6 ms·

Kudos to Kapwing for being attentive to their employee's family and emotional lives. However, it's irritating that parents receive perks at the expense of sing

Kudos to Kapwing for being attentive to their employee's family and emotional lives. However, it's irritating that parents receive perks at the expense of single and childfree employees (who don't get weeks of time off for _their_ families, and who are expected to cover for the parents on leave). IMHO, all employees should get the same amount of time off, regardless of whether or not they have children.

loriverkutya 8y ago
I guess your humble opinion would change if you had a child.
- Balero 8y ago
  So if he was to benefit from it, his opinion would change? Its' obvious it is likely it would.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Would OP be envious of someone's leave while they were battling cancer? Benefits exist because we have collectively decided they increase quality of life. Not everyone will have children, but that are necessary for a vibrant, healthy economy (in the long term) and to provide societal continuance. Therefore, the benefit provided to parents is valuable, both to the parents and to society.
sevensor 8y ago
> who don't get weeks of time off for _their_ families, and who are expected to cover for the parents on leave I'd be all for policies that supported caring for an ailing spouse or parent also. But let me tell you, taking care of a new baby is about as far from "time off" as it's possible to get. It's hard, stressful work, and if you discourage paternity leave or imply that it's equivalent to vacation time, you're implying that it's womens' work.
- Balero 8y ago
  Would "time away" be better do you think. I mean they are "off of work" as in not at their job. If you took some time off to do something else equally taxing I would normally refer to it as time off, probably with a caveat in day to day situations, just like if they were on parental leave. Thinking about it I probably wouldn't if someone was taking time away from work for reserves work (military, fire service, etc).
  - sevensor 8y ago
    I suppose "time away" would work, but that's basically what we mean by "leave" as well. What got my dander up was the implication that me taking leave to be with my spouse and infant child (which I did not get the opportunity to do) is the same as vacation time.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - crasch4 8y ago
      I agree that raising children is taxing. However, the mere fact that you _chose_ to do an activity that is taxing does not, to my mind, entitle you to impose costs on your fellow employees. Volunteering for the Peace Corp is taxing, caring for elderly parents is taxing, climbing Mt. Everest is taxing. Yet, alone of all those activities, parents think they deserve to be subsidized.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Only those having children are choosing a taxing activity that essentially everyone who hopes to retire is depending on, since—public or private, defined benefit or defined contribution—virtually every retirement option relies on the economic activity of generations after those of the retiree.
      - sevensor 8y ago
        You're suggesting that parents are some kind of limited special-interest class, as if we're snowboarders asking for powder leave, rather than the overwhelming majority of people. The question of how we treat parents is really a question of how we all want to treat each other -- whether we want to give people support when their children are born, or whether we would prefer to force them to choose between work and family. Furthermore, since this is a discussion about paternity in particular, speaking out against paternity leave is speaking out against women working outside the home. I regard this as a very regressive position and unjust to women.
quotemstr 8y ago
No. Having children is, well, literally the activity most essential to the survival of society and our species itself. Of course people should get extra time off to do it. The problem isn't that we have too many natalist incentives. The problem is that we don't have enough of them! The replacement rate is below replacement in general, and it's worse in cities. If children, fine. But I don't begrudge people who do.
- Sileni 8y ago
  That suggests that "more people" is an unmitigated good, which I don't believe. There has never been a time when you were more able to avoid unplanned childbirth. The number of children in foster care has been increasing since 2013.[0]Whatever good could be done by having a child could be done better by acknowledging some of the people already in this world and giving them a real shot. We're all responsible for any situation that becomes a "tragedy of the commons", and we need to start behaving like it. [0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567615510/number-of-american-children-in-foster-care-increases-for-4th-consecutive-year https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567615510...
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    There's nothing wrong with wanting your kids to be your own, nor with the desire to ensure that part of you makes it to the next generation. I'm sick of anti-humanism backlash against doing the thing that every organism ultimately exists to do.
    - Sileni 8y ago
      Considering humans are the demonstrated reason for climate change, I'd argue some anti-human sentiment is a bit overdue. Nature's going to be fine. Life will recover once we're gone. It's us humans that are going to suffer because of our humanist entitlement.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
dmm 8y ago
> IMHO, all employees should get the same amount of time off, regardless of whether or not they have children. Parents get more time off than non-parents and that's unfair? That's an understandable perspective but here's another one. 1) Children don't get to choose whether to be born. Infants and post-partum women are vulnerable people and giving parents time off helps protect these vulnerable people. Looking at this from the perspective of what's best for the child it's clear that paternal leave is very important. 2) People have a choice of where to work and at least in the US, employers are free to choose compensation that they feel will attract the workers they want. I know several people who have chosen where to work based on paternal leave policies. 3) Life is unfair. If I made a list of injustices in the world an infant spending a few extra weeks with daddy isn't even in the first 1000.
- Sileni 8y ago
  Re: 1) But parents decide to have children, and they have the responsibility for caring for those "vulnerable people". I'm not saying they don't need more time, but to say they've been put into some untenable situation that must be dealt with by everyone else is absurd. There's never been more access to birth control or knowledge about the reproductive process. There's never been a point in the world where there was less space for another child. Looking from at this from the perspective of what's best for children, having a child is selfish. Adoption doesn't add people to the world and would decrease overall suffering assuming you're a better parent than the foster system. 2) This is recently becoming a national issue, as it well should be. There needs to be a mechanism in place to protect the employees surrounding parental leave if it's going to be enshrined in national law. I don't think you can make the argument that businesses don't have a history of pushing the costs of regulation onto their employees when possible. 3) By that argument bringing up parental leave at all is a completely moot point. We have nearly 438,000 children in the foster system.[0] 45% of all child deaths are from malnutrition.[1] If I made a list of injustices in the world, a parent being unable to spend every waking moment with their child for a couple months isn't even in the first 1,000. [0]: http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/ http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-c... [1]: https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/ https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-a...
LitFan 8y ago
Society has decided that having children is important, and individuals, companies, and governments encourage that activity by providing benefits like these.
ryandrake 8y ago
Honestly I had the same initial reaction. It’s kind of like sick leave: people who get sick a lot use it and people who are healthy cannot. Perversely incentivizes getting sick. The alternative is “paid time off” which can be used if you’re sick or for vacation. Unfortunately this means you can blow half your vacation time for the year by getting a cold that lasts a week. Just provide more time off to everyone and don’t bucket it into specific purposes. Why does your employer need to know whether you’re using your allotted time off for vacation, taking care of a kid, or due to illness? I’d argue it’s none of the employer’s business.
- mmt 8y ago
  > Perversely incentivizes getting sick. This is a stretch, since "getting sick" isn't generally something one controls directly. At most, it could incentivize illness-risking behavior. However, even then, to be an incentive, the benefit of paid leave combined with being sick during that leave would have to be more attractive than being healthy and working, which is not a foregone conclusion. Instead, lacking distinct sick leave perversely incentivizes getting coworkers sick (in situations that a sickness is contagious and workers are co-located). Rather, it incentivizes the risky behavior, where the risk is borne by everyone else and, by extension, the employer.
mkj 8y ago
Did your parents get any benefits when you were a child?
burfog 8y ago
It's a benefit for the children, not the parents. Because everybody gets to be a child exactly once, everybody benefits equally. That includes you. You can be gay or a Catholic priest, and you benefit. Ignoring the fact that you had no choice and that benefits may have been different back when you were born, it isn't fair for you to take these benefits as a child and then deny them to the next generation.

loriverkutya 8y ago

I guess your humble opinion would change if you had a child.

Balero 8y ago
So if he was to benefit from it, his opinion would change? Its' obvious it is likely it would.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Would OP be envious of someone's leave while they were battling cancer? Benefits exist because we have collectively decided they increase quality of life. Not everyone will have children, but that are necessary for a vibrant, healthy economy (in the long term) and to provide societal continuance. Therefore, the benefit provided to parents is valuable, both to the parents and to society.

sevensor 8y ago

> who don't get weeks of time off for _their_ families, and who are expected to cover for the parents on leave I'd be all for policies that supported caring for an ailing spouse or parent also. But let me tell you, taking care of a new baby is about as far from "time off" as it's possible to get. It's hard, stressful work, and if you discourage paternity leave or imply that it's equivalent to vacation time, you're implying that it's womens' work.

Balero 8y ago
Would "time away" be better do you think. I mean they are "off of work" as in not at their job. If you took some time off to do something else equally taxing I would normally refer to it as time off, probably with a caveat in day to day situations, just like if they were on parental leave. Thinking about it I probably wouldn't if someone was taking time away from work for reserves work (military, fire service, etc).
- sevensor 8y ago
  I suppose "time away" would work, but that's basically what we mean by "leave" as well. What got my dander up was the implication that me taking leave to be with my spouse and infant child (which I did not get the opportunity to do) is the same as vacation time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - crasch4 8y ago
    I agree that raising children is taxing. However, the mere fact that you _chose_ to do an activity that is taxing does not, to my mind, entitle you to impose costs on your fellow employees. Volunteering for the Peace Corp is taxing, caring for elderly parents is taxing, climbing Mt. Everest is taxing. Yet, alone of all those activities, parents think they deserve to be subsidized.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Only those having children are choosing a taxing activity that essentially everyone who hopes to retire is depending on, since—public or private, defined benefit or defined contribution—virtually every retirement option relies on the economic activity of generations after those of the retiree.
    - sevensor 8y ago
      You're suggesting that parents are some kind of limited special-interest class, as if we're snowboarders asking for powder leave, rather than the overwhelming majority of people. The question of how we treat parents is really a question of how we all want to treat each other -- whether we want to give people support when their children are born, or whether we would prefer to force them to choose between work and family. Furthermore, since this is a discussion about paternity in particular, speaking out against paternity leave is speaking out against women working outside the home. I regard this as a very regressive position and unjust to women.

quotemstr 8y ago

No. Having children is, well, literally the activity most essential to the survival of society and our species itself. Of course people should get extra time off to do it. The problem isn't that we have too many natalist incentives. The problem is that we don't have enough of them! The replacement rate is below replacement in general, and it's worse in cities. If children, fine. But I don't begrudge people who do.

Sileni 8y ago
That suggests that "more people" is an unmitigated good, which I don't believe. There has never been a time when you were more able to avoid unplanned childbirth. The number of children in foster care has been increasing since 2013.[0]Whatever good could be done by having a child could be done better by acknowledging some of the people already in this world and giving them a real shot. We're all responsible for any situation that becomes a "tragedy of the commons", and we need to start behaving like it. [0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567615510/number-of-american-children-in-foster-care-increases-for-4th-consecutive-year https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567615510...
- quotemstr 8y ago
  There's nothing wrong with wanting your kids to be your own, nor with the desire to ensure that part of you makes it to the next generation. I'm sick of anti-humanism backlash against doing the thing that every organism ultimately exists to do.
  - Sileni 8y ago
    Considering humans are the demonstrated reason for climate change, I'd argue some anti-human sentiment is a bit overdue. Nature's going to be fine. Life will recover once we're gone. It's us humans that are going to suffer because of our humanist entitlement.
    - quotemstr 8y ago

dmm 8y ago

> IMHO, all employees should get the same amount of time off, regardless of whether or not they have children. Parents get more time off than non-parents and that's unfair? That's an understandable perspective but here's another one. 1) Children don't get to choose whether to be born. Infants and post-partum women are vulnerable people and giving parents time off helps protect these vulnerable people. Looking at this from the perspective of what's best for the child it's clear that paternal leave is very important. 2) People have a choice of where to work and at least in the US, employers are free to choose compensation that they feel will attract the workers they want. I know several people who have chosen where to work based on paternal leave policies. 3) Life is unfair. If I made a list of injustices in the world an infant spending a few extra weeks with daddy isn't even in the first 1000.

Sileni 8y ago
Re: 1) But parents decide to have children, and they have the responsibility for caring for those "vulnerable people". I'm not saying they don't need more time, but to say they've been put into some untenable situation that must be dealt with by everyone else is absurd. There's never been more access to birth control or knowledge about the reproductive process. There's never been a point in the world where there was less space for another child. Looking from at this from the perspective of what's best for children, having a child is selfish. Adoption doesn't add people to the world and would decrease overall suffering assuming you're a better parent than the foster system. 2) This is recently becoming a national issue, as it well should be. There needs to be a mechanism in place to protect the employees surrounding parental leave if it's going to be enshrined in national law. I don't think you can make the argument that businesses don't have a history of pushing the costs of regulation onto their employees when possible. 3) By that argument bringing up parental leave at all is a completely moot point. We have nearly 438,000 children in the foster system.[0] 45% of all child deaths are from malnutrition.[1] If I made a list of injustices in the world, a parent being unable to spend every waking moment with their child for a couple months isn't even in the first 1,000. [0]: http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/ http://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-c... [1]: https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/ https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-a...

LitFan 8y ago

Society has decided that having children is important, and individuals, companies, and governments encourage that activity by providing benefits like these.

ryandrake 8y ago

Honestly I had the same initial reaction. It’s kind of like sick leave: people who get sick a lot use it and people who are healthy cannot. Perversely incentivizes getting sick. The alternative is “paid time off” which can be used if you’re sick or for vacation. Unfortunately this means you can blow half your vacation time for the year by getting a cold that lasts a week. Just provide more time off to everyone and don’t bucket it into specific purposes. Why does your employer need to know whether you’re using your allotted time off for vacation, taking care of a kid, or due to illness? I’d argue it’s none of the employer’s business.

mmt 8y ago
> Perversely incentivizes getting sick. This is a stretch, since "getting sick" isn't generally something one controls directly. At most, it could incentivize illness-risking behavior. However, even then, to be an incentive, the benefit of paid leave combined with being sick during that leave would have to be more attractive than being healthy and working, which is not a foregone conclusion. Instead, lacking distinct sick leave perversely incentivizes getting coworkers sick (in situations that a sickness is contagious and workers are co-located). Rather, it incentivizes the risky behavior, where the risk is borne by everyone else and, by extension, the employer.

mkj 8y ago

Did your parents get any benefits when you were a child?

burfog 8y ago

It's a benefit for the children, not the parents. Because everybody gets to be a child exactly once, everybody benefits equally. That includes you. You can be gay or a Catholic priest, and you benefit. Ignoring the fact that you had no choice and that benefits may have been different back when you were born, it isn't fair for you to take these benefits as a child and then deny them to the next generation.