3 ms·

Your two examples are just showing parental leave being used, not abused. The amount of days allotted are still the same. Same goes for people quitting right a

Your two examples are just showing parental leave being used, not abused. The amount of days allotted are still the same. Same goes for people quitting right after: the allotted days are the same, independently of quitting or not. What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. And that overlooks the other side of things too: In the first case, the person might have had some issues with the newborn. My daughter had problems breastfeeding for basically 3 months, is this possibility accounted in the "maximizing time off"? Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Or maybe they want a part time remote job, so they could afford having kids with them at all time, without resorting to child care. Granted that you could make points for parental leave being too long (sure!), that can be balanced by law, but the simple fact that it's used it's not abuse.

thefz 6y ago
> What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? See, this is the best example of informative asymmetry. The mother knows she'll be milking every cent out of her employer, and quit on the spot upon returning. He has to, on the other hand, keep on paying for her in the hope she'll come back work, maybe working understaffed because he cannot afford to hire one more or to substitute her. > Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. "having better human beings" especially when having other human beings was not other people's choice, is no one else's responsibility except the parents'. > Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. I don't. She's just acting antisocially. > The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Then do it, just not out of other people's money.

thefz 6y ago

> What's your expectation, that a new mom leaves work and stay unemployed the day her newborn comes, setting a lot of uncertainty for the future, instead of an employer paying for it? See, this is the best example of informative asymmetry. The mother knows she'll be milking every cent out of her employer, and quit on the spot upon returning. He has to, on the other hand, keep on paying for her in the hope she'll come back work, maybe working understaffed because he cannot afford to hire one more or to substitute her. > Yeah the parent's priority now is the newborn, I'd argue that a company should promote that at all time, to have better human beings. "having better human beings" especially when having other human beings was not other people's choice, is no one else's responsibility except the parents'. > Even socially wise, i would always say the mom should be taking that parental leave. I don't. She's just acting antisocially. > The last case: what if the person had a change of mind when the newborn and decided it wanted to be a stay-home mom or dad to be fully dedicated? Then do it, just not out of other people's money.