5 ms·

You're not a parent, are you? ;) - I seriously doubt this leave will have any bearing whatsoever on whether an employee decides to have kids. It is such a majo

by vbit 11y ago

You're not a parent, are you? ;) - I seriously doubt this leave will have any bearing whatsoever on whether an employee decides to have kids. It is such a major, life changing and personal decision it is taken irrespective of incentives. Only serious constraints (no money) might negatively impact that decision. As a new parent, I was very happy to get leave from my company but I would have had kids regardless. Also I never heard of anyone having kids so they could get the 12 weeks or whatever or leave :) - Another way to look at this is you have people that are having kids and people that are not. What can the company do to keep the former happily employed/interested in joining your company?

geofft 11y ago
Yup, it seems like parent (as in parent comment, not human parent) has the causality wrong. This won't incentivize anyone to have kids. It will incentivize people to join or stay with the company if they plan on having kids in the future, though, and that's good for the bottom line.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It sounds bad for the company, due to adverse selection. When I get to the stage in my life where I want this benefit, I'll shift over to MS or similar companies. I'll work there for a few years, take this benefit, and then shift back to a company that comps me with cash once I'm done having children. It would be pretty silly if a 22 year old decided to work at MS for 15 years, simply to use this benefit for two children they bear at age 31 and 33.
the_bear 11y ago
Absolutely, I don't think that parental leave will impact someone's decision to have kids. However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the company saying that they want their employees to have kids. It won't actually change behavior, but it still stands out to me as a pretty opinionated stance from the employer about what behavior they want from their employees. Parental leave is a good way to keep people with kids happy. Why shouldn't we also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Other people are passionate about other things. I think employers shouldn't have an opinion on which is more valid, and they should support both.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  If it doesn't change behavior it's not incentivizing, that simple.
- exacube 11y ago
  > However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the company saying that they want their employees to have kids. /want/ their employees to have kids means that they desire it to some degree. I am sure MS doesn't desire it, but rather indifferent. But they do desire to be a more humanitarian company and want their employees to be happier. > Why shouldn't we also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Are you trying to say that because people with children have parental leave, people without children should have equivalent leaves too? That sounds a little ridiculous to me.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > Are you trying to say that because people with children have parental leave, people without children should have equivalent leaves too? That sounds a little ridiculous to me. How so? They probably work harder (for the employer) than the ones with children but deserve less PTO?
- vbit 11y ago
  An employer may offer free sushi and beer on Fridays. Does it mean they encourage fish and alcohol consumption? What about employees who don't consume either due to health or religious reasons, or just plain preference? Do they now deserve make-up compensation? As a parent I never come in late and stay for dinner. This means the dinner service is an employer cost that I get no benefit from. Clearly the single people are the primary reason for this unnecessary cost to the company. I also don't drink soda and I'm not sure why my employer encourages this behavior by spending so much money on free soda everywhere. Lets nix that too! Maybe you see what I'm getting at. The employer is just trying to accommodate and please people with various life choices for good retention and hiring rates. There's no reason that they absolutely shouldn't offer something to kid-free people only, it's just that they don't currently, probably because they don't think it will help much.
serge2k 11y ago
It might have a bearing on whether or not they want to work at MS and have kids. Too easy for engineers to just go over to another company. Policies like this give MS a leg up over the likes of Amazon.

by vbit 11y ago

geofft 11y ago

Yup, it seems like parent (as in parent comment, not human parent) has the causality wrong. This won't incentivize anyone to have kids. It will incentivize people to join or stay with the company if they plan on having kids in the future, though, and that's good for the bottom line.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It sounds bad for the company, due to adverse selection. When I get to the stage in my life where I want this benefit, I'll shift over to MS or similar companies. I'll work there for a few years, take this benefit, and then shift back to a company that comps me with cash once I'm done having children. It would be pretty silly if a 22 year old decided to work at MS for 15 years, simply to use this benefit for two children they bear at age 31 and 33.

the_bear 11y ago

Absolutely, I don't think that parental leave will impact someone's decision to have kids. However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the company saying that they want their employees to have kids. It won't actually change behavior, but it still stands out to me as a pretty opinionated stance from the employer about what behavior they want from their employees. Parental leave is a good way to keep people with kids happy. Why shouldn't we also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Other people are passionate about other things. I think employers shouldn't have an opinion on which is more valid, and they should support both.

darkmighty 11y ago
If it doesn't change behavior it's not incentivizing, that simple.
exacube 11y ago
> However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the company saying that they want their employees to have kids. /want/ their employees to have kids means that they desire it to some degree. I am sure MS doesn't desire it, but rather indifferent. But they do desire to be a more humanitarian company and want their employees to be happier. > Why shouldn't we also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Are you trying to say that because people with children have parental leave, people without children should have equivalent leaves too? That sounds a little ridiculous to me.
- aianus 11y ago
  > Are you trying to say that because people with children have parental leave, people without children should have equivalent leaves too? That sounds a little ridiculous to me. How so? They probably work harder (for the employer) than the ones with children but deserve less PTO?
vbit 11y ago
An employer may offer free sushi and beer on Fridays. Does it mean they encourage fish and alcohol consumption? What about employees who don't consume either due to health or religious reasons, or just plain preference? Do they now deserve make-up compensation? As a parent I never come in late and stay for dinner. This means the dinner service is an employer cost that I get no benefit from. Clearly the single people are the primary reason for this unnecessary cost to the company. I also don't drink soda and I'm not sure why my employer encourages this behavior by spending so much money on free soda everywhere. Lets nix that too! Maybe you see what I'm getting at. The employer is just trying to accommodate and please people with various life choices for good retention and hiring rates. There's no reason that they absolutely shouldn't offer something to kid-free people only, it's just that they don't currently, probably because they don't think it will help much.

serge2k 11y ago

It might have a bearing on whether or not they want to work at MS and have kids. Too easy for engineers to just go over to another company. Policies like this give MS a leg up over the likes of Amazon.