5 ms·

It's really wonderful to see companies looking after their employees like this and taking steps to reduce gender bias, and to improve inclusivity when it comes

It's really wonderful to see companies looking after their employees like this and taking steps to reduce gender bias, and to improve inclusivity when it comes to benefits. As an individual who is not likely to ever have children however, I would feel rather jealous of my co-workers who got to take advantage of this benefit. Some sort of clause like: "... when they become a parent ... or when they work for the company for five years without becoming a parent." would help me feel included. I really don't mean to diminish this awesome perk, it is obviously much more inclusive than the status-quo and I commend Etsy for implementing it!

roel_v 11y ago
Look I see your point, but where to draw the line? Let's say you start working somewhere @ 21, take a paid 6-month leave without having children at 26, then decide to have a child at 30. Should they get another leave? What about contractors/the self-employed? Who should pay for that? How can such policies ever be implemented in a 'fair' way when 'fair' can be 'anything I feel' ?
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Most employer parental leave is per child, so it not limited to 1 leave but 1 leave per child. Thus if a person has more than 1 child they get more than 1 leave Why do you believe this should be different for the childless person?
  - darklajid 11y ago
    Because one party has a new rather huge burden, both consuming time and money (I love my kids, but let's be honest here: The first month/the first year isn't all roses). They don't slack off, they produced a tax payer that will likely secure your future pension (depends on your country and social security structure ofc). This is not a vacation. Even comparing that seems rather laughable, honestly. We're talking about common decency here - offsprings need one person to look after them and at least for a while it should be one of the parents. Trying to game the system is .. disturbing, really. The real problem is that Etsy makes the news with their policy, not random childless persons trying to fly around the world for a while.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      this is where people get all confused as to what employment is. Employment is an exchange of labor for money, you are trading your knowledge, time and experience to preform work for a company in exchange for money. it is not a family, the company has no obligation to "look out for your" or your actual family if you are not preforming work, you should not be paid. Period, it is as simple as that You "making a new tax payer" or what ever is not relevant to the topic if employment Further I do not expect anyone other than myself to secure my retirement. I will likely not retire, I have no plans to. I plan on working in some form until I die.
      - darklajid 11y ago
        We're living in different worlds. While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Let me state first that I'll be the first to understand that people opt to have no kids - I myself was certain that I'd never have kids, never want kids until I reached 30+ and I still see the trade-offs, the benefits. Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. People having kids isn't a fad or some new fashion, it's basic (human) nature. You wouldn't be able to make your case without people opting to carry that burden (it's also hugely rewarding, but we're discussing time off here and that's explicitly to help parents to manage this .. interesting times). In short, your argument seems rather egocentric and the whole thread is reading like a min-maxing discussion on a RPG online board. But then again, you also claim that taxes are theft and I don't think there's enough (or any?) common ground to argue here. Your expressed opinions are about as anti-social as anything I've ever read on this board and I honestly cannot imagine under which circumstances people could come up with values like these.
        the_ancient 11y ago
        >We're living in different worlds. Likely, I am a Geo-Libertarian Agorist that believes in a society free from Statism and Coercion by Government >While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. I believe in voluntary society, and not forces socialization. Which is what a "social country" is, especially a democracy where under ideal conditions 50.1% of the population impose their will on the 49.9%. >Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. I use logic, and reason to define employment, not emotion. Most people are driven by their emotion not by logic. >If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. you have a contract for them to proved the labor you need in your business. Pay, benefits, etc are all designed to attract the best talent to give the business the best value for their labor dollar. As such it seems illogical to me to attract people that desire to get paid to do no labor. Etsy and all of the other companies that have been pressured into offering this policy by the pubic are betting on very few people actually making use of said benefit, and the ones that do not actually taking the full 26 weeks, I can not image a company surviving several employees all at once deciding to take 50% of the year off, paid. This is one of the High PR Value, but in reality will likely be low cost HR benefits to attract people, likely offer them lower base salary so they get the "feel good" benefit of 26 week maternity leave they will likely never use. Further it could limit their talent pool as people like me would not be likely to to accept employment unless there are other benefits that would be applicable to non-child employees. Offering 26 weeks of leave for having a child is meaningless to me, and will not entice me to join Etsy as an employee, and unless there is something to counter balance it will actively deter my willingness to work for them >In short, your argument seems rather egocentric Employment is egocentric, no one works for the "good of humanity" every one works to support themselves. People may find other reasons and motivations with in the employment, but very few would continue working for their employer under a "I won the lottery" situation.
- lmm 11y ago
  I think allowing anyone to take unpaid leave is the best way forward for a lot of companies. (Allowing part-time work - something which improves inclusivity for a whole host of marginalized groups - could actually just be a special case of this). That doesn't involve anyone subsidizing anything, everyone's treated fairly, and people are quite likely more productive per paid hour when they have more time off. It's win-win.
jkot 11y ago
Compare it to sick leave: I am healthy person, but I feel jealous of people who are sick and take extended leave . I would feel more included if healthy people could also take sick leave..
- the_ancient 11y ago
  This is why many companies have replaced their Sick leave policy with Personal Time off, or PTO policies People accrue time off, that time off can be used for anything, Illness, or just because you are having a bad day. >take extended leave Most companies do not offer "extended paid leave" for illness either, that would be covered under your healh insurance, unemployment, or some other supplemental insurance policy (aka AFLAC). FMLA requires a company give you unpaid extended leave for illness, not paid.
- pixelmonkey 11y ago
  What a bizarre comparison. People do not choose to become sick -- at least not usually! One would hope that in a modern society, most people choose to have children, although it is true that sometimes becoming a parent can happen outside the realm of choice. Even then, though, the comparison falls down, as extended leave due to sickness is usually covered by disability insurance rather than by employers. Company policies cannot possibly cover every life circumstance but one hopes that over time companies who value their employees offer (fair) policies that make work a little more compatible with the common circumstances of life that tend to be out of the control of employees.
  - jkot 11y ago
    Why bizarre? It is not like one can choose when wife has complications after pregnancy, kid gets sick or suspended from school. One can not choose to "pause" parentship.
    - pixelmonkey 11y ago
      But nothing you list there is a reason for parental leave. The concept of parental leave is to spend time taking care of a new child while adjusting to the changes of parenthood. Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. Choosing to have a dog (or not) and choosing to have a child (or not) are life choices about time and money investments in taking care of another being, and in the right circumstances they are choices! I imagine a company with a puppy leave policy (however absurd on the surface) would cause jealousy in coworkers who choose to have children, instead. And, rightfully so! One can not "pause" parentship, it is true. But one can and should choose parentship in most circumstances, and one should not expect an employer to provide special relief from all its obligations, financial/time/otherwise. Employers should instead provide adequate comp and leave to all its employees, regardless of their life choices. It is ultimately about fairness and a rule that says employees deserve what they earn and don't get unreasonably special treatment for choices that are, frankly, none of the company's business.
DanBC 11y ago
Maybe a company that has good parental leave policies will also do well in other policies that might affect you? Bob may not have children, but does have an elderly parent with dementia that he cares for, and that means he sometimes needs time off with little notice. Or Bob breaks an arm and wants to know he's not going to lose his job. Or worse his arm is amputated, and he wants to onow his company is goingto make an effort with reasonable adjustments.
- extra88 11y ago
  If Bob breaks his arm, he doesn't have to worry about losing his job because federal law protects it (FMLA). If he loses his arm, federal law requires he keep his job if he can perform it with reasonable accommodations (ADA). FMLA also covers the elderly parent scenario. One doesn't need to depend on the "kindness" of a companies policies for these. They're also not really equivalent, they're not elective, child rearing is. I get that propagation of the species is a common life activity and it's reasonable for it to have special benefits. The U.S. should have a paid family leave law for it. Still, it would be nice to have something for life's other pursuits.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > If he loses his arm, federal law requires he keep his job if he can perform it with reasonable accommodations (ADA). You might want to ask disabled people[1] about their experiences of being discriminated against despite the presence of these laws. [1] or people with caring responsibilities, or people who need sick leave, or etc.
    - extra88 11y ago
      I'm well-aware but "we follow the law" isn't a company policy to crow about.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        I agree. There's a difference between "we follow the letter of the law, doing the bare minimum we can get away with" and "we follow the spirit of the law, going above and beyond what we're required to do".
pixelmonkey 11y ago
There are actually companies that have a policy like this so that time off is granted to long-term employees who do not have children, while using the same time off as additional maternity/paternity leave people can "use early" (& above the state-mandated 2 weeks of parental leave) if life circumstances end up with them having a child earlier. I know this because I run one such company and helped develop the policy -- the company is http://parse.ly http://parse.ly btw :) We call it a "sabbatical", and it is five weeks of paid leave, meant to be used all at once after 4 years at the company, or used early by parents when they have children. The Etsy policy of 26 weeks is certainly generous but honestly quite difficult for a small startup to offer. A big company like Etsy has a much smaller probability that several people on leave at the same time means an "entire department" is no longer staffed, whereas that would be a real possibility on our small team. We want to be fair to parents and non-parents alike, but we have to keep the lights on!
noelwelsh 11y ago
Looking after babies is damn hard work. They aren't having a holiday. They're having time off from work so they don't going fucking insane waking up three times a night to get puked on.
bigethan 11y ago
Do you sometimes get frustrated with not being allowed to park close to the office in the handicap parking spots? Do you feel jealous of your handicapped co-workers? What about co-workers who are addicted to cigarettes and get to take smoke breaks? Children are a known hardship, but you don't really see it because it happens at your co-worker's homes and it's deemed unprofessional to talk about it at the office. Also, it sometimes appears to be rewarding. Trust me, we're not cheating the system, you shouldn't be jealous. Every other country in the world has this "perk" baked into their laws of government. But because the US is so pro-corporation only something that is necessary to treat workers with respect gets lumped into the "perk" category with your free fitbit and monthly massages.
- olderthanilook 11y ago
  I know it's hard work, but I imagine if they have 6 months off with their families that they are getting to unwind in a way that I probably never will mid-career when limited to a couple of weeks per year. I don't imagine that it's all hardship all 6 months.
  - jbob2000 11y ago
    Oh buddy, if you think they're "unwinding" while on parental leave, I got news for you. They probably got 2 hours of sleep for that entire 6 months.
    - lox 11y ago
      When I took time off when my daughter was born, it was seriously the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Building a successful business or building great products pales in comparison to trying to raise a human. Going back to work was basically like taking a holiday.
- driverdan 11y ago
  > Do you sometimes get frustrated with not being allowed to park close to the office in the handicap parking spots? Do you feel jealous of your handicapped co-workers? A handicapped parking spot is an accommodation to help compensate for a disability. It is not comparable to having a child. > What about co-workers who are addicted to cigarettes and get to take smoke breaks? You don't have to smoke to take breaks. Companies don't offer exclusive breaks for smokers anymore.

roel_v 11y ago

Look I see your point, but where to draw the line? Let's say you start working somewhere @ 21, take a paid 6-month leave without having children at 26, then decide to have a child at 30. Should they get another leave? What about contractors/the self-employed? Who should pay for that? How can such policies ever be implemented in a 'fair' way when 'fair' can be 'anything I feel' ?

the_ancient 11y ago
Most employer parental leave is per child, so it not limited to 1 leave but 1 leave per child. Thus if a person has more than 1 child they get more than 1 leave Why do you believe this should be different for the childless person?
- darklajid 11y ago
  Because one party has a new rather huge burden, both consuming time and money (I love my kids, but let's be honest here: The first month/the first year isn't all roses). They don't slack off, they produced a tax payer that will likely secure your future pension (depends on your country and social security structure ofc). This is not a vacation. Even comparing that seems rather laughable, honestly. We're talking about common decency here - offsprings need one person to look after them and at least for a while it should be one of the parents. Trying to game the system is .. disturbing, really. The real problem is that Etsy makes the news with their policy, not random childless persons trying to fly around the world for a while.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    this is where people get all confused as to what employment is. Employment is an exchange of labor for money, you are trading your knowledge, time and experience to preform work for a company in exchange for money. it is not a family, the company has no obligation to "look out for your" or your actual family if you are not preforming work, you should not be paid. Period, it is as simple as that You "making a new tax payer" or what ever is not relevant to the topic if employment Further I do not expect anyone other than myself to secure my retirement. I will likely not retire, I have no plans to. I plan on working in some form until I die.
    - darklajid 11y ago
      We're living in different worlds. While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Let me state first that I'll be the first to understand that people opt to have no kids - I myself was certain that I'd never have kids, never want kids until I reached 30+ and I still see the trade-offs, the benefits. Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. People having kids isn't a fad or some new fashion, it's basic (human) nature. You wouldn't be able to make your case without people opting to carry that burden (it's also hugely rewarding, but we're discussing time off here and that's explicitly to help parents to manage this .. interesting times). In short, your argument seems rather egocentric and the whole thread is reading like a min-maxing discussion on a RPG online board. But then again, you also claim that taxes are theft and I don't think there's enough (or any?) common ground to argue here. Your expressed opinions are about as anti-social as anything I've ever read on this board and I honestly cannot imagine under which circumstances people could come up with values like these.
      - the_ancient 11y ago
        >We're living in different worlds. Likely, I am a Geo-Libertarian Agorist that believes in a society free from Statism and Coercion by Government >While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. I believe in voluntary society, and not forces socialization. Which is what a "social country" is, especially a democracy where under ideal conditions 50.1% of the population impose their will on the 49.9%. >Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. I use logic, and reason to define employment, not emotion. Most people are driven by their emotion not by logic. >If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. you have a contract for them to proved the labor you need in your business. Pay, benefits, etc are all designed to attract the best talent to give the business the best value for their labor dollar. As such it seems illogical to me to attract people that desire to get paid to do no labor. Etsy and all of the other companies that have been pressured into offering this policy by the pubic are betting on very few people actually making use of said benefit, and the ones that do not actually taking the full 26 weeks, I can not image a company surviving several employees all at once deciding to take 50% of the year off, paid. This is one of the High PR Value, but in reality will likely be low cost HR benefits to attract people, likely offer them lower base salary so they get the "feel good" benefit of 26 week maternity leave they will likely never use. Further it could limit their talent pool as people like me would not be likely to to accept employment unless there are other benefits that would be applicable to non-child employees. Offering 26 weeks of leave for having a child is meaningless to me, and will not entice me to join Etsy as an employee, and unless there is something to counter balance it will actively deter my willingness to work for them >In short, your argument seems rather egocentric Employment is egocentric, no one works for the "good of humanity" every one works to support themselves. People may find other reasons and motivations with in the employment, but very few would continue working for their employer under a "I won the lottery" situation.
lmm 11y ago
I think allowing anyone to take unpaid leave is the best way forward for a lot of companies. (Allowing part-time work - something which improves inclusivity for a whole host of marginalized groups - could actually just be a special case of this). That doesn't involve anyone subsidizing anything, everyone's treated fairly, and people are quite likely more productive per paid hour when they have more time off. It's win-win.

jkot 11y ago

Compare it to sick leave: I am healthy person, but I feel jealous of people who are sick and take extended leave . I would feel more included if healthy people could also take sick leave..

the_ancient 11y ago
This is why many companies have replaced their Sick leave policy with Personal Time off, or PTO policies People accrue time off, that time off can be used for anything, Illness, or just because you are having a bad day. >take extended leave Most companies do not offer "extended paid leave" for illness either, that would be covered under your healh insurance, unemployment, or some other supplemental insurance policy (aka AFLAC). FMLA requires a company give you unpaid extended leave for illness, not paid.
pixelmonkey 11y ago
What a bizarre comparison. People do not choose to become sick -- at least not usually! One would hope that in a modern society, most people choose to have children, although it is true that sometimes becoming a parent can happen outside the realm of choice. Even then, though, the comparison falls down, as extended leave due to sickness is usually covered by disability insurance rather than by employers. Company policies cannot possibly cover every life circumstance but one hopes that over time companies who value their employees offer (fair) policies that make work a little more compatible with the common circumstances of life that tend to be out of the control of employees.
- jkot 11y ago
  Why bizarre? It is not like one can choose when wife has complications after pregnancy, kid gets sick or suspended from school. One can not choose to "pause" parentship.
  - pixelmonkey 11y ago
    But nothing you list there is a reason for parental leave. The concept of parental leave is to spend time taking care of a new child while adjusting to the changes of parenthood. Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. Choosing to have a dog (or not) and choosing to have a child (or not) are life choices about time and money investments in taking care of another being, and in the right circumstances they are choices! I imagine a company with a puppy leave policy (however absurd on the surface) would cause jealousy in coworkers who choose to have children, instead. And, rightfully so! One can not "pause" parentship, it is true. But one can and should choose parentship in most circumstances, and one should not expect an employer to provide special relief from all its obligations, financial/time/otherwise. Employers should instead provide adequate comp and leave to all its employees, regardless of their life choices. It is ultimately about fairness and a rule that says employees deserve what they earn and don't get unreasonably special treatment for choices that are, frankly, none of the company's business.

DanBC 11y ago

Maybe a company that has good parental leave policies will also do well in other policies that might affect you? Bob may not have children, but does have an elderly parent with dementia that he cares for, and that means he sometimes needs time off with little notice. Or Bob breaks an arm and wants to know he's not going to lose his job. Or worse his arm is amputated, and he wants to onow his company is goingto make an effort with reasonable adjustments.

extra88 11y ago
If Bob breaks his arm, he doesn't have to worry about losing his job because federal law protects it (FMLA). If he loses his arm, federal law requires he keep his job if he can perform it with reasonable accommodations (ADA). FMLA also covers the elderly parent scenario. One doesn't need to depend on the "kindness" of a companies policies for these. They're also not really equivalent, they're not elective, child rearing is. I get that propagation of the species is a common life activity and it's reasonable for it to have special benefits. The U.S. should have a paid family leave law for it. Still, it would be nice to have something for life's other pursuits.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > If he loses his arm, federal law requires he keep his job if he can perform it with reasonable accommodations (ADA). You might want to ask disabled people[1] about their experiences of being discriminated against despite the presence of these laws. [1] or people with caring responsibilities, or people who need sick leave, or etc.
  - extra88 11y ago
    I'm well-aware but "we follow the law" isn't a company policy to crow about.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      I agree. There's a difference between "we follow the letter of the law, doing the bare minimum we can get away with" and "we follow the spirit of the law, going above and beyond what we're required to do".

pixelmonkey 11y ago

There are actually companies that have a policy like this so that time off is granted to long-term employees who do not have children, while using the same time off as additional maternity/paternity leave people can "use early" (& above the state-mandated 2 weeks of parental leave) if life circumstances end up with them having a child earlier. I know this because I run one such company and helped develop the policy -- the company is http://parse.ly http://parse.ly btw :) We call it a "sabbatical", and it is five weeks of paid leave, meant to be used all at once after 4 years at the company, or used early by parents when they have children. The Etsy policy of 26 weeks is certainly generous but honestly quite difficult for a small startup to offer. A big company like Etsy has a much smaller probability that several people on leave at the same time means an "entire department" is no longer staffed, whereas that would be a real possibility on our small team. We want to be fair to parents and non-parents alike, but we have to keep the lights on!

noelwelsh 11y ago

Looking after babies is damn hard work. They aren't having a holiday. They're having time off from work so they don't going fucking insane waking up three times a night to get puked on.

bigethan 11y ago

Do you sometimes get frustrated with not being allowed to park close to the office in the handicap parking spots? Do you feel jealous of your handicapped co-workers? What about co-workers who are addicted to cigarettes and get to take smoke breaks? Children are a known hardship, but you don't really see it because it happens at your co-worker's homes and it's deemed unprofessional to talk about it at the office. Also, it sometimes appears to be rewarding. Trust me, we're not cheating the system, you shouldn't be jealous. Every other country in the world has this "perk" baked into their laws of government. But because the US is so pro-corporation only something that is necessary to treat workers with respect gets lumped into the "perk" category with your free fitbit and monthly massages.

olderthanilook 11y ago
I know it's hard work, but I imagine if they have 6 months off with their families that they are getting to unwind in a way that I probably never will mid-career when limited to a couple of weeks per year. I don't imagine that it's all hardship all 6 months.
- jbob2000 11y ago
  Oh buddy, if you think they're "unwinding" while on parental leave, I got news for you. They probably got 2 hours of sleep for that entire 6 months.
  - lox 11y ago
    When I took time off when my daughter was born, it was seriously the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Building a successful business or building great products pales in comparison to trying to raise a human. Going back to work was basically like taking a holiday.
driverdan 11y ago
> Do you sometimes get frustrated with not being allowed to park close to the office in the handicap parking spots? Do you feel jealous of your handicapped co-workers? A handicapped parking spot is an accommodation to help compensate for a disability. It is not comparable to having a child. > What about co-workers who are addicted to cigarettes and get to take smoke breaks? You don't have to smoke to take breaks. Companies don't offer exclusive breaks for smokers anymore.