12 ms·

This seems like the most obvious dodge. I know plenty of companies, especially small ones, where any person in the company is pretty much the bus factor. When t

This seems like the most obvious dodge. I know plenty of companies, especially small ones, where any person in the company is pretty much the bus factor. When they take vacation the company shuts its doors for a few weeks. This is obviously true for startups and small restaurants, especially ones without gobs of VC funding. Is the solution just to exclude companies that cannot get by without doing this? In other words, make sure certain kinds of startups and small businesses are not possible?

DavidHm 8y ago
If the company is utterly reliant on a single person, that person is either an equity owner, or should be, and the owner is taking advantage of them. If you own in part the business, then imho you take as much or little parental leave as you want/can afford.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  The reason I used CFO and specialist mechanic is that often companies are utterly reliant not on a single person, but a single person's work or expertise. It may be no problem at all to hire a replacement expert, just like it is easy to hire a new accountant if your accountant dies from a heart attack. But you still hire a new accountant, and in this case, with parental leave, hiring someone to do the leaver's job leads to problems because unlike the dead accountant, they come back! This is the issue, that normally you fulfill a specialist role with another hire.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    you know there is an entire industry of recruitment agencies that specialise in interim directors?
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > not on a single person, but a single person's work or expertise But this is true for literally everyone in the company, including the owner. It's a rare business that couldn't change ownership and still thrive under the right circumstances. In fact, there's a whole day of the week that has a nickname because people do this so often ("M&A Monday") Your "someone with equivalent skills" condition is equivalent to the "under the right circumstances" condition. So, I'm not sure I see how this is a response to: > If the company is utterly reliant on a single person, that person is either an equity owner, or should be, and the owner is taking advantage of them.
krastanov 8y ago
Does the problem still exist if you start distinguishing between employees and more direct stakeholders? If a "simple" employee is so important that the companies shuts down when they are away, then that employee should be awarded with a true stake in the company and some voting power, not just a salary. Then they can decide for themselves how to deal with such vacations. In that sense I think it is perfectly reasonable to make the kind of businesses or startups from your last paragraph impossible.
taurath 8y ago
Thats a bit of a strong statement, but I understand your leaning. A couple things: * The Employment Insurance office pays for it. Yes, the person is going to be on leave, but you're not sitting there paying their salary. Hire a contractor while they're gone? * If they're irreplaceable, yes you're SOL, but they get to make their own choices just as you did about basing your business's viability on one person that planned and had a kid.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  Thanks. I suppose "use temps/contractors" is probably the answer for most businesses, then, and to me feels like a true answer to the question posed.
  - yardie 8y ago
    If you're fine with using temps/contractors then you are also fine with them not showing up one morning as well. Most temps are looking for full-time employment. And most contractors are after bigger contracts.
TLC555 8y ago
Canada can do it because Canada is not the US. In the US, we have too much emphasis on the individual. In other societies, there is more emphasis on the collective. This opinion may not be entirely accurate, but it's worth stating this basic difference.
- refurb 8y ago
  As a Canadian who lives in the US, the two countries aren’t that different.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Do you think Canada is more collectivist than individualist?
  - unavoidable 8y ago
    Judging by the temperature of sibling HN comments and the degree of Canada-bashing from US-based individuals, it does indeed seem like there is a difference in degree of individualist mindset.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      Sibling countries bashing each other is common the world over. Is the nature of the bashing such that it is making claims of some sort of collectivist nature? And to what degree does a claim made during some kind of rivalry make something accurate or true? Australians often like to claim New Zealanders have sexual relations with sheep when they engage in good old fashioned country bashing. I would hazard a guess that stunningly few New Zealanders have ever fucked a sheep, though I would assume a handful have and what's more I'd assume the same to be true of Australia too. But it's clearly not like the claim has any sort of merit as it applies to the general population. I don't have deep experience with Canada, so I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of anything that would indicate that collectivism was more prevalent in Canada than Individualism. I have a hard time buying it. I'm from NZ and I've always felt we are much closer to Canada than the US. I've also lived in Australia for a couple of years. Aus and NZ are completely similar along certain dimensions and really different along other ones. But I would venture to say that they're both heavy into Individualism. As is the States and from what I have seen of Canada I assumed I would feel quite at home there. Comparing my experience with Japan over the last 10 years, which is heavily collectivist, I just can't bring myself to the conclusion that personality wise and the types of things that come out of Canadians mouths about how one should conduct oneself in society is closer to that of the Japanese than it is to that of Americans.

DavidHm 8y ago

If the company is utterly reliant on a single person, that person is either an equity owner, or should be, and the owner is taking advantage of them. If you own in part the business, then imho you take as much or little parental leave as you want/can afford.

simonsarris 8y ago
The reason I used CFO and specialist mechanic is that often companies are utterly reliant not on a single person, but a single person's work or expertise. It may be no problem at all to hire a replacement expert, just like it is easy to hire a new accountant if your accountant dies from a heart attack. But you still hire a new accountant, and in this case, with parental leave, hiring someone to do the leaver's job leads to problems because unlike the dead accountant, they come back! This is the issue, that normally you fulfill a specialist role with another hire.
- walshemj 8y ago
  you know there is an entire industry of recruitment agencies that specialise in interim directors?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > not on a single person, but a single person's work or expertise But this is true for literally everyone in the company, including the owner. It's a rare business that couldn't change ownership and still thrive under the right circumstances. In fact, there's a whole day of the week that has a nickname because people do this so often ("M&A Monday") Your "someone with equivalent skills" condition is equivalent to the "under the right circumstances" condition. So, I'm not sure I see how this is a response to: > If the company is utterly reliant on a single person, that person is either an equity owner, or should be, and the owner is taking advantage of them.

krastanov 8y ago

Does the problem still exist if you start distinguishing between employees and more direct stakeholders? If a "simple" employee is so important that the companies shuts down when they are away, then that employee should be awarded with a true stake in the company and some voting power, not just a salary. Then they can decide for themselves how to deal with such vacations. In that sense I think it is perfectly reasonable to make the kind of businesses or startups from your last paragraph impossible.

taurath 8y ago

Thats a bit of a strong statement, but I understand your leaning. A couple things: * The Employment Insurance office pays for it. Yes, the person is going to be on leave, but you're not sitting there paying their salary. Hire a contractor while they're gone? * If they're irreplaceable, yes you're SOL, but they get to make their own choices just as you did about basing your business's viability on one person that planned and had a kid.

simonsarris 8y ago
Thanks. I suppose "use temps/contractors" is probably the answer for most businesses, then, and to me feels like a true answer to the question posed.
- yardie 8y ago
  If you're fine with using temps/contractors then you are also fine with them not showing up one morning as well. Most temps are looking for full-time employment. And most contractors are after bigger contracts.

TLC555 8y ago

Canada can do it because Canada is not the US. In the US, we have too much emphasis on the individual. In other societies, there is more emphasis on the collective. This opinion may not be entirely accurate, but it's worth stating this basic difference.

refurb 8y ago
As a Canadian who lives in the US, the two countries aren’t that different.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Do you think Canada is more collectivist than individualist?
- unavoidable 8y ago
  Judging by the temperature of sibling HN comments and the degree of Canada-bashing from US-based individuals, it does indeed seem like there is a difference in degree of individualist mindset.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Sibling countries bashing each other is common the world over. Is the nature of the bashing such that it is making claims of some sort of collectivist nature? And to what degree does a claim made during some kind of rivalry make something accurate or true? Australians often like to claim New Zealanders have sexual relations with sheep when they engage in good old fashioned country bashing. I would hazard a guess that stunningly few New Zealanders have ever fucked a sheep, though I would assume a handful have and what's more I'd assume the same to be true of Australia too. But it's clearly not like the claim has any sort of merit as it applies to the general population. I don't have deep experience with Canada, so I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of anything that would indicate that collectivism was more prevalent in Canada than Individualism. I have a hard time buying it. I'm from NZ and I've always felt we are much closer to Canada than the US. I've also lived in Australia for a couple of years. Aus and NZ are completely similar along certain dimensions and really different along other ones. But I would venture to say that they're both heavy into Individualism. As is the States and from what I have seen of Canada I assumed I would feel quite at home there. Comparing my experience with Japan over the last 10 years, which is heavily collectivist, I just can't bring myself to the conclusion that personality wise and the types of things that come out of Canadians mouths about how one should conduct oneself in society is closer to that of the Japanese than it is to that of Americans.