4 ms·

I was talking with a friend about this, that works at a big SV company that is known for high comp. Why don't they have a child care facility? Surely they can a

I was talking with a friend about this, that works at a big SV company that is known for high comp. Why don't they have a child care facility? Surely they can afford it! His response was - paraphrasing - "What happens if someone quits, or is fired? In SV/SF, waits for child care facilities can easily take 6-12 months. If someone is terminated from our company, the last thing we want for them to do is have a crisis about where their children are going to go." I believe they have a stipend, but I'm not sure about that. Of course, I can't say if this is Apple's rationale, but it wouldn't surprise me if that had something to do with it.

justinator 9y ago
In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. Other companies DO provide it. There's a on-site cafeteria, correct? Do they worry how people will get lunch if they quit/fired? Reservations in SV/SF can easily take 6-12 months. /s
- yazan94 9y ago
  > In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job. > I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. > Other companies DO provide it. Whats the difference between a daycare at your work or at a separate daycare building?
  - Someone1234 9y ago
    > Whats the difference between a daycare at your work or at a separate daycare building? Lower cost and fewer logistical issues I would imagine. You've just removed a 10~45 minute round trip commute to that separate building. That's twice a day every day, and if the kid gets sick or injured.
    - yazan94 9y ago
      That's a good point I didn't think of actually. Forgot about the extra commute time to/from the daycare.
  - justinator 9y ago
    > Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job. They, ultimately, have the responsibility to take care of their children, rather than always handing them off to a someone else - correct? If these jobs are so incompatible with raising children, what's the point of trying to raise children? Does it now seem wise why they companies of these jobs could provide childcare for the benefit of these employees? SV sounds like Hell on Earth.
    - khazhoux 9y ago
      If your child is not yet attending school, and you don't have a spouse/partner/grandparents to watch them during the day, then YES, that situation is quite literally incompatible with holding a job. That is in no way unique to Silicon Valley. It sounds like really you're critiquing parents in general for sending kids to daycare.
accountyaccount 9y ago
Seems like a bullshit excuse that's using the illusion of empathy (which is some extra infuriating bullshit). I'd much rather the option of on-site daycare and dealing with the fallout of leaving a job myself.
- valuearb 9y ago
  I'd rather not have my kids under the control of my company.
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    Then don't. Corporate childcare isn't mandatory... just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable to other working parents. I've considered employers I wouldn't have otherwise considered because the thought of on-site child care is incredibly appealing.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Child care is a competitive business that can almost always be provided better and cheaper elsewhere. So it's much better to use stipends to subsidize employee child care. Having child care is also an expensive distraction and liability for management. Do you want to deal with employee complaints over childcare hours, personnel, facilities, etc, or do you want to spend your time thinking about how to better sell product and keep employee's employed? What happens when an employee accuses a child-care worker of hurting their child?
      - accountyaccount 9y ago
        This is all a bunch of weird handwringing... >Child care is a competitive business that can almost always be provided better and cheaper elsewhere. So it's much better to use stipends to subsidize employee child care. Child care facilities aim for profit like any other business, and a corporate add-on doesn't need to seek profitability (and even if they did, assuming it's on-site the operational overhead is ultimately lower). So how exactly would outside facilities compete with that? >Having child care is also an expensive distraction and liability for management Having children is an expensive distraction whether or not your company is involved. If something happens at a remote daycare, your employee will leave the building to manage that. If there's a child-care gap that doesn't align with work schedules, your employee will take time off to deal with that. >What happens when an employee accuses a child-care worker of hurting their child? What happens when an employee accuses another employee of hurting them? >or do you want to spend your time thinking about how to better sell product and keep employee's employed I want to spend my time making a good product and making my employees lives easier so they can do their best work.
deegles 9y ago
If all companies had childcare that wouldn't be an issue...
justinator 9y ago
> Why don't they have a child care facility? That decision was made by a man?
- adventured 9y ago
  That's an obnoxious, sexist statement implying that men don't have at least equal concern as women for the well being & care of their children.
  - panic 9y ago
    Concern is not the same as responsibility. Our society puts more responsibility on women for childcare, in the sense that if it's messed up somehow, the blame tends to fall on the mother first. Men (in general) end up paying less attention to childcare, since they can get by with letting their wives take care of it, whereas women have a much harder time transferring this responsibility to their husbands.
  - Markoff 9y ago
    maybe he should write childless man working in IT, I would not be a bit surprised
gertef 9y ago
Same reason companies shouldn't provide healthcare. Macroeconomics is complicated. Why can't there be onsite third-party childcare? The problem here is the concept of a surburban "company town" office, instead of having an office building integrated into the wider community.

justinator 9y ago

In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. Other companies DO provide it. There's a on-site cafeteria, correct? Do they worry how people will get lunch if they quit/fired? Reservations in SV/SF can easily take 6-12 months. /s

yazan94 9y ago
> In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job. > I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. > Other companies DO provide it. Whats the difference between a daycare at your work or at a separate daycare building?
- Someone1234 9y ago
  > Whats the difference between a daycare at your work or at a separate daycare building? Lower cost and fewer logistical issues I would imagine. You've just removed a 10~45 minute round trip commute to that separate building. That's twice a day every day, and if the kid gets sick or injured.
  - yazan94 9y ago
    That's a good point I didn't think of actually. Forgot about the extra commute time to/from the daycare.
- justinator 9y ago
  > Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job. They, ultimately, have the responsibility to take care of their children, rather than always handing them off to a someone else - correct? If these jobs are so incompatible with raising children, what's the point of trying to raise children? Does it now seem wise why they companies of these jobs could provide childcare for the benefit of these employees? SV sounds like Hell on Earth.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    If your child is not yet attending school, and you don't have a spouse/partner/grandparents to watch them during the day, then YES, that situation is quite literally incompatible with holding a job. That is in no way unique to Silicon Valley. It sounds like really you're critiquing parents in general for sending kids to daycare.

accountyaccount 9y ago

Seems like a bullshit excuse that's using the illusion of empathy (which is some extra infuriating bullshit). I'd much rather the option of on-site daycare and dealing with the fallout of leaving a job myself.

valuearb 9y ago
I'd rather not have my kids under the control of my company.
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  Then don't. Corporate childcare isn't mandatory... just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable to other working parents. I've considered employers I wouldn't have otherwise considered because the thought of on-site child care is incredibly appealing.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Child care is a competitive business that can almost always be provided better and cheaper elsewhere. So it's much better to use stipends to subsidize employee child care. Having child care is also an expensive distraction and liability for management. Do you want to deal with employee complaints over childcare hours, personnel, facilities, etc, or do you want to spend your time thinking about how to better sell product and keep employee's employed? What happens when an employee accuses a child-care worker of hurting their child?
    - accountyaccount 9y ago
      This is all a bunch of weird handwringing... >Child care is a competitive business that can almost always be provided better and cheaper elsewhere. So it's much better to use stipends to subsidize employee child care. Child care facilities aim for profit like any other business, and a corporate add-on doesn't need to seek profitability (and even if they did, assuming it's on-site the operational overhead is ultimately lower). So how exactly would outside facilities compete with that? >Having child care is also an expensive distraction and liability for management Having children is an expensive distraction whether or not your company is involved. If something happens at a remote daycare, your employee will leave the building to manage that. If there's a child-care gap that doesn't align with work schedules, your employee will take time off to deal with that. >What happens when an employee accuses a child-care worker of hurting their child? What happens when an employee accuses another employee of hurting them? >or do you want to spend your time thinking about how to better sell product and keep employee's employed I want to spend my time making a good product and making my employees lives easier so they can do their best work.

deegles 9y ago

If all companies had childcare that wouldn't be an issue...

justinator 9y ago

> Why don't they have a child care facility? That decision was made by a man?

adventured 9y ago
That's an obnoxious, sexist statement implying that men don't have at least equal concern as women for the well being & care of their children.
- panic 9y ago
  Concern is not the same as responsibility. Our society puts more responsibility on women for childcare, in the sense that if it's messed up somehow, the blame tends to fall on the mother first. Men (in general) end up paying less attention to childcare, since they can get by with letting their wives take care of it, whereas women have a much harder time transferring this responsibility to their husbands.
- Markoff 9y ago
  maybe he should write childless man working in IT, I would not be a bit surprised

gertef 9y ago

Same reason companies shouldn't provide healthcare. Macroeconomics is complicated. Why can't there be onsite third-party childcare? The problem here is the concept of a surburban "company town" office, instead of having an office building integrated into the wider community.