3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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
Raising children is a service to society. That doesn't mean the childless should be discriminated against, but it does mean families should be accommodated. Giving a parent more flexibility than a non-parent is not discrimination, it is accommodation, and it's for the good of us all. The childless clearly benefit from healthy families.
- dominotw 8y ago
  i don't agree. I will vote for more childcare support/tax breaks but vote against discrimination at place of employment.

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

Raising children is a service to society. That doesn't mean the childless should be discriminated against, but it does mean families should be accommodated. Giving a parent more flexibility than a non-parent is not discrimination, it is accommodation, and it's for the good of us all. The childless clearly benefit from healthy families.

dominotw 8y ago
i don't agree. I will vote for more childcare support/tax breaks but vote against discrimination at place of employment.