4 ms·

Parents Ready for Some Love from Silicon Valley Companies

14 points by vkb 11y ago

outside1234 11y ago
This is great. That said, is it also time for child-less employees to get some love as well? For example, its very difficult (aka impossible) to get equivalent leave as a child-less employee to pursue our passions for a month or two. Note: I am not talking about taking a vacation. I am talking about taking leave to go volunteer in a literacy program (in my case). Said another way, why is leave tied to having kids?
- Qworg 11y ago
  Leave is tied to having children because having children means you can't walk away or take a break. The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything. In your example, if you were sick or didn't feel like it for the day, you could just choose not to go in. You simply don't get that choice with kids.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything. You chose to have a child. Why should our employer subsidize that choice any more than my choice to go to India for a few months to 'find myself' or whatever.
    - Shog9 11y ago
      A co-worker explained it thusly: if you want to attract folks who have (or plan to have) children, you have to offer them a way to do so while working for you... Or they'll go with a different employer who does. Of course, in the past it's been common for NO ONE to offer such benefits, which also works. If you simply don't care about attracting parents, you can not offer these benefits (though nowdays you'll be limited in how much you can cut them by various employment laws). If you want a job that gives you a few months off every year or so to go on a spiritual journey, then your best bet is to negotiate that up-front, keeping in mind that - like parents - you'll be reducing the number of places willing to hire you by doing so. Don't like it? I don't blame you. But I can tell you about plenty of folks who lost their jobs when they had kids and didn't like it either.
      - username223 11y ago
        > if you want to attract folks who have (or plan to have) children, you have to offer them a way to do so while working for you... Thanks to modern science and moral bankruptcy, you can do this for a small fee. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30Surrogate-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30Surrogate-t.htm...
    - analog31 11y ago
      Negotiate for that benefit. I don't control what benefits my employer provides to my colleagues. I have a colleague who got a sabbatical that wasn't tied to family leave. This is with a mainstream industrial company, and he was a mid level engineer. I've noticed something at my workplace. Granted, I don't know what it's like in Silicon Valley, but I work for a fairly large employer in the Midwest. There are certain jobs like Project Manager, that are just grueling -- thankless, boring, stressful, with the potential for long hours. Without exception, the people with those jobs, are parents of kids. I've seen more than one engineer, including myself, apply for one of those jobs upon the birth of a kid. A single colleague was complaining to me about the lack of advancement, and I suggested that he should become a Project Manager. He said: "Are you kidding? I like my evenings and weekends." People without kids often leave the company in pursuit of jobs that are more fun or risky. There's a chance that without various family benefits (health insurance is probably the biggie), parents of kids would compete aggressively for jobs with higher pay and better benefits. So the imbalance would materialize anyway. As for benefits that the employer is required to provide, lobby for them. Vote. Parents are a significant political force. We vote. But in addition, there has historically been a policy argument for encouraging relatively affluent people to have kids. Today's kids are the people who will pay for your retirement, through payroll taxes and working for the companies that comprise your 401(k).
      - aianus 11y ago
        I think you took my comment the wrong way. I don't think my employer should give me paid leave to go to India for a couple of months. That's ridiculous. Similarly would-be parents should save up the cash ahead of time and go on unpaid leave or quit their jobs upon the birth of the child. Same as anyone else that wants to stop working to focus on something expensive and time-consuming in their personal lives.
        knughit 11y ago
        Paid leave is actually just a life insurance plan, similar to health insurance. It exists because we don't have government programs in USA, and the economy depends on general social stability and continuity. Social Security is a similar example that is government run in USA. When you get old you might rely on it.
- logn 11y ago
  Because a policy around leave for births is easy to make black and white. Additionally, it's a lifetime commitment for parents so it's not likely people will rack up a bunch of births just for time off. Although I do wonder how some of these companies with generous benefits for parents would handle someone who has 10 babies. And most of this is an extension of what workers have been fighting for for a long time and already recognized throughout many areas of law. In your case, I'd recommend taking a job with an "unlimited vacation" company and calling their bluff.
- panglott 11y ago
  Employers need to support their employees conducting basic biological functions, such as completing their biological life cycle. Volunteering in a literacy program is laudable, but it is not on par with completing your life cycle.
  - outside1234 11y ago
    You've made an assumption about my lifecycle.

14 points by vkb 11y ago

This is great. That said, is it also time for child-less employees to get some love as well? For example, its very difficult (aka impossible) to get equivalent leave as a child-less employee to pursue our passions for a month or two. Note: I am not talking about taking a vacation. I am talking about taking leave to go volunteer in a literacy program (in my case). Said another way, why is leave tied to having kids?

Qworg 11y ago
Leave is tied to having children because having children means you can't walk away or take a break. The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything. In your example, if you were sick or didn't feel like it for the day, you could just choose not to go in. You simply don't get that choice with kids.
- aianus 11y ago
  > The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything. You chose to have a child. Why should our employer subsidize that choice any more than my choice to go to India for a few months to 'find myself' or whatever.
  - Shog9 11y ago
    A co-worker explained it thusly: if you want to attract folks who have (or plan to have) children, you have to offer them a way to do so while working for you... Or they'll go with a different employer who does. Of course, in the past it's been common for NO ONE to offer such benefits, which also works. If you simply don't care about attracting parents, you can not offer these benefits (though nowdays you'll be limited in how much you can cut them by various employment laws). If you want a job that gives you a few months off every year or so to go on a spiritual journey, then your best bet is to negotiate that up-front, keeping in mind that - like parents - you'll be reducing the number of places willing to hire you by doing so. Don't like it? I don't blame you. But I can tell you about plenty of folks who lost their jobs when they had kids and didn't like it either.
    - username223 11y ago
      > if you want to attract folks who have (or plan to have) children, you have to offer them a way to do so while working for you... Thanks to modern science and moral bankruptcy, you can do this for a small fee. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30Surrogate-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30Surrogate-t.htm...
  - analog31 11y ago
    Negotiate for that benefit. I don't control what benefits my employer provides to my colleagues. I have a colleague who got a sabbatical that wasn't tied to family leave. This is with a mainstream industrial company, and he was a mid level engineer. I've noticed something at my workplace. Granted, I don't know what it's like in Silicon Valley, but I work for a fairly large employer in the Midwest. There are certain jobs like Project Manager, that are just grueling -- thankless, boring, stressful, with the potential for long hours. Without exception, the people with those jobs, are parents of kids. I've seen more than one engineer, including myself, apply for one of those jobs upon the birth of a kid. A single colleague was complaining to me about the lack of advancement, and I suggested that he should become a Project Manager. He said: "Are you kidding? I like my evenings and weekends." People without kids often leave the company in pursuit of jobs that are more fun or risky. There's a chance that without various family benefits (health insurance is probably the biggie), parents of kids would compete aggressively for jobs with higher pay and better benefits. So the imbalance would materialize anyway. As for benefits that the employer is required to provide, lobby for them. Vote. Parents are a significant political force. We vote. But in addition, there has historically been a policy argument for encouraging relatively affluent people to have kids. Today's kids are the people who will pay for your retirement, through payroll taxes and working for the companies that comprise your 401(k).
    - aianus 11y ago
      I think you took my comment the wrong way. I don't think my employer should give me paid leave to go to India for a couple of months. That's ridiculous. Similarly would-be parents should save up the cash ahead of time and go on unpaid leave or quit their jobs upon the birth of the child. Same as anyone else that wants to stop working to focus on something expensive and time-consuming in their personal lives.
      - knughit 11y ago
        Paid leave is actually just a life insurance plan, similar to health insurance. It exists because we don't have government programs in USA, and the economy depends on general social stability and continuity. Social Security is a similar example that is government run in USA. When you get old you might rely on it.
logn 11y ago
Because a policy around leave for births is easy to make black and white. Additionally, it's a lifetime commitment for parents so it's not likely people will rack up a bunch of births just for time off. Although I do wonder how some of these companies with generous benefits for parents would handle someone who has 10 babies. And most of this is an extension of what workers have been fighting for for a long time and already recognized throughout many areas of law. In your case, I'd recommend taking a job with an "unlimited vacation" company and calling their bluff.
panglott 11y ago
Employers need to support their employees conducting basic biological functions, such as completing their biological life cycle. Volunteering in a literacy program is laudable, but it is not on par with completing your life cycle.
- outside1234 11y ago
  You've made an assumption about my lifecycle.