4 ms·

I’ve been mulling a system that would allow that but also address what I’d consider to be a somewhat unfair benefit we give parents. Of course parents need mat

I’ve been mulling a system that would allow that but also address what I’d consider to be a somewhat unfair benefit we give parents. Of course parents need maternity/paternity time off but this seems to perversely incentivize having kids for no real reason. Another issue on the opposite side is the unfair career progression slowdown women face for taking a maternity leave. One possible solution is that we expect mandatory 3 month sabbaticals for every employee every two years (which can also be a maternity leave but that’s your choice). This is on top of regular vacations (which probably should be modest if this option exists). We can give the option of breaking it in two but no further. Such sabbaticals would also make everyone think about processes that they do that are not sustainable during such breaks and work properly around it from the beginning. definitely still a hypothesis that I’m continuing to think through, but would love to know where this can go wrong!

ghaff 5y ago
Whatever the exact form, I wish sabbaticals in industry were more common—probably at longer intervals than job-hopping folks would find interesting though.
dasil003 5y ago
I'm curious, do you have kids? I do, and I think that anyone who had kids in order to get the "free vacation" is in for a nasty surprise.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ramraj07 5y ago
  I do not, but I might. The point is that at we all (at least the ones who plan it) subtly factor how supportive our work environments are for having a child, and in that way the leave policies would definitely change the equation at least for some if not all parents. Further, while it might not change someone’s mind if they weren’t gonna have a child, at the least it will make them decide if they want to do it _today_ instead of a few years later. I’m also not against such leaves; while I’m not able to articulate it correctly, I feel there’s definitely something “not fair” about the system. A coworker who took a paternity leave did not necessarily have fun but they arguably ended up with something far more valuable in their life (a child), so as painful as the Time you spend in those days might be you get actual happiness from it. Again, good for you! No ill-will at all! I just wanted to propose a system that might just be better. Whether you want to have kids or not you get that much time off every two years. Have a kid, great. Don’t have a kid, also great.
  - dasil003 5y ago
    Sure, I understand the unfairness aspect, but I think there’s a limit to how fair we can actually make things for different individuals in different situations. We do make structural accommodations for people with disabilities and other disadvantages that can seem unfair to those with the privilege of not dealing with that situation. I’m not against your sabbatical proposal per se but keep in mind it’s going to cost the company at least 20-30 times what parental leave does.
    - ramraj07 5y ago
      For sure! Saving money for the company was never a factor in my thought process!
maxov 5y ago
I haven't been a parent so I can't be positive, but I doubt time off for maternity or paternity acts as a "positive" incentive for having children, meaning people who didn't want children before would now want them. That time off is filled pretty well caring for the baby, which is extremely tiring and time-consuming; it doesn't really function as a break. I also don't know how many people would trade a several month absence from work for the at least 18-year (more like lifetime, really) commitment of raising a child; they have children for other reasons. That said, I could see how having maternity/paternity leave would help people who want to put in the effort of raising children, but cannot/do not want to quit their job or keep working with a baby for the most demanding first few months. There is likely negative pressure on having children from not being able to take paid leave from work, and in aggregate people would probably have more children as a result if they do get paid leave. Although this is an entirely different topic, such a policy seems like a good idea to combat the lack of births many developed countries are facing, which in the long term will cause an asymmetric demography. This could be a big problem, as countries with births under replacement and little net inward migration need to support an aging population with fewer active workers (see e.g. Japan). I imagine some would argue that we should move toward smaller and more sustainable societies in order to preserve the planet's resources and reduce our total consumption, in which case they would advocate for alternate solutions to deal with societal aging.
atty 5y ago
I don’t think anyone is incentivized to have a kid because they get a few weeks or months off. The only incentive i see is the opposite; if there is no parental leave, they may decide not to have children they were otherwise considering. And the few weeks/months after a child is born can be much harder work than your day job in many aspects. So it would be unfair to parents, especially mothers, who tend to spend more time on child care, to force them to use their sabbatical/vacation time as parental leave. You’d effectively be controlling people’s reproductive timelines with this sabbatical schedule. In terms of women being disadvantaged, I agree. But I think the answer is to make sure it’s illegal to discriminate based on current or future parental obligations and enforce that strongly, and to strongly incentivize both mothers and fathers to take their full allocated leave, and make it the same length for both parents.
- techcode 5y ago
  The disadvantage due to pregnancy leave is tricky stuff - even with best intentions. (Actually same for any other longer term leave). Especially if in the X months you are away, someone needs to step in as temp replacement because you're the only person of that role in your team/unit. Basically - where does that replacement come from? And where does replacement go afterwards? It's slightly less problematic if you're 1 of say 3 or more people in the same role in the team/unit. Though even when it works out (say if not temp backfill then you have another place/team/unit to join once you're back, or you weren't only person of that role). Various changes/pivots likely lead to you coming back to something completely different from what you left, if it's even determined what exactly will you work on once you come back.
skeeter2020 5y ago
>> this seems to perversely incentivize having kids for no real reason In Canada mat/pat leave is unemployment insurance, which you pay for on every pay cheque. Even if it was "free money" nobody is having kids to get a few months off work.
satyrnein 5y ago
As a parent (and former single person), the idea that society is tilted unfairly against single people really does not resonate. At a macro level, with birth rates declining the way they are, we should probably be doing even more to ease the lives of parents.

ghaff 5y ago

Whatever the exact form, I wish sabbaticals in industry were more common—probably at longer intervals than job-hopping folks would find interesting though.

dasil003 5y ago

I'm curious, do you have kids? I do, and I think that anyone who had kids in order to get the "free vacation" is in for a nasty surprise.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ramraj07 5y ago
I do not, but I might. The point is that at we all (at least the ones who plan it) subtly factor how supportive our work environments are for having a child, and in that way the leave policies would definitely change the equation at least for some if not all parents. Further, while it might not change someone’s mind if they weren’t gonna have a child, at the least it will make them decide if they want to do it _today_ instead of a few years later. I’m also not against such leaves; while I’m not able to articulate it correctly, I feel there’s definitely something “not fair” about the system. A coworker who took a paternity leave did not necessarily have fun but they arguably ended up with something far more valuable in their life (a child), so as painful as the Time you spend in those days might be you get actual happiness from it. Again, good for you! No ill-will at all! I just wanted to propose a system that might just be better. Whether you want to have kids or not you get that much time off every two years. Have a kid, great. Don’t have a kid, also great.
- dasil003 5y ago
  Sure, I understand the unfairness aspect, but I think there’s a limit to how fair we can actually make things for different individuals in different situations. We do make structural accommodations for people with disabilities and other disadvantages that can seem unfair to those with the privilege of not dealing with that situation. I’m not against your sabbatical proposal per se but keep in mind it’s going to cost the company at least 20-30 times what parental leave does.
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    For sure! Saving money for the company was never a factor in my thought process!

maxov 5y ago

I haven't been a parent so I can't be positive, but I doubt time off for maternity or paternity acts as a "positive" incentive for having children, meaning people who didn't want children before would now want them. That time off is filled pretty well caring for the baby, which is extremely tiring and time-consuming; it doesn't really function as a break. I also don't know how many people would trade a several month absence from work for the at least 18-year (more like lifetime, really) commitment of raising a child; they have children for other reasons. That said, I could see how having maternity/paternity leave would help people who want to put in the effort of raising children, but cannot/do not want to quit their job or keep working with a baby for the most demanding first few months. There is likely negative pressure on having children from not being able to take paid leave from work, and in aggregate people would probably have more children as a result if they do get paid leave. Although this is an entirely different topic, such a policy seems like a good idea to combat the lack of births many developed countries are facing, which in the long term will cause an asymmetric demography. This could be a big problem, as countries with births under replacement and little net inward migration need to support an aging population with fewer active workers (see e.g. Japan). I imagine some would argue that we should move toward smaller and more sustainable societies in order to preserve the planet's resources and reduce our total consumption, in which case they would advocate for alternate solutions to deal with societal aging.

atty 5y ago

I don’t think anyone is incentivized to have a kid because they get a few weeks or months off. The only incentive i see is the opposite; if there is no parental leave, they may decide not to have children they were otherwise considering. And the few weeks/months after a child is born can be much harder work than your day job in many aspects. So it would be unfair to parents, especially mothers, who tend to spend more time on child care, to force them to use their sabbatical/vacation time as parental leave. You’d effectively be controlling people’s reproductive timelines with this sabbatical schedule. In terms of women being disadvantaged, I agree. But I think the answer is to make sure it’s illegal to discriminate based on current or future parental obligations and enforce that strongly, and to strongly incentivize both mothers and fathers to take their full allocated leave, and make it the same length for both parents.

techcode 5y ago
The disadvantage due to pregnancy leave is tricky stuff - even with best intentions. (Actually same for any other longer term leave). Especially if in the X months you are away, someone needs to step in as temp replacement because you're the only person of that role in your team/unit. Basically - where does that replacement come from? And where does replacement go afterwards? It's slightly less problematic if you're 1 of say 3 or more people in the same role in the team/unit. Though even when it works out (say if not temp backfill then you have another place/team/unit to join once you're back, or you weren't only person of that role). Various changes/pivots likely lead to you coming back to something completely different from what you left, if it's even determined what exactly will you work on once you come back.

skeeter2020 5y ago

>> this seems to perversely incentivize having kids for no real reason In Canada mat/pat leave is unemployment insurance, which you pay for on every pay cheque. Even if it was "free money" nobody is having kids to get a few months off work.

satyrnein 5y ago

As a parent (and former single person), the idea that society is tilted unfairly against single people really does not resonate. At a macro level, with birth rates declining the way they are, we should probably be doing even more to ease the lives of parents.