6 ms·

Very well-said! Wouldn't it be nice if we knew going in which companies understand this? I'd like to see more companies state these ideas explicitly in their va

by aklemm 8y ago

Very well-said! Wouldn't it be nice if we knew going in which companies understand this? I'd like to see more companies state these ideas explicitly in their values.

dominotw 8y ago
Sounds discriminatory against ppl who don't have kids and are over 40. 'work to death when you are young or raise family when you are old' is not a good 'value', imo. Your employer shouldn't have some 'values' about what you do outside work.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > Sounds discriminatory against ppl who don't have kids and are over 40. The economy ceases to exist if, in the long run, couples don't have at least 2.1 kids on average. People are free to not have kids, of course, but having them serves an essential social function and it's not "discriminatory" to have values that accommodate that.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    So what does that value imply about ppl without kids? That they should be putting more hours in or have less flexible schedules? Why not have resonable work schedules for everyone, children or not. I just dont' get why employers have to come up with discriminatory policies for the 'good of the economy'. I would rather support a transparent 'tax childess ppl more' govt policies that these insidious "values". Whatever happened to the value that your employer shouldn't care what you do outside of work.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Employers are part of society and have to accommodate peoples' human functions. Requiring employers to make bathrooms available and giving bathroom breaks is reasonable, as is requiring employers to provide say parental leave (even if childless people can't use it). Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing--expecting people to regularly be in the office after typical daycare closing times is a bad thing to do.
      - dominotw 8y ago
        > requiring employers to provide say parental leave You pivoted into govt laws on employers. That is not what we are discussing here though, I was referring to "values" that employers come up with voluntarily. I don't have any issues with clearly laid out govt policies. > Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing I don't disagree with this as long as everyone can use this flexibility.
        rayiner 8y ago
        By "requiring" I mean in terms of social expectations, not government laws. Many policies, e.g. lunch breaks, are "required" by social norms, not law. (Only a minority of states require lunch breaks; bathroom breaks are not required for the most part either: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/labor-employment-top-blogs/posts/no-bathroom-breaks-for-you https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/...) E.g. Most tech companies offer far more than the minimum FMLA required leave. That reflects "'values' that employers come up with voluntarily." That's also based on social expectations--a tech company that only offered the legally required minimum leave would get a lot of bad publicity for violating social norms, even though it would be legal to do so. Finally, it's not "discriminatory" even though childless people can't take advantage of such leave.
        dominotw 8y ago
        > That's also based on social expectations--a tech company that only offered the legally required minimum leave would get a lot of bad publicity for violating social norms, even though it would be legal to do so. This has nothing to do with social expectations. Why would society have expectations just on tech companies. This is a result of skewed labor market due to our immigration policies. See what happens to those social expectations once we bump up h1b visas to a mil/yr( also you know "good for the economy" [1]). 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-12/cuts-to-h-1b-visas-for-skilled-immigrants-hurt-u-s-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-12/cuts-t...
        aklemm 8y ago
    - kiriakasis 8y ago
      I think you might have misunderstood the suggestion. Giving people enough time to manage a family is different from giving more time to people who have families. An employer might prefer having employees with children for a variety of reason and mostly would treat "family benefits" as method to hire older more experienced people.
      - dominotw 8y ago
        > An employer might prefer having employees with children Isn't this straight up illegal? Only straight ppl can have children, for example.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        I have several gay friends with children. But yes, at least in California it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.
        kiriakasis 8y ago
        > it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews. This is to avoid so discriminate against people without children, an objectively right objective. Still you can accommodate the needs of people with children as a sort of "levelling the field". The same way you can accommodate the needs of minorities by making sure that office culture is respectful of their identities. If I can go a bit off-topic in both cases the specific demography you are trying to help might be just an example of a common human trait that is just easier to see in some people. Sometimes single men want to work part-time and white rich people do not like racist jokes.
        ethagnawl 8y ago
        > Only straight ppl can have children, for example. This "example" is demonstrably false.
        dominotw 8y ago
        yeah you are right. bad example.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Accommodating employees with kids is great. Discriminating against people who don't have kids is wrong, and illegal. For what it's worth, the first 2 startups I was a founder of in Silicon Valley had a bunch of founders with kids.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

by aklemm 8y ago

Very well-said! Wouldn't it be nice if we knew going in which companies understand this? I'd like to see more companies state these ideas explicitly in their values.

dominotw 8y ago

Sounds discriminatory against ppl who don't have kids and are over 40. 'work to death when you are young or raise family when you are old' is not a good 'value', imo. Your employer shouldn't have some 'values' about what you do outside work.

rayiner 8y ago
> Sounds discriminatory against ppl who don't have kids and are over 40. The economy ceases to exist if, in the long run, couples don't have at least 2.1 kids on average. People are free to not have kids, of course, but having them serves an essential social function and it's not "discriminatory" to have values that accommodate that.
- dominotw 8y ago
  So what does that value imply about ppl without kids? That they should be putting more hours in or have less flexible schedules? Why not have resonable work schedules for everyone, children or not. I just dont' get why employers have to come up with discriminatory policies for the 'good of the economy'. I would rather support a transparent 'tax childess ppl more' govt policies that these insidious "values". Whatever happened to the value that your employer shouldn't care what you do outside of work.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Employers are part of society and have to accommodate peoples' human functions. Requiring employers to make bathrooms available and giving bathroom breaks is reasonable, as is requiring employers to provide say parental leave (even if childless people can't use it). Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing--expecting people to regularly be in the office after typical daycare closing times is a bad thing to do.
    - dominotw 8y ago
      > requiring employers to provide say parental leave You pivoted into govt laws on employers. That is not what we are discussing here though, I was referring to "values" that employers come up with voluntarily. I don't have any issues with clearly laid out govt policies. > Setting working hours that can accommodate having kids is another reasonable thing I don't disagree with this as long as everyone can use this flexibility.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        By "requiring" I mean in terms of social expectations, not government laws. Many policies, e.g. lunch breaks, are "required" by social norms, not law. (Only a minority of states require lunch breaks; bathroom breaks are not required for the most part either: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/labor-employment-top-blogs/posts/no-bathroom-breaks-for-you https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/...) E.g. Most tech companies offer far more than the minimum FMLA required leave. That reflects "'values' that employers come up with voluntarily." That's also based on social expectations--a tech company that only offered the legally required minimum leave would get a lot of bad publicity for violating social norms, even though it would be legal to do so. Finally, it's not "discriminatory" even though childless people can't take advantage of such leave.
        dominotw 8y ago
        > That's also based on social expectations--a tech company that only offered the legally required minimum leave would get a lot of bad publicity for violating social norms, even though it would be legal to do so. This has nothing to do with social expectations. Why would society have expectations just on tech companies. This is a result of skewed labor market due to our immigration policies. See what happens to those social expectations once we bump up h1b visas to a mil/yr( also you know "good for the economy" [1]). 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-12/cuts-to-h-1b-visas-for-skilled-immigrants-hurt-u-s-economy https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-12/cuts-t...
      - aklemm 8y ago
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    I think you might have misunderstood the suggestion. Giving people enough time to manage a family is different from giving more time to people who have families. An employer might prefer having employees with children for a variety of reason and mostly would treat "family benefits" as method to hire older more experienced people.
    - dominotw 8y ago
      > An employer might prefer having employees with children Isn't this straight up illegal? Only straight ppl can have children, for example.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        I have several gay friends with children. But yes, at least in California it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.
        kiriakasis 8y ago
        > it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews. This is to avoid so discriminate against people without children, an objectively right objective. Still you can accommodate the needs of people with children as a sort of "levelling the field". The same way you can accommodate the needs of minorities by making sure that office culture is respectful of their identities. If I can go a bit off-topic in both cases the specific demography you are trying to help might be just an example of a common human trait that is just easier to see in some people. Sometimes single men want to work part-time and white rich people do not like racist jokes.
      - ethagnawl 8y ago
        > Only straight ppl can have children, for example. This "example" is demonstrably false.
        dominotw 8y ago
        yeah you are right. bad example.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Accommodating employees with kids is great. Discriminating against people who don't have kids is wrong, and illegal. For what it's worth, the first 2 startups I was a founder of in Silicon Valley had a bunch of founders with kids.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]