watching somebody else’s baby during a meeting or conference call, as somebody mentioned below, that’s just more work to do to implement a policy that really seems to have far more drawbacks than advantages. And if only a few people are willing to do it, and they’re spending a decent chunk of their workdays on childcare, will their reduced productivity be tolerated? There are just so, so many ways, big and small, for this to go wrong.

            I completely agree that dedicated on-site daycare or childcare contributions, flexible scheduling, decent paid parental leave, etc. are much more viable options for assisting in accommodating workers’ childcare needs and retaining new parents.

        2. LBK*

          I’d worry that you wouldn’t get genuine agreement from people because they’d feel pressured to say yes, though. I think it would have to be as purely on a volunteer basis as possible – eg there’s a list people sign up for that you have to choose from, so you can’t go up to your coworker and ask if they’d be okay with covering you. I suspect a lot of people aren’t comfortable saying to someone’s face “No, I don’t want to take care of your kid for you”.

          1. fposte*

            Oh, that would be a good way of doing it; I had the same concerns you did about the pressure to say yes when asked.

            This might also help minimize the likelihood that it would be low-level staffers tackling this extra obligation.

            1. Hlyssande*

              I feel like there would still be pressure if it was a list that everyone could access, though. IE, Jane (not the parent) doesn’t see Susan’s name on the list and asks Susan why she’s not on it.

              1. Anna*

                At that point you’re dealing with a crappy person (Jane) and there’s really nothing you can do. You can’t plan for every contingency, you can only plan for what’s most likely.

              2. fposte*

                I’d have a private list kept by the Baby Wrangler. Parents would get it, of course, but there’d be less chance to mill around it and exclaim about who’s on it and who’s not.

          2. OP (Denise)*

            This is a really good point. I believe this is more workable that many think, but just requires really good enforcement of boundaries.

            1. RG*

              OP, I don’t know how much you read AAM, but so many questions devolve into a lack of boundaries on someone’s part. The fact that this would rely heavily on people enforcing their boundaries is wiring because of that.

        3. Ezri*

          But this isn’t a request related to some inanimate object, it’s a request to watch a child. It’s a lot harder to blow off someone’s pet rock than a living creature that requires attention.

        4. Engineer Girl*

          If there are penalties for saying “no” then you could argue there is forcing.

      2. Malissa*

        Imagine this:
        Coworker–“Please watch my baby for a few minutes.”
        Me–“Why? Does he do tricks?”

        That’s how I inadvertently got out of baby watching at work.

        1. LBK*

          That is absolutely hilarious and I’m going to keep it in my back pocket in case I ever need it.

    6. JMegan*

      Ad Astra’s comment below at 11:13 made me think of naptime (for the baby, not for me!).

      In addition to the above, I would also add the requirement for a dark, quiet place available for the baby to sleep. My office is lit by fluorescents, which are either on or they’re off. So it’s either dark enough for the baby to sleep but too dark for me to work, or bright enough to for me to work but too bright for the baby to sleep.

      Also, a sanitary way of disposing of diapers so they’re not just getting tossed in the bathroom garbage.

    7. BRR*

      It’s very reminiscent of establishing a good telecommuting policy. If you’re going to do it this is the way to do it.

    8. Anon Paralegal*

      (Not sure anyone is still reading this thread, but I just found it) Here’s the actual policy from one company that has babies at work: http://www.badgerbalm.com/s-19-babies-at-work.aspx

      As a new mom I thought this sounded fantastic. I was lucky enough to have some flexibility to bring my first son to work when he was little. I had a pretty big, and pretty private, office at the time. He got to come in and nurse for lunch, stay for a nap, and it was easy. However, I’m now in a smaller and more central location, with a fussier baby, and it would NEVER have worked in this situation.

      A few points that I think help clarify how this does/doesn’t work:

      – Badger is to review the request on a case-by-case basis with the employee, his or her team leader, and the Human Resource department. It is understood that not all departments can make adequate accommodations for babies due to safety concerns, or due to the close proximity to other employees.
      – Parents are paid for 30 hours, with 2 hours a day dedicated to the child . The hours must be tracked, and hours can be made up at home.
      – Babies are to remain with the parent or designated substitute in his/her office, and the parent is responsible for things such as diaper storage and disposal.
      – If there are conflicts or complaints, the parent, team leader, and HR representative will meet immediately to address the problem. Badger reserves the right to terminate the Baby at Work agreement at any time if the conflict cannot be resolved.

  12. NickelandDime*

    I have two kids. And this is an awful idea. Let parents work from home when their kiddo is sick or something goes wrong with childcare. But bringing an infant into work every day? What happens when people have calls, meetings, client visits and the Little One decides they are cold/hot/hungry/lonely/sleepy/bored and decides to loudly articulate their feelings?

  13. BRR*

    Please no for all the reasons Alison mentions. I’m curious what defines it as a success at the other organizations? That people did it? Was retention higher? Output measured? A NYT article said long-term output is higher but I’m skeptical about that. I have no doubt it would be favorable among some employees but there will likely be others who consider this a deal breaker.

    I can’t imagine the logistical nightmare either. What age do you allow? I see from searching some do until one year old, a lot of babies begin crawling before a year. Rules about meeting times. Who watches when the parent can’t?

    Also I hope this doesn’t turn into a parent/child bashing session.

    1. AndersonDarling*

      I’m imagining it was deemed successful because the parents who participated were surveyed and they expressed their satisfaction. They probably did not survey the other members of the workplace.

      1. Marcela*

        Yup, yup, yup. Or the others did not dare to say how inconvenient it was. Or they left before the survey.

    2. Jeff A.*

      I’m also wondering what the opportunity cost associated with this policy is in terms of future recruitment. I’m imagining 75-90% of qualified applicants would be so turned off by the possibility of sharing a workplace with babies that it would be hard to argue for long term increase in output – even if all or most of your current employees are on board with it.

    3. Honeybee*

      None of the articles I’ve read about this have any kind of metric measuring success. Not even parental satisfaction. The only thing anyone’s been able to offer are selected testimonials (and just a few).

  14. Kyrielle*

    I am not a fan of this, and if my company had offered it when mine were newborns, I would have not been a fan then, either. Babies are cute, but they are exhausting and need lots of care. If you have an office with a door that can close, REALLY good soundproofing, and a job that has no time-based component (no conference calls, no meetings, nothing) that cannot be blown off, you might be able to make it work – but it would be really awkward.

    I get that for some women it may be a perk – I am not those women.

    Now, what my current company does that I would have LOVED when my two were babies, is they have an on-site day care. It’s actually a separate building, but if it were only a separate suite in a building, that would work too. Parents can go see their kids when they have a good window to do so, and meanwhile the kids are watched and cared for as needed – by someone who isn’t distracted by, or from, also trying to work.

    Another thing my current company does is, for employees who make below $X, they fund Y% of the childcare flex spending account each year – that is, they flatly give the employees some of the money for childcare, reducing the cost pinch.

    1. Excel Slayer*

      That sounds like an awesome thing your current company does. Now that I would completely support.

  15. Cassy*

    On-site daycare is where it’s at. I would have loved for that to have been an option to avoid having to use my breastpump 3x a day and to be able to see my little one during my lunch hour and break times. Definitely not interested in seeing babies everywhere else at work. I can’t imagine the distraction that would cause.

    2. Jenny S.*

      + 1

      I’m a newish mom and personally, I would find it really hard to work with my kid in my office on a regular basis (and it’s MY kid!). I would also be very hesitant to ask a co-worker to watch him while I was in a meeting as I’d see it as a huge imposition. You know what would be great, though? On-site, company-paid-for daycare. That way I could visit him on my lunch break and nurse him when he’s hungry instead of pumping at my desk.

    3. Old Mom*

      My vote is also for the on site daycare; best of both worlds when baby is nearby but attended by someone else. I didn’t have that when mine was young but I used an at-home daycare about 5 minutes away. At first I worked 7:30-5 with two 45 minute breaks at 10:30 and 2:00 so I could go visit and nurse. By the time baby was six months old we went to a long lunch at noon. Never had to pump at work and baby’s need for a supplemental bottle was minimal. Excellent arrangement. (Fictionally, I love the on site 24/7 child care at the hospital in Grey’s Anatomy…I wonder if anything like that exists in RL America?

      1. Honeybee*

        When I was in college I had a friend who was majoring in business administration; her goal was to open up a 24-hour daycare. I thought it was brilliant when I heard it. I’ve never head of a day care open nights, but I knew a lot of parents (single parents, even) who worked nights and mid-shift.

    1. Dana*

      Right? “Hey, I just got a new puppy, he needs constant attention too, so I’ll be bringing him in the office every day–but it won’t be distracting at all.”

      1. afiendishthingy*

        People in my office OCCASIONALLY will bring their (well-behaved) dogs in for a quick visit, or a small child for a few hours if their childcare falls through. And it’s great, we all work with kids anyway and don’t mind – but productivity definitely plummets when there are adorable visitors. I’d never get anything done if there were kids or puppies here every day, and the novelty would wear thin pretty quickly.

      2. Chronic Snacker*

        If this is the case, I’d be happy to volunteer my services to babysit while you’re on conference calls and meetings :)

      3. Chocolate lover*

        He wont’ be distracting at all! And never mind those sneezing people with allergies, they can just take some Benadryl!

        1. Kelly*

          Once they get used to having the cat/dog around, they’ll build up tolerance to their hair and dander.

    2. Ad Astra*

      I would very much love to bring my adult dog to work. He’s pretty low energy, so most of the time he’d just be sitting on the floor by my feet, and he doesn’t require bathroom breaks any more frequently than I do. Not much of a barker, though he does snore. And, unlike a human, he can go 8 hours without eating.

      I would never bring a puppy to work, though, for the same reasons that I wouldn’t bring a baby human to work: They need more attention than I can provide while effectively doing my job, and they haven’t yet developed the manners necessary to avoid disrupting people.

    3. Amber Rose*

      My last job, a coworker always brought his dog in. It would sleep quietly on his desk and was fine. But it was an older dog, and nobody in our tiny office had allergies.

    4. ExceptionToTheRule*

      Please no. I’m allergic to your dog. Also, not a fan of OP’s idea for all the reasons being stated by others.

    5. AvonLady Barksdale*

      I bring my dog to work occasionally, and while I love having him here and my co-workers adore him, I couldn’t do it every day. He’s a very good boy, but even the small bit of inconvenient attention I have to give him– like his afternoon walk, lunch and treats– distracts from the work day. I also have to watch the door to make sure he doesn’t run out. And then what if I have to run an errand or need to grab lunch? My co-workers have to keep an eye on him. We’re all dog lovers so it’s fine once in a while, but every day would be too much. Besides, he would get bored.

      He also makes noise. We have hardwood floors and it’s pretty echo-y, so the click-click-click of his nails gets pretty loud. One time my boss was on a conference call and the dog decided there was a bug in the office fireplace and he (my dog, not the boss) howled and barked. No one cared (“Haha, you have a dog in the office, how cool!”) but babies are not that simple. I grabbed my dog right away and pulled him into another room and he stopped barking– an uncomfortable, tired or hungry baby wouldn’t be so easy to quiet down.

    6. BRR*

      This was my second thought (right after how distracting this has to be)!

      If I had a child I would currently be eligible for $2K in child care costs from my employer (it’s graduate based on salary and they add some for a second child). My feelings on it are, can my dog qualify? Daycare is super expensive here (compared to where I used to live) or can that $2K cover boarding when I’m traveling for business purposes?

    7. Ann*

      Yeah, I’m not usually a fan of the “slippery slope” argument, but I think it really might apply here. If people are allowed to bring their infants, then other people may want to start bringing their pets, or even their elderly relatives.

      1. Dana*

        I didn’t think of the caregiving that a lot of people take on with older parents, etc., but that’s an interesting point.

        1. Hlyssande*

          I’m pretty sure the elderly relative part was a previous letter here (or at Captain Awkward, I don’t remember), where someone was basically required to watch their manager’s elderly relative while that manager was in meetings or away.

    9. Dogs/Cats/Rats/Bunnies/Birds/Babies*

      Please don’t bring your pets to work. People have allergies. People have PTSD. People just don’t like them. If you are going to take away people’s right to choose not to be near them, at least have the decency to place it in the job ad.

      1. ThursdaysGeek*

        Oh, I’m glad your username didn’t include spiders. (I actually had pet spiders at one workplace, but the office came with them and I just jarred them, rather than leaving them loose.)

    10. Elizabeth*

      If you get to bring your dog, can I bring my cat? He’s (reasonably) well behaved and sleeps most of the day, up until he goes on a tear up & down the hallway.

      1. MashaKasha*

        I say let’s just everyone bring dogs, kids, and cats to work and let them all go Hunger Games on each other!

          1. MashaKasha*

            I’d bet on them too. You know how people play fantasy football with coworkers, or have a bowling league with prizes? It’s time we take these team-building exercises to the next level!

        2. Elizabeth*

          My cat doesn’t “do” kids or other cats. Both get hisses & snarls until they leave him alone. Dogs? Get a wide-eyed look and cautious berth until he determines if they are going to chase him or want to be chased by him.

      2. Ezri*

        Mine’s totally lovable and sits in one place – but he’ll be going ‘Mrreooweeoow! Mrreeeoweeow!’ constantly if someone is not providing him love and/or food. That’s fine, right? :3

    11. MashaKasha*

      I’ve actually heard of offices where people bring dogs. I would’ve loved to be able to bring my dog to work with me. But that, again, is a disaster waiting to happen – some of the coworkers are allergic to dogs, dog can get loose and roam the hallways, two dogs can get into a fight etc. etc. The cleaning company probably won’t be terribly excited about all the additional dog hair, either – they just might raise their prices because of that. I don’t know how those dog-friendly companies manage it.

      1. Charlotte Collins*

        I think they’re often either smaller companies or places with multiple buildings. I do know that having an on-site dog is common in a lot of places that do eldercare – the clients usually find them calming, and the dogs are generally very well-trained, so they know to stay away from anyone who might not like dogs.

        1. Green*

          A lot of them are very small companies or else animal-related organizations or businesses (shelters, veterinarians, doggy daycares, PETA).

          1. JustKatie*

            (Not so) fun fact: PETA would never have dogs on site, because they’re opposed to pets in any form. They’re actually responsible for a huge number of euthanizations because they think animals are better off dead than being pets.

            1. Ask a Manager* Post author

              No, that’s categorically untrue. I used to work for PETA and there lots of office dogs and cats. And pretty much everyone on staff lived with animals. They do not think they’re better off dead than living with humans — that’s weird propaganda from people who oppose PETA.

            2. Green*

              PETA doesn’t like “pets” but loves “companion animals.” (Same thing, different frame of mind.) There are pretty extensive questions on their job applications about your care for your companion animals, what they’ll do while you’re at work, etc. and if you follow them on social media they have lots of great videos from their workplace following animals around for the day.

              They do support euthanasia of animals who are in long-term shelter environments because they believe that animals are better off being dead than spending a decade in an environment that can’t meet their physical, emotional, medical or social needs and are critical of “no kill” shelters that essentially warehouse (or hoard) animals this way to “save” them. But we’re talking animals who are likely to be in shelters for years, not two weeks.

              2. Honeybee*

                You know, I didn’t know that about PETA, but I’ve volunteered in animal shelters before and have always thought that about no-kill shelters. They’re only “no-kill” because they turn unadoptable animals away. Or in the case of one no-kill shelter I knew of, they were a “pick and choose” shelter – basically they pulled their animals from the city animal control, ostensibly to save them from euthanasia. It was interesting, though, because the city animal control’s dogs were like 90% pit bulls and this no-kill shelter only occasionally had pit bulls but seemed to often have small dogs and puppies.

        2. AvonLady Barksdale*

          Mine is a very small company with a still smaller local office. We all have dogs except my boss– who desperately wants one. We’re encouraged to bring in our buddies. But the second we hire someone who is allergic or afraid, that privilege ends, and I’m fine with that. This would never, EVER have worked at my old company, which was huge and global with a giant office. For one thing, the elevator ride to take him out would have been way too long!

      2. OP (Denise)*

        Been in such an office. So that’s a part of where I’m coming from. I had no say in whether dogs were brought or not and it just became a part of the office environment. If I absolutely hated dogs, I guess I would have left, but even though I would not allow dogs in any office I managed, I just got used to them. I can say from experience that I am 100% positive that infants would be less disruptive than dogs.

        1. anonanonanon*

          Not everyone is okay with the idea of having to get “used to” babies in the office, though. It doesn’t matter that they might be less disruptive, some people would be uncomfortable with them there in the first place regardless of the level of disruption.

          Having an office policy where people are allowed to bring in babies or pets and assuming employees will “get used to it” insinuates that employees need to be 100% on board with baby/pet friendly workplaces or find a new job. I don’t think that’s fair.

          1. OP (Denise)*

            “Having an office policy where people are allowed to bring in babies or pets and assuming employees will “get used to it” insinuates that employees need to be 100% on board with baby/pet friendly workplaces or find a new job. I don’t think that’s fair.”

            In part, I think it is a reflection of workplace culture. Where I was, that particular benefit was important to the management as a part of that particular company’s workplace culture. To a certain extent, work culture isn’t meant to fit everyone and there are lots of environments that will put people off. Dogs and babies are both admittedly extremes in terms of standard business practice, but still something that a particular employer might decide reflects the kind of environment they want to create.

            1. anonanonanon*

              Yes, babies and dogs can be part of workplace culture, but one it’s thing to interview at a company where you know upfront that’s part of the culture and another thing entirely to suddenly have that culture thrust upon you after you’ve started working there. I’d never interview at a place that allowed babies at work, and I’d be upset and planning on quitting of my office suddenly instituted that policy.

              Suddenly instituting a policy of allowing babies or pets at work is a lot to ask people to get used to, especially if not everyone is okay with the idea. It really is an extreme in terms of workplace culture.

        2. Anyonymous*

          Not to me. I can listen to a dog bark for way longer than I can listen to a baby cry. I sort of forget that dogs are there, but with babies, I’m always on edge, just waiting for them to cry.

          1. stellanor*

            My office allows dogs but if your dog is noisy it is likely to get “fired” and not be permitted back. Most of the dogs are so non-disruptive that you have to go to the person’s cube and specifically look for the dog to see if it’s there that day, because otherwise you have no way of knowing there is a dog present. (One dog on my floor is a snorter, so you know he’s here because you hear him snorting all the way to his owner’s cube.)

            I’m a bit more noise-sensitive than average, but more than about 60 seconds of baby crying makes me want to stab myself in the eardrum. And it’s one of the sounds my beloved noise-cancelling headphones can’t cancel effectively. I can’t concentrate with that kind of noise, and I can’t get work done when I can’t concentrate.

        3. MashaKasha*

          From my experience (two kids and a dog raised from a puppy), dogs are far more easier to handle and to be around. Not that I would want either in an office.

    12. Not So Sunny*

      It was tongue-in-cheek, people. I don’t want to have pets in the office nor do I wish to have babies in the office, beyond the rare “meet the new baby” 10-minute visit.

    13. Clever Name*

      My office is dog-friendly. We’re a small company with a sole-proprietor. It’s part of our culture. We do have a comprehensive policy, and there are signs on our front door stating we have dogs inside. I won’t say it’s been problem-free, but the owner is committed to having this be part of the company culture. We even note in our job ads that we have dogs in the office, so anyone who may not wish to be exposed to dogs on a daily basis can opt out.

  17. Ad Astra*

    I’d like to know more about the businesses that have had success with a policy like this. In every office I’ve worked in, an infant’s presence would be quite disruptive. I’m n0t sure the baby would enjoy it much, either, since it’s bright and loud and full of strangers. And if I were a parent I’d worry about exposing my kid to all my coworkers’ germs.

    So I assume none of my offices would be good candidates for a program like this, but what kind of office would?

      1. ToxicNudibranch*

        OP, it seems like you’re really set on this idea of bringing babies to the office, as opposed to on-site daycare or a more generous overall leave policy that wouldn’t necessarily be parent-focused.

        Have you explored those options? I’d be very interested to know what your thought process is on this; did you see the idea and think it looked cool, or was there a specific incident that made you think infants in the workplace would be brilliant?

        1. OP (Denise)*

          As I mentioned below, I actually don’t believe that extended leave is realistic nor appropriate for many positions. Further, onsite daycare is more than a policy change, but requires a significant financial and legal investment on the part of the company in question. And it is a longterm investment at that due to the cost of construction and/or renovation, hiring, running the business and legal aspects of a daycare, etc. So yes, onsite daycare is ideal, but a much more significant undertaking that a company may not be in a position to undertake.

          The baby at work policy is just that–a new rule that can be tried out and if it doesn’t work, the company can easily change it. It requires little initial investment and is not a long-term commitment.

          1. RG*

            I think you are severely underestimating the amount of work necessary to implement your new “rule.”

              1. RG*

                I’m doubting that. Let’s go through a run-down of things, since you’ll want to have this stuff hashed out before your meeting anyway:

                What are the age restrictions? Some people have tossed around the idea of a “non-mobile” baby, but what happens to babies that take longer to start crawling?

                What about behavioral issues? Some kids are fussy. Some kids are going to have developmental problems. Some kids have disorders and diseases, like Down Syndrome. Are these babies allowed? Not everyone is as tolerant of “misbehaving” children as you might think, regardless of that child’s behavioral issues.

                Doesn’t this assume that you have your own private office? What if you share an office, or are in a cubicle farm? What kind of provisions do you make in that case?

                How many supplies do you reasonably expect the office to provide? A box of emergency diapers? A few cans of applesauce you can use in a pinch (good luck fighting off the adults for that)? Where does this stuff, or the parent’s supplies for their individual baby, get stored? Especially if the parent is in a cubicle.

                You’re going to need to make a modification to an area somewhere, whether it’s a crying room, or installing changing tables in the bathroom, or more storage, or something. How many modifications can you reasonably make? Does your company lease your suite or building? What if the landlord finds out? Does that lead to an increase in rent, or a new leasing agreement, or issues with insurance all of a sudden?

                What happens if this kid gets injured? Especially if it’s in the care of a co-worker? Yes, accidents are rare but they happen. Is anyone liable? How would you determine that? What are the contingency plans for a fire, or a lockdown, or a bomb threat – maybe you don’t need to know that as an individual but an insurance company would absolutely care.

                Like others have mentioned below, how do you navigate sick co-workers? If such and such has a cold but needs to come in because otherwise their pay will be docked – whose side are we taking here? How do you insure that people are up-to-date on their vaccinations? Can you even determine and enforce that, from either an ethical or legal standpoint? What about people that then have a objection (ugh) to vaccination? What about people who can’t get vaccinated for whatever reason?

                Co-worker coverage – oh boy. How would you make sure that this was truly voluntary on someone’s part? How do you make sure that employees don’t feel obligated to watch their boss’s kid? How do you make sure that this isn’t seen as woman’s work (ugh)? How do you try to avoid favoritism, both in favor of those who are willing to volunteer and those who instead “actually focus on their work?” Are you monitoring people’s “volunteer duties” to make sure that people aren’t using it as an excuse to foist their work off? How do you make sure that volunteering to watch a kid doesn’t become a popularity contest, where people only want to watch the babies of certain parents, or have certain volunteers? How do you ensure that Jane isn’t just thought of as the woman with the crying baby? What happens if the whole team is in a meeting or conference call or has a major deadline?

                Doesn’t this assume a certain type of work is occurring? I’m guessing the receptionist at a BigLaw firm is not going to be able to volunteer or bring their kid. What happens if you have a project-based job, as opposed to a task-based job? Sure, this isn’t a big deal when I’m a file clerk, but what about when I’m an associate responsible for billing hours, filing brief, etc.?

                How do you deal with the constant distractions from the baby on top of the constant distractions from your job? Don’t babies usually wake up about every 2-4 hours on average? Don’t you need to provide some level of stimulation and interaction with the baby?

                How does this work if you have clients or customers that stop by? Don’t you think that this would seem a bit odd and that, for right or wrong, it would have a detrimental effect on your reputation?

                This is a long list. I came up with this in about two minutes, and I’m sure that I’m missing stuff. Looking at this, I’m failing to understand how this is less exhausting than opening a daycare – seems to be extensive either way. But frankly, OP, this is such an unusual request that you have got to be on top of the details. I’m not just talking about dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, I’m talking about making sure that you’re using en- and em-dashes correctly kind of details. And your responses so far are kind of just hand-waving in terms of how you expect this to work. Not in terms of detail – after all, that was the point of your question, to get a sense of what info you would need to provide. But in terms of acknowledging the amount of work it would take to implement this, and that this is such an odd solution – you seem to act like it’s no big deal. You absolutely cannot have that attitude in the meeting – you need to treat this with the urgency and seriousness that this requires.

                3. Honeybee*

                  This, this, all of this. Also the OP seems to be weirdly dismissive of many of the concerns brought up by commenters here while also inflating or highlighting the concerns of reasonable alternatives that are a lot more widespread. For example, you don’t think extended leave is appropriate for many positions. I don’t agree with that assessment (and I don’t think 12 weeks of FMLA is exactly “extended”) but you do, so fair enough. But others have pointed out that bringing babies to work is not appropriate for many positions, either, and yet that doesn’t seem to be a problem for you.

                4. MashaKasha*

                  This is a VERY constructive, productive post. I hope the OP has read it and maybe saved it off to a word doc or something.

                  OP seems to be of the thought that taking one’s babies to work is just like taking them to a park, except it’s a park with cubicles and coworkers and clients, which apparently makes it safer for the baby. But the legal ramifications of turning an office into an informal daycare center are so much different from the (virtually non-existent) legal ramifications of taking your kid to a park on your free time. And, if productivity suffers and clients complain, or worse, take their business elsewhere, that opens a whole new can of ramifications, if you will. I think you outlined all of those very well!

                5. Loose Seal*

                  I firmly believe the higher ups at OP’s workplace will say “hahaha no” when she suggests it to them, especially if she presents it as cavalierly as she seems to be discussing it here. OP, if you are serious about getting your management on board with this, you’ll start thinking how you’ll answer the sort of questions RG and other commenters have posed.

          2. Mike C.*

            Extended leave is realistic and appropriate in every part of the world except for the United States, Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea.

          3. BananaPants*

            What’s your definition of an “extended” leave? Most FMLA-eligible employees in the US get 12 weeks, max. That really isn’t a lot, nor should you be trying to dissuade employees from taking as much of their parental leave as they wish to use.

            Also, consider that in countries with better parental leave policies where such long leaves are available to all new parents, this is a normal part of doing business. Companies hire temps even for professional positions, and it’s reasonable for the temp as well since they’ll be on a ~1 year contract rather than a trul short-term assignment.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              Nothing about this policy states that parents cannot take their FMLA. As you said, FMLA lasts 12 weeks. That’s 3 months. A baby would be able to be in the office after that time.

              I didn’t want to get into political discussions, but you really have to unpack the numbers for other countries, including unemployment rates which, when higher, provide a greater pool of people being available and willing to take temp positions. There are also the budgetary considerations, and some countries are struggling.

              1. Mike C.*

                You don’t get to hand wave that away by saying, “well numbers could be different and it costs money” when we are talking about the United States being the only industrialized nation who doesn’t have it.

                Some nations have high unemployment, some have low. Some nations have great economies, some have economies that suck. The fact that they all have paid leave shows that these issues aren’t factors like you claim.

                It’s not politics, it’s reality.

          4. Engineer Girl*

            Everything has a cost. Sometimes costs are hidden – reduced productivity, disenfranchised workers, accident rate goes up. Just because the cost is hidden doesn’t make it less real.
            The on-site day care has a measureable cost. But is it more than reduced productivity of an entire team? Worse, you are making the assumption that there is no reduced productivity.
            Your analysis is flawed.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              I haven’t made any assumptions. Productivity is measured after the fact, not before. It seems that you are assuming that the employee would not meet productivity benchmarks which is impossible to do before seeing the numbers or what adjustments parents might make to ensure those goals are met.

              Furthermore, while everything has a cost, not every company is in a position to incur certain costs, therefore leading some to seek alternative options.

          5. Huh?*

            I’m laughing at you thinking parental leave is difficult, when pretty much every country in the world bar the USA has statutory parental leave because there’s mountains of evidence it’s better for everyone, but you’re happy to believe this one website with only testimonials and no research enough to keep telling us over and over we’re all wrong!

      2. some1*

        The website mentions two credit unions, one “small, family run business” and a baby clothing company.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          Umm…I’m not sure where you got that from. There are at least a couple of dozen, which do include government agencies with hundreds of employees.

          1. ToxicNudibranch*

            Right, and all that the website says is how many employees there are, and how many babies have been brought to the workplace. There is literally nothing about long-term success of these programs, and certainly not anything about the overall morale of the office, including those who aren’t actually bringing their babies to the office.

            It is foolish, very foolish, to accept the writing of any highly biased organization as an accurate representation of [Thing]. SeaWorld and PETA may both write with absolute conviction about why their position on the care of orcas is the correct one, but you’ve gotta see that they *both* have their own clearly defined interests and agendas that influence that position, and may cause them to disregard facts that run counter to the worldview they’re trying to project. Along a similar thread, an organization specifically dedicated to convincing employers to allow babies in the workplace as a way to guilt/force new moms back to work ASAP is only ever going to say “This works great! Everyone loves this! $$$$ for you!”

      3. JBtx*

        I think the reason it would work for a teller or similar job is because their job is task oriented. Someone who is project oriented may be less productive because of the interruption.

        My job requires focus for long durations and a baby breaking my concentration would kill my productivity.

        If this were to be a policy in my workplace, I think I would look elsewhere.

        However, I do work for a large company in a downtown metro area and we have access to backup childcare for school holidays, backup around dr appts, mild illness, etc. I think we have a total of 80 hours per year we can access for free, and then they charge. It’s also available for babies under 6 months old from the point the parent comes back to work full time. We also have, what I hear is, great parental leave policies. I don’t have children so what I know is anecdotal from a co-worker with a toddler.

        I think just providing access to something like the backup childcare center, if possible, would be huge.

        Also, I wonder if getting mothers back from leave sooner is worth the potential productivity and morale drain of everyone else impacted by implementing a bring your baby to work policy.

        1. BananaPants*

          I would LOVE that benefit. If one of the kids is really sick (sick enough to need a doctor’s visit), I don’t want them in daycare, I want them home snuggling with mom or dad and feeling better. But we’ve had to miss daycare – and I’ve had to work from home – because kiddo was diagnosed with strep throat at 1 PM and won’t have had the requisite 24 hours on antibiotics in time to go to daycare the next day, even though she’s feeling 90% better by morning.

      4. Green*

        I wouldn’t go to a credit union that had babies there. So there’s the customers-being-put-off issue as well for any places of employment with clients who have other options.

        1. PriorityZero*

          I would hope the babies were ‘behind the scenes’ and not with customer facing parents.

    3. SevenSixOne*

      I can think of exactly one workplace I’ve ever seen that could even *possibly* accommodate this– a three-room office in a business that employed two people (one of whom worked part-time) and rarely had any visitors or offsite meetings.

      Every other workplace I can think of would be too loud, too dirty, too hot, too bright, too small, too dangerous, too busy, too much time out of the office, too many people, etc.

    4. Sunny*

      My job actually would. I have my own office, I set my own hours, I work on projects where I communicate mostly through e-mail, and I have one meeting a week and zero travel. And my office is absolutely baby crazy.

      A while ago, I actually saw the NYT article and thought, if I have a baby, I’ll ask my boss if I can do this, because our company has a terrible maternity leave policy (zero paid leave, just FMLA for unpaid leave).

      I would much rather just have paid leave and/or onsite daycare, but if grandparents couldn’t help out, I don’t know how comfortable I’d be leaving a really newborn baby with a stranger. There have been a lot of terrible daycare center stories in the news.

  18. Virginian*

    This is a terrible idea! It’s the parents’ responsibility to arrange childcare, not the company’s. Additionally, not everyone wants to deal with children while trying to work. Onsite childcare, sure, but children in the office? No way!

    1. Anna*

      Except that companies are looking at things that are going to retain their best employees and since many MANY people are parents, and the cost of childcare is a huge part of people’s budgets, it becomes the company’s responsibility to mitigate those concerns to retain their employees. It might not be the company’s responsibility to provide childcare, but it is their responsibility to think about long term plans to keep the people they want to keep.

      2. MashaKasha*

        Agree with your last statement. Back to OP’s suggestion, how many people on this thread have already stated that they would leave as soon as they can, and start looking for a new job immediately, if this “bring your baby to work” policy were implemented at their workplace?

        1. PriorityZero*

          But that would make it a culture-fit issue. If the PTB want a company culture that is Bring your Baby, then those who arent into that policy should start finding a culture that matches their needs.

          1. Honeybee*

            But that’s a terrible thing to spring on your employees, and the OP’s analysis isn’t taking into account the costs of turnover and replacing all the people who might leave over time because of this.

  19. Apollo Warbucks*

    On site day care YES! I think that a brilliant idea for parents, bringing your baby to work and being responsible for looking after them all day nope, it just isn’t practical in my opinion.

  20. Jerzy*

    As a mother, there’s no way I could have done any real work while taking care of my son, even after he was first born. I was fortunate to be able to spend the first 3 months at home with him, which in the US is pretty generous, but it was still work. Babies that age dirty 10 or more diapers a day, often leaking through. They can cry for seemingly no reason, and even at (especially) at their quietest and most serene, are a distraction due to their adorableness. I wouldn’t want to work in an office turned nursery. As much as I love my son, other people’s kids are just not my cup of tea most of the time.

    I think the real problem that needs to be addressed to make US workplaces more family friendly, is to offer realistic maternity leave. In many European countries, six months is standard, while in the US, it’s six week, and that may or may not be paid. I have a friend in Sweden who spent the first 18 months of her daughter’s life at home taking care of her before returning to work, then her husband took a six month paternity leave to care for their child. For the first 2 years of her life, this little girl was safely in the arms of her parents, and I truly envy that.

    1. Ezri*

      Yeah, to me this whole idea sounds like a way for companies to say ‘see? we’re family friendly!’ without actually giving maternity / paternity leave. It’s a cop out. If I ever reproduce, I’d rather have time off than the option to bring my baby to work.

      1. MashaKasha*

        Yes, it is absolutely a cop out. Additionally, because of legal ramifications that were mentioned by many people on this thread, in the long run, this policy may actually cost the employer MORE than an on-site daycare or an extended leave would have.

        If there’s anything I cannot stand in the corporate world (or in life in general), it’s short-sighted thinking, where people go for small short-term gain even though it might be followed by long-term losses. Coming from an employer, it tells me that the people in charge are looking to either retire or change jobs soon, and do not care if their employers walk off a cliff tomorrow, because come tomorrow, they themselves might already be gone and they don’t give a rat’s ass what will happen to the company after that. Huge red flag to me. Not saying that OP’s workplace is necessarily like that, but this policy is a prime example of short-term thinking.

    2. JMegan*

      I agree with both Jerzy and Ezri. I think the idea *could* work from a logistical standpoint, given the right circumstances and lots of careful planning. But I don’t think it’s a great idea in the long run, for all the reasons people are noting here. Generous maternity/paternity leave policies, including flex time when the parents are back at work, are the way to go.

      But even so, you have to work with what you’ve got, and the OP knows what will fly at her office better than we do. If this is the best possible option for you, then it’s worth making the case, anyway.

      1. Ezri*

        You know, that’s a good point. It absolutely Would Not Fly in my office – but we have a cubicle farm where noise easily travels and a meeting-centric environment. I could see this working better if it’s one baby in a smaller office where no one really needs to come and go, and everyone agrees to it beforehand.

        I mean, I still think it could lead to serious problems. That doesn’t mean it will or won’t, but that’s for OP to judge based on her office.

        1. Dana*

          Interesting you bring up the number of babies–would there be a cap? Who decides who gets to bring in the babies and who doesn’t if so?

          1. Chinook*

            “Interesting you bring up the number of babies–would there be a cap? Who decides who gets to bring in the babies and who doesn’t if so?”

            This is a really good point. I have been in offices where there seems to be a mini-baby boom with every other person seeming to have children under the age of 2. If there is a cap, how do you prioritize – first in, first out? Parent’s place on org chart? Breastfeeding mothers get priority?

    3. over educated and underemployed*

      I totally agree. I was lucky enough to spend 6 months at home with my baby, but I still had a lot of deadlines to meet as early as 2 weeks after the birth, and getting even a couple hours a day of work from home in was REALLY HARD for the first few months. Not all babies nap all day, and you can’t just leave an awake baby in a bassinet next to you while focusing on work for long periods of time. Also, they need to eat every 2 hours or so at first. I just don’t see how this would *help* most mothers, you’d get subpar work and subpar childcare…I am one of the many proponents here of decent parental leave and on-site or partially funded day care if you actually want to provide a benefit for your employees.

    4. LeighTX*

      I 100% agree–there is no way I could have managed working and taking care of a newborn. My older daughter couldn’t nurse, so not only did I have to prepare bottles and feed her every 2-3 hours, but then I had to pump as well. Add in diaper changes, the occasional full-outfit change when there was a blowout or spit-up, and soothing her when she was fussy, and I had very, very little time to do anything else.

      And as they get older, even before they start crawling, they don’t really want to be held or worn all the time. My babies wanted DOWN so they could roll around and try to put everything in their mouths. Trying to keep them still for an 8-hour workday would have been torture for everyone.

  21. LBK*

    I suspect this is one of those policies that a lot of people actually hate but no one wants to be the ogre, so everyone just grits their teeth and buys noise-cancelling headphones. Personally I would absolutely loathe this (although I might be more amenable to it if the policy meant I could also bring my cat into work).

    1. some1*

      I agree. At a previous job my coworker’s sister did daycare and would bring the baby by for frequent visits. Some of my coworkers looked forward to it, so I never felt like I could say anything.

    2. OP (Denise)*

      You could be right that many employees may not feel comfortable expressing their displeasure with this policy. Anonymous surveys and polls should probably be used.

      1. LK*

        How large is your business, and would any “anonymous” feedback stay anonymous? For instance, I’ve worked for large retailers where anonymous feedback would be anonymous to the higher up store managers, but would be easy for the department managers to do a process of elimination and determine the identity of any dissenters. In the office where I work now, true anonymity would be impossible–there aren’t enough of us, and we all know each other well enough to have a general idea about each other’s preferences and opinions.

      2. Anlyn*

        You might try polling pediatricians too, if they’re willing. You might get some “hey, that’s awesome”, or “gah, terrible idea” responses and why, and they may be able to ask some questions we aren’t even thinking of (I’m sure they’ve seen it all). They can also give you an idea of what’s good and bad for the babies. There’s been studies on how bad office life can be even for adults (lighting, noise, electronic hum), let alone little ones.

        There’s a lot of planning that would be involved in setting up something like this, especially in configuring your office space. Make sure you have as many facts as possible, and don’t go into it half-assed. Ask your workers what they want, and don’t just assume they’ll love the idea as much as you do.

        Good luck.

      3. Worker Bee (Germany)*

        OP. I don’t think you need surveys and polls..Can’t you tell by all the comments that this is not an idea liked by many.

        1. ThursdaysGeek*

          I think she was talking about her own workplace. Just because it is universally disliked here, doesn’t mean that this group of people is representative of her co-workers. They need to be asked in a way that allows them to say they don’t like it, but it is possible that it’s a place where people would like it and work would still get done. It’s not super likely, but it is possible.

        2. zora*

          To be fair, this is a completely unscientific set of data. I would never expect someone to make a major work policy decision based purely on what commenters here say. She has to evaluate all of this in the context of her own employees and workplace. I think some people might like this kind of workplace, there just aren’t a lot of them on this site.

  23. Carrie in Scotland*

    Bringing in babies into the office might also have a negative impact on people who: are infertile, having trouble conceiving, lost a baby or child in some way, family difficulties.

    Never mind echoing all the above reasons too.

    Flexi-time is surely much more preferable and doesn’t split the non-parents from the parents.

    1. Carrie in Scotland*

      Actually, and the germ issue might be bad for compromised people health-wise.

      1. Captain Carrot*

        This, and some medical tests– PET scans, for example– require the patient to avoid small children and pregnant women for several hours after (due to radioactivity).

        1. fposte*

          I don’t think the PET scan is a big deal–it’s avoiding close contact for 24 hours, and as you note, it applies to pregnant women, who are already in the workplace. You put up a sign for the relevant workday and people steer clear.

      2. Good point*

        Yes. I may or may not need surgery eventually, and I would likely be coming in with bandages over the wound and in an immuno-compromised state. But, I would be the ogre for not wanting a baby in the office.

        1. fposte*

          But you wouldn’t be any more vulnerable to the baby than to anybody else in the workplace, would you?

      1. Anna*

        I don’t think it is, actually. In that case, don’t go anywhere with your kid because you might run in to any one of those people on the street. Hide your children away from public Just In Case. Of all the reasons not to implement such a policy, the ones listed here are actually of the least concern.

        2. MLT*

          I agree with Carrie. I think there is a big difference between seeing a stranger with a child on the street and having to see your coworkers cooing over a baby every single day at work. Where I work we have two employees struggling with fertility issues and another who just suffered a miscarriage. Sitting next to a happy new mom and baby every day would be seriously painful for them. For these employees, being at work is a break from their worries about child-bearing.

          Very good point, Carrie.

          1. Anna*

            You can’t be sensitive to EVERYTHING. You just can’t. I just can’t get on board with that sort of thinking. I think fposte is correct in that it could come in to the overall conversation about how employees would feel about it in general, but it can’t really be a guiding force behind the decision on whether or not it happens.

            1. GOG11*

              I don’t think people are saying this should be the driving force. It’s one of many concerns, which is what OP asked us to share with her.

              In social settings, and even in most work settings, pregnancy and child-rearing are personal matters. If you work somewhere that isn’t involved in the care of children or pregnant people, you’re not generally signing up for anything work-related that has to do with pregnancy, children, or whatever else might be very painful for someone who can’t have children.

              When an employer makes it so that those things are more integral to your job and those things are no longer just occasional visits or social chats you can excuse yourself from, I’d imagine it’s quite a lot harder to deal with. If, officially or culturally, your involvement with other people’s children impacts your standing at the company, there are power dynamics in play that give me pause.

              I’m not saying this means a company shouldn’t implement bring baby to work policies. I’m saying those policies may have a negative impact on certain employees, just as not providing certain benefits may negatively impact those caring for an infant or a relative who is chronically ill. It’s up to the company to decide if the price, either way, is worth it to them.

            2. Marzipan*

              With respect, what you seem to be saying is that other people shouldn’t get to have the emotions they are actually experiencing, because you don’t consider them appropriate – which is a bit like telling a depressed person that they’d feel much better if they only cheered up.

              I’m a single woman having fertility treatment (IVF #2 just got cancelled due to my crappy response to stims, for the curious) so I’ve been spending a lot of time in the headspace of having challenged fertility, lately. And its brutal. It’s not the physical stuff that gets you – the injections and the procedures and whatnot – it’s the emotional side. And I’m experiencing it much more mildly than many people do – I’m occasionally jealous of pregnant people, or quietly grumpy and bitter for a while, but people who’ve been on this rollercoaster longer than me frequently find it all-consuming. For them, the world is basically an assault course filled with babies. I’m sure there are people in the world who handle it relatively calmly, but it’s not fair to discount the experience of everyone who isn’t feeling the way you think they should be, and I promise you that a lot of people struggling with fertility problems find it very difficult to be around babies.

              And none of my colleagues know anything about my treatment, at all. And probably, within your circle of family and friends, there are people who are struggling with their own fertility, without ever having told you. What I’ve come to recognise is that being sensitive to the possibility that the people around you might be in that situation saves inadvertantly causing a lot of unhappiness. It doesn’t take a lot – just thinking a bit about how what you’re saying and doing might be experienced by someone who can’t conceive, or has just had a miscarriage – recognising that those experiences would impact on them. Believe me, though, when I tell you that for many people in those situations, having to be around babies all day at work would be a big, big deal.

              1. fposte*

                I think Anna meant the business can’t be sensitive to every need, not that individuals can’t have emotions.

        3. fposte*

          It’s not a major reason, but “effect on co-workers” is, and this would be included in that conversation.

        4. anonanonanon*

          It’s not a major problem, but it’s still something to consider. You can ignore babies and children on the street or in a restaurant, but having them in the office is having them in close quarters. You can’t ignore them. Plus, it’s bound to bring up conversations about family and children, and most people assume it’s okay to ask women about their plans to have children. That creates a whole different set of issues.

        5. Carrie in Scotland*

          Anna – it’s more that the office/workplace is one of the only places you might feel “safe” or “normal”. I don’t have children but this year I suffered a major depressive spell because it hit me that I was 29, very single and childless. My mum died a few years ago and it just so happens that when she was 29, she had me and was with my dad. For me, the OP’s plan of having babies in the workplace may have made my depression worse. It’s one of the only places in my life that I wouldn’t usually run into babies/children.

    3. De (Germany)*

      Yeah, I get grumpy enough when people talk about pregnancies near me at the moment, I don’t need a constant reminder in the form of a baby…

      1. Anna*

        Then how do you leave your house? Should she have stayed home while pregnant because it might have upset someone? While I’m sympathetic to the troubles people are facing, it’s not a really compelling reason to keep babies out of the workplace.

        1. LBK*

          I think there’s a difference between something pretty much unavoidable (a pregnant coworker) and something that is completely unnecessary (bringing a baby in to the office).

          1. De (Germany)*

            Being handed a baby to care for, even. That’s a bit like being expected to rub a pregnant women’s belly – it means you really can’t ignore it.

            1. Batman's A Scientist*

              I know. People EXPECT you to rub a pregnant woman’s belly? I thought most pregnant women hated that.

        2. De (Germany)*

          What the heck? How do you go from what was basically “I really didn’t want to be around babies at work after my miscarriage” to “how do you leave the house?”

          For what it’s worth, yes, I had a pregnant coworker at the time. That’s really different from having a baby there and people expecting me to take care of a baby, which is being proposed here.

          1. Anna*

            My point is that there are some things that shouldn’t have to come in to consideration. I don’t think anyone would expect you to care for the baby. I said it above, it’s important to make sure we’re not talking about people being forced to care for a coworker’s baby, which would be inconsiderate on so many levels. It’s not what the OP is recommending and it would be a pretty bad policy.

            1. De (Germany)*

              You still said to me “how do you even leave the house?”. I suppose you’re just going to ignore that, right?

              For what it’s worth, leaving the house and seeing happy pregnant women and families hurt like hell at first. But it’s not 8 hours a day and it was unavoidable. Kids in the workplace are.

        3. Marcela*

          That’s really cruel, Anna. For somebody with fertility issues, not every single baby in the world would cause pain. We do know the world keeps running and babies are born every second. But we do not expect them to be in our noses when we can’t make one. Is it really that hard to put ourselves in the place of somebody suffering one of the greatest pains, at least for the sake of this discussion?

          1. Anna*

            It’s no more cruel than people bringing sweets in to the office is a problem because I have Type I diabetes and it makes me feel bad that I can’t eat them. The point is, we can’t all be responsible for all the possibilities. Unless you’re saying someone’s miscarriage is more important than my long term illness that will probably kill me. Except that’s not how I think and it probably shouldn’t be how anyone thinks. Only I can be responsible for how I feel about something. You aren’t responsible for my feelings.

            1. Sunny*

              There is a significant difference in pain level to losing a child to miscarriage and having to see your coworkers happy, healthy children every single day to not being able to eat a cookie when someone brings a snack to the break room party.

              1. Anna*

                You don’t know what that cookie represents to me. But it doesn’t matter. Because it’s my personal condition and should have no bearing on a company-wide policy.

                1. Honeybee*

                  Personal conditions have bearings on company-wide policy. I mean, for pete’s sake, we’re discussing bringing children to work – that’s like the definition of personal circumstances having a bearing on a company-wode policy.

            2. De (Germany)*

              Believe me, some of the people arguing here actually do have life-altering dangerous chronic medical conditions that noone in the workplace takes into consideration.

        4. Marzipan*

          The simple answer to your question is that for a lot of people with fertility problems it can be quite difficult to leave the house sometimes, but it’s very different to catch a glimpse of a baby in the supermarket and feel a momentary pang of regret than to be handed one while you’re sitting at your desk and forced to deal with complex and distressing emotions while also trying to do your job. Personally I consider ‘not causing unnecessary suffering’ a highly compelling reason not to permanently bring babies into non-baby-related workplaces.

          2. Judy*

            One of my friends used to go to the grocery at 3am to avoid seeing the kids and babies.

          3. Anna*

            But NOBODY is saying you will be forced to actually deal with the baby. I think people are intentionally ignoring that either on purpose or by complete accident, but it doesn’t change anything. If this policy were implemented (and by no means do I think it should be, it’s not a great idea) then only people who would want to participate as a helper would do that. I would never assume you would take care of my kid. It’s rude. I would ask and if you couldn’t I’d ask someone else. Or, as has been suggested by fposte, there would be a list of willing helpers so that people who do not want to have to deal with it (for ANY reason) would have their wishes respected.

            1. Lillie Lane*

              But the coworkers *are* being forced to deal with the baby. Even if they aren’t touching the baby, they have to deal with the sights, sounds, smells and overall distraction, good or bad. I can’t imagine the emotional toll placed on someone with childbearing issues, and I don’t even want children. Some women I’ve known have wanted children so badly that I think this scenario would break their hearts, day after day. And your comparison of the heartbreak of wanting but not being able to have children to not being able to eat sweets at work doesn’t seem equitable.

              1. Anna*

                I have been insensitive and I’m sorry. But I honestly don’t believe that a broad company policy should be based on the possibility or even the certainty of an individual’s medical or personal situation. I wouldn’t feel good about it for myself and I don’t think it’s wise.

                It is equitable if you’re living with a life-altering disease, as I am. It is a physical thing that I am dealing with, it will kill me, and I am living with that certainty. Even if I take care of myself, I am more likely to die from my disease. If you think it’s just about not eating sweets, you don’t know a lot about how type I diabetes works. I don’t hold that against you, but I know more about it than you and I know it’s comparable. It is a chronic condition, just like not being able to have children is. It is deciding not to have children because it is VERY likely I could pass this disease on to my children. It is comparable. *shrug*

    4. Anon Accountant*

      Thank you!! Especially when you don’t want to discuss this with your coworkers and they aren’t aware of this.

      1. anonanonanon*

        Yes. People often mean well when they learn about someone’s trouble with infertility, miscarriages, stillborns, or problems conceiving, but “well meaning” comments are often way more hurtful than people realize.

    5. eplawyer*

      splitting the parents from the non-parents. So much this. As pointed out, the people with babies get to bring them in, but the people with pets can’t. Even though pets in the workplace have tons of studies showing they have a calming effect. Haven’t seen any studies about the effect of babies in the workplace (the advocacy group is just that advocacting for it, not studying it).

      If the point is building up the office, splitting along parental lines and as noted gender lines is going to create divisions not cohesivness.

    6. Jader*

      This. I was actually scrolling through the comments to see if anyone had brought this up. I’m currently struggling with infertility and it can be incredibly tough. I work with the public so I see babies all the time. Usually I’m okay, but sometimes I need to really concentrate on not crying, sometimes I am not successful and need to take a moment. I can’t imagine having to work with babies all day and possibly being asked to watch one while someone pops into a meeting. In the time after my miscarriage there would have been no friggin way. And of course its not something you’d tell coworkers or your boss because a) it’s no one’s business b) it can be embarrassing to some and c) generally, telling your work you’re trying to get pregnant is a no no. In this kind of office I’m sure that’d be different, but still.

      I would wager a guess (I could be wrong) that it’d be more cost effective and morale raising to just offer paid maternity leave.

  24. Snarkus Aurelius*

    Absolutely not.  No way.  No how.

    Newborns are unpredictable.  I know of many a parent who thought they could work from home because they were operating under the assumption the baby would sleep all the time.

    You cannot and should not count on that happening.  Count yourself lucky if it does, but no office should plan a policy around that assumption.  I wasn’t sure if that was happening here, but that’s the only way I could see this as a good thing.  

    What about the employees who are in open offices?  This sounds like a complete nightmare for the employees within earshot.  What about meetings, on site visits, and other regular work events?  Is the employee expected to bring the baby with him/her?

    If you want to be family friendly, give paid time off.  This just sounds like another weak work around that looks good on paper but is designed to avoid giving paid time off and squeezing out more work hours.

    1. Judy*

      If you let the baby sleep long stretches during the day, they’ll wake up every 2 hours at night. Want to ask how I know?

      1. VintageLydia USA*

        Newborns generally wake up every 2-4 hours anyway because they need to eat that often, day or night.

    2. Meg Murry*

      Or making people feel guilty about using maternity leave. Yes, you could take the 12 weeks of maternity leave off that you are offered. Or you could bring the baby in with you and come back at 6 weeks! Isn’t that win-win for everyone? That’s Susy superwoman in accounting did, so you can too!

      I think the biggest problem with this scenario is that no one knows what kind of parent they will be, how they will cope under total sleep deprivation and what kind of temperament their baby will have until the baby is born. I can totally see myself signing up for this kind of “perk” only to discover that it isn’t workable, and now I don’t have money in my budget for daycare.

  25. Eugenie*

    I think this was mentioned upthread — but it seems like on-site daycare, or employer-paid daycare at a nearby facility (my org does something similar for all of us) would be a much better solution. Still makes childcare affordable and convenient — without annoying all or your co-workers.

  26. Clarissa*

    To me, this is a policy that is dressed up as a “perk” but in reality it’s just a substitute for an actual solution or benefit. I’m not a parent, but I can imagine that having a newborn in the office would result in me not getting any (or much less) work done. I could imagine that I would begin to feel guilty that I was not being as productive as I need to be but also feeling guilty I’m not giving my child the attention he/she needs.

    OP, I have no idea what other kind of personal/family benefits your company offers, but I’d say skip this and focus on paid leave, flexible work hours, paternal/maternal leave, on-site childcare, or other options that are actually a benefit to employees and not a burden dressed up as a benefit.

    1. quietone*

      Yes! I can not imagine having taken my kid into the office with me, nearby daycare was a lifesaver. Could nurse on lunch break and respond if there was a situation but could concentrate on work otherwise. Husbands office has/is running a babies in office trial and we’re both just shaking our heads. We’re still astounded when we see babies sleeping, Kiddo was and is not a sleeper.

  27. KT*

    I am an ogre. This would bother me so much I would consider leaving my job. That is just too disruptive.

      1. Anna*

        Really? So when they announced it, you’d throw your hands up and walk out? Somehow I doubt that would actually happen.

        1. fposte*

          I can’t quit immediately, so I wouldn’t; it’s also not a policy that would be implemented immediately, if it were to happen around here. But yes, I’d need either to turn into a telecommuter or to leave the job, and I think that would be pretty common throughout the building.

          I don’t remotely hate babies, and I do allow them into my unit for occasional needs. But I can’t provide the kind of focus I need for work if there’s a baby in the space, and I know this because I *have* had babies in the space.

        2. LK*

          I’m among the people who wouldn’t want to work in an office where this policy was in effect, so let me throw in my $.02: If my manager announced this was going to be the new policy, I would go home that evening and immediately begin applying for new jobs. When it was time to put in my two weeks notice I would explain (if asked) that I was leaving because the work culture had shifted in a direction that I found untenable. I would *absolutely* quit ASAP after this policy was announced–hopefully before it was implemented.

        3. AndersonDarling*

          Actually, I would start looking for a new job right away. If this was implemented today, there would be 4 co-worker’s babies within 2 cubes of me. I would loose my mind. I’d wait it out for a few weeks, but I would interview and be ready to leave.

          1. Quitting*

            Even if it wasn’t, so what? You can walk out if your employer forced an environment upon you that you were not comfortable with. The working conditions changed. Your input was not sought. You can leave. It might not be the best way to obtain a good reference, but in a situation like this, with management’s head in the clouds, you might not get one anyway just for daring to leave over their darling new policy, even if you gave notice.

            1. fposte*

              I don’t think it hurts any, though; it’s how people talk. I don’t think the difference between “leave by end of day” and “leave within six weeks” really matters here.

            2. HB*

              I believe you yourself were hyperbolic above when you suggested someone suffering infertility not leave their house for fear of seeing other people’s babies.

              Leaving immediately (i.e., throwing up ones’ hands and walking out) and starting the job search immediately to find a new position will have the same impact on the company in a couple months – loss of talent.

              1. Anna*

                You’re assuming I support the idea of having this policy implemented. I don’t. I think there are myriad better ways to approach this than to have the children actually in the office with the parents. My point with the babies and houses thing is that people have to make those adjustments no matter what and in reality if a person is suffering that pain, it’s going to be equal whether that baby is right next to them or not. And the people who were worried about the children in the workplace were coming from a place of thinking they would HAVE to deal with the children directly. Which shouldn’t be the case and I don’t think it was what was suggested. So. Yeah.

                1. Honeybee*

                  But people have directly told you that the suffering is not equal. And people have also pointed out that yes, everyone in the workplace would have to deal with the children directly – even if it’s not watching the child, they will have to hear the child’s cries and other sounds and sights of distraction.

    3. Anna*

      Me, too. Though I wouldn’t just “consider leaving.” I love my company, but the day they start seriously talking about allowing babies at work is the day I start applying elsewhere.

    4. Amandine*

      Yup. I’d quit any job that decided to do this. It would make me seriously doubtful of their judgement!

      And I’d be very worried about the judgement of any employee who came to me with this suggestion.

    5. Kelly*

      As someone who never intends to have any human children, if my workplace decided to allow people to bring their kids to work, that would be my cue to immediately start looking for a new job. I have one coworker who thinks that because he’s a father that he can do the bare minimum to keep his job. Meanwhile, as a single, child free woman, I can’t get any accommodation to leave 10 minutes early to catch a bus because I have no good reason i.e. kids. In my experience, flex time is a perk more frequently afforded to parents more than child free individuals.

  28. louise*

    I saw this work in a small office I worked at when I was 19. We had 1-7 P/T on site at any given time and 2-3 F/T workers. Never more than 10 of us in the building at once time. After maternity leave, our morning receptionist brought her baby in until she was mobile, so several months. She was an exceptionally easy baby, and it bought the receptionist some time before she needed to cover childcare. The receptionist was the only one in the lobby and her boss didn’t mind answering the phone when she needed to nurse the baby. I don’t think that baby ever cried when I was there. Cannot imagine it working in any other situations.

      1. OfficePrincess*

        A friend had a baby boom in her office not that long ago. Something like 4 out of 8 had babies and went on maternity leave in the span of 3 months. That many babies in one space would be a nightmare, because if Suzie wakes up and starts fussing, you can bet Debbie, John, and Billy all will wake up and join in.

  29. Artemesia*

    I would not only not allow this, I would not allow people to work from home with young children without their providing evidence that they have hired day care for those work periods. (exception for temporary situations with sick kids where you realize not a huge amount of work will be done, but some can be and that is worth the trade off) Babies are not luggage; they require care and attention and it is distracting for Mom and for others in the office. And it will breed resentment if some workers are spending a lot of time on their personal agendas while others are working.

    I do think having an on site day care is a great idea and a facility where babies are cared for by a caregiver and the Moms can come and nurse them throughout the day would be terrific.

    Raising kids is not something that is very compatible with working.

    1. AMG*

      THis has more appeal to me that bringing the baby in. When I went back to work I had a babysitter for my kids out of the home and I also worked from home. I could come out of the office, kiss a boo-boo, have lunch with them, and still get my work done.

      What about a subsidy for this type of arrangement until the baby is a year old and the parents can telecommute? That seems better.

    2. MLT*

      While I think having babies in the office is not a reasonable proposition, “Raising kids is not something that is very compatible with working” suggests that one parent per family should not try to do both. I think the point of this proposal and discussion in general is that we, as a society who values the attentive raising of children, need to find ways for people to be able to do both.

      1. MLT*

        Didn’t finish that thought, sorry…

        A parent working at home will need to take breaks to attend to the baby, certainly. So his or her 8 hour day may extend over 10 or 11 hours. For some roles, this might be doable.

    3. Anna*

      There’s a lot of entitlement in that last sentence. Just for a minute think about what you’re saying. People who have children have no business working and people who work have no business having children?

    4. OP (Denise)*

      Onsite daycare is awesome, but we also have to remember that onsite daycare may be a fairly significant investment in terms of capital, human resources, etc. I think that’s why onsite daycare is not more common than it is. For a company that is not in a position to go that route, this policy might be an alternative to consider.

      1. Elizabeth*

        There are also a lot of regulatory considerations with onsite child care that make it completely non-feasible for most companies. Many states don’t differentiate between paid child care and unpaid child care in their regulations, so even a proposal like bring-your-baby-to-work could subject a company or organization to the regulations that govern child care facilities.

        My employer, a hospital, has looked at offering child care multiple times. The regulations for a child care facility directly conflict with many of the regulations we’re subject to as a healthcare provider. A proposal like this would come across as pretty tone-deaf in our organization. I had a colleague who proposed it and tried to do a survey of employees to see who would want it, even after having been told by senior management that it wouldn’t happen. The fallout … wasn’t pleasant.

    5. sam*

      This was actually a requirement for a friend of mine who telecommuted for a while for her job. She had to re-locate for a while because of her husband’s job (he’s a university prof, so they were moving around a bit while he was on the tenure hunt), and her job was happy to retain her and let her work remotely, but as part of the telecommuting agreement she needed both a dedicated work space in her home AND childcare during “normal” business hours.

      In other words, she was still expected to be “at work” every day, and not in some half-work/half-distracted state.

      1. littlemoose*

        Yep. It’s the same at my job too – telecommuting is not a substitute for childcare, and you have to show that you have other childcare arrangements in place.

      2. K. from upthread*

        Ditto my best friend’s SIL. She lives halfway across the country from her work so has always worked remotely; her son has been in day care since her maternity leave ended, as required by her company. “Proof of dependent care” was and is required.

    6. GOG11*

      “Raising kids is not something that is very compatible with working.”

      For the record, I read this as the work required to actively raise a child (i.e., for babies, feed, bathe, soothe, and for young children, nurture in other equally hands-on ways) cannot be done at the same time as the work required to do whatever job it is Artemesia’s employees are doing. There are some jobs, some employees, and some babies that make multi-tasking possible, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say there are some that aren’t compatible (i.e., me…I had some sensory problems and screamed way more than most babies).

    7. BananaPants*

      I have several acquaintances and friends who work from home 100% of the time and their employers require that teleworkers have child care arrangements. If they find out that kids are being cared for by the teleworking employee it’s grounds to revoke telecommuting privileges, which in most cases would result in termination.

      I do appreciate VERY much having the ability to work from home occasionally with a sick kid. My manager and his manager do the same with their own sick children, or when a spouse has a medical procedure, etc. The child free folks can do this when they have a need to as well (the cable guy’s coming, having remodeling on their house). It’s a great perk.

  30. NJ Anon*

    Add another ogre here. I have been a working mom all my life. On the very rare occasion I brought a child (not baby) into work, it was not the best. It would be different if there were a child care operation on site or near the office, but no.

  31. Sunshine Brite*

    Plus, as family friendly as it sounds, this could (and would feel to me) like extra pressure for parents to return to work ASAP. It’s like ‘it’s been a couple weeks now and you can bring the kid, why are you still home?’ sort of interpretation.

    1. nona*

      It reminds me of a company in my town that provides everything an employee could possibly need… The employees are happy but they also can’t leave.

      1. Sunshine Brite*

        I used to think I’d enjoy working at one of those places but then I realized the never leaving part.

        1. esra*

          I went on an interview where they bragged about having cots and showers. I was like, why… why would I need to sleep here?

    4. Ask a Manager* Post author

      Totally — it feels like companies that provide foosball, fully stocked kitchens, gyms, etc. — sounds great in theory, but they’re doing it so that you don’t go home.

    5. LBK*

      Oo, good point. It reminders me of the criticism of companies that started covering egg freezing for their employees, which some people argued carried the message of “Do this so you can keep working for us now and put off having children until later”.

      1. Ad Astra*

        Is it safe to assume that companies that cover egg freezing in their benefits don’t cover fertility treatments?

    6. some1*

      If you go to the website, this is absolutely why. They want women coming back from mat leave sooner.

  32. Amber Rose*

    Nooooo.

    My manager’s kids are 8 and 11 and every now and then they spend a couple hours here. Even that is really difficult. I’m going to be blunt here: I very strongly dislike kids. I respect and support the need for new parents to have accommodations, but I don’t feel it’s fair that I be forced to be a part of that when I don’t feel confortable around children. Dealing with a coworker who has a baby nearby would be awkward and hard for me.

    And also, isn’t it hard to get babies to sleep? It can’t be fair to the little ones to be woken up every time the printer is loud or someone yells across the office, nor is it fair to force the office to be library quiet to avoid wailing babies.

    1. NickelandDime*

      And you know what? That’s okay! As a parent I understand this, and I wouldn’t want to inflict this on anyone. I don’t like the idea of bringing infants in to work everyday.

      My kids are the same age and they OCCASIONALLY come by the office. They stay in my office, I don’t let them wander, and we only go chat with people that want the distraction. I don’t allow them to visit longer than an hour.

  33. SJP*

    I’m actually a baby/toddler/child friendly person but this is my worst nightmare! I now work in a small office where dogs and such are allowed but I couldn’t deal with people bringing in new borns for the reason Alison states above. They need so much attention, they cry so much and would be a massive noise distraction.
    I’m sure it’s a no for so many other people too…

    1. Sunshine Brite*

      I know, one of my little relatives had colic and another was demanding since day 1. Their siblings were the ‘easy’ children. It was rough watching them for even a little bit when they were babies, not to mention having to listen to all that crying with no end in sight with the colic. It really didn’t matter that all her needs were met.

    1. Anonicorn*

      Thanks for those links. I can sort of understand it as a short-term, case-by-case solution to fill the gap between maternity leave and paid daycare like one person commented in the Times article. But an persistent free for all policy? No.

    2. LawBee*

      I really wish I was more of a stats/info wrangler. I’m sure there’s some trends in that list of companies that allow babies at work that would shed some light on what kind of environment is best.

      1. Honeybee*

        Well, it’s not on the website – the institute doesn’t actually have much information on the types of workplaces they are, other than the names and the sizes. Most of them seem to be small companies with fewer than 20 employees, and the ones that aren’t seem to be state and local government offices. But the website also only updates based upon submissions or people that the president has done consultations with; it’s probably not a complete list, and who knows how often she updates it.

        And there’s no evidence substantiating the claims she makes either on her website or in the NYT article (“Allowing babies in the workplace costs an organization almost nothing and provides extensive business benefits. Employees voluntarily return to work earlier after a baby’s birth. Workplace morale, employee retention and long-term productivity are higher. It enhances parent-child bonding, allows more mothers to breastfeed for longer and gives new parents and babies a built-in social network.”) – or at least, she doesn’t provide any evidence.

  35. Bend & Snap*

    I have a toddler, and this is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. It would make me quit my job.

    My company does subsidized, on-site daycare, and that’s wonderful. Kids get a normal experience, parents can visit, work gets done and coworkers aren’t subjected to family structures against their will.

    1. AndersonDarling*

      Exactly what I was thinking! Worst case scenario: “Here hold little Jill for a sec.” “Ops! I dropped her!” The employer is liable and the employee who was holding the baby can be sued.

      1. OP (Denise)*

        How often do people drop babies though? It’s not funny, but it sort of is. Like, really, how many people do commenters know who have handed their baby to an adult and that person dropped the baby? Of all the risks to consider, I just don’t think that “baby dropping” is one of them.

        In general, I think a controlled work environment is much more safe and secure than being in the grocery store, on public transportation, at the park, all those other places with total strangers, animals, cars, situations, and germs you have no control over.

        1. Kat M*

          How often do people get seriously injured in an office setting, though? You still have a worker’s comp policy. And I don’t think you’re understanding liability…..Who’s liable if something happens? Are the infants going to be covered by worker’s comp? Are the parents going to be held liable? The coworker?

          No, we don’t have control over everything but it is reckless and thoughtless to not minimize risks where you can. The equivalent would be saying, “Well, you can’t control car crashes, so you might as well not have a car seat.” No.

          1. Seattle Writer Gal*

            A co-worker at Ex-Job tripped on the stairs one day as she was leaving the office and broke her ankle. Even though 1) she was in the building stairway but not our actual office, 2) the incident occurred after normal work hours and 3) not in the course of work duties she still received full Worker’s Compensation under the rules. In fact, it was the HR person who pushed her to file.

            So yes, this kind of stuff can and does happen.

            I also say this as someone who has dropped a baby–luckily, her mother was sitting next to me and caught her before she hit the floor!

          2. OP (Denise)*

            I don’t think you analogy follows. People are saying “germs” and I’m saying there are less germs in an office than out in public. And liability is something the employer has to decide about regarding insurance, but again,the baby is not in more danger in an office than a park.

            1. Kat M*

              Yes, but my point is that you are still responsible for what happens at work. There are many environments we can’t control but work is an environment we can. At the very least, if a child got whooping cough outside of work, it would simply be horrible. If, however, you can trace it to an unvaccinated coworker, you’re going to have at least a bad PR crisis.

        2. GigglyPuff*

          Pretty sure grocery stores, public transportation, state/county run parks, people with animals would all have insurance policies.

          1. Honeybee*

            And even if they don’t, they’re still liable. If your dog attacks a baby the parents can still sue you, and likely win, money for medical damages regardless of whether or not you have insurance for that kind of coverage.

            So yeah, this business might choose not to carry insurance for that, but if something happens and an employee sues they could be out a lot of money. Or their insurer could refuse to cover them altogether or raise their rates astronomically if they find out that there are lots of children on the premises and coworkers are expected to watch them occasionally.

        3. GOG11*

          It is more secure, but in those environments, the parent is generally responsible for the well-being of the child.

          Regardless of who actually wants to take care of the babies in lieu of the parents as needed, how many employees in any given workplace are skilled enough to take care of the baby? Do they know not to shake them? Do they know not to lay them on their stomachs? Do they know how to hold a baby properly so it’s head doesn’t do whatever it’s not supposed to do when you hold it wrong? What if the coworker leaves the baby somewhere? I’m not used to hauling a kid around…I wouldn’t put it past me to forget Bobby’s carrying thing somewhere.

          1. GOG11*

            This was in response to how many people actually drop babies, which I read as how likely is a baby to come to harm in an office setting, not the liability thing.

        4. LK*

          But liability would be a potential issue either way–does your premises liability extend to the infants of employees who are injured on premises? (Non-mobile doesn’t mean a child won’t put something in their mouth, get their fingers caught in drawers, or otherwise be injured.) What if you’re carrying the baby and you fall, injuring yourself and/or the child? What if the caregiver lifts the child improperly and strains their back/shoulders? Does your workers’ comp insurance have to extend to cover an infant’s injury that occurred while they were at work with their parents in the workplace, or the injury of an employee who was caring for that infant? Will your employees who are expected to provide childcare coverage have to be certified in things like infant first aid and CPR? Will they have to be trained in caring for children? Because childcare providers in certified daycare centers are.

          I’m curious why you’re pushing *this* option so hard, which could potentially be incredibly expensive in terms of employee turnover and loss of productivity (employees who don’t want to work in this environment who quit have to be replaced; employees who pick up a bug from an infant and miss work; employees with infants who resent that they’re expected to come into work with an infant rather than being provided with parental leave; employees who are distracted from projects and tasks because of the needs of an infant) and expanded liability rather than pushing your employers to consider other options–more generous vacation and sick day policies, for instance, increased telecommuting opportunities (for all employees, not just parents) or even going so far as contacting a local daycare and arranging a discount for employees who would like to be parents and also concentrate solely on work while they’re at work. What is it about this option and your workplace in particular that makes you think that this is the solution to a problem your business is having?

        5. Ezri*

          You’ve mentioned probability multiple times. When you are dealing with a situation in your personal life, using probability and anecdote is all well and good. But this a potential workplace policy, which means probability isn’t a factor because these things can and do happen.

          So you do need to consider the possibility – under your policy, if a coworker drops or otherwise injures a baby (even by accident) – what will happen?

          1. OP (Denise)*

            Yes, probability is a factor. Probability of risk is exactly how insurance actuaries determine premiums and even what that will not cover at all. Measuring the likelihood of something happening in one context versus another is relevant in deciding whether a decision is, in fact, riskier than doing something different

            1. Ezri*

              Unfortunately you aren’t answering my questions or addressing the concern, you are simply stating the same thing over and over. Yes, of course probability is a factor. But you aren’t stating what will actually happen if a rare scenario occurs, and that’s my point. You said it yourself – insurance companies use statistics to determine rates and coverage. Those things get documented for when a claim is filed. But you are just saying, it sounds like, ‘this is rare so we don’t have to worry about it’. You absolutely do when it comes to liability.

              I know you probably won’t come back to this thread, but if you go through with this policy I *really* urge you to consider – what happens if there is an accident involving an onsite baby? Figure out at least a generalized process before that happens.

            2. Honeybee*

              Sure, but that’s not how you decide to buy insurance. Probability has nothing to do with coming up with a liability policy in just in case something does happen. In fact, most insurance companies have policies for how to handle very rare occurrences like being struck by lightning or rare genetic diseases and whatnot. People are just saying that you need to come up with some sort of policy for who has liability if the child gets injured at work – OR you need to find out whether your workplace’s insurer or your state already has laws and policies in place that make this difficult. (For example, you may find that your insurer is not keen on the idea of paying out workers’ comp for an employee who strains her back lifting her coworker’s baby out of a carseat.)

        6. TL -*

          Off the top of my head, two of my friends were dropped as babies/toddlers (one’s mother tripped down stairs and broke many bones in his foot. One’s dad thought he had thrown him on a bed and missed.)

        7. Amandine*

          You seem, frankly, worryingly willing to ignore/avoid issues of this kind as if the fact that they are unusual makes them not an issue (see also the discussion upthread about vaccinations and disease). It only takes one instance and a child is seriously ill/injured (or even killed!). These are not issues you can gloss over and dismiss. If you want to present this as a viable idea, you have to actually think it through and have answers for these problems, not just pretend they don’t exist.

          1. Kara*

            +1000 to what @Amandine said.

            OP, you keep dismissing people’s concerns with “yeah but that doesn’t happen that often” (i.e. people being unvaccinated, babies falling/getting dropped, and a few other issues).

            The fact that you want to blow off these valid concerns – and they ARE valid – says to me that you’re more interested in pushing forward your agenda than you are in actually addressing these concerns.

            Babies DO get dropped and fall. They wiggle, they squirm, they slip, they roll over. I guarantee you even the most careful of parents or caregivers has had a baby slip/wiggle and fall, get dropped, or roll off a piece of furniture. If you take a bare 10 mins to do some research thre are several studies talking about how many “non-mobile” infants are injured by drops or falls each year. One study from 2009 showed 12% out of 14,000 cases studied were accidentally dropped or fell and suffered significant injury.

            As for the immunity issue, as I and others have pointed out, you also blow that off with “well it’s not that common”, but you’re not just talking about unvaccinated adults. You’re talking about adults with allergies, auto-immune illnesses, who have undergone chemo or radiation, who take any of over 3 dozen medications that can compromise their immune systems (I referenced my ex- above who takes Humira and is therefore auto-immune compromised). You can’t tell who these people are by looking at them. Most of them look perfectly healthy. They just happen to take a medication or have a condition that makes them susceptible to illness – and to passing that illness on.

            If I were your supervisor and you brought this proposal to me and blew off these issues as “oh not that big a deal anyway” or “really rare”, I would be inclined to not listen any further. You really need to do some research instead of blowing off valid issues as “not that big a deal”.

          2. OP (Denise)*

            I think you’ve misunderstood. The fact is that accidents happen everywhere. Germs are everywhere. Viral pathogens are everywhere. People have engaged in a reasoning process that says because something bad could happen that this option is too risky. My point is that such a reasoning process is flawed because other contexts, including daycare, present just as much, of not more, risk.

            1. Kat M*

              The point is, you can control the risk for your office. That’s just not something you want to expose your company to. And if you’re allowing more employees to bring babies for longer periods of time, you’re allowing for more risks.

            2. Ezri*

              But daycares and other child-minding companies generally have policies and procedures for incidents. When my cousin hit her head at an indoor playground and had to be checked for concussion by a nurse, we had to fill out an incident report for them to put on file.

              We aren’t saying ‘don’t do this because there might be an accident’. We’re saying ‘hey, come up with a plan in case there is an accident’. But you won’t even agree that it’s something to think about, you just keep saying ‘oh, accidents happen’, which is incredibly worrying and risky for your business. Yes, accidents happen – so what’s your plan to handle them?

        8. StarHopper*

          I’ve dropped my baby. At work, no less. It was after school hours (I teach) and my partner dropped by with the baby because we share a car, and I had to go pick up copies from downstairs. I had him in my arms when my ankle went out from under me, and my son fell out of my arms. He was fine, but I was a wreck.

          It happens more than you might think, and no one ever wants to talk about it because not dropping the baby should be the bare minimum of good parenting, you know?

    2. Team Ogre!*

      Ding ding ding ding ding! I’m willing to bet the businesses’ insurance provider will have some issues with this option.

      I like the idea of an on site (or close off site) day care. Bonus if they can provide a sick kids day care option. The gradual transition back to full time for mothers or fathers (or both) would be another great perk.

      But I’m on team ogre. I’m here to do a specific job and that does not include minding children. And really, if telecommuters are required to have day care in place, I think that implies that having an infant in the office during an entire shift is problematic to productivity.

      1. MJH*

        If you think the business’s insurance provider has issues with bringing babies to the office, try opening an on-site daycare. The amount of liability insurance you need is quite cost-prohibitive for most companies.

        I’m not saying babies should be allowed in the office, but on-site daycare is not a feasible solution in many cases. A childcare subsidy would be nice, but if you’re dealing with attachment parents who think daycare is the worst, that’s not going to solve their problem, either. Sometimes you just can’t have it all.

        1. littlemoose*

          If attachment parents are so opposed to daycare even at a reduced cost, then they may need to make tougher choices about whether to keep working full-time. You can’t compromise the productivity and quiet of an entire office just to accommodate a couple of parents’ dislike of daycare.

        2. Team Ogre!*

          I was a bit fuzzy in my comment. What I meant is that if you’re going to have babies around, you’d better check with your insurance provider. Heck, if you don’t own the building your landlord may have an issue with the policy.

  37. AcidMeFlux*

    Yesterday, when the Internet was nattering about the diner owner who yelled at a kid who was crying, I responded on a friend’s thread that what upset me most about that story was that the parents had let the kid cry for a long time. No one minds a kid in a restaurant. But a fretting, wailing kid is not yelling to piss us all off; s/he needs attention.
    And I don’t freak out if someone has to bring in a baby for an hour or so when daycare plans fall through, or if a parent who works at home stops by with a kid for a quick meeting, if there’s no other alternative. But; if Babycakes could talk, would s/he really say, “Hey! An afternoon a few times a week in Cubicle-Lint-Land? Right up my sensitive infant/toddler alley!” My idea of inappropriate as an adjective for where a little kid shouldn’t be is what I hope kid him-herself would decide if s/he could talk.

    1. Anna*

      Side note: There were no winners in that situation, but the diner owner chose to freak out on the person with the least amount of power in that situation. So whether or not she was frustrated, that just makes her a bully.

        1. VintageLydia USA*

          The owner had a choice to snap at the parents or at the child (or not snap at all but by all accounts, I’d be pissed, too.) The owner purposely chose to snap at the child. I’m comfortable calling her a bully.

          1. MashaKasha*

            Well, in all fairness, she talked to the parents first. Multiple times. Telling them at least once that they needed to leave. I agree she could’ve been more straightforward about it, since apparently they did not get any of her hints.

            1. Nina*

              Marcy (I think that’s the owner’s name) admitted that she may have handled it badly, but she doesn’t regret her actions. I wouldn’t have snapped at the kid, but the parents should have done something long before it escalated to that point. That child was screaming for nearly 45 minutes, iirc. I’m sure a lot of the patrons were upset.

          2. fposte*

            I don’t know the incident, but I’m not behind calling anybody a bully for a one-off.

            1. Anna*

              I dunno. Based on what she’s said on her Facebook page and in interviews, she’s probably not a very nice person. For some reason she was really focused on the size and number of pancakes the parents ordered for the kid. I’m not sure what, if anything, it has to do with it but it was a really weird thing to focus on.

        2. Anna*

          She didn’t really snap at her, according to her own description. She said she put her hands on the counter and screamed at the baby and the baby stopped crying. Probably because she was terrified.

  39. Ash (the other one)*

    I work in a child-centered organization and am currently expecting…and I would not want this. Occasionally some staff will bring kids in on break days or after school and it is incredibly distracting. I can’t imagine trying to get work done with my own infant around, either. Nope.

  40. K.*

    Yeah, count me among the ogres. Noise, distractions, expecting other coworkers to tag in for child care when you need to be in a meeting (I would say no), vaccination issues … I can only see productivity declining. Also not everyone likes or wants to be around babies, and it’s not unreasonable to expect that a job that doesn’t involve children as part of the actual work (teaching, day care, pediatrics, whatever) be child-free. (Ditto pets. I withdrew from a hiring process when I learned that the CEO brought his chihuahuas to work. I can’t stand tiny yappy dogs; I’d never be happy there.)

    I think we do work-life balance totally wrong in the US, and that includes parent leave and making life family-friendly. I would totally support an on-site day care (I don’t have kids), and as someone who’s currently job-hunting, I would look favorably on a company that had one. But that’s not what this is. A number of companies that allow teleworking require that employees have and show proof of dependent care because they’re not allowed to use remote work as a substitute for child care, and I don’t think we should be using in-person work as a substitute for it either.

    1. AcidMeFlux*

      YES!! I live in Europe (in Spain, which has just about the worst maternity leave in the EU, but that’s another story) and the whole idea of maternity/family leave is to let parent(s) take time to bond with child and build a family life. Frankly, the idea of dragging kids into work sounds like some grimly satirical plot right out of The Office or some other dystopian sitcom. “Hey, let’s convince worn-out harried parents that dragging the spawn to the workplace is the coolest thing since a man-bun!”

      1. K.*

        Ooh, I love Spain! I was there last year.

        My old job had offices in the UK. My UK colleagues would be out for a year post-birth and were frequently horrified when people in the US were back in the office after 12 weeks (max). And I was always like “Yeah, me too!” One coworker came back after six weeks because she couldn’t afford to be out for longer.

        Also I’d think bringing babies to work would make it hard to get them on a routine, but I don’t know enough about babies to know for sure.

  41. Dasha*

    This is totally fine if the business is a daycare. I like babies and kids but not while I’m working, the only exception I really see to this is at one office that I worked at the director allowed people to bring their older children to work around the Christmas holidays if they couldn’t find childcare and I don’t think anyone had any complaints.

    I’d rather see on-site daycare.

  42. Jubilance*

    I wouldn’t get anything done if I worked in this type of environment, whether I was the parent of said baby or just a fellow coworker. I’d worry about productivity tanking with babies in the office.

    Instead of a policy on bringing babies to the office, I’d rather see companies offer one year paid parental leave for both men and women; flexible work schedules and/or work from home policies; and on-site childcare. I think those strategies would go further to support new parents than just a blanket “bring your baby to work” policy.

    1. fposte*

      And productivity tanks for both co-workers who are distracted negatively and co-workers who are distracted positively, so adoring babies doesn’t necessarily help.

  43. Renee*

    I’m a new mom, but I’d hate working in an office like this. I got 20 weeks of paid maternity leave, and I vastly preferred that. It let me bond with my baby and prepare to come back to work. While the intention behind this idea is good, maybe the person who suggested it hasn’t tried actually getting work done with a baby around. Trying to respond to a work email when I’m at home and my daughter is awake is like playing a game of keep away: type one or two words … move laptop farther away from baby … type one more word … move baby back to play area … it’s comical at the time but that’s because it’s not the norm and I know that I can get 99% of my work done in a baby-free office.

  44. Alice*

    The first thing I thought of was exposing a baby to all these people and all their germs and how bad that would be.

    1. nona*

      I don’t have kids but I can’t really think of any workplace that isn’t a daycare that would be good for them.

      1. fposte*

        I think it is pretty similar to daycare, though, in that the kid is exposed to the run of germs of the relevant population, and that may give them more bugs in the short term but fewer later on.

          1. fposte*

            Around here six weeks seems to be the earliest for day care–are these baby-friendly workplaces bringing them in earlier than that? Then I agree that’s probably a lot for the wee critters.

    2. OP (Denise)*

      I really don’t see the germs argument. A lot of time babies and toddlers in daycare get sick just from being around the other kids. The last place I lived, the nannies would all bring the kids to the park. Think about all the nasty things in a public park; the germs, the animals–pets and otherwise–the strangers. There are mothers who have to take public transportation, who take their babies on planes, to the zoo; heck, there are even more people coming and going at church than at work. At least at work you know exactly who is in the office, whether or not you trust them, who will be in your immediate vicinity and the vicinity of the baby, how often your office is cleaned. And you have control over how sanitized your area is.

      I think babies are inherently vulnerable, but I just do not see most work environments as riskier than anywhere else babies go outside of the home.

      1. fposte*

        I’m inclined to agree with you on this. It’s a little more of an uncontrolled environment than daycare, but it’s pretty much equivalent to the library, and that’s not an in-and-out space like the grocery store.

      2. GOG11*

        I agree, as well. Of all the public places a baby might be, I don’t think an office would be much worse than others.

      3. Alice*

        I see what you and fposte mean. I was thinking of newborns though and that is really different than babies that are older. You don’t even get any shots until two months old usually.

        1. fposte*

          I was interested to see if the advocacy org recommended a minimum age, and I didn’t see one; I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the workplaces that allowed this did have one.

      4. Mike C.*

        To be perfectly fair, you really haven’t seen any of the arguments people here have brought up.

  45. AnonEMoose*

    My reaction was: Nope. No way. NOPE. Saddle up the nopetopus…a whole UNIVERSE of NOPE.

    The occasional day when childcare falls through, or a bit more flexibility on work from home policies (actually, that’s great for lots of people, not just parents – new or otherwise) – those things are fine. I like Alison’s point about “personal life friendly” workplaces. I don’t have kids (and have no intention of having any). But I do have a husband, pets, volunteer commitments, aging parents, etc. And sometimes, any of the above means that a little flexibility means the world.

    But I would not be pleased about the smell of dirty diapers in the workplace (the odors my adult coworkers produce in the restroom are quite bad enough sometimes). Nor would I want to be asked to babysit. (Happy to hold a new little one brought in for a visit, but that’s about my limit.) My job requires intense concentration at times; interruptions by coworkers are bad enough at that point…a crying baby would make me very not happy.

    Onsite daycare is something I can appreciate as a great benefit, paid leave options for those who need them, part time or job sharing options if possible, those are all cool. But babies in the workplace every day sounds rather nightmarish to me.

      1. AnonEMoose*

        Well, I stole it from the “Captain Awkward” blog, so it seems only fair – they even have a .gif of the nopetopus, complete with saddle!

    3. L*

      ” A little flexibility means the world”

      YES! I don’t get why employers are so quick to enact X benefit that only reaches a small percentage of their workforce, instead of figuring out something more broad based. Heck, even when I was single and pet-less, it would have still been nice to have the flexibility to work from home/off-hours/alternate scheduling, etc.

  46. YouHaveBeenWarned*

    I have some personal experience with this for two reasons: 1) my office considered doing this fairly recently and 2) I have a kid and had to figure out the whole going back to work thing and I’m about to have my second.

    When my office considered implementing this policy, one of the first things they did was go to men and women who had kids and ask them “how was your transition back to work?”, “what could have made that easier?”, and “what do you think of the idea of people being able to bring their babies to work for three months after their return?”.

    The overwhelming response to the new proposal from the new parents was “oh god please no!”. It turned out that parents felt the hardest part of the transition back to work after their leave was being pulled in two directions. They almost all thought that having their baby in the office would make this worse not better, but they all said that they would feel like they had to take advantage of the policy just because it would save so much on childcare. Personally, just the thought of trying to work with my infant in my office made me want to cry with frustration.

    What people said they wanted instead was more leave, and a flexible hours program for parents returning to work. So that’s what we did. When parents come back after leave they can choose to take a reduced schedule for up to a year (after which time it has to be approved by their department head). We’ve had a lot of positive feedback on it, and I personally really liked being able to start back at 70%, then go to 80%, then 90%.

    Just one story about this, so take it for what it’s worth, but I would recommend making sure this is what your colleagues really want.

    1. fposte*

      Oh, that’s really important information, I think, and an office that approached the situation thoughtfully as well.

    4. LBK*

      That sounds like an awesome policy to allow parents to ease back in to working without overly burdening their coworkers.

    6. BRR*

      That’s so interesting. I think it can be easy to get caught up in talking about things at a distance instead of just asking people who might be able to provide the best answers.

    7. YouHaveBeenWarned*

      I also want to be clear that this is not in lieu of paid parental leave but in addition to it. We offer 24 weeks paid primary caregiver leave (for which women, men, and adoptive parents are all equally eligible) and 9 weeks of paid non-primary caregiver leave. There’s an additional 3 months of unpaid leave also available for either primary or non-primary caregivers. Once you get back, the flexible hours program kicks in (and also: the flex hours program is available to people for other reasons, like caring for an elderly parent or other personal reasons upon approval of a department head).

      I say this because so often I hear about proposals like this being offered as a way to get parents up to speed 3-4 months after a new child, as though that’s enough. Careers are long and life happens during them. We’ve found that some flexibility has paid off in retention and morale.

      2. MashaKasha*

        Are you guys hiring?? I don’t have any babies, I just love how you treat your employees. (and I do have an elderly parent)

    8. The IT Manager*

      What people said they wanted instead was more leave, and a flexible hours program for parents returning to work. So that’s what we did. When parents come back after leave they can choose to take a reduced schedule for up to a year (after which time it has to be approved by their department head).

      This and onsite daycare are both much better ideas than bringing baby to work. Flexible part time hours is basically the equivalent of what you get when someone brings their baby is and is distracted by their baby. I actually think you get more productive work from someone who works 4 hours a day than someone who tries to work a full, but distracted, 8 hours a day with their baby nearby.

    10. BadPlanning*

      At my job, you can do part time with full time benefits (reduced pay, though) for up to 2 years. One coworker recently did this after their mat leave was up and said it was a great balance. After a couple days of work, she wanted to be home with her kids. After a couple days of home with the kids, she was ready to be at work.

      The only downside was that part time is pretty rare and people would constantly forget she worked part time and wonder where she was on her regular days off.

  47. Juli G.*

    I just had a baby and there is no way I would do this other than an emergency. My company allows working from home as part of work/life balance – I limit that to when the sitter is sick or a child is sick and those are definitely half productive days where I end up working from 10-1am to catch up after their in bed.

    I’d rather have 12-16 weeks paid leave. And there’s not really anything you could do to convince me if I was in the decision maker seat.

  48. Turanga Leela*

    OP, some alternative/overlapping suggestions:
    -generous parental leave as well as family/sick leave once parents are back at work
    -transitioning parents back to work gradually, e.g. combinations of part-time, flex-time, and working from home
    -on-site child care
    -giving nursing mothers time to pump, a lactation room, sink, and refrigerator
    -giving nursing mothers the option to have someone else bring the baby to the workplace and breastfeed in lieu of pumping

    1. Fuzzyfuzz*

      All of these are great, but one clarification: I believe that employers are legally required by the FLSA to give nursing mothers pumping breaks and a lactation room.

      1. MommaTRex*

        Does it depend on the size of the employer? Also, I’ve heard horror stories of tiny closets and bathrooms being used as lactation rooms.

      2. Natalie*

        Yes, the ACA amendment FLSA to require this. That said, it may not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees (unless state law is stricter) and doesn’t appear to apply to exempt employees.

      3. BananaPants*

        The break time provision doesn’t apply to exempt employees (which I am).

        With my first baby I pumped in a bathroom next to a toilet from the time I returned to work at 10 weeks until she was 10.5 months old. It was a blatant violation of state law on the matter, but my employer’s HR manager wasn’t interested in helping me find an alternative and my manager at the time was not much help. We finally got a lactation room 2 months before I pump weaned, all because a pregnant coworker was horrified and complained to the workforce diversity office. I guess my complaints weren’t enough.

  49. JJ*

    OP, would it be possible to try telecommuting instead? Alternatively, I think Alison and the other posters have raised good points about possible distractions, so if you’re going to try and move forward with this, I’d try to think of ways to reduce these potential distractions (e.g., providing extra space and designating certain areas as “baby-free” zones?). I personally like the idea of telecommuting better, though.

    1. MaryMary*

      OldJob required any parents who wanted to telecommute to prove that they had childcare. It’s tremendously difficult, if not impossible, to give 100% to your child and your job at the same time. I don’t have any issues with with parents telecommuting for one-off situations like illness or schools closing. Everyone has work days where they’re not running on all cylinders. But regularly telecommuting while taking care of small children would be like working a second job while you work from home.

      1. OP (Denise)*

        And this is why I don’t see telecommuting as a real alternative to this particular policy. On one hand, working from home minimizes any distractions experienced by coworkers. But productivity wise, it seems to me like I would be more likely to give totally into distraction at home than at work.

        1. Green*

          Telecommuting puts the burden exactly where it should be: only on the person who wants to both be around their child and retain their job. If you can’t perform your job successfully given the minimal burden of change in setting, then that’s on you.

        2. Amy UK*

          This makes no sense.You’ve set this up as a false dichotomy- either parents are telecommuting or they’re bringing their baby into the office, and you think “babies in the office” is the better of the two. This ignores the fact that most employers would simply stick to the existing status quo.

          The employee is no less distracted in the office with her baby next to her, than she would be at home. At least if the employee worked from home, there aren’t other colleagues to be disrupted, either through currently being in the vicinity of the baby and its various smells, sounds and movements or simply by being concerned/annoyed that it will happen in future.

          Basically, no employer is going to choose “distracted office-based worker juggling work and baby” over “distracted home-based worker juggling work and baby”. And that’s assuming that they’d tolerate either of those scenarios.

  50. marxamod*

    At my company everyone has an office (either alone or shared with one other person) and this policy would make me considering quitting even if no one near me brought their baby in. Totally unacceptable.

  51. De (Germany)*

    If you do write this up (and I think it’s a bad idea), please word it as “parents”, not “mothers”. It’s not just women who have children…

      1. Liane*

        Me too! Granted it was after I was in elementary school. Granted, since this was back in the ’70s, I have no idea what Dad would have done if he hadn’t owned his own business and had a good foreman so he could leave the jobsites when I got out of school.

        1. fposte*

          You’d probably have been a latchkey kid–that’s what most of us single-parent kids did.

    2. BRR*

      Thank you!

      I will admit though that as someone who had two working parents, sometimes I slip and will say things like “my mother didn’t’ spend a lot of time cooking dinner.” Well neither did my dad and he was perfectly capable of doing it. It’s amazing how ingrained things get.

      1. De (Germany)*

        I definitely sometimes do the same. I wish my male coworkers would take advantage of Germany’s parental leave system, but so far, not many men do :-/

        Still, such policies should benefit fathers as well.

  53. The Other Dawn*

    I’m childless by choice, and it would annoy the crap out of me to have to deal with babies in the workplace. I would really resent being expected to swoop in and cover for mom or dad while they’re in a meeting or in the restroom. I would probably have my door shut all the time in order to avoid having to listen to crying, baby talk, and oohing and ahhing coworkers. I get distracted enough already; I don’t need a baby in the office to make it even harder to concentrate.

    It sounds OK in theory at the *right* company with the *right* culture in place, but I can’t see this working well for everyone in practice.

    So, if I just adopted a fuzzy little kitten, would I also get to bring it to work with me? Yeah, it would be great, but I know myself well enough to know that I would be much less productive.

    1. Hlyssande*

      KITTENSSSSSSSS!!!!!

      If you had a whole big crate/cage setup it could be feasible. Probably moreso than a baby. :P

        1. Kerry (Like the County In Ireland)*

          My sister has a new kitten and says it’s hard for her to leave him at home and go to work. She was gone for the weekend and kept texting me about how much she missed him (i was kitten-sitting).

    2. Kelly*

      I’d be more flexible having kittens in the office than kids. I’m more of a cat person than a kid person to begin with. There are studies that have been done that show that having a cat around can help reduce stress. Plus the kittens would be getting socialized by being in contact with many people.

  54. The IT Manager*

    What?!?!

    I am influenced by my past work environments but this sounds like a terrible idea. Problems:
    – The parent needs an well sound proofed, private office or the cries of the baby will carry and distract and annoy with other workers. How many offices have that for all employees?
    – The parent is distracted when they are supposed to be leading or participating in a meeting. My team’s meetings are online so what would happen is Jane on mute (or worse not on mute) would be distracted by the baby and not paying attention and no one would know until someone specifically asked Jane a question and got no answer. “Jane was in the meeting and didn’t object to the suggestion.”
    – Some workers fawning over the baby wanting to hold and play with the baby when they should be working while other less baby friendly employees feel put upon when asked to hold the baby or watch it for a minute so that the parent can concentrate on work.

    Frankly it sounds like a terrible idea for the parent too – trying to juggle caring for their child and work. Wouldn’t maternity/paternity leave be better for baby and parent. Wouldn’t it be better for the office to either know that Jane has a replacement or that she is out than to have her tired, distracted, and working to less than 100% but with very unclear lines.

  55. spek*

    FYI – stating this has been done successfully at other institutions is probably only half the story. More likely what has happened is someone in senior management has implemented it, and there are a few people who love it, some who are indifferent, and a not so small contingent who hate it, resent it, but are afraid to speak up and be labeled anti-family or a joykill and incur the parent-wrath backlash…

    1. BRR*

      This is exactly what I thought, in my comment above I asked for success to be defined. Even if it’s listing subjective things.

    2. Kelly*

      That was my thought as well. Probably the majority of people in the workplaces that have implemented similar policies tolerate having babies and small children around and don’t complain because it’s a pet idea of someone in management. The ones who are in favor of these policies probably don’t care about the effect on employee morale, especially on those that loathe and resent having kids around while they are trying to work. They know it’s best for a harmonious workplace not to express their true views because of the outsized wrath of parents.

  56. YandO*

    This seems like a horrible idea to me and I love babies.

    A much more do-able solution would be flexible time and telecommuting options for both parents. Dream land.

  57. Christy*

    Is this some sort of attachment parenting thing? You want to be an attachment parent but you also have a job? I truly can’t understand who had this idea originally and why.

    1. BRR*

      The pluses to me are cost and when parents don’t have to choose between staying home or working you increase employee retention among new parents. The minuses have been explained already haha.

    2. Carrie in Scotland*

      The OP linked an article way upthread – it does seem to be attachment-y.

  58. LK*

    Every fiber of my being cringes away from the thought of new parents bringing their infants into the office for a significant portion of the work day. If it happened in my office, I would start seriously looking for a new job–I work in a field that is not accommodating to the needs of infants and their caregivers, and as one of the younger women in my office, I can easily see childcare becoming part of my “other duties as assigned” job description.
    Here’s what you should be pitching if you want to retain workers after their children are born: in-house daycare, and fully-paid parental leave. That would create loyalty and comfort and convenience to new families, WITHOUT creating discord and inconvenience to workers who would be harmed by the proposal you’re suggesting.

  59. msbadbar*

    In some ways, the “village raising a child” idea is lovely. However, when people accept job offers, they really aren’t signing on to be part of a such a village.

  60. CrazyCatLady*

    It might retain mothers or make them more loyal, but it would make me want to jump ship ASAP. It’s bad enough having adults in the workplace because of all the distractions, but babies? Not for me.

  61. Erin*

    I want to like it. But it’s hard to imagine a work environment where this could be doable. Maybe petitioning for a daycare in the same office building would be a better solution.

    I do think having an optimal work/life balance and health insurance would be more acceptable/functional. Good healthcare to take care of baby, flexibility to leave work if your child is sick, telecommute from home, etc.

    If you do decide to go forward with the request (and hey, it can’t hurt to ask) I would read all articles on the topic and arm yourself with as much info as possible.

    To answer what concerns one might have over this: What would a typical day look like? How often would the woman (or man) be interacting with the baby? What would happen if they had a meeting or had something unexpected come up – would there ever be a situation where this person would have to leave and someone else would have to take over baby duties? Are there changing tables in the restrooms? Would open breastfeeding be allowed? Would vaccinations be required? What if one baby gets sick and they all get sick? Do clients come in the office – what would they think? What if employees started bringing in their other children as well, when they’re off from school?

  62. Rebecca*

    I am joining the chorus of NO to babies in the office. If it’s just for a few hours, or for a day due to an extreme child care emergency, maybe. But on a regular basis? No. And that whole thing about coworkers stepping up when the parent has meetings? Double no! Not my circus, not my monkeys. Will people be shamed or forced into child care if they don’t want to deal with it? I can totally see that in my office. People like me would be labeled as “not team players” and told “we have to be kind to one another”. Plus, our bathrooms are gross enough without having to smell baby poo and deal with diapers, wipes, etc. in the trash.

    I guess I am extremely selfish. I put in my parenting time, with my own child, and I have no desire to be responsible for someone else’s diapers, spit up, feedings, screaming, squealing, or any other baby related issues unless it’s my own grandchildren or nieces or nephews.

    Workplaces are for working, not child care.

  63. Kara*

    I’d quit.

    Seriously. I love children. I especially love new babies. Oh my goodness I love them. I’m always happy when a friend with a new baby will invite me over and get a baby fix. It’s wonderful.

    BUT NOT AT WORK.

    For all the reasons everyone mentioned above I think it’s a horrible, awful, terrible, rotten, no-good idea and if it happened in my workplace, I’d immediately start looking for another job.

  64. Rebecca*

    Happy to be called an ogre here. No no no no no. This is horrible. Nothing would get on my nerves more than coworkers sticking their head in my cube every 15 minutes THAN A SCREAMING BABY. They cry. They make messes that smell. No.

    Also I’m not holding some random baby.

    How about flexible time and telework for both parents and non-parents? Fair across the board. I agree that making women feel like the transition back to work after having a child is smooth is important, but it’s not more important than having fair, reasonable employment practices for all your employees, whether they choose to reproduce or not.

  65. Patrick G*

    This sounds like an ill-conceived compromise for the USA having such terrible family leave policies compared to the rest of the developed world. I have a 2 month old and I can’t imagine watching her and getting work done. Kids at that age need constant attention, stimulation, feeding, changing, etc. My wife stays at home to watch her all day and i will be the first to tell you that she has the harder job. Watching a kid by yourseld all day is a full time job in its own right. Not to mention, I wouldn’t want to be disrupted by other workers children when they have to run off to a meeting…

    This is just stupid on so many levels. Give your employees paid fmla leave for 12 weeks and offer on site daycare if you really want to make a parents life easier.

    1. BRR*

      “an ill-conceived compromise for the USA having such terrible family leave policies”

      I think this sums it up perfectly. It’s a compromise that sucks for everybody.

  66. CollegeAdmin*

    My first thought, in true AAM-style: Ack! Don’t do that!

    But seriously. I haven’t read through all the comments in detail yet, but a skim revealed that most said no, and I trust that the other commenters have given great reasons (because y’all are awesome). Please don’t do this. I applaud you for trying to be work-life balance friendly, semi-applaud for you trying to be family friendly (employees who do not have families deserve perks too), but this is not the way to do it.

    1. LawBee*

      “semi-applaud for you trying to be family friendly (employees who do not have families deserve perks too)”

      Word (with the tiny note that children aren’t the only thing that creates a family – spouses/committed pairings/etc are families, too!)

  67. Charlotte Collins*

    I had a coworker who went to part time after having her baby. No problem, but we didn’t change the day of the regular staff meeting (her day off). So, she would either attend from home (which made it harder for her to be really present) or come in to work – with her baby. I found it super-distracting to have a baby in a meeting. My boss at the time loved it (she loved loved loved babies), but our staff meetings became less about work and more about playtime and cooing over the baby. (Also, the coworker complained about not being able to use visitor parking, because she had to carry the baby in, which I thought was a little special snowflake of her.) Finally, I suggested we move the meeting to a day that everyone was scheduled to work. Staff meetings went much more smoothly after that.

    For the record, I support employers having onsite daycare and giving alternative schedules or the option of working from home (not just to those with kids, but for anyone – seeing people deal with eldercare issues has really brought home to me how much this is needed). But I feel babies are better off as visitors than hanging out all day with the work force.

    I wish we had an office dog, though….

      1. Charlotte Collins*

        Because that’s the way things work. It was on the calendar and had been that day for years (for reasons that had to do with deadlines on other days). And I think the PT person liked getting hours just to attend a meeting. We finally convinced our manager that we all would rather have a regular (biweekly) meeting on one of our two busiest days (a day that we usually tried to avoid scheduling meetings on) than meet on a less busy day. I think that says something about how distracting a kid can be.

    2. MashaKasha*

      Now I want an office dog.

      There’s a reason why therapy dogs exist, whereas “therapy babies” isn’t a real actual thing.

  68. LawBee*

    Noooooooooo. Babies do not belong in the workplace unless it’s a baby workplace. Children do not belong in the workplace unless it’s a children workplace. Instead of bringing babies in – squalling, pooping, cooing, distracting babies, find other ways!

    1. Anna*

      Can we teach these babies to type and file? That would help. (That’s what I thought of when you said baby workplace, even though you were talking about daycare.)

      1. Natalie*

        Once they crawl, put them in a microfiber onesie and they’ll dust the floor. It’s win-win!

  69. Katrina Bass*

    Yeah, the pressure to come back quickly would be my issue… Gross alert, but those first weeks after giving birth, I just wanted to use my peri bottle in my own bathroom at my own house. Stitches prevented comfort on my own couch, and I couldn’t imagine trying to get situated on an office chair….

    If your work allows for a baby in the office, is it possible it allows for telecommuting?

  70. BananaPants*

    As a working mother of young children, I think this isn’t a great idea. I have the relative privilege (for the US) of having taken around 3 months off with each of my babies, so when I returned to work the baby was only getting up once overnight and we were into a good routine with breastfeeding and everything else. That was the age at which the baby would start to be more awake and active and exploring their world, so I preferred my kids being in a daycare center with caregivers and other children and lots of things to do and see and play with, rather than stuck in a beige cubicle with mom on teleconferences all day. I genuinely can’t see how most people could do justice to doing their work while also parenting.

    I like kids well enough (especially seeing as I chose to have them) but I don’t want to be at work and have someone else’s kid pawned off on me so mom or dad can go to a meeting. I’m paid to be an engineer, not a child care worker, and I have my own work to do. I suspect a lot of the baby-wrangling would fall to colleagues who are also parents and that’s not very fair to them especially when their own children are in childcare.

    Frankly, the only places I’ve seen these suggestions to “Bring your baby to work! It’s so easy and has many benefits for employers and coworkers!” are on attachment parenting message boards where a lot of moms want desperately to be SAHMs but can’t and think that daycare is some evil thing.

    1. TotesMaGoats*

      LOL. I’m with you. I went to school and worked hard to be in the job I’m in. That job is not early childhood development related. I feel much better letting someone with the education, training and experience to provide for my son during the day. I’m not an artsy craftsy person. They do all that there and my house stays clean-ish.

    2. cv*

      Good point about the baby-wrangling falling to other parents. I have toddlers and I definitely feel like the other parents in my social circle are better with my kids and better equipped for calling on in emergencies, trading babysitting, etc. A lot of adults who aren’t in a child-related field or who don’t have kids of their own have no idea what to when told to take care of a random child – I know I didn’t, pre-kids.

  71. TotesMaGoats*

    Putting aside all the stuff about how US has crappy leave policies and health insurance and all that other stuff which would kind of negate the need to this…

    EGADS NO!

    I went to work to get away from my child because I was quickly losing my mind. I was lucky to have saved up enough leave to be out for a full three months. I feel for those who can’t stay out as long as they like. However, I would not want babies constantly in the office for anything more than a quick visit. Babies need a lot of attention and those with health issues even more so. My niece screamed like a meth addict going through withdrawal (her mother the RN’s description) for the first 6 months of her life. Very little made her happy. It’s so hit or miss with kids. I know one of my friends was able to take her child to work for the first 3 or 4 months but I think she worked in a small office, no conference calls or things like that. He also appeared to be a pretty chill kid.

    For a large corporate setting I don’t think this would work. Onsite childcare, that would work. In another part of the building.

    1. cv*

      >> I went to work to get away from my child because I was quickly losing my mind.

      This. I spent 5 months at home with my twins, and going back to work was the best possible thing that could have happened for my mental health. I’m a much better and more emotionally engaged mother when I’m working. Postpartum depression is real, and it sucks.

  72. K.*

    I’m a working mom and I would not be a fan of this. To me it would feel like something designed to punish me for childbearing and make me a social pariah, honestly.

    Also, I don’t *want* to be splitting my attention between my infant (well, toddler now) and my job. When I am working I want to be working. If there were on-site child care where I could get up from my desk and go breastfeed 2-3 times a day instead of pumping, dear god yes I’d be in favor, but otherwise, nope. Recipe for disaster IMO.

    1. K. from upthread*

      Sincere question, no judgment: how would it feel like punishment? Because you’d feel pressure to bring the baby in rather than staying out for your whole maternity leave?

      1. K.*

        Oops! I didn’t realize there was another K. hanging around, I’ll be more creative next time. ;)

        Because everyone would resent my kid being at work, and also because I would be feeling, yes, strongly pressured to come back into the office ASAP. And the weeks right after childbirth are… not the most emotionally stable time in a person’s life. Particularly the person that did the birthing.

        1. K. from upthread*

          Gotcha. Speaking for myself, I would resent a baby being in the office – but that’s because babies can be disruptive, as has been discussed at length. And I know enough about babies to know that they’re not disruptive on purpose, but … the noise is still there.

          You make an excellent point about postpartum hormones. I hadn’t thought of that.

  73. Hermoine Granger*

    In theory I think it could be fine with a newborn that’s going to sleep most of the day if the parent has their own office and other employees aren’t expected to help with the kid (unless they’re like a personal assistant). Older kids on a day off from school or in an emergency should be able to sit quietly with a book, homework, etc. in just about any environment where their presence isn’t a safety or privacy issue. However, there could be problems with parents and/or other employees being distracted by cooing over the kid or the kid running amok.

    I think that allowing people (parents or not) to work remotely or on a flexible schedule when possible is probably a better solution.

    1. Kara*

      One – Most newborns don’t sleep all day. And even when they are sleeping, they’re not silent. They grunt, they coo, they make sucking noises, they wiggle, they poo and pee. And they wake up and need to be fed far more frequently than most people imagine.

      Two – “unless they’re like a personal assistant”? Really? So if I’m the PA, I’m automatically expected to take on childcare duties as well? Big old NOPE to that one.

      1. fposte*

        This might be a national divide on the term–I know in the UK, PAs are basically executive admins, but in the US, it’s more the term for the person who runs around after rich and famous people and makes sure their dry cleaning is done and their restaurants are booked. So being a US personal assistant might well include childcare duties, because it includes a lot of domestic stuff.

        1. Kara*

          I think in context of the OP, where we’re talking about bringing a baby into an office, PA = Exec Secretary or Office Manager or something of that level, as opposed to “the woman assisting Ms. Jolie in her personal life”. :)

  74. MaryMary*

    I assume OP works in an office, but I’m amusing myself by imaging non-office workers trying to bring their infants to work with them. A surgeon, a pilot, a police officer… Obviously, factory work is out, and construction…

    Generous p/maternity leave policies and onsite daycare are much better solutions than babies in the workplace.

      1. MaryMary*

        I’m being facetious, mostly. There are a lot of perks, like telecommuting, that only work in certain professions and workplaces.

        At the same time, if you wouldn’t want your doctor or your child’s teacher to take care of their baby at work, I’d ask if it’s fair to your customers and coworkers if you split your attention between your job and your baby.

  75. Lia*

    I have two kids, and am 100% against this idea. I worked from home (different job) when my kids were small and I had to have separate care for them per the employer’s rules.

    On-site daycares are terrific. We have one here and it is very popular. I also attended a university with one and used it for my kids and it was great — on the rare instances I was needed, I was a 5 minute walk away.

    I am in favor of flextime/working from home/telecommuting for ALL, not just parents, or parents of young kids. Our office is pretty good about that, thankfully.

  76. Juli G.*

    Can I also add that a lot of parents would feel very pressured by this? I have a child care arrangement that’s very flexible and customizable and if my workplace has this, I would still want my baby to be in child care. But I think I would be constantly asked about why my baby isn’t with me and feel a lot of guilt about, intentional or not. I feel bad just saying that I’m not interested in this hypothetical!

  77. anon4this*

    About ten years ago, I had an employee who had a gap of About three weeks between the end of maternity leave and the start of daycare. She requested permission to bring the baby to the office during that time, and explained that this was an easy baby and would not have asked for her other children who were more fussy.

    We allowed it in this instance because of the short time frame, the ability to swap some of her tasks with other staff members so that all her work could be done in her private office, and the general counsel and HR approval.

    The general counsel drew up a release from liability agreement the employee and her husband both had to sign. It also required that the baby had to be under her watch and supervision at all times, and that no one else in the workplace could hold or care for the baby at any time. It also allowed management to cancel the arrangement at any time for any reason.

    I supported this employee’s request at the time and would do so again for her or others on an as needed basis if it could fit with the employees duties and not be disruptive. But I wouldn’t want a blanket policy for all. And coworkers as babysitters? That’s crazy!

    1. kozinskey*

      And this is totally reasonable! Good for you for supporting it. I do think being willing to help employees with situations like this on a case-by-case basis is a sign of a good working environment. But creating an office culture where new parents are expected to skip parental leave and just bring in their kids instead is a totally different story.

  78. Matt F*

    If this is the same employer that’s host to the Duck Club, on-site childcare is the least they could do.

  79. Faith*

    As a mother of a 4.5 months old baby, I think this is a terrible idea. Taking care of an infant is a full time job. You cannot expect to be fully productive while dealing with feedings, dirty diaper changes, colic, etc. Either the quality of your work will suffer, or your baby will suffer. Onsite daycare is the way to go.

  80. J.B.*

    I could never have brought either of my babies to work. No, just no. Neither of them napped well at all for the first year, the second child refused to be consoled by anyone but me for the first few months, and I would have been a zombified unproductive mess. I much preferred taking my time off, then having daddy take his time off, and separating work from home.

    1. J.B.*

      Plus, you realize that in the baby room at daycare – some child is crying every day. Not always the same kid, even when they’re being held. They just have bad days and cry sometimes. If you had 5 babies in an office then any particular day you would probably hear much crying from one or the other.

      1. Anna*

        And frequently one crying child starts a chorus of crying children. Sympathetic criers, you might say.

  81. Angela*

    Just thinking of my own kids (now 12 and 10), I could have done this with my son. He was the most laid back, easygoing baby ever. We jokingly called him a great “starter” baby. He slept 18-20 hours a day (seriously), and only cried if hungry. He also was content to sit in a bouncy seat or entertain himself with a toy for good chunks of time very early.

    But my daughter was a different story. She needed near constant interaction. She did not self-entertain well, and cried frequently. The idea of taking her to work with me, and getting anything done at all besides taking care of her, was laughable until she was close to 5 years old. Let alone as a baby/toddler.

    This just send like it would open a can of worms that doesn’t belong in the workplace at all. At what point do you tell someone that their child is too distracting when others are bringing their calmer children to work?

  82. Aim Away From Face*

    Not a chance in hell.

    If this ever happened to my workplace, my resignation would be submitted the next day.

  83. Michelle*

    I don’t think this is a good idea. Coworkers have brought their newborns in for people to meet/see and all works effectively stops for a good hour or more. Or a they are close to coworker and then that coworkers spends 3 hours talking to new parent. Or the parent that drops by to pick something up and their toddler is in tow and the toddler wanders the office talking to everyone or runs up & down the aisles screaming. SO distracting. I can’t imagine newborns in the office everyday.

  84. Beancounter in Texas*

    I had the blessing of an understanding employer who wanted me to return to the job. I’m not sure whether he feared I’d quit working to be a stay-at-home-mother, but he was super flexible with me.

    So I brought my three month daughter with me to work for about three weeks. Because I pumped milk instead of nursing, I was granted the back office that was used as a library/server room/junk room for privacy. I cleaned out the desk, set up a playpen (with a convenient ‘changing table’ add-on) and a bouncy chair. I brought a couple of stuffed animals and blankets and tried to make it work. It didn’t.

    I’d accomplish about an hour’s worth of work in an eight hour day. She didn’t want to sit in her bouncy chair – she wanted to be in my arms, she’d require extra rocking to get to sleep and then wake up the instant her warm body hit the cold playpen mat. She’d nap for an hour on my shoulder, allowing me just enough arm reach to reach the mouse and click my way through work or peck with one hand. She demanded too much attention and I’d have to ask someone to listen for her cries when I ran to the bathroom or take her with me (without a comfortable place to lay her down).

    Ironically, the boss didn’t seem to notice how little work I accomplished, he was so happy to have a baby in the office and gave her regular attention.

    Diaper changes weren’t a problem not only because of the office door, but also because I cloth diaper. So I would just throw the wipes and diapers into a wet bag and kept it closed. No stinky wipes or disposable diapers in the trash can (and if there were some powerful smells, I had a candle and a can of air freshener).

    After two weeks of not getting anything done, much less getting any kind of break from my baby, I decided I had to put her in daycare. I felt so guilty the first day of daycare until lunch. For the first time since her birth, I got to eat my lunch while it was *hot* and with both hands!

    Kudos to parents with babies who have conducive personalities for office life and where it can work for coworkers too. I think it can work, but when it doesn’t, it really doesn’t.

  85. Moss*

    Wait…I go to work to get away from my own kids, and now I have to put up with someone else’s?

    Just kidding, but I think this is a bad idea. There are too many parents who would take advantage of the situation.

    I used to work in a school and even there it became a problem, so I can only imagine what might happen in an office. I envision a co-worker asking, “Sorry to ask on such short notice, but can you watch my baby for up to an hour while I’m on a conference call?” The conference call unexpectedly ends early, and your co-worker thinks, “Hey, I still have 40 minutes of childcare. I’ll take my lunch break now and go to the gym.”
    (My neighbors used to pull this crap all the time, acting like there was some urgent errand they had to perform.)

    Now, school age children who come by for a couple of hours after school and sit quietly and do their homework or play on an I-pad? I’m a lot more accepting of that, as long as they follow the workplace rules for behavior. (It would be nice if adults did too.) I think it makes for an nicer environment when they’re around, but I’m probably biased because I happen to like kids.

  86. OP (Denise)*

    Thanks for taking the question. I appreciate hearing everyone’s perspectives, even if I’m a little surprised there’s no support at all for it and a lot of really strong reactions against it. So, I will reconsider the proposal.

    I should add background that I come from the perspective that extended maternity/paternity leave is highly unrealistic. I couldn’t just leave my job for a year and expect that it would go unfilled, and to do so would put my employer in a difficult position not simply financially but in performing the work necessary to achieve the organization’s goals. I don’t have a position that someone could just temp for, nor a position that a qualified candidate would take purely on a temp basis. I think that’s the case for a lot of professional-level positions. So extended leave can necessarily only apply to easily fillable/tempable roles.

    1. OP (Denise)*

      And I agree that onsite daycare would be the ideal solution, but there are significant costs to the employer regarding construction and/or renovation, insurance, and ensuring a consistent flow of babies, which I suppose there are ways to calculate, but which present something of a risk if the organization is not a very large one.

      1. Erin*

        Everything you said makes sense.

        I think it comes down to your specific work environment and coworkers. I could conceivably see this happening at an old job I had, in a very small (four people) office. For most work environments I do think it would be very difficult.

        It certainly can’t hurt to have a discussion about it. See what management and your coworkers say – maybe they’ll be more supportive than you thought, or maybe other ideas will be sparked from the conversation.

        1. LBK*

          I’m wondering how to ensure something like that – perhaps a viable business case for the Duck Club?

          2. Elsajeni*

            Yeah, I’m against my employer taking any kind of steps to ensure a consistent flow of babies.

    2. AndersonDarling*

      I’ve been reading your responses and you’ve been taking the backlash very well! At least you were able to hear another perspective before bringing it to your management. Hopefully there will be another solution. Good luck!

    3. Ad Astra*

      In many countries, new parents do leave their jobs for a year and expect it to go unfilled. I assume doctors and lawyers do this just as frequently as data entry specialists or receptionist, and there are more people willing to take on skilled, professional-level positions on a temporary basis because they don’t have to worry about health insurance and things like that.

      But you may be right that it’s unrealistic for the U.S. :(

      1. OP (Denise)*

        Yes, it does happen, but it’s also true that many of those countries have lagging birthrates as well as budget problems. Germany doesn’t have financial problems, but France does. And I think there’s the risk of simply moving the problem to another point on the same spectrum. An American expat in France talked about being asked outright by her employer about her childcare plans. Who is to say that once women are granted yearlong leave that women of childbearing years won’t simply be discriminated against in the hiring process because the employer fears she will get pregnant and leave?

        1. Chinook*

          “but it’s also true that many of those countries have lagging birthrates as well as budget problems.”

          Ooohhh…that is a low blow. Canada’s year long parental leaves have no impact on our budgets and was not created to bump up lagging birth rates (the closest any place here had to that was Quebec and baby bonuses). This was put in place because it allowed for children to be able to bond with family members longer and create less tension when parents returned to work because you aren’t leaving an infant behind. As well, it is easier to find a temp for a year than for 12 weeks because it is a real job with stability. And while some may think they are irreplaceable, the reality is that they are not and while a temp may not be able to take over your job but the next person below you may be able to for the year and a temp can cover her job. We do it and nobody thinks anything about it – it just is the way it is.

          Is it possible that women are subconsciously discriminated against for their potential to take leave – of course but the men are also eligible for 11 months of it (1 month is guaranteed maternity for recovery from birth) and, as more men take advantage of this, the less likely women are seen as a risk for leave. As well, the cost is born by our employment insurance system (and sometimes topped up by employers) which pays for itself with payroll taxes.

          And the thing is, when a parent goes on leave, they have to come back or they have to pay back the parental leave benefits they got from EI (and aren’t eligible for more benefits until after a certain time frame). So, those who take parental leave have a financial incentive to return to work.

        2. Honeybee*

          Lower birthrates in industrialized countries largely stem from having more choice over whether to have children and how many to have. Basically, science shows that when women can choose when and how many children to have, they generally have fewer. Industrialized nations normally have greater access to birth control other policies/services that make it easier for women (and men) to decide to have fewer children at specific times in their life.

          I’m not sure there’s a correlation between extended maternity leave and financial problems in developed countries.

          And gender discrimination happens now, without yearlong leave. Gender discrimination is not the fault of better parental leave; it’s the fault of institutionalized sexism. That’s the reason that we have laws against it and sanctions when these kinds of things are discovered.

    4. Kara*

      extended maternity/paternity leave is highly unrealistic. I couldn’t just leave my job for a year and expect that it would go unfilled, and to do so would put my employer in a difficult position not simply financially but in performing the work necessary to achieve the organization’s goals

      Except that multiple other civilized countries have been able to implement exactly that. So it seems to me it is doable, just that companies in the US don’t want to do it.

      1. Anna*

        Yeah. When people say it can’t be that way, I have to wonder why. Last I checked there were a lot of very strong economies doing just that with no major issue.

        1. fposte*

          In those countries, it’s part of a larger system that removes some of the challenges–it’s not noncompetitive since everybody’s doing it, and it’s often state-subsidized, as is the insurance.

          So I totally think it can be that way, but I think it’s a lot harder to do that as an outlier in the US.

          1. Cat*

            And those countries don’t have it all figured out either – recent studies show that women of childbearing age are discriminated against in hiring because employers are assuming they’ll take maternity leave. I don’t think that’s ultimately a reason not to have it, but it’s not as simple as saying “everything is hunky dory if you expand maternity leave.” There are a lot of complicated issues at play and sexism is still a problem when you implement theoretically progressive policies.

            1. fposte*

              Wasn’t there a big thing about France and the glass ceiling because of this?

              But yes, overall, it’s hard to stay globally competitive and pay people for a year you’re not getting work from them. I don’t think that’s a reason not to explore it, but it’s not simple.

            2. over educated and underemployed*

              Isn’t the issue there one of gender equalization? I know that men often don’t take paternity leave when offered because they fear being held back in their careers, but I think changing the systems to encourage men to take just as much leave as women (e.g. through incentives or “use it or lose it” type benefits of some sort) would help make it less of a “women’s issue” in the long term.

              1. Myrin*

                Absolutely! If fathers were just as likely to take parental leave as mothers, employers couldn’t discriminate on the basis of gender in that regard because no gender would be “safe”. (They could, of course, still try to discriminate against anyone they thought was in danger of acquiring children.)

              2. OP (Denise)*

                Well, we could move more in that direction, but women are the ones who get pregnant and lactate. So at the very least it will first and foremost be mothers who need the time to prepare for childbirth, recover from it, and begin breastfeeding or be given accommodations for pumping.

                1. Chinook*

                  “So at the very least it will first and foremost be mothers who need the time to prepare for childbirth, recover from it, and begin breastfeeding or be given accommodations for pumping.”

                  But that is true regardless of the amount of leave available. Having more or less leave doesn’t make the risk of hiring a woman between a certain age any less.

            3. OP (Denise)*

              I just posted this in response to someone else. I think an employer’s sense of self-interest remains the same no matter what the government policy is, and so the “problem” of women (I’m going to focus on women here) taking off due to pregnancy and early childcare remains something the employer has to work around. And so women of childbearing years become less attractive as candidates because the employer sees someone who is high risk to their business.

              1. fposte*

                Definitely agree that that’s a problem. Not sure babying up the workplace is a solution (even if it does work, there’s another 17.5 years unaccounted for), but it’s worth considering.

            4. Ad Astra*

              You and the OP have both mentioned studies indicating discrimination in countries with long maternity leave and that’s definitely the first I’ve heard of it. Really interesting, and a bit troubling.

              1. Worker Bee (Germany)*

                Sadly fposte is right. Big problems. I am at the age now and I am looking for another job bc my career cant advance at the current job (Small company). I get a stomacheache everytime I sent out a resume. (We have to put in our birthdate). I am willing to bet it will be a long search…
                This is also true for promotions. Why promote a woman when she could be gone for a year sometime soon.
                And in addition to that, in Germany companies with more then 15 employees are obligated to have a former full time mother return to part time if she wishes.. This might not be a big deal in a big corporation. But think of one with 20 people. You not just had to hire a temp for the year or two the mom is out but also find another parttime employee to cover the work or distribute it on already full time employees… Not something a smallish company can do easily..

                1. De (Germany)*

                  On the other hand, I am 31 years old, married with no children, and my last time applying for jobs I sent out four applications and got three job offers.

            5. Mother of a toddler*

              I hate to break it you, but women in the U.S. ARE actively discriminated against right now for this very reason.

                1. Honeybee*

                  I think the point is that eliminating maternity leave or keeping it short won’t solve this problem. It was a problem even before FMLA passed in the U.S. – employers simply wouldn’t hire women because they were afraid they would leave. And before that, employers didn’t hire women because they felt like a woman’s place was at home raising children. Gender discrimination in the workplace exists because of institutionalized sexism; the length of existence of maternity leave is not going to stop some employers from discriminating against women in hiring.

          2. Anna*

            Yeah. It’s less about it being simple (because it’s not) and more about how antithetical it seems to even explore it. Individual companies can do it, but there has to be a way to broaden the option and make it attractive to companies to do it. Rather than what happens, which is a huge intake of air and a laundry list of all the reasons it won’t work. I’d rather see some concrete plans and pros/cons than just an automatic “oh we can’t do that” that seems to be the go-to response.

    5. kozinskey*

      There are lots of good suggestions in this thread besides extended parental leave. Telecommuting, flex time, and the ability to come back with a reduced schedule at first are all great ideas.

      Also, while I (unfortunately) agree that a year is probably unrealistic right now in the US, I don’t think asking for somewhat longer leave times is necessarily unfeasible. If an employee can be out for 3 months under FMLA, why would 4 months be impossible? What about 6 months? 3 months paid and up to 3 additional months unpaid? I think there are a lot of options that employers could consider.

      One last point — it’s to your employer’s benefit to have a way to fill in for every employee in a pinch. What if a valued employee was in a car crash? It’s great to have amazing staff, but no one should be indispensable.

      1. Pinkie Pie Chart*

        Unpaid leave is almost useless. I couldn’t afford to be home after 6 weeks, so I went back to work. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has had that problem. I appreciate that being able to come back to my job after 6 months is a benefit, but making part of that unpaid would not work.

    6. Colette*

      Speaking as someone who lives in a country with year long maternity leaves, it works just fine. Sometimes the work is shuffled, sometimes they hire a temp, and sometimes both, for example, manager A goes on leave. Her employee B takes over 70% of her job, other manager C takes over 30%, and temp D is hired to replace B. Since A is gone for a year, there’s lots of time for B to grow into her role and D to grow into her role. When A comes back, B and D both have new skills.

      1. OP (Denise)*

        I am sure that knowing that some employees might be out on extended leave enables managers to think ahead to be prepared for such a possibility.

    7. MLT*

      Maybe a year of leave won’t work, but perhaps a 4-month leave is possible. When someone in a management level role leaves us, it often takes that long to replace them, so we would definitely try to work with a 4-month leave. Unfortunately, given our size, it is an unpaid leave after accruals are used up. We do offer AFLAC, and some employees have signed up so that they will have short-term disability payments during their leave. It’s at their expense, but it is not that expensive.

    8. fposte*

      Does this mean that your underlying question is “I’d like to bring my baby to work–is that possible?” You could just ask that question, too, without creating a system behind it.

    9. Bend & Snap*

      Eh, I don’t have an easy to fill role, and my team covered just fine when i was out on leave. Nothing says that one person has to take the whole job. I think your company needs to look at some problem solving vs. just declaring maternity leave not feasible. That’s inhumane and short sighted.

      And so is making coworkers pay for your company’s failure to adequately support new parents, in the form of subjecting them to children in the workplace.

    10. Nerdling*

      At my organization, we routinely take 90-120 days to backfill roles after someone leaves. Work gets shuffled around, sometimes we get temps to come fill in, and we just generally make it work. And that’s for regular positions. There’s no real reason that the same thing couldn’t be done for parents with newborns, except for stinginess and messed up societal expectations.

      Parents in the US aren’t actually asking to jump all the way to a full year of paid leave. 3-6 months, though? That is not remotely out of the question in a lot of places when you get right down to it. If we manage to get by when someone has cancer and is out for treatment, or when someone gets a promotion and it takes months to find a replacement, why can’t we do the same for parents? Or, heck, for people dealing with caretaker issues of any sort (elderly/ill parent, ill spouse, etc).

      1. fposte*

        A lot of workplaces don’t manage when somebody has cancer and is out for treatment; that’s why FMLA was so vital. It’s still pretty common for FMLA’s twelve weeks to be the limit a workplace will give.

        (Not disagreeing with your underlying point, just noting that this is a problem with leave generally.)

    11. GigglyPuff*

      As someone else pointed out I do have to say you are handling yourself great.

      But I also want to point out, a lot of your responses have been about how “you” would handle it. Like you aren’t easily distracted, your job couldn’t handle an extended leave, etc…but these things are so subjective and varied, just something to think about.

      Also I’m not sure if you are seeing how much more complicated this is than you are hoping:
      -insurance requirements
      -personal liability: sure you can get a dr’s statement that the infant is healthy, but many problems appear when a child is little, what happens if the baby has a seizure while in the care of someone else? Or some other sudden life threatening illness, that the employee isn’t equipped to handle. (which daycares might be more readily about to handle)
      -then there are people with fertility issues or child loss, you may not know, and yes they don’t have to volunteer but what if their office mate does, the person across the aisle from their cube who needs to run to the bathroom while they are watching the baby and no one else is around, etc…
      -the distraction to other people: that’s great that it might become background noise to you, but as someone with ADHD, that probably wouldn’t fly with me. and you really don’t know what other issues your coworkers might have
      -the thought of possible censure by others in the workplace if the parent is under-performing or even performing normally but screws up once in a while, and the fear that they might be held to a different standard unconsciously

      These are just a few examples of things people have pointed out.

      And out of curiosity have you asked any of your co-workers their option? (I’m not being sarcastic, I promise. I sincerely am curious)

      1. OP (Denise)*

        I think I’m coming from the perspective of having seen that this I a reality in some places so it strikes me as more of an issue of identifying the main concerns and potential issues and heading them off that getting g bogged down in speculation about how bad it could be. As it has been reiterated, this is clearly not for every workplace, job, parent or baby. But what people say about more leave being the answer is also not at all as easy as it is made out to be, which is why it’s not already a standard benefit and where it is, women face additional career consequences.

    12. Turanga Leela*

      Denise, how much paid parental leave does your organization offer? Offering paid time off (not just FMLA) is a real perk that you can use to retain excellent staff. A lot of professional jobs could offer 3+ months of paid parental leave without disrupting the work of the organization. Frankly, they could also offer sabbaticals to all employees, not just those with kids, but we’re talking about parental leave policies here.

      I understand that there’s a cost to parental leave, but there’s a hidden cost to NOT offering paid leave. If the choice is to be at work away from your kid or to quit your job, many people will quit and you’ll lose them entirely, rather than doing without them for a few months. This is particularly true of women with partners who work.

      I realize there are many constraints on your ability to offer parental leave, and your company may already have a generous leave policy by US standards. You’ve been pretty receptive to people’s comments here, and I just want to encourage you to think more about paid leave as an option.

    13. some1*

      What would your employer do if you were hit by a bus and had to take a year of medical leave to recover?

    14. heismanpat*

      Don’t take this the wrong way, but have you actually been responsible for the care of a newborn before? I don’t think you realize how much work it takes because it’s very naive to think professionals would be able to bring a newborn into the workplace and continue to perform at anywhere near the level they are capable of. I took a month off work after we had our daughter and I got *nothing* done around the house in spite of having 2 parents working full time to take care of a baby. To think that I would have been able to put in 40 hours of office work a week on top of that is laughable. Even at 2 1/2 months, my wife stays home with our daughter all day and she is lucky if she can get some laundry done or clean up the house a bit.

      And honestly, the last part of this sentence is a serious part of America’s problem – “to do so would put my employer in a difficult position not simply financially but in performing the work necessary to achieve the organization’s goals.” Somehow, companies in other countries manage to function in spite of people going on leave. And to be perfectly honest, new parents (like myself) really don’t care about the company “achieving its organizational goals” while we are on leave. We are much more concerned about the new baby in our lives. It’s the company’s problem to solve these problems. You get that by building redundancy and cross-training into your work environment. Putting all your eggs into one basket and then acting shocked when things fall apart because someone leaves is just utter stupidity.

      I also find it humorous that you are worried about the “insurance” issues with having a dedicated child care center in the office. Do you have any idea how much worse your liability/insurance situation would be if random co-workers are acting as unlicensed babysitters when the parent needs to hop on a call or go to a meeting?

      Seriously….get a grip! Don’t just re-consider this proposal….nuke it from orbit.

      1. OP (Denise)*

        You really don’t have to like it, but some seem to think that because it strikes them as a bad idea that it is in fact impossible. Remember that the workplace is diverse and what does not make sense in your context may work in another, which is why this has already been done in several places.

        Your attitude about the organization when parents are on leave is exactly why more leave is not offered. Yes, it causes businesses problems and in places where they can’t fire employees for it, women in particular still suffer career consequences for it. Google the “plafond de verre” and Slate to read about how this issue plays out in France.

  87. OriginalEmma*

    I can see, intentionally or not, this policy creating sexual discrimination issues. Because of Western socialization, I can see mostly women being burdened by this duty, which would impact their ability to perform their jobs. Face it, in a pinch, the parent will look for the closest woman to take care of their child.

    On the other hand, the non-parenting women will be unfairly penalized for NOT taking part of this scheme and labeled as ogres, which again would color how they are perceived at their jobs.

    I’m really not seeing how the non-parenting women in the office can win here.

    1. BananaPants*

      It’s even not good for the parenting women in the office – I can see the mom of the office baby expecting ME to take her kid during a meeting because after all, I’m a mother myself and SURELY will be able to soothe her colicky 4 month old, right?

      1. Anna*

        Excellent point. “You’re a natural! You know what you’re doing!” Yeah, I just want to type this email. That’s what I’m doing.

    2. kozinskey*

      Ugh, yes. I can’t imagine men being labeled as ogres for not being willing to babysit during the work day, but from a scan of the comments here, a lot of women seem to be worried about that perception. I don’t think women win under this policy.

    3. anonanonanon*

      Yes. Women without children are already stereotyped as selfish or cold, and I can just imagine that stereotype being strengthened if they don’t want to take part in office childcare. Or worse, that they’re not a “team player” for watching someone else’s kid.

      I can also see that coming back on someone who does have kids but just doesn’t want to deal with someone else’s. It’s lose/lose all around.

      1. AnonEMoose*

        This, too. I’m adamantly childfree, and get very little flack for it at work currently. I’m very much a “small doses” person when it comes to small children, so I’m happy to hold/coo at babies being brought in for a visit. That doesn’t mean I’d be ok with watching them on a regular basis, and I would be concerned about being seen as “not a team player” for it.

    4. Sunshine Brite*

      Plus there always seems to be the creepy or off-putting coworker you wouldn’t want with your baby but is almost guaranteed to sign up for baby watching activities. Plus all the unsolicited advice.

    5. over educated and underemployed*

      Not to mention the women who actually bring in their babies! (Or men! How many men do we expect to do this again? *crickets*) Can you imagine everyone else getting work done around you, and observing you feed and change your baby for at least 50% of your day, and thinking “gee, Jane just isn’t doing her job like she used to”?

  88. BananaPants*

    Alternative family-friendly policies that the OP can suggest:
    ~ Reasonable parental leave, including paid leave if possible. This should be available to all new parents, including adoptive parents.
    ~ Establish a lactation room and policies allowing for pumping breaks for employees who are breastfeeding moms.
    ~ Allow telecommuting (if possible) and flextime for parents to deal with school closings or sick kids. Hell, allow occasional telecommuting for EVERYONE; not just parents of young kids have a need for occasional flexibility if the nature of the business and the employee’s job allows for it.
    ~ Consider on-site daycare if this is a large corporate environment, and if not, contact the closest daycare centers and see if they will offer a discount to your company’s employees (it’s usually a modest amount – 5-10% is typical).

  89. Marie*

    The way I see it, your employee’s will be doing so little work in the office while taking care of the baby you might as well offer them more paid leave. At least this way the other employee’s won’t be disrupted.

  90. Cristina in England*

    I applaud you, OP, for wanting to do this but I think onsite, subsidized child care would be much much better.

    1. einahpets*

      Yeah, I wanted to also chime in and say kudos to the OP for suggesting something new. I definitely cringed at some of the comments above.

      I can actually see this working in some offices or workplaces. It wouldn’t work where I am at (and we even have a lot of new parents), but in a job where there may be more flexibility it might.

      What has worked in our office is flexible work schedules (we have core business hours), the ability to work from home some days (but even those days there has to be childcare in place for kid), and just general flexibility when coming back to work at first since it is definitely can be rough. I love the idea of a subsidized daycare onsite or more paid leave but I don’t see that as feasible for a lot of smaller companies.

  91. Clever Name*

    If you really want to be friendly to new parents, create on-site daycare that is subsidized, create appropriate pumping rooms where nursing mothers can pump (this is actually a federal law) and in addition to that, offer the pumping time as a paid break (other employees should get paid breaks too), offer flex-time and telecommuting options, and staff adequately so people don’t have to work 40+ hours to get their jobs done.

    Bringing babies to the office is a horrible idea, for all the reasons Alison mentioned.

  92. Wakeen's Teapots Ltd.*

    This is bringing me back! To me, the notion is old fashioned, not a new good thing.

    When my first baby was born, I was a single parent (for all intents and purposes), with no local support system. And this was back in the stone age, pre common email and internet usage, so work was in the office or it was nowhere.

    I came to work with my baby when I had no other options, usually when he’d been bounced from day care for some lame reason. (I always dreaded the “too many diaper changes!” phone call.)

    It was…okay, without other options. He was a calm baby and I could work at maybe half rate, which was better than none. (I was straight commission at the time, so had to work at some rate!). I’d have given my eye teeth to have another choice though, like working from home in one of my daycare emergencies. If that was my only choice, I don’t know how much baby food I would have been able to put on the high chair table.

    (Other people, whether they minded or not I didn’t care. He didn’t fuss. I did get odd looks and I think the look I shot back was “bite me”. )

    1. Laurel Gray*

      Wakeen, please please please explain “too many diaper changes”. I am DYING to know what this means.

      I have gotten the “your child has a fever” call and dropped everything and ran out of work only to arrive at a bouncy kid just trying to have a good time. Then I’m told BabyGray had a hot face after nap time (uh that blanket he was sleeping on is pretty damn warm last I checked) and they “thought” it “might” be fever. Anyway, they’d write paper work with “fever” on it and their policy was that any kid who went home early due to fever could not come back for 24 hours to protect the other children. So that would mean I left work early and then would have to use a sick day or find back up child care – paying the regular and back up for this day. And this fuckery happened on quite a few occasions.

      1. Wakeen's Teapots Ltd.*

        Similar fuckery!

        23 years ago this was btw.

        After X number of poopy diapers (I think 3) the kid was bounced on the 4th. Bounced for that day “pick him up immediately!” and bounced for 24 hours following.

        Unfortunately, Baby 1 was a very good eater so this happened a couple times a month.

        The thinking, I GUESS, was that it was a sign of possible illness.

        Please note, Very Expensive Daycare got paid for the days regardless.

      2. Case of the Mondays*

        No kids here, but hypothetically, what happens if you weren’t able to take the call when daycare called. Sometimes I’m in a deposition or in court with my phone on silent. So is my husband. If it took 2 or 3 hours for us to get the message, would we be kicked out of daycare?

        1. Wakeen's Teapots Ltd.*

          Yup.

          You’d need to have some kind of proxy who can go get the kid promptly.

        3. BananaPants*

          Yes, you need to have a non-parent emergency backup listed. Our daycare asks that sick kids are picked up within one hour.

      3. MJH*

        My kid got booted out of daycare last week for having two poop blowouts in one day. (The baby had plenty of outfits, it was just big poops that explode out the diaper. So yeah, that’s a thing. A ridiculous thing. Fortunately one of the baby’s grandparents could do care in a pinch. Frustrating.

        1. Honeybee*

          For poop blowouts? I fee like that’s a routine thing with kids lol. I don’t even have kids, but my cousin’s son used to poop up his back on a regular basis.

    2. BRR*

      Is too many diaper changes a real policy? Is it they ran out of diapers or your child is then too much work?

    3. TheLazyB (UK)*

      We never had the nappy thing, but I lost count of the, number of ‘we think he’s got chicken pox!!!!!’ calls.

      To the best of my knowledge he’s still never had it.

  93. Anony-moose*

    Hopping in a bit late here but yeah, I would not want to work in a place that had a policy like this. I love kids and am happy to scoop up my friend and family’s rogue toddlers as needed.

    But work is…for working.

    Recently a coworker has been bringing her kids into work a few days a week. This is generally accepted in our workplace and for the most part the kids in question will hang out in their parent’s office and color. Except this coworker doesn’t have an office so her kid has been set up in our small conference room.

    Which means that if I need to take a phone call I can’t go in there. I can’t eat lunch in there and get away from my desk. The whole room is suddenly unavailable because there is a kid lying on the floor and coloring. When I want time away from my desk, I don’t want to entertain someone’s child.

  95. Colette*

    The other thing I’m wondering is how performance will be evaluated. Will the parents whose infants are in the office be held to the same standards? If they are able to achieve less in the same amount of time (which i suspect will be the case) will they be expected or allowed to work overtime to make it up? Will anyone watch the overall performance of the office to see if it’s a distraction for everyone?

    1. OP (Denise)*

      I thought about that and while I didn’t see any policy on that in particular, I think the only fair thing would be to make sure the performance standards do not change. I think it would have to be something that ensures that work is not disrupted. That’s not to say that the parent would not have to take time to tend to the baby, but on the whole, the parent would need to continue being productive.

      1. heismanpat*

        Your workers aren’t going to be as productive when they are feeding, changing, soothing and constantly checking on their kid.

      2. Green*

        One of the companies that has implemented this pays parents who take advantage of this for only 3/4 time and requires tracking all baby-related time appropriately.

  96. I did this. It was AWESOME*

    I did this. It was a benefit that I wouldn’t have dared ask for, but the company’s owner offered it to me during my second trimester. It showed me just how much they valued me as an employee and it made me even more loyal to them.
    I worked at a small family-owned company and had my own office. I work in sales and marketing and have a great deal of interaction with clients across the country all day long. This arrangement continued for three months until she became more active and required more interaction than I could provide during the day.
    Here’s how it worked for me when I returned to work 8 weeks after my daughter’s birth:
    I went in the week before my return and took in my baby supplies: small bassinet, baby swing, vibrating baby seat, and a pad for diaper changes.
    I’d go into the office a little earlier than usual in the morning. The baby slept in the car on the way in and I would transfer her to the bassinet so she could continue to sleep. Then, I’d get to work. When she’d wake up, I’d feed her, change her diaper and get her dressed. Poop diapers went into a Ziploc bag and into the bathroom trash – no smell or grossness for anyone to contend with.
    Then she would happily hang out in her swing, watch me from the vibrating seat beside my computer monitor, or chill in the Baby Bjorn. When it was time to sleep again, I might dim my office lights and turn on some white noise. And she was a deep sleeper, as my son was, too. You could speak in a normal voice, answer the phone, etc. without worrying about waking her.
    Because I was so aware of the other people in the office, I was more attuned to her needs than ever and rushed to stop anything that might have led to a cry. The thing I’d hear most often from coworkers was how surprised they were that she was there – they had completely FORGOTTEN.
    If I needed to go to the bathroom or kitchen while she was awake, I strapped her into the Baby Bjorn and we went on our way.
    If she was sick, she stayed home with my husband or me.
    Although my coworkers stopped in from time to time, it was really no more often than before my daughter joined us. In all the weeks she was there, only once did I ask anyone to watch her for a moment while I finished up a conference call – and this was only because this coworker had told me multiple times that she was happy/eager to do it.
    Ultimately, my daughter was good for office morale, got me back to work sooner (sales were up 20% the month I returned, btw), built in me a fierce sense of company loyalty, and showed me what decent people my colleagues are.
    It was a godsend and I’d do it again in an instant. It allowed me to keep breastfeeding, save on childcare, keep up with clients, and keep my bosses happy.

    1. I did this. It was AWESOME*

      That said, even though this was incredibly positive for me, I would have infinitely preferred a more generous leave policy that would have allowed me to be at home with my daughter rather than back at work. But 8 weeks is far too young for me to even consider leaving my baby at day care.

    2. fposte*

      Thanks so much for describing this. I think it’s hard for me to imagine what this is like, and that’s part of my problem–your explanation helps a lot.

    4. KJR*

      What a nice outcome!!! Thanks for the detailed description, I was having a really hard time seeing how this could work. She sounds like a very easy going baby. This would not have worked with my daughter, but very well might have with my son.

    5. AthenaC*

      Side (but related) comment: When I was in college, at one point I had to take a test but I couldn’t take the baby to daycare (don’t remember the specific reason). So I brought the baby to class, placing myself in the back so I could quickly put her to breast if need be. Thankfully, she slept the whole time. As I put the baby carrier on my hip to go to the front and turn my test in, I fielded many quizzical looks from my classmates who later said, “I had no idea there was a baby in here!”

  97. cv*

    Aside from all the other reasons that other commenters have articulated, there’s something about the casual attitude that caring for a baby should be compatible with work that rubs me the wrong way. Our society has traditionally devalued “women’s work.” Child care workers are paid terribly, stay at home mothers are often treated as if they’re just lounging around all day, men who choose careers working with young children or who choose to stay home with their own children are looked on with suspicion, etc. This seems like an extension of that attitude, rather than progress.

    Caring for young children, including babies, is work. It is a lot of work – some babies are particularly calm and easy, but most aren’t. Time spent caring for a baby is time an employee doesn’t spend doing his job, and that time is considerable. Bring-your-baby-to-work policies imply that child care is such a trivial issue that it doesn’t take much time out of your day. I’d hate to see these policies spread, because it would provide an easy out for companies when what we need are things like parental leave and subsidized child care, either at the government/society or employer level.

    A further thought: my experience is that child care requires a degree of constant attention that no other part of my life demands. One of the hardest parts of being at home on maternity leave with my twins was that I was constantly attuned to the fact that they might cry or need something 24 hours a day, and so nothing else ever got my full attention and I never felt fully relaxed. Other things might get 95% of my attention for a little while when they were sleeping, but I was always just that little bit distracted. Having my baby napping down the hall is a sure way to make sure I’m not fully present in a meeting, but instead have one ear half-cocked in case the baby starts crying, even if someone else is watching him. Especially if that someone else is basically a stranger to my child and might not be able to soothe him effectively or know what he needs as well as I do.

    1. cv*

      One other thing: as a society we really like to talk about what it takes to raise healthy, happy kids, but we put the burden almost entirely on women and don’t put any shared resources into it. I believe that breastfeeding has benefits, but we’ve gone overboard and put it at the center of the conversation about infant health. As a society I think we’d be better off if most kids got formula but were in high-quality child care situations, had parents who got paid a living wage and only needed to work one job, had regular prenatal and pediatric care, were able to attend high-quality schools with good after-school care options, etc. But all those things are very expensive, putting a lot of pressure on women to breastfeed is cheap, the costs are absorbed by new mothers and not shared by the whole society, and everyone can pat themselves on the back that they’re doing good things for kids without anything really difficult having to change. Everyone gets to focus on giving women breaks to pump (while they’re expected to complete the same amount of work, typically), rather than on decent leave policies, and women absorb the cost.

      Policies encouraging babies in the workplace do the same thing – they put the burden on new mothers (and occasionally fathers) to juggle work and child care at the same time instead of doing what’s right but difficult and giving them leave or subsidizing child care.

    2. KJR*

      Thank you!! I was thinking this very same thing. They’re not little dolls that lie quietly in their cribs all day. They need attention, and lots of it.

    3. Abhorsen327*

      The “babies are easy!” attitude is everywhere, and it frustrates me to no end – I’ve seen it a lot in academia, where women can be expected to have equal or greater research productivity while on mat leave because, well, the baby just sleeps all day and you can work uninterrupted! And you don’t even have to teach! Sigh…

  98. Teo*

    So many negative comments here. Though I’m sure anyone can come up with why this WOULDN’T work, why not think of some ways it WOULD work. Though I do think a year of paid leave would be preferable, this is another creative option.

    1. AnonEMoose*

      Bluntly, why should we? Just because it’s a creative option, doesn’t mean it’s a good option. The OP asked for opinions, and got them.

      I do applaud her for responding so well to such overwhelmingly negative feedback; that can be really difficult. But I don’t see that the posters here have any obligation to come up reasons/ways for this to work if their honest opinions are otherwise.

    2. Fuzzyfuzz*

      Because it wouldn’t work, except in the rarest and most exceptional of circumstances.

      1. BRR*

        I totally get what Teo is saying. To work, it would require an employer to accept less output from what I’m assuming would be full-time positions, offices for all participating parents so the child wouldn’t disturb as many, babies who are laid-back the majority of the time, and parents who can multitask.

        In theory it could work but where ever I have worked we wouldn’t be able to get past enough offices which I consider a necessity because a fussy baby in the middle of a cube farm would be highly disruptive.

        1. Observer*

          The lower output thing may not necessarily be true, though. It depends on the workplace and the position. But, certainly, it’s an issue that needs to be faced.

    3. LBK*

      Frankly, there is literally no way this policy would work for me. I just don’t want babies in my workplace, even if they’re the quietest and least disruptive babies ever.

    4. cv*

      This feels like a “sometimes the stars align just right” sort of thing. You need:

      – a physical office layout where the employee has enough private space and noise won’t bother others
      – the employee’s job is such that it’s mostly done from the person’s desk, with basically no external meetings and relatively few internal ones
      – the employee’s job doesn’t require immediate availability – receptionists, customer support staff, or others who have duties that arise spontaneously and can’t be delayed for 5 minutes would have a tough time
      – the employer can handle somewhat lower productivity from the employee than usual (if it’s a choice between lower than usual and at home not working at all, this may often be worth it)
      – the employee has to be a reasonable person in terms of judging how things are going and who will be able to make other arrangements if it’s just not working
      – perhaps most importantly, the baby in question has the temperament and health to tolerate this sort of arrangement, whether it’s just being a pretty content baby, doing well being worn, or whatever

      Despite my negative comments elsewhere on this thread, there are definitely situations that meet all of these criteria. I just think it’s a rare one-off type thing, not something that should be encouraged as policy.

      And I can see the appeal for some new parents – I know of more than new mother who had postpartum depression or anxiety that improved once she was able to go back to work and life was able to feel more balanced and normal again after the exhaustion and emotional intensity of maternity leave. I’m all for longer paid leave becoming standard in the US, but being at home with an infant can be really hard for some people. In just the right circumstance, taking a child to work might be a good option for those people.

    5. UtahEditor*

      I think the negativity is because it would have an enormously negative impact on most workplaces.

    7. Amandine*

      I cannot think of a single reason this would work. It’s simply so far beyond the realm of possibilities my experience allows for that I am incapable of doing so.

      It sounds, quite literally, like hell to me (my worst nightmare, actual recurring nightmare, is of being left alone in an unfamiliar space with multiple babies and no one else present).

    8. Anna*

      I get what you’re saying, but there are a lot of comments that actually do lay out some thoughts on how it COULD work, but with a lot of caveats because everything has to work just so. Life is rarely just so and I think what most of the commenters are pointing out is there are far too many ways this can fail spectacularly and far too few ways for it to succeed amazingly.

  99. Eugenie*

    So I just went and checked our policy — all employees get a 10 – 15% discount at a local daycare facility that’s a 5 minute drive from our office — nice to have that extra perk when our site just isn’t set up for any kind of in-house daycare operation!

  100. Carrie in Scotland*

    OP/Denise: I for one would love it if you could update us if you decide to go ahead with the policy, what if any changes you made to it or what you implemented instead.

    1. JMegan*

      Me too, I’d love to have an update. I disagree with you that this *particular* policy is a good idea, but I can also see how it might be the best option available to you if extended parental leave (and etc) are not feasible.

      You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into it, and I think you’ll be able to put together a decent business case to your boss, if that’s what you decide to do. I would definitely suggest looking at some of the “what if” scenarios in this thread and making sure you address them, because no doubt your colleagues are going to have a lot of the same questions. Good luck!

  101. Kimmiejo*

    Last October, my youngest son unexpectedly died at the age of 7.5 months. One of the hardest things for me to hear is the sound of a baby crying. It absolutely tears me up. One of the things that helps me cope is being able to come to work on a daily basis – it my safe haven where I can put all my personal feelings aside. As many others have said, it would be a deal breaker for me to have babies in the office (aside from quick visits from time to time). I would immediately look to leave.
    I know my situation is extreme and obviously my coworkers all know what happened and are sensitive to the situation. But it is not something I like to discuss at work and I can imagine that years down the road I would be working with a lot of people who would not know I lost a child. My point is that you don’t know what everyone in your office has been through. I saw other comments mentioning this being a difficult situation for people struggling with infertility, medical issues, and many other possibilities. There are just so many downsides to this situation, I don’t see it being an effective solution for most workplaces.

    2. Carrie in Scotland*

      I’m very sorry for your loss kimmiejo.

      I think you might be referring to my own comment, way upthread now and this is exactly what I was trying to say.

    8. TheLazyB (UK)*

      I am so sorry for your loss.

      The website glowinthewoods.com really helped me, although it’s not for everyone.

  102. Carrie in Scotland*

    Also, I know it’s only for young children but there is such a thing as competitive parenting. I can see some that happening in this situation, which again, would have an impact on productivity.

    Or what if you had a child that was less able in some way? (e.g. down’s syndrome, deafness, blind, severe allergies et etc) Some children would need alot more care than others – what about those considerations?

    1. OP (Denise)*

      I do think that employees would need to exercise discernment regarding the needs of their child and whether they could meet those needs while remaining productive. It is entirely possible (and even guaranteed) that there will be personal situations that do not allow a parent to care for an infant while working. In that event, the parent is no worse off than if this policy were not in place.

      1. Not helpful*

        But they would be worse off. They would not be able to use this perk that everyone else got. And who decides which infant is office appropriate?

        1. Observer*

          Since when does not being able to use a perk others have make a person worse off than when everyone is not able to use the same perk?

      2. Observer*

        This is really one of the things that tends to sabotage babies IN THE OFFICE (as opposed to one site day care) policies. Deciding where that line is can be hugely sensitive, and possibly openings for all sorts of legal violations. At minimum, you are going to need some clear and unambiguous policies that you have run by your legal department first.

      3. cv*

        I think this right here is the problem with making it a company-wide benefit/policy, rather than something that can occasionally work out with a flexible manager in the right circumstances. Relying on employees’ own judgments about how disruptive their own children will be and how much it’s affecting their productivity and their coworkers seems like a recipe for disaster. Parents are not known for being perfectly rational about their new babies, and child care is so incredibly expensive that good judgment would be eroded even further. Better to leave it for an individual manager or employee to raise and discuss case by case.

  103. Xay*

    This doesn’t appeal to me personally – even though I am a parent, I’m not a baby person and I haven’t worked in an office environment where this would be a successful or productive venture because it is a very quiet, meeting and conference call oriented environment. I would favor better p/maternity leave, flexible work options and on-site childcare over this idea.

    That said, I can imagine workplaces where this would work and I have seen a couple. I think that if you have a situation where the blend of work/home/family is part of the culture, you can create a situation where bringing babies to work could be appealing and helpful.

  104. Menacia*

    Many years ago I was a receptionist for a well-known mortgage company. I answered phones, and greeted people coming in for meetings, interviews, etc. One way, a woman who was a secretary brought in her about 1 year old child, and plopped the infant down on my lap while she went to do something. Needless to say I was NOT happy, I have never been, and will never be a kid person (I am very happily child-free). The thought of people bringing their infants into the office and expecting others to jump in and take over for mommy when she’s in a meeting gets a BIG thumbs down from me.

      1. Menacia*

        Like I said, this was many years ago, probably about 30! I was very new to the company and working in an office in general so I was accommodating. Thankfully it only happened once, I think she was off that day, but had to stop in to work to do something. I was just happy the kid didn’t start screaming or anything while I was holding her, but I’m sure I got some strange looks from clients coming into the office.

    3. K. from upthread*

      I’d have stopped her from walking away and handed the kid back wordlessly.

  105. Expendable Redshirt*

    But Alison, Skyler White’s company let her bring baby Holly into the office!*

    *Yes. Breaking Bad reference. Never y’all mind that the business was faking accounting reports. Or that Skyler slept with her boss. And later became involved in money laundering.

  106. Kateedoo*

    I think the answer OP is looking for is very clear. Not a single person that commented on this post thinks this is a good idea. Not one.

    1. OP (Denise)*

      There was one!

      As others stated, I think that it comes down to workplace layout, workplace culture, the nature of the position, and the disposition of the baby.

      1. Not helpful*

        That’s too many variables. And I get the impression that none of this is giving you pause. And I have to wonder if there is a personal angle here.
        There are times when the majority is right.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          “And I get the impression that none of this is giving you pause.”

          You should read the comments more carefully. I shared what my “angle” was and that all of this information has been helpful. Furthermore, as there are in fact, dozens of organizations that have done this, it is, in fact, not a totally impossible thing.

        2. einahpets*

          Seriously? I just want to chime in here in support for the OP. I think she has done a great job of responding tactfully to plenty of comments – which tells me that she is reading and considering the opinions of people who are writing in.

          Her original question was to hear Allison’s and readers’ concerns o she could craft a proposal that works at HER workplace, where she knows better than you or I the layout, culture, and workload.

          1. Not helpful*

            Yes, OP’s responses have been measured. But I stand by my assessment that OP wants to put this into place. And the overwhelming no response is not making a bit of difference. In MHO OP believes her workplace will be one of the very few where this would work. The odds are against her.

            From OP “furthermore, as there are in fact, dozens of organizations that have done this, it is, in fact, not a totally impossible thing.” I never said it was impossible. But this just confirms to me that you have your mind made up. Good Luck.

            1. einahpets*

              The OPs original question was NOT should she propose this policy at work though. Her question was: “I’d like your perspective on what kind of information you would want and need to see so that I can make a compelling argument in favor of this policy. What would be your primary concerns?” She put it right up front that she is already planning on putting together the proposal.

              You cannot fault the OP for not dropping it just because some people on the internet don’t agree with it. It is like if a letter writer wrote in asking how to talk their manager about getting more smoke breaks and then was lambasted for how she should quit smoking.

                1. OP (Denise)*

                  Changing one’s mind is not really at issue here. It’s a suggestion. Whether the company decides it is a good idea or not really doesn’t have anything to do with my opinion about it. Further, if any discussion would do that, it would have to be one with the employees this would actually affect and the specific environment in which we work. As I said earlier, I’m glad to have gotten a general idea of what others think, but what others think has nothing to do with whether I would like or dislike such a policy.

  107. einahpets*

    I do find it funny how many people praised the employer / manager for keeping the previous LW who sent an update this week about the $20k he had racked up in debt on the company card YET, the idea of an employer / manager seeking a way to support / keep employees who *might*, for a limited time, need extra accommodation as new parents is so horribly not OK.

    Does nobody else think that the previous LW’s actions will likely affect his coworkers, even if they never know it? He even stated that the company itself said they couldn’t easily swing that large of a debt. My guess is that they will have to change policies/budgets (maybe cutting out training / travel budgets, etc) to handle it.

    1. LK*

      @einahpets, I think the issue is not the necessary accommodation for most of us who are opposed, but the manner of accommodation being suggested. I am happily childfree, and I support longer and paid parental leave, flexible work conditions, generous vacation and sick time, and childcare subsidies, but am vehemently opposed to babies in my workplace all day, every day. A baby in my particular office would be disastrous to my morale and productivity, and if my workplace instituted a policy like the one OP wants, I would begin looking for other work ASAP.

    2. GigglyPuff*

      But doesn’t that seem more like a limited one-time thing, having to make budget accommodations for about a year? Versus this would probably be a permanent, every day impact change, with multiple people bringing in babies. I think one has more of an impact on the output of work than the other does.

      1. einahpets*

        Well, you could argue that the previous LW hasn’t shown at all that it will be a one-time thing. The employer/manager are probably hoping that it is. I know I am hoping that the previous LW gets help in budgeting / debt management, but nothing about that was included in the letter…

        As the OP for this post has noted, there would need to be rules set up so that there would be minimal impact. And she acknowledges that this isn’t a policy that would work in most or many offices. I know it wouldn’t work in mine, and it wouldn’t have worked for my daughter. But if someone has an office they can close the door for, a flexible enough meeting schedule, and someone who is willing (and definitely not pressured) to help out in times of need — how could this affect most coworkers anymore than someone who is loud on occasional conference calls? And on the employee level, it would be 3-6 months max of accommodations, as most of these policies are set up to only be for non-mobile babies.

        1. GigglyPuff*

          Except the other post, the OP did mention most likely his card privileges were going to be revoked, so he would no longer have access to funds the company is responsible for. Once this debit is paid off, it’s paid off, will it hinder the company for a while, yes, but probably won’t cause such extreme duress to hinder it permanently. Unlike this policy which could be a revolving door: time spent on policy, meetings, policy training, possible distraction to other employees, insurance and liability policies/costs, not to mention the theorized policy of the crying baby, hearing a baby cry for 30 mins! As someone who has never been around that, would be so much worse than hearing someone talk on the phone.

          1. einahpets*

            Sure, it could be a just one-year problem, theoretically, or it could cause the budget to change so that the employer cannot hire a new person in another role or provide promotions or raises to other employees that will conceivably impact others longer.

            And in this post, the OP is trying to *craft a proposal* (not enact the policy without any feedback or discussion in the office!) that would include addressing all of those things you are talking about and with an effort to minimize the impact on the office in general. As employer, not an employee seeking some special treatment, etc.

            We don’t, as readers of this blog, know the impact of either specific situation. Yet there are comments here attacking the OP above for not automatically rejecting the idea based on the feedback received now / saying that it says something about society today that people want employers providing all the solutions for their adult problems. And there were people on the previous post were attacking comments that didn’t completely cheer that post’s update.

            But, hey – I get it. I don’t like hearing my own daughter cry all that much (she is a toddler now so it is more tantrums now than anything) and try to minimize its impacts on others when we are in public. I don’t think this sort of policy would work in a lot of workplaces nor would I think I’d want to use it when I come back from maternity leave with #2. It is just an interesting switch of attitudes in the comments here, to me.

    3. Sunshine Brite*

      People are providing tons of alternatives for this that doesn’t involve everyone in the office trying to babysit or having to hear even an easy baby’s cry throughout the day.

      1. einahpets*

        And there have been multiple comments on the post from people who have experience with this type of situation and pointed out that it did not involve either getting everyone in the office to babysit or having to hear a baby cry throughout the day.

    4. fposte*

      I don’t see those as the same thing; for them to be the same thing, all accommodation of and generosity to employees has to be the same, and it’s not.

      Not firing an employee is not the same as letting employees bring babies in which is not the same as letting employees bring cats in. There’s no slippery slope anywhere in there; they’re all individual decisions.

  108. Drew*

    I know I’m a little late to the party, but I’d love to hear opinions on a tangential idea that I really want to push in my office. I want to foster kittens, including those that may need bottle feedings and I’d like to be able to bring them to work, feeding them during breaks. I have an office with a door and would keep the kittens in a pen while working. I think it is less distracting because they won’t need constant interaction, but maybe that’s wishful thinking. I’ve never had a bottle baby before… do y’all think this would be totally inappropriate? As background, my boss has slowly been warming to the idea of pet friendly offices and our headquarters allows it in their office. Thoughts?

    2. fposte*

      It’s a lovely idea, but I think you’re vastly underestimating the amount of attention kittens need. A non-crawling infant is a cakewalk next to a kitten.

      Maybe people with actual fostering experience have more encouraging words. I understand the impulse–I’ve thought about puppy-raising for a service dog organization on the same lines–I’m just not sure a kitten is going to blend unobtrusively into a workplace.

      1. anonanonanon*

        This! I’ll take allergy medication if I’m going to a friend’s place and they have a cat, but I would find it crazy to expect me to take allergy medication because someone wanted cats in the office. I don’t want to have start wheezing my way through work.

        Pet friendly offices may seem like a good idea, but offices have to take into account people with allergies or people who are afraid of dogs or cats.

        1. fposte*

          Well, it’s kind of like the babies, though; they can take into account those who don’t like the policy but still enact it. If you don’t like dogs, you don’t want to work at Amazon, and they’re okay with that.

          1. anonanonanon*

            I think there’s a difference between someone who doesn’t like dogs and someone who is petrified of dogs, though. It’s not fair to bring something someone is deathly afraid of or has a phobia to into a work environment.

            Yes, they’re going to have to deal with that fear or phobia in everyday situations, but they shouldn’t have to deal with that in the workplace.

            I said it in a previous comment, but there’s also a difference between interviewing at a company and knowing that’s part of their culture and suddenly having that culture changed. Introducing babies or pets into a work environment is a big adjustment to ask employees to get used to, and if someone doesn’t like that, they’re going to need to look for a new job. I say that as someone who loves and owns dogs, too. My dogs are great, but it’s not polite or fair for me to force anyone else to deal with my dog in a work setting.

            1. fposte*

              I’m inclined to agree with what you’re saying about changes, but otherwise I think it’s up to the employer to dictate the culture; I don’t think all offices have to be for everybody.

              1. anonanonanon*

                It is definitely up to the employer, but I think if they make such extreme changes, they have to be ready to accept that they may lose employees or have issues with morale dropping for a portion of employees. Culture is important in offices, and not everyone will like new changes, but I think babies and pets in the workplace are a limit for a lot of people.

                1. fposte*

                  Yeah, I would agree–if this is an open policy change, there’s going to be some transition as people who don’t like the policy move out and get replaced.

                2. Drew*

                  This is also a good point… many in my office have expressed wanting a pet policy, but I think anyone against it should be given an explicit opportunity to voice their concerns. Thanks for triggering the thought.

    4. Kyrielle*

      I had a coworker at a previous job who did this and it worked fairly well. You can only reasonably do it until they’re big enough to get out of where you put them / cause trouble, but fortunately, they’re also in need of less frequent feedings by then; about that stage, she’d start leaving them at home and dropping over on her lunch hour.

      However, there’s a secondary cost, and it depends on you, your company, and your coworkers how it goes. She had a LOT of visitors in her cubicle to help with the kittens (or “help” with them in some cases, depending on how helpful the person was), chatting with her while they visited, etc. Good for socializing the kittens, good for morale, maybe not *as* good for productivity.

      There was also the noise factor, but that applies less with a door to close.

      1. Drew*

        Thanks! This is super valuable information. Once they can eat on their own, they definitely would stay home.

        2. Kerry (Like the County In Ireland)*

          And the noise! I get more anxious when I hear kitten cries then I do for human baby cries.

    6. AthenaC*

      Somewhat related, but at one of my clients there was a woman who kept a large dog in her office. She kept her door open and a toddler gate at the entrance to keep him inside. The reason? She had a dangerous ex-boyfriend stalking her and she was incensed that it was against company policy to carry a gun for protection. However, “there’s nothing in the policy that says I can’t bring a dog for protection. So here he is.”

      2. Hlyssande*

        Wow, it’s really sad that her ex was that dangerous that she felt she had to resort to that. Getting out of terrible relationships is the most dangerous time for a woman, so I completely understand.

  109. Ashcat*

    When my daughter was an infant and I had to go back to work (and then it was part-time) it crushed me to leave her with someone else. I’m not a crier, but I shed some ugly tears in the car after dropping her off, en route to work. I always thought how wonderful it would be if I worked for a company that had on sight childcare: I could drop in and see her, and generally just knowing she was nearby would ease my mind, and bottomless guilt. Looking back, (my girl is 9 now), I had it pretty good as my former company had many of the attributes Allison noted above: flex time, accommodating hours, and generally an upper management staff that was understanding and pretty easy going. All of this is to say that I assumed the OP was suggesting some sort of childcare service offered for those with little ones. If that’s the case I think it’s a fantastic idea and a good way to retain/attract good employees. But if you’re suggesting for people to bring in their babies on a daily basis and have them in their personal offices or cubicles or whatever setup you have there- I just don’t see how logistically that would work. It would be cute for about 5 minutes, until one baby begins crying or there’s a smelly diaper, etc. I believe your heart is definitely in the right place, but just having people bring in their babies, despite all their adorableness, is likely to cause some unnecessary dissatisfaction within your business.

  111. GigglyPuff*

    Random thought: what if someone has twins, would they be told they could only bring one in because two was too time consuming?

    1. cv*

      I’m not sure if you’re kidding or not, but no remotely sane parent of twins would consider taking them both to work. I had trouble keeping both of mine quiet and content enough for me to participate in a new mothers’ support group where everyone else had only one baby with them when they were 3 or 4 months old – I still don’t try to take them anywhere quiet and civilized alone and they’re 18 months. There’s a reason that in at least some states the mandated day care worker to infant ratio is 2:1 for the youngest infants – caring for two infants is a full-time job.

      1. fposte*

        If you’ve managed to stay even remotely sane while having twins, in fact, my hat is off to you.

  112. Miriam*

    Well-meaning policies like the OP’s are actually worse than no policy. They give state and federal lawmakers an excuse not to act on this important issue, and they transfer the externalities of child care (crying infants, unexpected accidents, distracted parents) from the family to the employer, where they don’t belong.

    This isn’t the company’s problem to solve. If you want to take care of your child and also bring home a paycheck, or if you are a non-parent sympathizer, you need to vote for people who will institute parental leave policies at the federal level. Under a national leave policy parents would be paid to stay home with their children, and more importantly, this right would extend to all parents, not just those with open-minded employers.

    As a taxpayer I’d gladly help foot the bill for national paid parental leave, even though I will never have children. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. No one should have to choose between raising the next generation and putting food on the table. However, if you as the parent* are not willing to vote for people who will propose and legislate appropriate family leave policies, don’t make it my problem at work. This is a national problem that needs to be addressed at the federal level.

    *=I understand that many parents do indeed vote for legislators who make these policies a priority. However, a large portion does not, as evidenced by the many red states in our union and the fact that many adults in these states are parents of young children and would directly benefit from parental leave policies. It is to these parents that I address my post.

  113. UtahEditor*

    I would start job searching and leave ASAP if my company offered anything like this. Some might see that as harsh, but I think letting children of any age in the office as a regular thing (let alone what letter writer is saying) sends a big signal to me that they’re more interested in coddling parents and trends than making a good workplace for all.

  114. Observer*

    I do have some first hand experience with this. It can work VERY well. BUT absolutely NOT if it depends on co-workers being pressed into service as ad hoc baby sitters. That’s a disaster waiting to happen for everyone concerned.

    I’ve seen two models work:

    1. There is child care at work that’s highly accessible to parents. So, the kid is not 100% with mom or dad, but can be called as needed (or to be nursed, as needed). In this model mom or dad may sometimes have the kid with them (depending on specific circumstances) but the primary “work space” for the baby is in the child care center.

    2. Baby stays primarily with mom (or dad, but I’m going to stick with one gender for ease). This can work, as long as mom has backup arrangements (that do NOT require random co-workers “scooping up the baby”!) for situations where baby cannot be with mom. Also, provided that mom either has a relatively private office and / or the baby is not a screamer. (I know, it’s not the baby’s fault – no baby screams to be obnoxious. But it’s still disruptive when you have the noise of a screaming baby when you are trying to get work done.)

    Both models work best when there is some flexibility on hours. The thing is that flexibility in hours should be the norm, except where it is not possible, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it’s not. But, I think it would help EVERYONE with dealing with work and life obligations.

  115. GigglyPuff*

    Curious, did anyone else read the babiesatwork.org Fact Sheet, and find it…creepy?

    There’s just something about the tone…

    1. cv*

      I definitely got an attachment-parenting-zealot vibe from it. I’m all for people doing what works for them as parents, but there was definitely a bit of judgment in the tone of anyone whose baby dares to be fussy/colicky/refluxy/difficult instead of being soothed easily after crying for only a few seconds.

    2. CollegeAdmin*

      “Babies Attract New Customers”

      Umm, nope. This would actually probably make me want to find another store/bank/whatever to do my business at. Sounds harsh, I know, but I really dislike children and this would not “inspire customer loyalty” from me.

      “…parents tend to meet their babies’ needs at the first sound of distress, which results in happy babies who cry very little”

      I would think that that would make babies cry more, since they know that they will instantly get attention when they do. Am I off-base here?

      1. AthenaC*

        “I would think that that would make babies cry more, since they know that they will instantly get attention when they do. Am I off-base here?”

        Yes – at that level of development, crying is the only way babies can communicate their needs. Knowing that they will instantly get attention when they cry is an important element in developing future emotional stability.

        Toddlers? Different story.

      2. Observer*

        I would think that that would make babies cry more, since they know that they will instantly get attention when they do. Am I off-base here?

        For infants at that stage, you have it exactly backwards. Babies who learn that they will be responded to tend to be calmer, all other things being equal, than babies who are left to cry. There are exceptions, and times when it makes sense to allow even a very young infant to cry, but is not the norm.

  116. WildLandLover*

    Oh, hell no. No kids in the office. It is a place for work that financially supports the family. It is not a place for people to raise their children.

    Lest people think me an ogre, I have 2 kids, 6 grandkids, 2 nieces and 2 nephews and I love them all dearly, but I would have never taken any of them to work with me, especially when they were young enough to create noise and cause distraction and havoc.

    Even the occasional visit at my workplace gets out of hand. Just yesterday evening, someone in my workplace thought it a good idea to bring in their two toddlers for the last hour of work — the last hour that I usually enjoy in the quiet so I can concentrate since I’m one of the few left. Note yesterday, tho’ — the kids ran up and down the hall and screamed for almost the entire hour. And this is not the only time this coworker has done this. Ugh.

    No kids in the office . . . just no.

    2. Observer*

      That’s kids, not babies. And it’s also inconsiderate parents. We have a lot of parents bringing children of all ages into the office for various reasons. I have yet to see a child running up and down the hall, even though we have a lovely long hall just MADE for that kind of activity. From What I have seen, the kids have posed very little disruption, and never office wide. One thing I’ve seen parents doing is putting children to “work” and sometimes it’s not just make work, but errands that are genuinely useful.

      I suppose it helps that most of our staff are either parents or grandparents who appreciate what this kind of flexibility means, so they don’t get too bent out of shape on the one hand by a peep or two, but also want to make sure that they don’t spoil a good thing so they keep the kids in check.

  117. Old Mom*

    From the comments, it appears that sometimes, depending on the work environment and the baby, bringing baby to the office has worked.

    Could it work to have a policy that says, “requests to bring babies 1-6 months will be considered on a case by case basis?” With the understanding that babies may continue to be in the office as long as they are not disruptive. Procedurally, a three-strike rule on the baby, then the employee gets a week PTO to find other arrangements.

    Can you have a policy that says we don’t have a policy on that?

    1. Juli G.*

      I know Allison hates overarching policies and I’m also not a fan but… I’m trying to think of a manager or HR person I know that would be comfortable judging whether someone’s baby is work appropriate or not. We hear about so many managers that are scared to correct employees on very basic things that it would take a pretty special person to give feedback on something so personal.

      I’m 7 months postpartum and my hormones are finally returning to normal. I know not everyone is me but this sort of thing would have been very hard to hear a month or two ago.

  118. Jady*

    I overall agree for a number of reasons. A big one is how it would affect others in the office. Crying babies drive me insane, and given the commonness of open-office layouts this wound be a major nightmare for other workers.

    I think having on-site (or near site?) childcare available/supplemented by the company would be beneficial to everyone.

  119. Dr. Johnny Fever*

    Dammit, Jim, I’m a project manager – not a wetnurse!

    One suggestion I haven’t seen that my company does is to partner with nearby daycares to offer employee discounts on childcare. This might give newer parents a chance to get a great price, a daycare near work, and the opportunity to visit for a playdate if needed.

    Even the most buttoned down office has OSHA rules and space constraints. I can’t imagine filling an overbooked office area with playpens when some people have floating seats. There are training needs for CPR for any employed child-care person (at least in my state) with mandated licensing. These constraints, along with others will be hard to overcome.

    In an open floor plan like mine, this would be sheer madness. I polled a few coworkers out of curiosity and we agreed – the blend of home into work would upset the overall balance. We try hard to keep work out of home already.

    Your thoughts on in the right place, but I encourage you to rethink the execution. There may be pieces that will work, but you may not be able to map an existing solution exactly to every workspace.

    1. fposte*

      I doubt that they are going to be required to meet the standards of professional child care workers, though. I’m in a child-related job, and I’m not. I do have a basic background check, but that was to some extent my decision.

      I think it makes sense for the parents to sign a release, and it’s not going to be ironclad, but few legal documents are.

      1. Dr. Johnny Fever*

        That’s a good point. States differ on the requirements, so OP should look into requirements within her state. Documents are a must – I signed all sorts of waivers when my son went to daycare.

    1. Observer*

      Well, they should anyway. After all, children are NOT the only group at risk, by any stretch of the imagination. Off the top of my head, I can think of pregnant women, people with compromised lungs, people with any level of bone fragility. And, at that, a perfectly healthy grown up can wind up with a cracked rib. (I know someone it happened to.)

      1. Anna*

        All that, plus specific age groups. I looked it up on the CDC. Very young infants and then 7 to 15 year olds are the most susceptible. Followed by older adults, etc.

  121. AthenaC*

    Just my two cents –

    I had an audit client that had just such a policy – parents could bring a baby to work until the baby was six months old. That particular environment was very family-friendly and many people enjoyed having a baby around. With a near-constant stream of things to look at plus the security of mom right there, babies tended to be pretty okay and not very disruptive. As an audit, this was a bit of a nightmare client so it did wonders for my mental health to get to about 3:30 or 4:00 and go take a baby-snuggling break.

    If you (or others in your office) think this sounds awful, then this is probably not a good policy for your company. That doesn’t mean it won’t work in an environment different than yours.

  122. INTP*

    I hate this idea more and more as I read the comments. As a father I come to work to get away from the kerfuffle of home and small children. When I do work from home with the kids running around, I ALWAYS get much, much less work done.

    By all means, have a creche/daycare center on premises if you are big enough; but do not force those who don’t like, love so will be distracted, or are indifferent be responsible for free childcare!

    No, just no.

  123. luvzALaugh*

    One of the advantages of work for me is that it gives me a break from my kids. Please, please, please do not encourage others to bring theirs. :)On a less personal note, your plan would just create a difference between those who have kids and those who do not. You just inadvertanly suggested a policy that rewards parents over non parents and will have resentment from those who feel slighted by the policy.

  124. Brandy*

    And you have to be quiet around sleeping babies, that cant happen in an office. I cant answer a phone with a whisper.

    1. einahpets*

      That is actually a myth. Babies, especially young ones, can do really well with noise. They just spent 9 months in a womb with a constant soundtrack of heartbeat / digestion, and this is why a lot of times in the first few months babies have to be taught to sleep in the dark/quiet.

        2. einahpets*

          Sorry, I mistyped. I meant calm/quiet. Motion is another biggie, we learned with my first — she was fine sleeping while we walked around with her and in normal amounts of noise. But at night when it was quiet and she was expected to sleep laying down and not rocked, she wasn’t happy.

  125. popesuburban*

    This sounds absolutely awful. Women and clerical staff (There is likely to be a large overlap there, by the by, for various reasons) will be expected to take up the lion’s share of work, just like they’re the ones expected to clean up after a bunch of adults in the work kitchen, or arrange all the parties. While the parents are free to work, the people who are supposed to step in on the fly are probably not getting as much work done, or may have to stop work entirely. People who do not have children, or whose children are older, will be taking on a lot of extra, unpaid work, and there probably won’t be reciprocity there (How can there be?). I have already been frustrated by the way my workplace allows parents to take large amounts of time off with zero notice, because I do end up taking on their work and getting yelled at by people we’ve had to shuffle around. If someone added unpaid childcare to that, I would walk out, because that would be too much. I am strongly in favor of paid parental leave and I believe in schedule flexibility to accommodate life’s last-minute problems, but expecting everyone to add a second title of “childcare worker” is beyond the pale.

  126. TootsNYC*

    I had babies. I’m not a fan either.

    What I *am* a fan of is having an onsite daycare center. Though of course that can be expensive. I was fortunately enough to work in a place that had one, and it was tremendous! Drop-off and pick-up were easy, and I got to have lunch w/ my child every day.

  127. TheLazyB (UK)*

    Wow did none of my UK peeps see the BBC documentary in which Addison Lee, a U.K. private car/taxi firm, introduced this?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l4529
    http://www.addisonlee.com/press/babies-in-the-office-whos-been-sleeping-on-my-spreadsheet/
    I dunno if it’s still running but at the end they said it would continue for children until they were mobile and they were going to introduce on site childcare too.
    Full disclosure: my son was about a year when it broadcast. I wanted it to work, but it looked Absolutely Frigging Horrendous. And I could not have coped in that workplace.

  128. some1*

    Op, someone asked this upthread; what’s to stop you from just asking if you can bring *your* baby to work? Why do you want the policy implemented/changed? Is this something a lot of your coworkers want?

  129. McDerp*

    Hell
    to
    the
    naw.

    I would probably start looking for a new job.

    1,000+ comments… People have some strong feelings about this one!

    1. AnotherFed*

      I’m with you – I would find this so horrific that I’d turn in my notice without a job in hand. I don’t like babies, I really hate baby smell, and the amount of spit up would have me barfing constantly. There is no job in the world awesome enough to overcome that.

  130. Ann O'Nemity*

    I would love an easy, inexpensive solution for childcare. BUT(!) I wouldn’t work somewhere that allowed people to bring babies to work. On-site daycare, yes. On-hip care by me, no.

  131. Purple Jello*

    On-site child care (or elder care)? – yes. Baby at work? – no. Pets at work? – no. Who decides if the baby is disruptive? The parent? A “complaining” co-worker? Unless you have an easily-contented baby (and what baby is virtually always easily contented?) then there are so many ways that this would be a problem.

    I would have loved to be able to do this, but how about letting your employee work remotely for the equivalent number of months (until most babies are mobile?)???

  132. snuck*

    (Too many comments to read them all!)

    My questions and thoughts include:

    What sort of workplace is this – is it one where distractions and noise are ok (ie no a call centre), has a reasonable male to female staff ratio (how many new babies at a time would you be expecting on the floor… how many do you have in your workgroup that would fit the criteria now, including fathers?) and is it generally a safe space – not public access, no moving machinery, no excessive noise, fumes etc?

    Who is going to benefit from this, and is it worth the disruption to the rest of the staff if it happens? If it’s just a few people who will benefit and the rest will have an outpouring of negativitiy (like the comments above) then… is it worth creating that tension?

    Are these staff highly specialised with set skills that are hard to replace? If so I can see the temptation to return them to the workforce faster…. if not why create this administrative and interpersonal nightmare, why not hire temps to cover an extended maternity leave timeframe? (Offer half pay twice as long for maternity leave if your state allows it?)… and if they are highly trained technical experts why not offer remote working arrangements, flex time etc?

    What are your productivity expectations for those caring for small babies… trust me, this will be significantly less than what you currently get. An infant can feed for 20-30mins every few hours (newborns more!), that’s an hour and a half out of the average working day, not including nappy time, interaction time etc.

    Where are these babies going to sit during the day? Does your office have space for them… big prams, babies can’t lie in prams all day (it’s not good for them!) so you’ll need bassinettes or cots, change tables that are hygenic enough that the world doesn’t have to worry about them…. etc.

    As an alternative what might the cost of hiring a child care worker to work on this – if you are serious about it – trialling an on site child care setup.

    And finally… WHY? Why do you want to set it up? What is the ‘business reason’ that you are costing to make it worthwhile?

  133. F.*

    Donning my asbestos undies here because I know I am going to be majorly flamed, but I stayed home with my children for thirteen years before returning to the workforce. Was it easy? Not at all. We made the conscious choice to forgo a lot of what many people take for granted as “necessities”. Do I regret it? Absolutely not! My husband worked a lower paying, blue collar job, by the way, so this was a true sacrifice for the good of our children. I realize that this is not an option for many people and that others would never consider it a choice. That is their right. It just makes me sad to see this option not even being mentioned at all.

    1. Green*

      I think that absolutely should be an option for the OP if OP views this as necessary for children’s development. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn’t ask women (or men) to generally choose between work and child rearing, but if you have pretty specific views on child rearing that require your constant presence then you need to consider alternate work arrangements (part-time job, work from home, owning your own business or consulting/freelance if you can’t afford to take time off) to allow you to meet those goals, rather than expecting your workplace to conform to your particular views on child rearing.

    2. snuck*

      I am doing similarly… right now. For similar reasons. No asbestos undies here :)

      The thought of taking my child with me into an office / corporate work place actually is the antithesis of what I want for my children. I don’t want to indoctrinate them from the outset into a corporate culture and to buy into the consumerism society. (hows that for flame worthy!)

      I respect others have other needs… I am about to go on my first holiday in five years – which will be a weekend away at a local holiday spot twinshare accommodation, not a flight, not a luxury hotel, not a designer bag or boot in sight. I had to give those things up to be able to do what we’re doing, and it’s worked for us.

    3. CheeryO*

      If you’re in a position to stay home, I think that’s a great option. My mom stayed home with me until I was 10 and my brother was 5, and then started her own business from the house. She never made much money, and my dad had a fairly low-paying blue-ish collar job, but I had a great (if simple) childhood. I’m not sure that they could do it today, and I’m not sure I’ll be able to do it myself (golden handcuffs situation – I’m the one with the good healthcare and defined pension benefit), but it does make me sad that it’s barely an afterthought these days.

    4. Observer*

      Let me put it this way: “I did it so everyone else can” is not a valid argument.

      Every woman I know with young kids who is working is doing so out of necessity. The truth is that even many women with career aspirations NEED to work. And in many cases, it really is not a matter of making a few sacrifices for the kids. It’s often a matter of providing basics for the children – adequate food and health care being the primary drivers.

      I realize that bringing infants to work is not necessarily the best solution, and it is often not a viable solution at all. But, please don’t assume that because you had the choice to stay home with your children, all other parents have that choice available to them.

      1. einahpets*

        Amen! 13+ years ago was long enough that financially things are entirely different now.

        I’ve had relatives and other generation parents galore make well-meaning comments about my returning to work with little innocent things about how they were able to make it work by making financial sacrifices / they know it wouldn’t be easy, etc…. and I am like — you understand that my husband and I have student loans, two mortgages, a life long health condition/life insurance policies not so inexpensive as a result, and live in one of the highest cost of living areas of the country, right? It isn’t apples to apples.

        And for the record (to respond to all those comments about ‘my mom stayed home and we didn’t have much but I had a great childhood!’), both my parents worked for all the years of my life. And raised three daughters who all are pretty much winning at life now (advanced degrees, fulfilling careers, happy marriages, active in our communities — my youngest sister just got nominated to the top 40 under 40 in her city!). I had a great childhood too. I never felt like my mom or dad was not my mom or dad because I happened to hangout part of each day at daycare when young and/or school (when old enough). It is somewhat dangerous to continually perpetuate the myth that one parent needs to stay home to produce happy / well rounded kids just because that was generally more common in previous generations…

  134. Elizabeth West*

    I would hate this. Not because I don’t like babies–I do. I want one. Really badly. But I suffer from a condition known as severe lack-of-partner, and if my work did this, being around all those babies while I am not allowed to have one would make me so depressed I would probably throw myself down the stairwell. From the third floor (second, if you’re British). So nope.

  135. pspubs*

    This is an example of what I call “misplaced liberalism” Perhaps the intent is good, but what about the co-workers? Maybe someone can’t have children and has been trying, had a miscarriage or a bad experience with a baby and do not want to reminded. What if they are done raising kids or grand kids and don’t want to be caretakers again? What exactly is the reward for everyone else? Are you going to allow those who care for elderly parents or sick pets to bring them in for “group care” too?!

    1. snuck*

      This is sort of what I was thinking.

      I think we need a better understanding of WHY the OP wants the policy implemented. (Is the OP planning a child of their own soon and finds the maternity provisions unpalatable? So is this motivating the change of policy… why focus just on newborns… why not open it up?)

      Why not make it any people in need of care, on the understanding they aren’t a) contagious and b) disruptive.

      That could include the kid who is staying home from school for the first half of the day waiting for a dentist appointment (if they sit quietly) or the elderly parent who wants to come and wait at the office for a lift home after they’ve done some shopping. Make it accessible to all… if it’s about family friendly work place then don’t narrow it down too much, make it actually accessible and useable by as many people as you can.

      I’m not against the idea, I just feel it is too narrowly applied and will upset some. A friend of mine would swap workplaces for sure – she’s going through infertility issues and this would drive her away. Another friend would leave because she simply doesn’t like kids. If the place was an endless baby sitting club I’d probably leave because I would feel my own ability to work professionally would be compromised. But if it was an understanding supportive environment where all manner of family drop ins were ok so long as everyone was meeting goals etc then… that might swing it for some.

      To me that’s the key. Make it allowable, and conditional… that people still meet *reasonable* targets. And not interupt anyone else.

  136. AcademiaNut*

    Coming late to the discussion, but I think it’s a bad idea.

    From various comments, the OP seems to have a very specific idea in her head about what this will be like that is based mostly on ungrounded assumptions.

    That the babies will be unfussy and sleep most of the time, and won’t disturb people. (Varies wildly by child, and even the most placid child will cry and fuss. Plus, the employer will be in the position of policing baby behaviour, and kicking parents out of the program if they have a fussy baby)

    That the parents will constantly wear their babies at work and not use a playpen or crib. (Requiring the employees to follow a very specific form of attachment parenting that not all people are interested in, and also something that doesn’t work for all children).

    That the majority of coworkers had full immunizations as children and have gotten regular booster shots, or caught up on new vaccines introduced since they left school. (Not generally true. You’ve got immune-compromised people, people who weren’t vaccinated in the first place, people who haven’t gotten booster shots as adults (particularly for peritussis), and people who missed vaccines introduced since they reached adulthood.)

    That other coworkers will be willing to look after the babies when the parents are otherwise occupied (from this thread alone, lots of people, even ones who love babies or have kids of their own aren’t willing to do this).

    1. Alyssa*

      Yeah, the OP really didn’t seem prepared to deal with the realities of the situation at all. They’ve got some idealised picture of this from somewhere and can’t see past it. I can only imagine the look on their manager’s face if they had gone ahead and proposed this!

    2. OP (Denise)*

      So, I will keep repeating this. I understand that there are over 1200 comments at this point. People aren’t expected to read them all, but many are not doing so and reaching false conclusions. I’m totally open to new ideas, but I think that some people have not actually thought out their criticisms of *me* very well, regardless of what they think about the policy.

      For instance, there are already dozens of companies that have established formal policies. It’s not an “idea” in my head, I have repeatedly referred to policies and practices that are already in place and how organizations address the issues raised. So that is something you might consider.

      Secondly, I have repeatedly said that the flaw in the particular comments about vaccinations and/or germs is that the workplace is a more controlled environment than the public library, the zoo, the grocery store, public transportation, etc. Employers that even have daycares onsite do not require general employee vaccinations because the level of risk is not such that you would take those measures. That is reasoning. Unfortunately, some insist on generating issues even where common sense and already accepted practice show that it is not more of an risk than what you already are doing.

      Some concerns raised are more well thought out than others. And the response given depended upon that. But this discussion lasted for hours yesterday, and I think many people missed a lot of the points that were made.

      1. Kara*

        You ASKED: “What would be your primary concerns?” Your every response to someone voicing a primary concern has been “that’s not really that big a deal”. When people then point out that those things ARE a big deal to some, you respond with “you’re personally attacking me”.

        I can’t find one place where you’ve actually done documented research or reviewed any studies that relate to any of the things you’ve blown off as “not that big a deal”.

        It appears you didn’t actually want to hear people’s primary concerns, you wanted people to rubberstamp your idea.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          Kara, I will have to reiterate that I have actually acknowledged several points and provided links to formal policies and examples already. If you haven’t seen them, then I can only assume it’s because this thread is so long.

          Further, the comment about the personal angle relates to the very comment I replied to suggesting this was simply an “idea” I had fixated on. You don’t really know where I am coming from and that is not the point of the post. I didn’t think it got personal until later last night and today, and I apologize if I am simply losing patience with people’s assumptions.

          You concerns are just that–stating what would bother you. Plenty of people have done that. (“I wouldn’t want to feel pressured to return to work.” “I hate the sound of babies crying.” “I would feel pressured to babysit.” “I don’t want to be reminded of babies.” “I would prefer onsite daycare.”) I trust you can see the difference between that and saying, “You clearly haven’t thought about this because it could never work.”

          1. LBK*

            I think the reason people are frustrated is you’re not giving the sense that you see any of the concerns listed as serious issues. It sounds like you intend to proceed exactly as originally planned – and one would think that if you were going to collect a list of potential objections, the point of that list would be to adapt your plan to it, or maybe consider that you shouldn’t go forward with your plan at all because there are too many issues. Even if the purpose was just to help you come up with potential objections and solutions to incorporate into your pitch to management, I feel like I would see 1200+ extremely negative comments and think “Wow, maybe this just isn’t an idea I should even pitch.”

            People (myself included) have also pointed out the dubious nature of the “success stories” of other offices that have done this, mainly that they focus a lot on whether the parents like it and not so much on whether their coworkers like it.

            At any rate, I will say that you’ve been pretty graceful throughout this conversation, albeit maybe less receptive to changing your mind about implementing this plan as most people would expect. Not a lot of LWs stick around through this many dissenting comments without getting rude, so that’s much appreciated.

            1. OP (Denise)*

              So, one thing about the internet is that a lot of people are just negative and much more critical and rude than they would ever be in real life unfortunately. I would never actually make a decision based on what a group of commenters say. Furthermore, I think that people have given to much weight to the concept of a “suggestion.” I’m not sure why that seems to be such a weighty thing. The managers of the company I actually work for and the employees in this particular context are the only ones who are in a position to make a judgment about whether this is remotely feasible *in this context*.

              I wrote in order to gain perspective on the types of issues that would need to be addressed and to anticipate concerns, not to ask people whether they thought I should suggest it at all or what my particular company should decide. If I were a commenter posting in response to this question, I would just let the op know what I would like or dislike about it and leave it at that.

              Also, the list of companies who have done this is not dubious. I think you’re attempting to discredit it without having any basis for doing so. The fact that many government agencies have had hundreds of babies in the workplace and continue to do so is much more solid evidence than the speculations of people who have never actually experienced this policy in effect. So on that point, I will definitely give much more weight to the numbers and even anecdotes of people who are actually experienced in this matter over, again, speculations.

              Like I said early in the conversation yesterday, which I think you and others missed, I will reconsider the proposal. That was said so early on that I have no idea why people keep making this same point. But I will reiterate that I haven’t backed off because the fact that it is a reality in well established, formal workplaces is at the very least a starting point for a conversation, if only to ask how they manage it and why they felt that was a good policy. The idea could be trashed, and that’s OK, but it’s not wrong to look at something that other places have managed and see if it could be applicable elsewhere.

              1. LBK*

                I’m going to assume you’re not a regular reader/commenter here, since I would consider AAM a magical oasis of reasonable, smart, thoughtful people who are not prone to unnecessary negativity. It’s wildly better than the absolute garbage you’ll find in comments sections on other sites. There’s plenty of strong opinions, sure, but those opinions are generally based on a lot of experience, knowledge and genuine concern for making workplaces good environments for everyone.

                All that being said, it’s rare that the comments are so unified and so insistent on something in this manner. So perhaps it’s just being a regular reader, but I would take that as a MASSIVE red flag. For what it’s worth, the majority of people haven’t actually said “You specifically shouldn’t do this because I know your office better than you do” but rather “I wouldn’t work somewhere that did this for this list of reasons”. Maybe a minor semantic difference but I think worth parsing for what it is – because you’re right that ultimately you know your office better than we do, but “we” are also normal people who work normal jobs, so it’s not out of the question that people in your own office might feel this way, too.

                You’re leaning fairly heavily on the list of workplaces that have implemented this policy, but implementing a policy doesn’t mean it was a success, that everyone liked/likes it or that there were no costs to the business. There are plenty of widespread policies that are bad ones (managers that are sticklers for punctuality in non-shift jobs are the first thing that comes to mind). I don’t doubt that all the companies listed did in fact implement this policy. But their measure of success is based that heavily on how much the parents liked it. I didn’t see much, if any data about what their non-parent coworkers thought about it, which is my main concern with a policy like this. Obviously the parents are going to like it because they’re the benefactor.

                1. Adam V*

                  Also, while you may be able to quantify “how many good employees left when we enacted this policy”, it’s hard to quantify “how many potentially good employees turned down the job when they heard about this policy”.

      2. Adam V*

        > Employers that even have daycares onsite do not require general employee vaccinations because the level of risk is not such that you would take those measures.

        That’s likely because most employees would not spend their entire day in or around the daycare area, which is usually separated from the work areas (primarily for noise reasons). I would be surprised to find companies that provided daycare that didn’t require the daycare employees to be vaccinated.

        Your suggestion seemed to be (and I apologize if I’m reading you wrong) “let the parents keep the children in their own work areas”, which would essentially necessitate everyone in those work areas to be vaccinated.

        1. OP (Denise)*

          And my point was that parents do not do that when taking their children into the public which has far greater uncontrolled risks. Generally the people who are expected to be vaccinated are those working with children, not anyone who might be in the vicinity of a child. Further, my additional point was that the workplace environment is also controlled enough that you can decide who will or will not have access to your child and on what basis.

          1. Adam V*

            I’m not sure how to respond to that. So far, every single person who has touched my son has been fully vaccinated, because we were extremely vigilant about getting everyone vaccinated before he was born, and we’ve limited his visitors to immediate family. That won’t change until (at the earliest) Thanksgiving, when there will be enough extended family around that verifying everyone’s vaccination status is untenable.

            Personally, my child is young enough that I don’t yet take him out in public often. When I do, he’s tucked into his car seat and I don’t let random strangers peek in on him, much less touch him.

            If you’re saying “your coworkers won’t be getting any closer to him than random strangers”, perhaps that’s true, except your instructions were also that I must designate a backup, and that if the backup is out, I have to “problem-solve”. So that’s at least one person whose vaccination status I have to check, and then if something happens and I need to find someone else, I need to verify their vaccination status on the fly, or else I’d need to take him home.

            So I guess I’d just be a bad candidate to take advantage of this policy.

  137. katamia*

    Late to this post, but if my employer tried this, no matter how great the job was otherwise, I’d be out the door. This sounds absolutely miserable, and I really hope the OP reconsiders proposing this.

  138. katphoti*

    As someone who is childfree, I’m pretty darn tired of parents getting a free pass all the time. Look, having a child is a natural process that has been going on since Man first stood upright. In our world, we have no need to have children to keep the population going. Having a child is not a right, it’s a privilege. So why are people being rewarded for this privilege? And on that note, why do parents get passes at work when their childfree co-workers don’t? I cannot count the times I’ve had to take up the slack for someone else because they have to go home to be with their kids, yet the report is due at 8 am the following morning, so I am the one who works all night.

    As someone pointed out in these comments, if I wanted to work with children in the office, I would work in a field that requires it. Children at work are a mild distraction at best, a complete nuisance and a total disruption to your day at worst. I believe that parents need to stop expecting everyone to cater to them and start taking responsibility for having a child. It’s yours, it’s your responsibility, not your co-worker’s, not your boss’s, not your company’s.

    1. Ozymandias*

      “In our world, we have no need to have children to keep the population going.”
      Odd statement.

      1. Adam V*

        I read it as “individuals are free to choose to go childfree, because there are enough other individuals having children that we’re not at risk of underpopulation”. I contrast that to my great-grandparents-in-law, who had something like 8 kids so they could help out on the family farm – not to mention the much higher rate of infant mortality.

    2. einahpets*

      … Because one person asking for feedback on a workplace blog about an idea she is going to propose at her specific workplace is definitely a sign that all parents everywhere are selfish slackers in the workplace.

      I think issues of work performance should be addressed as performance issues, and if they are not being addressed in your workplace that might be something you should talk to your manager about? I’d estimate about half of my coworkers are parents, and yet our work gets done and not at the expense of someone without kids. There are slackers independent of their do-I-have-offspring status.

      I myself have had numerous nights where I work on a project until it is time to pick up my daughter, spend the evening getting her dinner, bathing her, getting her to sleep… and then I log in and go right back to work. Then we all wake up at some ungodly toddler wake-up hour (hello 5am again today, yay!), get ready to go, and I make it to the office at 8am too. I don’t expect a congrats for doing my salaried job off hours when it needs to be done. But if it happened too often, that would also be something to bring up to my manager, as it is important to me to have an appropriate work-life balance… and I would have done that before having kids, too.

  139. Renee*

    OP – I’m wondering if you could tell us more about your motivation for proposing this. Is this because you’ve heard other parents in the office talking about how they wish they could bring their infants to work? Is it because you’re a new mom and want to bring your baby in? Or something you think parents might like but haven’t gathered data at your workplace yet? Just wondering where this idea originated, and I think having more background might help other commenters understand where you’re coming from as well!

    1. OP (Denise)*

      I know there are a ton of comments, but I assure you all of this has been discussed. Also, I think that a lot of commenters have jumped to false conclusions and attempted to analyze me personally when that really is neither here nor there when it comes to the question the op actually asked. Posters also just don’t have enough info to make a judgment about *my* situation. As a few have shared from their personal experiences, there are so many variables that go into whether it would ultimately work in a particular context, that I think it would be best to stick with exploring what issues you would want to see addressed if this idea were brought up.

      1. Anamou*

        Denise, I’ve only scanned this thread and I can see that there are loads and loads of comments that run the spectrum, but I’m impressed that you are so diplomatic after asking a question that obviously generated a ton of very passionate responses. My assumption is that you sound like a very thoughtful individual and I might add that you’ve held up quite well under so much fire, so kudos for that. Kids + workplace threads always seem to be Fraught with Peril and generate a wide, wide spectrum of emotion.

      2. Renee*

        Hey OP,

        To clarify my question above, I’m wondering about the origins of your idea not to analyze you personally or pass any sort of judgement. I’m a new mom and the past year of my daughter’s life has highlighted just how personal parenting decisions can be, and how what’s right for me and my child really has no bearing on what might work for another family (basically, I’m in no position to judge anyone else).

        I’m asking because commenters might be able to offer you more customized advice depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.

        If this is because a number of parents in your workplace would like a policy like this, then the advice on how to approach management might be different than if you were looking for a way to be able to bring your baby in to the office. I’m a longtime reader of this blog and I’m always impressed at how helpful commenters are in offering advice and working through situations. Anyway, hope that helps clarify my question.

  141. king of llamas*

    Asides from babies potentially being hugely distracting for everyone else in the office, I would have other concerns about the whole idea. Since the parent has to find a coworker not likely to attend the same meetings to take care of the baby during meetings, is it going to be someone they trust to take care of the baby? This coworker is going to be from another department and the parent may or may not know them very well. Also what if the parent’s coworker friends are all in the same meetings and can’t babysit. It would suck if someone can’t take advantage of this perk just because they aren’t widely popular at work. Do they then get a random volunteer coworker? Are parents going to be okay with leaving their babies with a stranger? Do the babysitting coworkers then have to get additional training to ensure they’re not entirely incompetent with childcare? We’ve all have seen some parent in public who we disapprove of their parenting methods. Do they need to learn infant CPR? Who’s going to pay for the training? What if only 2 employees volunteer for babysitting and suddenly 10 babies need to be looked after? It seems like on-site or subsidized childcare would be less hassle.

  142. Kris*

    I am a huge fan of babies, love them and if there is a baby around I am the first to want to see/hold/play with them….except at the workplace. My current employer is a small company and the owners bring their children to work every day (all summer and when school is on on break) and when the kid(s) are sick/unable to go to school. Even though the kids are very well behaved, it is a major distraction for most of the workers at some point during the day.

  143. Hush42*

    I work in a pretty small company, we have about 100 employees spread across the state with slightly less than half working here at headquarters. Almost 2 years ago one of our employees, who sits right outside the CEO’s office, had a baby. Since then the baby (now toddler) has been coming to the office with her mother every other Friday and on days when she’s sick or there’s some reason that she can’t go to daycare. We all refer to her as the “office baby” she sleeps in a pack and play next to her mothers desk now. There were a few months when there was an empty office near where her mother sits so that became the baby’s office until they created a new position and the office was needed. It works well for us because when she’s here the baby just gets passed around the office with different employees watching her if her mother is busy (including our CEO who ADORES her). But we are a very relaxes company and it’s not uncommon for other employees to bring their dogs in for a few hours every once in a while.
    I do think that having her here everyday would be a terrible idea and that I know a lot of people would object to it. A lot of people find the sound of baby’s crying distracting and unprofessional if you’re on the phone. I know my manager in particular hates it when she cries because “we sound like a daycare” on the other hand he’s one who has been known to bring his dog in and we aren’t a kennel either…

  144. JenGray*

    As someone who has done this I have to say that it completely depends on the job. My son is 2 yrs old now and he came to work with me for the first 9 months. But that was at my old job- which was almost perfect for this type of situation- my office was in a locked building with no client interaction, not a lot of meetings (besides staff meetings) and I didn’t need to be on the phone a lot. In my current position bringing my son to work could not happen because I am on the phone all day, in meetings often, and have a forward facing role (i.e. greeting visitors, coordinating maintenance people, etc.). So to me I support it but only if you have the type of job where you can devote your time to your job and not have to pass your baby off to others. It’s your child and so you shouldn’t put your coworkers in positions where they have to take on that responsibility. I know people that were unsure or even scared of babies until they had their own so I wouldn’t make assumptions that everyone I work with loves babies (or toddlers).

  145. DMR*

    Barring a policy change that allows parents to stay home longer with new babies, I can speak from personal experience that bringing my baby into work was the right choice for me and my employer.

    I brought my baby in one day a week from the time he was 8 weeks old to 16 weeks (I was on a part time schedule for those weeks, and returned full time at week 16 while enrolling my little man in day care). This allowed me to return in time to take care to some deadlines that I had been responsible for in the past and I think I can say with some honesty that it brought a lot of joy to my office. Many coworkers came by to chat about projects and get some baby cuddles. I only felt that one coworker may not have loved having a baby around, but he already had the reputation of being the office curmudgeon.

    I worked two days in the office, so I could schedule meetings for the day I didn’t have the baby with me. I worked pretty well while breastfeeding, and really appreciated being able to have him nearby. This may have been a different story if I had a colicky baby, but that was not my experience.

    Every office has different needs, and if you need your new parents to return to work ASAP (as my office did due to no redundancy in the staffing structure and positions that were not easily filled by a temp), a policy that allows parents to bring the baby along with them is definitely worth exploring.

  146. SevenSixOne*

    I’d be OK with a plan that allows parents to bring new babies to work with some restrictions– up to 8 hours a week for up to 10 weeks after the parent returns from leave, for example. It can be difficult to arrange day care so quickly for a baby, and even just a few hours/days a week for a few months could be a huge help for new parents.

    I would NOT BE OKAY AT ALL with a plan that allows parents to have their new baby with them all day every day for months at a time. Even the quietest baby with the most mindful parent with the most accommodating workplace would still be a huge disruption in that arrangement.

  149. Betty (the other Betty)*

    As a parent, I think this would be a bad policy. I went back to work when my baby was 3 months old, working 3 days in the office and a half day at home until baby turned 1.

    I had permission to bring baby to work very occasionally, which was great when daycare was closed, or to pick baby up and have him there for an hour until the other parent could come get him. But not every day.

    Babies are unpredictable, so parents have no clue what their baby will be like or will need until they are born. I planned on baby-wearing. My baby hated to be in a sling (he wanted to see the world!). I thought babies would stay where you put them (for a few months, at least). My baby started rolling himself over at a few weeks old, and was dragging himself around at a few months old (stealing toys from other less-mobile babies at daycare). He didn’t want to hang out in a playpen or on a blanket. He liked noisy toys, and banging the floor with quiet toys. He often wouldn’t fall asleep and stay asleep for a nap unless he was moving, so he often slept in a baby swing (which is a big piece of equipment for an office!).

    I was allowed to work from home for a half day a week, and thought that it would be easy to get all my work done that day: babies sleep a lot, right? But a half days worth of work took me a long time to get done, since I was exhausted and often stopped working to care for baby. And it was stressful to feel that I wasn’t giving all my attention to baby, and stressful to feel that I wasn’t getting my work done. I was home, so I could skip the non-essential things like showering and putting on clean clothing (and a bra). I couldn’t imagine full days at an office with other people watching.

    I was fortunate to find good daycare close to my office, so I was able to visit and breastfeed during my lunch hour. (Having on-site daycare would have meant I could have breastfed more during the day, instead of taking time to pump.)

    A bring-baby-to-work policy would have pressured me into planning to bring-baby-to-work. Which would have meant NOT signing up for daycare in advance. Since most places in my area have waiting lists, I would have had to wait weeks or months to get baby into quality daycare if I figured out that bringing-baby-to-work wasn’t working. I didn’t have had weeks or months of paid leave left (since I used up almost everything to take 3 months maternity leave), so my choices would have been to continue to bring-baby-to-work (even though it wasn’t working out) or go unpaid and possibly lose my job. Not good choices.

  150. JustTeaForMeThanks*

    I agree with most commentors here: I am not in favour of this. I’m not that fond of children (add me to the Ogre-list) and I would not like to be surrounded by babies and nappies at the office. I would actively start looking for a job elsewhere. Also, I find it difficult to believe that in the offices where this as been in effect the non-parent-coworkers are happy with that arrangement – who wants to be distracted at work by crying baby’s? It is, IMO, not an appropriate environment for children. Also – I would be worried that it would impact my career prospects when I am being seen as mother first rather than though of as a professional.

  151. Cheryl Becker*

    I second the commenter who asked if this would be in lieu of a daycare option. I would support businesses having onsite daycare. I would also support a baby coming for a visit, probably on a day before the mom returns to work. And maybe even on an emergency basis, once in awhile. But ongoing? Too disruptive, I think. Sorry to be an ogre, also. But. . . it IS a place of work, after all. . .

  152. Penton*

    This is a bad idea and the only portion of this idea that has any pretense of good are the warm fuzzy feelings some will get when thinking of a workplace so progressive and open minded to allow such a collosal mistake.

    If your company is large enough to have a risk manager, check with that person first before wasting anyone else’s time. I suspect any savvy student of today’s risk environment will know better and will give a quick and resounding “No!”

    Consider the edits to your policy and procedure manual that will have to be created to encompass the broad range of possibilities present with children in the workplace.

    Just imagine the low hanging fruit. What limitations might be considered for cleaning chemicals and what surfaces might now have to be sanitized? And what of the uniformity, or lack of uniformity, for Janet and Bill’s parenting skills? Janet runs a tight ship over her family and children and all are fairly well behaved. Bill, on the other hand, is a passive parent who routinely is accustomed to the “free range” mentality of child rearing and allows his little rug rats free reign over all territories they survey. Noise abatement! I give dirty looks to parents who allow their progeny limitless screaming and bawling in restaurants and other public places. When the screamfest is five cubicles away and I have to end phone calls to spare embarrassment to my employer, I’m letting someone hear about it. Injury – if your child is injured on your employer’s property, who’s responsible? Is there a Worker’s Comp component at play if your child causes a slip, trip, or fall?

    No! This is a bad, bad idea. And I have experience working for an employer who allows children in the workplace with no attention to any policy, procedure, or pretend guidelines over this activity. Their parents, my co-workers, are routinely pre-occupied with their childrens’ activities. They must plan their work related tasks around when quiet time might prevail, they are not prepared to handle drop-in appointments, and so on. I also wouldn’t give you a dime’s worth of trust I have for them to avoid bringing their sick children to work with them and infecting half the staff because their parent doesn’t want to, or can’t afford to, take yet another personal day for the child’s illness.

    I’d encourage you to drop this idea, and move on to the next best idea you have.

  153. not telling*

    Has OP ever actually seen a baby in action??

    Most of the comments above are about how coworkers would feel about it. But what about THE COMPANY? How is a company supposed to make money when the employee they are paying is spending all day bouncing a baby on their hip, then changing a diaper, then feeding, then wiping up spit, then pacing and rocking them to sleep, then checking on them every few minutes. It’s 24 hr care.

    And when the employee is busy doing all of this, where is the client/customer, and where is their merchandise/product/deliverable? What about workplaces where the customer is present, not just on the other end of email? Are the clients also going to be part of that ‘built-in support network’?

    I just cannot envision how a workplace would continue to be one if there was a screaming baby in the office all day every day.

    1. MashaKasha*

      Yes it absolutely is 24 hr care. Since attachment parenting was mentioned a few times in this thread, I should probably mention that I was a big-time attachment parent with my youngest – read the Dr. Sears book while I was pregnant with him, loved it, implemented it with him after he was born. When attachment parenting books and other resources say things like “you can wear a baby and go about your day” what they mean is that you can wear a baby and grab a snack, take a nap, go for a walk, play with the baby’s sibling, maybe read a few pages of a book on a good day. I don’t think any of them implies that you can wear a baby and work a full-time office job without your productivity suffering. If they do, I want some of what they’re smoking.

  154. Callie*

    Nope, nope, nope. I love babies. I love holding babies. I am the Baby Whisperer. I can almost always comfort a crying baby quickly. But I do not want them at work. I had some friends in grad school who would bring their babies to campus and just expected those of us without kids/with grown or teenage kids to line up to be allowed to babysit. I found that quite annoying.

    Although… once a student came to see me during office hours. (I teach in an area of education.) His wife was at work (their work/school schedules were opposite so they could trade off caring for the baby) and he had to bring his infant daughter in while he came to my office hour to ask me a question. He clearly planned to be in and out, but his daughter decided to cry and cry and cry. He was clearly embarrassed and at a loss and said he’d just come back later, but I told him that was nonsense and asked if I could hold her. She quieted almost immediately and we had a good long talk about his upcoming assignment with the baby sleeping in my arms.

  155. Viva L*

    OP (Denise), you keep talking about how commenters here don’t know your context, would you be willing to shed some light on your working conditions to help us understand better? You’ve dismissed a lot of things that folks seem to believe are a big deal in their context, and I can only think that those factors must not be a big deal in your context. However, absent that context that only you can provide, I think a lot of people are commenting based on their own context. This might be a more productive discussion if we had that context – we could tailor our “concerns” or help you trouble shoot specific to your workplace, so that you could make a more informed suggestion to management.

    I hope it works out for you – would you be willing to update AAM and let us know if your managers decide to implement some sort of policy and how it worked out for you/others that used it? I think some folks here could really benefit from the personal experience anecdote.

  156. Carlita*

    Amazing how women have been going to work for about 70 years now, and managed to handle this. Its part of planning for a family. I absolutely despise the idea of kids in the workplace. I don’t want to hear them, I have my own stuff to do, and while you are there I would love to know that you are working as well. If you can’t handle working and having a child, then you shouldn’t do one of those things. Where does it end? Guess what, you CAN’T have it all.

  157. s*

    This is insane and, despite the one article about one small company, I don’t believe this could ever be a good idea (unless of course your job was child care).

    My company’s policy is, I think, that minor children are allowed on site with their parents, but must be supervised at all times, and cannot disrupt others work, and can only be on site in extenuating circumstances. This seems fair, although I’ve never seen or heard of anyone bringing their kid on site (although perhaps because the majority of people use the nearby company-sponsored child care facility there’s no reason to bring the kids on site instead of back to daycare down the road).

    I also know a woman who worked on site in the mornings, then at home in the afternoons, for a few months after baby #2 arrived (and after her maternity leave). I don’t know exactly what her childcare situation at that time was, but I was working with her enough to know that she was still getting her work done and doing it well, and so that also seems like a fair compromise for someone who wants to spend more time with their kid.

  158. I'mForIt*

    Well, for the ones who would be ‘horrified’; I would be horrified having to share an office with you but I would have to do my best to keep my feeling for myself and get on with my job. Babies are not anything else than small PEOPLE so please treat them just like you would treat any other human being. Anything else, in my eyes, is age discrimination.

    1. Adam V*

      Coming back to this over a year later, I saw this comment and had to respond:

      Babies are *not* just small people – they’re completely and utterly dependent on adults to take care of their every need, be it feeding, clothing, bathing, etc. Until a child is old enough to wake themselves up in the morning, get themselves dressed and ready for the day, make themselves a meal without leaving the kitchen in shambles, and sit quietly at a desk so they don’t disrupt others around them, I’d argue they aren’t just “small people”, they’re (as Dana Carvey once put it) “need machines”.

      Not to mention, babies are unable to respond to normal workspace norms – “Hey Suzy, do you mind keeping it down? I’m on a phone call with an important vendor.” “Waaaaaah!”

      Last, but not least, as mentioned many times before, they’re a distraction for the parent, who now has to juggle the needs of the baby with the needs of the business. Unless the parent is *completely* capable of keeping both completely satisfied (without reducing their responsibilities to either), then it’s unfair to the neglected one. And if the parent chooses to neglect their job in favor of their child, the company will weigh their decreased productivity against the potential productivity of a new hire, and it may not work out favorably for them.

      By all means, self-select out of companies that won’t allow you to bring your baby to the office. Just don’t be surprised when that turns out to limit your options more than you expect.

  160. newlyhr*

    As a mom and a manager (and I was a mom of small kids before I was a manager), I see some truth in just about every comment here. I remember having paralyzing fear when my childcare arrangements–the primary AND the backup–fell through and I had to be at work and I did not know what to do. I did some things that I said I would never do–for example, I once left my kids with an alcoholic relative, hoping they would stay sober enough until I came back.

    So a few suggestions:

    1. Companies should not legitimize the practice of bringing kids into the workplace. Period. It’s not fair to the other people who work there or to the clients. Companies who want to help parents transition back to work have many other options to do that besides encouraging somebody to bring their child to the workplace.

    2. Taking a child to work should not be Plan A or Plan B for any parent who needs childcare.

    3. If little Johnny does show up in the workplace because plans A and B (and maybe C) all fell through, be a human being. The grace you offer may be grace you need back at some point in the future. Stuff happens. No one can anticipate every possible scenario and have a plan in place. Childless people are not immune to emergencies or disruptive actions in the workplace either–you inconveniently get sick when we really need you, your car breaks down, your phone dings constantly in the middle of a meeting—-whatever. Point is, there will come a time for all of us when we will desperately need some compassion and understanding, not holier-than-thou proclamations about how our poor planning or other choices have created so much difficulty for the perfect people who never have any of life’s curve balls coming at them.

    $. But don’t be afraid to ask your manager for help if the child’s presence is genuinely keeping you from doing your job. And if a worker is abusing the privilege of bringing a child to work, ask your boss to handle it.

Comments are closed.