5 ms·

I feel like your comment is another sidestep. Here's an example of what an equitable solution looks like that doesn't specifically favor one group: "Team, we r

I feel like your comment is another sidestep. Here's an example of what an equitable solution looks like that doesn't specifically favor one group: "Team, we realize how difficult the pandemic has made home life for many people, so we're implementing a new policy until care situations return to somewhat normal. Weekly hours have been reduced to 35 across the board and everyone gets every other Friday off on an A/B schedule." To the opportunity comment, I thought it was evident, but maybe a thought experiment will be helpful. Let's pretend your company announces a new policy tomorrow - everyone who eats meat at the cafeteria next week gets Friday off. There are cheers around the office at this announcement because hey, Friday off! Except that you're vegan and don't want anything to do with meat for a variety of reasons. Your coworkers look at you and say, "Hey why aren't you happy about this?" You try to explain to them that you're vegan and so you won't get Friday off and this seems like kind of an unfair policy, but your coworkers just brush off your comments and say, "Well look, it's not like you can't eat meat. You've got the same opportunity as everyone else here - eat the meat and get Friday off, so what's the big deal? Just be a team player and support the rest of us." Just because an opportunity exists that is technically available to everyone doesn't mean it's actually a fair opportunity or that the outcome of it is equal for everyone.

rabeener 6y ago
Thanks for creating the thought experiment. Let’s keep using that as an example. This is not a case where companies decided to create a benefit arbitrarily or to make employment at the company more attractive to workers. This was the world responding to an unexpected disruption to almost every area of life. As part of that, parents had an immediate need that could not wait to be met- caring for their children. This, in my mental model, is closer to someone taking leave to deal with a physical or mental health issue vs. someone taking time off voluntarily. If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off? I suspect that over time you might have a conversation with your manager about the increased workload but would not look at your colleague as deriving additional benefit. It can still be argued that it’s not equitable that someone who lost a limb gets to take so much paid time away from the office but I think we can all agree that this isn’t the point of the benefit. I have the same view of this time off extended to parents right now.
- balfirevic 6y ago
  > If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off? I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live the extended sick leave would be paid by the government, which would leave the company with funds to find a temporary replacement or increase compensation for people who pick up the slack. Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave. Yet that's typically the case in the US. Large companies typically have short-term disability and long-term disability as part of their benefits plans. Added: From the government side, there is Social Security disability.
  - rabeener 6y ago
    I’ve said this in a couple of comments but reiterating here, we’re talking about a new event that caused a failure of systems. There are no government systems or subsidies to help working parents who suddenly have no public or private school and who need to balance work with the very sudden needs of providing around the clock childcare. Longer term, yes, it will be great if there is more support similar to medical care leave but an immediate solution was needed and companies did the right thing by offering flexibility to their employees. The medical leave model was put forth because it captures the essence of a required reduction of work (which is what parents are experiencing) compared to a discretionary decision like giving vegans Fridays off. It’s not time yet to take a long view of how equitable this is, we have no idea how long parents will need this flexibility for. If this lasts a year, I don’t think we should look to the government to step in. If this lasts several years, yes, we need to come up with a model that works long term and that will likely require some sort of government action.
- mdorazio 6y ago
edanm 6y ago
I'm not sure who you are arguing with regarding the whole "opportunity" thing, did anyone even mention that as something that affects this situation? That everyone technically has the opportunity to have kids? Your metaphor is not at all similar to the real situation parents find themselves in. It's not "oh here, some people who eat meat gets Friday off". It's closer to "because of a situation outside of the company, anybody who ate meat in the last year has to do 2x as many work hours, and no longer has any time off, so in recognition of this, we're going to try and balance this out by giving them certain benefits". That is the situation parents find themselves in, at least parents of young children. You seem to be looking at this as a pure benefit to parents. It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem. ... at the cost of employees that are not parents who have to work more.
  - spicyusername 6y ago
    If project timelines aren't adjusted for the available resources and the tight timelines are putting pressure on those who are available, that is not the fault of the parents taking time off, it's the fault of bad project management.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      If you give people who's last name starts with A a tax rebate, everybody else has to pay more taxes to fund the same things. If you cut the expenses appropriately, you can make sure they don't have to pay more, but they'll get less for what they pay. Either way, it's unfair. Don't adjust the schedule. Increase the pay for anyone who works more.

rabeener 6y ago

Thanks for creating the thought experiment. Let’s keep using that as an example. This is not a case where companies decided to create a benefit arbitrarily or to make employment at the company more attractive to workers. This was the world responding to an unexpected disruption to almost every area of life. As part of that, parents had an immediate need that could not wait to be met- caring for their children. This, in my mental model, is closer to someone taking leave to deal with a physical or mental health issue vs. someone taking time off voluntarily. If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off? I suspect that over time you might have a conversation with your manager about the increased workload but would not look at your colleague as deriving additional benefit. It can still be argued that it’s not equitable that someone who lost a limb gets to take so much paid time away from the office but I think we can all agree that this isn’t the point of the benefit. I have the same view of this time off extended to parents right now.

balfirevic 6y ago
> If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off? I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live the extended sick leave would be paid by the government, which would leave the company with funds to find a temporary replacement or increase compensation for people who pick up the slack. Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave. Yet that's typically the case in the US. Large companies typically have short-term disability and long-term disability as part of their benefits plans. Added: From the government side, there is Social Security disability.
- rabeener 6y ago
  I’ve said this in a couple of comments but reiterating here, we’re talking about a new event that caused a failure of systems. There are no government systems or subsidies to help working parents who suddenly have no public or private school and who need to balance work with the very sudden needs of providing around the clock childcare. Longer term, yes, it will be great if there is more support similar to medical care leave but an immediate solution was needed and companies did the right thing by offering flexibility to their employees. The medical leave model was put forth because it captures the essence of a required reduction of work (which is what parents are experiencing) compared to a discretionary decision like giving vegans Fridays off. It’s not time yet to take a long view of how equitable this is, we have no idea how long parents will need this flexibility for. If this lasts a year, I don’t think we should look to the government to step in. If this lasts several years, yes, we need to come up with a model that works long term and that will likely require some sort of government action.
mdorazio 6y ago

edanm 6y ago

I'm not sure who you are arguing with regarding the whole "opportunity" thing, did anyone even mention that as something that affects this situation? That everyone technically has the opportunity to have kids? Your metaphor is not at all similar to the real situation parents find themselves in. It's not "oh here, some people who eat meat gets Friday off". It's closer to "because of a situation outside of the company, anybody who ate meat in the last year has to do 2x as many work hours, and no longer has any time off, so in recognition of this, we're going to try and balance this out by giving them certain benefits". That is the situation parents find themselves in, at least parents of young children. You seem to be looking at this as a pure benefit to parents. It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem.

luckylion 6y ago
> It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem. ... at the cost of employees that are not parents who have to work more.
- spicyusername 6y ago
  If project timelines aren't adjusted for the available resources and the tight timelines are putting pressure on those who are available, that is not the fault of the parents taking time off, it's the fault of bad project management.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    If you give people who's last name starts with A a tax rebate, everybody else has to pay more taxes to fund the same things. If you cut the expenses appropriately, you can make sure they don't have to pay more, but they'll get less for what they pay. Either way, it's unfair. Don't adjust the schedule. Increase the pay for anyone who works more.