User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2015-02-01

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
meetings:2015-02-01 [2015/02/02 01:43]
marilynv
meetings:2015-02-01 [2017/06/28 18:06] (current)
Line 26: Line 26:
  
  
-(Donny – absent, motion taken up by Andy, Richard facilitating) Revisit automatic labor discount for having a family with children in light of legal advice from NASCO Properties. Consider adding a "child care" job to the labor pool, that in theory, anyone could do with approval of the parents. Andy: Background from NASCO --  ​folks without kids could see this as discrimination and sue us for having to do more labor than people with kids. Nolan: could we no-show a parent if the kid is destroying the garden – because they weren'​t doing their child care labor. Richard: I was interpreting this as meaning that this position would apply to others than the parents. Andy: It would be appropriate to no-show anyone assigned to child care if the child is causing a problem in the co-op. Carey: Maybe we would need to define the position of child care more clearly. Nolan: presents example of a former resident who, if her child created a problem, might be no-showed, and if he were caring for the child he could also be no-showed, though she was involved with the child most of the time and the other resident only a brief period. Carey: proposes friendly amendment that Labor or designated rep writes up a definition of child care for this purpose to make clear what is a no-show and what is not. . Carey also requests to table. Andy offers friendly amendment to put a cap on the number of hours available for child care credit, perhaps 2/wk. He thinks the main responsibility of someone in charge would be to prevent destructive behaviors, and we don't necessarily want to give a detailed list of responsibilities beyond that. Carey: He does think we should define what we would be giving credit for under the title of child care. Marilyn: would rather assign the child care credit just to those watching the children rather than to the parents, thereby allowing the parents to do regular labor and being more a part of the labor pool and community. Richard'​s comment: ​? __________ ​. Andy agrees with idea of providing child care for parents to do other labor, but this is an effort to help the family here now that has kids but is not doing labor. Carey: He sees this as potentially punitive to parents who might be no-showed for having an unruly child. Andy: This is not intended as punishment but as a way to help parents do less labor but stay in the co-op. Corey: Asks to table this so that Richard and Donny might re-write this to be more specific. He also makes a proposal to repeal the previous rule because of its legal dubiousness. General consensus is that this meets the first intent of the proposal ​-- to avoid legal problems - and table the proposal to create a new rule.+(Donny – absent, motion taken up by Andy, Richard facilitating) Revisit automatic labor discount for having a family with children in light of legal advice from NASCO Properties. Consider adding a "child care" job to the labor pool, that in theory, anyone could do with approval of the parents. Andy: Background from NASCO – folks without kids could see this as discrimination and sue us for having to do more labor than people with kids. Nolan: could we no-show a parent if the kid is destroying the garden – because they weren'​t doing their child care labor. Richard: I was interpreting this as meaning that this position would apply to others than the parents. Andy: It would be appropriate to no-show anyone assigned to child care if the child is causing a problem in the co-op. Carey: Maybe we would need to define the position of child care more clearly. Nolan: presents example of a former resident who, if her child created a problem, might be no-showed, and if he were caring for the child he could also be no-showed, though she was involved with the child most of the time and the other resident only a brief period. Carey: proposes friendly amendment that Labor or designated rep writes up a definition of child care for this purpose to make clear what is a no-show and what is not. . Carey also requests to table. Andy offers friendly amendment to put a cap on the number of hours available for child care credit, perhaps 2/wk. He thinks the main responsibility of someone in charge would be to prevent destructive behaviors, and we don't necessarily want to give a detailed list of responsibilities beyond that. Carey: He does think we should define what we would be giving credit for under the title of child care. Marilyn: would rather assign the child care credit just to those watching the children rather than to the parents, thereby allowing the parents to do regular labor and being more a part of the labor pool and community. Richard'​s comment: ​It doesn'​t seem like the labor responsibility would be comparable between parents and nonparents ​. Andy agrees with idea of providing child care for parents to do other labor, but this is an effort to help the family here now that has kids but is not doing labor. Carey: He sees this as potentially punitive to parents who might be no-showed for having an unruly child. Andy: This is not intended as punishment but as a way to help parents do less labor but stay in the co-op. Corey: Asks to table this so that Richard and Donny might re-write this to be more specific. He also makes a proposal to repeal the previous rule because of its legal dubiousness. General consensus is that this meets the first intent of the proposal ​– to avoid legal problems - and table the proposal to create a new rule.
  
  
meetings/2015-02-01.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)