4 ms·

While I completely agree with your comment, I have also seen repeatedly in my career where colleagues quickly became disgruntled towards the person taking mat/p

While I completely agree with your comment, I have also seen repeatedly in my career where colleagues quickly became disgruntled towards the person taking mat/pat leave because that meant more workload for them while the other person was out.

bogeholm 4y ago
> disgruntled towards the person taking mat/pat leave If management are worth their salt, this sort of behavior won’t be tolerated. If it’s tolerated, you have poor managers. Not much more to say about that.
- dijit 4y ago
  You have three levers to pull as a manger in this situation. 1) increase the workload for who remains 2) decrease the workload and delay the deadline (which could affect other parts of the company, the pnl) 3) find a contractor or two to pick up the slack, this may take a while and can still fail or cause the rest of the team to stall while that person/people onboards. Depending on your situation money can be tight or deadlines can be tight or both. Meaning the only appreciable option may be #1: which is part of why it’s harder to work in startups where both of the above may be true. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame management, but it can be arbitrary limitations imposed by management for sure.
  - jrumbut 4y ago
    The problem isn't increased workload, or people having challenges or bad feelings about adapting to increased workload, it's spreading discontentment over someone taking maternity/paternity leave. A manager and everyone else should be establishing that as much as their contributions are missed it's not a problem that they had a child or took the leave they are entitled to.
    - dijit 4y ago
      Are you saying it’s ok to feel bad as long as you don’t inform or allow the person taking leave that you feel bad? I’m not sure how I feel about that honestly. On the one hand it makes people feel more free and feel less bad in themselves. On the other it will become an open secret among everyone including those who may eventually take leave and then be aware of it, passive aggression may ensure even if it’s not permitted, and of course on some level it’s dishonest.
      - jasonlotito 4y ago
        > Are you saying it’s ok to feel bad as long as you don’t inform or allow the person taking leave that you feel bad? You are reading it wrong. It's not just about the individual taking the leave, it's about spreading discontent throughout the entire team because someone is taking advantage of a benefit they are entitled to. Basically, you are advocating for the idea that someone using a benefit they have is bad. i.e. I'm allowed to spread discontent on the team and make you feel bad for taking a salary.
        jrumbut 4y ago
        Basically this is what I meant. I'm fine with someone saying "I'm feeling overworked" but I'm not OK with saying "I can't believe Jane had a baby during this important sprint."
    - vdqtp3 4y ago
      The funny thing is that everyone agrees that it explicitly is a problem - it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively - the definition of a problem. It's also explicitly unfair in that there's no corresponding benefit for someone that is either unable to or chooses not to have a child. But we're all going to pretend that it's 100% OK.
      - jasonlotito 4y ago
        So don't work at companies that offer these benefits. Because you do benefit from those benefits even if you choose not to have a child. The people working there would most likely not work there if these benefits didn't exist. > it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively Clearly it's not. The companies offering this clearly prefer the type of people that benefit from this. And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction.
        djohnston 4y ago
        > And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction. Isn't his point that the asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction for everyone left picking up the slack?
        bogeholm 4y ago
        > asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction Solution: work somewhere else, where another benefit structure is offered
        djohnston 4y ago
        Agreed, I'm only pointing out the discrepancy between what he's saying and the idea that he somehow has job satisfaction because of it.
        Spooky23 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - bogeholm 4y ago
    Look, if Company, Inc. offers benefit X, and employee A chooses to exercise their contractual right to that, then A and A’s colleagues can have a reasonable expectation that their manager(s) have a plan for the situation. Otherwise Company, Inc. shouldn’t have offered the benefit in the first place.
- chrsig 4y ago
  then perhaps when the person taking the leave is a manager, "just take the leave and don't stress about it" isn't the best advice? They need to do prep work before leave so that the team doesn't become disgruntled to begin with. If the behavior is exhibited at all, you have poor managers. If not tolerating it takes any other form than helping to ease tension, you have very poor managers.
roflyear 4y ago
I can see it, but I don't think it should concern you. That isn't a problem for you to fix.
chucky_z 4y ago
I’m at a point in my career and as an individual where if someone is on mat/pat leave all my complaints go out the window. It’s just about understanding the situation, and maybe all of us can explain to those individuals complaining that even if they never have children, that them giving the parents space to raise a well-balanced individual is a net benefit for all of society.
jrockway 4y ago
This has to be at larger companies, right? "Sorry, we don't have resources for a backfill," and no middle manager has the authority to change that. "Do extra work for free," is terrible management, and big companies basically exist to have terrible management. At a startup, 100% of the employees becoming disgruntled is an existential threat to the company, and the founders exist to own that and fix it, or their dream of a successful startup is over. That's different than large companies, where if some random department 300 levels down the org chart is unhappy, it doesn't matter, so the CEO is not going to step in and work extra hours while someone is away. It just doesn't matter to the company that one department is disgruntled, the company can do fine without them. If taking advantage of your benefits is going to kill the company, then the company probably wasn't meant to exist. After you get your kid off to a good start in life, begin the job search. The market isn't quite as bad as the gossip blogs say. Companies still need people to write software and people to manage the teams that do that. I really don't think any of this is going to happen to the OP. Their manager will handle 1:1s. Someone on the team can run meetings. Some decisions will be made while they're away, and they'll have to accept them even if they disagree. That's the worst case, but that's management in general.
decebalus1 4y ago
> colleagues quickly became disgruntled towards the person taking mat/pat leave because that meant more workload for them That's not really a place you'd want to work anyway, as this reeks of both bad management and bad colleagues. Would the same colleagues be disgruntled toward that person if said person had a death in the family? I mean shit happens and management needs to step up with better planning and scaling down the workload to account for the time off of the employee. If colleagues are disgruntled towards the employee taking time off and not at management for making them work more, they're either assholes or idiots.
wbsss4412 4y ago
That’s a them problem.

bogeholm 4y ago

> disgruntled towards the person taking mat/pat leave If management are worth their salt, this sort of behavior won’t be tolerated. If it’s tolerated, you have poor managers. Not much more to say about that.

dijit 4y ago
You have three levers to pull as a manger in this situation. 1) increase the workload for who remains 2) decrease the workload and delay the deadline (which could affect other parts of the company, the pnl) 3) find a contractor or two to pick up the slack, this may take a while and can still fail or cause the rest of the team to stall while that person/people onboards. Depending on your situation money can be tight or deadlines can be tight or both. Meaning the only appreciable option may be #1: which is part of why it’s harder to work in startups where both of the above may be true. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame management, but it can be arbitrary limitations imposed by management for sure.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  The problem isn't increased workload, or people having challenges or bad feelings about adapting to increased workload, it's spreading discontentment over someone taking maternity/paternity leave. A manager and everyone else should be establishing that as much as their contributions are missed it's not a problem that they had a child or took the leave they are entitled to.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Are you saying it’s ok to feel bad as long as you don’t inform or allow the person taking leave that you feel bad? I’m not sure how I feel about that honestly. On the one hand it makes people feel more free and feel less bad in themselves. On the other it will become an open secret among everyone including those who may eventually take leave and then be aware of it, passive aggression may ensure even if it’s not permitted, and of course on some level it’s dishonest.
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      > Are you saying it’s ok to feel bad as long as you don’t inform or allow the person taking leave that you feel bad? You are reading it wrong. It's not just about the individual taking the leave, it's about spreading discontent throughout the entire team because someone is taking advantage of a benefit they are entitled to. Basically, you are advocating for the idea that someone using a benefit they have is bad. i.e. I'm allowed to spread discontent on the team and make you feel bad for taking a salary.
      - jrumbut 4y ago
        Basically this is what I meant. I'm fine with someone saying "I'm feeling overworked" but I'm not OK with saying "I can't believe Jane had a baby during this important sprint."
  - vdqtp3 4y ago
    The funny thing is that everyone agrees that it explicitly is a problem - it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively - the definition of a problem. It's also explicitly unfair in that there's no corresponding benefit for someone that is either unable to or chooses not to have a child. But we're all going to pretend that it's 100% OK.
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      So don't work at companies that offer these benefits. Because you do benefit from those benefits even if you choose not to have a child. The people working there would most likely not work there if these benefits didn't exist. > it's impacting everyone else at the business negatively Clearly it's not. The companies offering this clearly prefer the type of people that benefit from this. And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction.
      - djohnston 4y ago
        > And you do as well, as the people taking advantage of this are clearly important to your job satisfaction. Isn't his point that the asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction for everyone left picking up the slack?
        bogeholm 4y ago
        > asymmetric benefit is unfair for non-parents and thus contributing to a lack of job satisfaction Solution: work somewhere else, where another benefit structure is offered
        djohnston 4y ago
        Agreed, I'm only pointing out the discrepancy between what he's saying and the idea that he somehow has job satisfaction because of it.
        Spooky23 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bogeholm 4y ago
  Look, if Company, Inc. offers benefit X, and employee A chooses to exercise their contractual right to that, then A and A’s colleagues can have a reasonable expectation that their manager(s) have a plan for the situation. Otherwise Company, Inc. shouldn’t have offered the benefit in the first place.
chrsig 4y ago
then perhaps when the person taking the leave is a manager, "just take the leave and don't stress about it" isn't the best advice? They need to do prep work before leave so that the team doesn't become disgruntled to begin with. If the behavior is exhibited at all, you have poor managers. If not tolerating it takes any other form than helping to ease tension, you have very poor managers.

roflyear 4y ago

I can see it, but I don't think it should concern you. That isn't a problem for you to fix.

chucky_z 4y ago

I’m at a point in my career and as an individual where if someone is on mat/pat leave all my complaints go out the window. It’s just about understanding the situation, and maybe all of us can explain to those individuals complaining that even if they never have children, that them giving the parents space to raise a well-balanced individual is a net benefit for all of society.

jrockway 4y ago

This has to be at larger companies, right? "Sorry, we don't have resources for a backfill," and no middle manager has the authority to change that. "Do extra work for free," is terrible management, and big companies basically exist to have terrible management. At a startup, 100% of the employees becoming disgruntled is an existential threat to the company, and the founders exist to own that and fix it, or their dream of a successful startup is over. That's different than large companies, where if some random department 300 levels down the org chart is unhappy, it doesn't matter, so the CEO is not going to step in and work extra hours while someone is away. It just doesn't matter to the company that one department is disgruntled, the company can do fine without them. If taking advantage of your benefits is going to kill the company, then the company probably wasn't meant to exist. After you get your kid off to a good start in life, begin the job search. The market isn't quite as bad as the gossip blogs say. Companies still need people to write software and people to manage the teams that do that. I really don't think any of this is going to happen to the OP. Their manager will handle 1:1s. Someone on the team can run meetings. Some decisions will be made while they're away, and they'll have to accept them even if they disagree. That's the worst case, but that's management in general.

decebalus1 4y ago

> colleagues quickly became disgruntled towards the person taking mat/pat leave because that meant more workload for them That's not really a place you'd want to work anyway, as this reeks of both bad management and bad colleagues. Would the same colleagues be disgruntled toward that person if said person had a death in the family? I mean shit happens and management needs to step up with better planning and scaling down the workload to account for the time off of the employee. If colleagues are disgruntled towards the employee taking time off and not at management for making them work more, they're either assholes or idiots.

wbsss4412 4y ago

That’s a them problem.