6 ms·

Why did you announce it?

tw04 3y ago
Presumably because he wanted to take paternaty leave after his child was born. Also why wouldn’t you tell coworkers you’re having a baby? It’d be really weird to keep that a secret.
- lukan 3y ago
  "Also why wouldn’t you tell coworkers you’re having a baby?" It was HR, not some coworker. But yes, it is messed up.
  - gsich 3y ago
    Toxic workplace then. HR are people too.
    - lb1lf 3y ago
      Cynically speaking, HR is an abstraction layer between management and employees, sorry, 'resources'. When I worked for a huge engineering multinational years ago, it showed time and time again that people went into HR with the best of intentions, but most were as time ground on disillusioned upon finding they were not, after all, employed to help other employees. The good ones mostly left, the poor ones thrived. Sigh. (That being said, I do believe HR has a purpose, ensuring (at least in theory) professional, correct and consistent treatment of employees. Just don't make the mistake of believing they are on your side; they are not.
      - lukan 3y ago
        "When I worked for a huge engineering multinational years ago" I never was in a huge company, but in a small company, I found they can be nice and on the human side.
        lb1lf 3y ago
        Agreed; I believe the tipping point is where the company becomes so large that you no longer know, or at least are familiar with the people you're working with. I expect you are much more inclined to try to find a workable solution if the case at hand is Dave in accounting whose kid attends the same soccer practice your kid does than if he's just employee #628481.
        swores 3y ago
        Well, HR staff are people like any other department, so as with all people there's always potential for asshole behaviour even in a company that generally encourages HR to be employee-friendly, and potential for someone to do a nice thing that's technically against HR policy in a shitty company. Not to mention that the abstracted layer above - whether the company has employee-friendly or employee-hostile policies when it comes to HR team - is also ultimately down to people with the same potential for good and bad. "HR work for the company not for you, don't trust them" is a reasonable general rule considering the average HR department especially in large companies, but it's not a guarantee that all HR people, or even all HR teams' policies will be evil.
      - Scarblac 3y ago
        The company gets the best bang for their buck if employees are reasonably happy, healthy and productive. So most of the time your interests and the company's should be aligned.
    - Muromec 3y ago
      HR are employer's cops and every cop-related advice applies, starting with "don't volunteer information". At least with managers in a big tech corp you have the same goal to pursue and failures to share. With HR it's either a script or a cop.
      - lukan 3y ago
        "every cop-related advice applies, starting with "don't volunteer information"." I strongly disagree to that, but that is a different debate. (if you want my take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34447138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34447138) And with HR it can be the same. If the HR have the guidelines of making the employes happy - then you absolutely can share information with them, making planning easier - with the result of a better outcome for everyone. Like when the wife will give birth. "So hey, concratulations, good to know, so we can plan around it" - if it is a good company. If it is a company who don't give a damn and see every person as replacable in an instant, then this is a different scenario and the rule of not giving them anything does apply.
        Muromec 3y ago
        >And with HR it can be the same. If the HR have the guidelines of making the employes happy - then you absolutely can share information with them It can be, but it requires a skill of reading the room and knowing nuances in a situation of information asymmetry. The combination of information asymmetry and hr people, being agents of the big corp and not caring about the outcome for you is what makes it problematic. > you absolutely can share information with them, making planning easier if they company has a clear policy and is known for following it -- sure. otherwise it's "x days off for personal reasons".
        lukan 3y ago
        Yes it depends. But the thing with a birth is, that the day is not clearly defined. Which is common knowledge and works in the companies I know(in germany though). With - when it is time, he needs to leaves that moment. But when you say "x days off for personal reasons" - they would like a date.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  So back when my team was smaller, we used to do birthdays. Lure the coworker into a conference room on some pretense or another, then bring out a cake. Of course, once it became routine, it's rather hard to surprise someone -- any irregular meetings on your birthday are extremely suspect. So for one coworker's birthday, a week after we'd just done another's, I scheduled JACK'S BIG ANNOUNCEMENT on his birthday. He, of course, was extremely suspicious, and assumed it was a front for his birthday. I made my announcement, brought out the champagne (well, sparkling Catawba), went out into the hallway to get a corkscrew, and came back in with the birthday cake. So he had the whiplash of, wait, is this not for my birthday after all, wait, if it is, then are you not having a baby? And I declined to clarify until after I started my paternity leave, and half my coworkers didn't believe it until after I brought the kiddo in to show off. It was glorious.
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    This seems like a very good anecdote in favor of continuing remote work.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      Definitely an illustration of how different persons want different workplace experiences.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Replies are an illustration of how people can't respect others preferences as well.
  - caymanjim 3y ago
    I can't parse what you wrote to figure out what you were celebrating, but whatever it is, this is my idea of a workplace nightmare. It's bad enough being forced to celebrate someone else's birthday, but it sounds like you're also forcing people to celebrate their own birthdays without their permission, and possibly forcing people to celebrate pregnancies and other personal events without their permission? I would hate you if I worked with you.
- sneak 3y ago
  [flagged]
jjulius 3y ago
Why wouldn't you communicate ahead of time that you're going to be taking a chunk of time off in the near future, specifically for something so important?
- camdenreslink 3y ago
  Letting HR know your wife is expecting is that communication. Is he supposed to let HR know when they are trying to conceive? That seems unreasonable and TMI…
  - Dakizhu 3y ago
    I'm not clear on when exactly he let HR know, but the original post makes it seem like he let them know a week before. I think at least a couple months notice makes more sense depending on the duration of leave.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I read that as he told HR on Tuesday, and then was fired three days later, on Friday. Not that the wife was due the following Tuesday. We don't know how far out the due date was based on what OP said. I agree that employees should give sufficient notice for something like that. But even if they don't, that's not grounds for firing. It might be grounds for disallowing the leave until the required notice period has passed, assuming that's documented and legally allowed.

tw04 3y ago

Presumably because he wanted to take paternaty leave after his child was born. Also why wouldn’t you tell coworkers you’re having a baby? It’d be really weird to keep that a secret.

lukan 3y ago
"Also why wouldn’t you tell coworkers you’re having a baby?" It was HR, not some coworker. But yes, it is messed up.
- gsich 3y ago
  Toxic workplace then. HR are people too.
  - lb1lf 3y ago
    Cynically speaking, HR is an abstraction layer between management and employees, sorry, 'resources'. When I worked for a huge engineering multinational years ago, it showed time and time again that people went into HR with the best of intentions, but most were as time ground on disillusioned upon finding they were not, after all, employed to help other employees. The good ones mostly left, the poor ones thrived. Sigh. (That being said, I do believe HR has a purpose, ensuring (at least in theory) professional, correct and consistent treatment of employees. Just don't make the mistake of believing they are on your side; they are not.
    - lukan 3y ago
      "When I worked for a huge engineering multinational years ago" I never was in a huge company, but in a small company, I found they can be nice and on the human side.
      - lb1lf 3y ago
        Agreed; I believe the tipping point is where the company becomes so large that you no longer know, or at least are familiar with the people you're working with. I expect you are much more inclined to try to find a workable solution if the case at hand is Dave in accounting whose kid attends the same soccer practice your kid does than if he's just employee #628481.
      - swores 3y ago
        Well, HR staff are people like any other department, so as with all people there's always potential for asshole behaviour even in a company that generally encourages HR to be employee-friendly, and potential for someone to do a nice thing that's technically against HR policy in a shitty company. Not to mention that the abstracted layer above - whether the company has employee-friendly or employee-hostile policies when it comes to HR team - is also ultimately down to people with the same potential for good and bad. "HR work for the company not for you, don't trust them" is a reasonable general rule considering the average HR department especially in large companies, but it's not a guarantee that all HR people, or even all HR teams' policies will be evil.
    - Scarblac 3y ago
      The company gets the best bang for their buck if employees are reasonably happy, healthy and productive. So most of the time your interests and the company's should be aligned.
  - Muromec 3y ago
    HR are employer's cops and every cop-related advice applies, starting with "don't volunteer information". At least with managers in a big tech corp you have the same goal to pursue and failures to share. With HR it's either a script or a cop.
    - lukan 3y ago
      "every cop-related advice applies, starting with "don't volunteer information"." I strongly disagree to that, but that is a different debate. (if you want my take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34447138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34447138) And with HR it can be the same. If the HR have the guidelines of making the employes happy - then you absolutely can share information with them, making planning easier - with the result of a better outcome for everyone. Like when the wife will give birth. "So hey, concratulations, good to know, so we can plan around it" - if it is a good company. If it is a company who don't give a damn and see every person as replacable in an instant, then this is a different scenario and the rule of not giving them anything does apply.
      - Muromec 3y ago
        >And with HR it can be the same. If the HR have the guidelines of making the employes happy - then you absolutely can share information with them It can be, but it requires a skill of reading the room and knowing nuances in a situation of information asymmetry. The combination of information asymmetry and hr people, being agents of the big corp and not caring about the outcome for you is what makes it problematic. > you absolutely can share information with them, making planning easier if they company has a clear policy and is known for following it -- sure. otherwise it's "x days off for personal reasons".
        lukan 3y ago
        Yes it depends. But the thing with a birth is, that the day is not clearly defined. Which is common knowledge and works in the companies I know(in germany though). With - when it is time, he needs to leaves that moment. But when you say "x days off for personal reasons" - they would like a date.
saalweachter 3y ago
So back when my team was smaller, we used to do birthdays. Lure the coworker into a conference room on some pretense or another, then bring out a cake. Of course, once it became routine, it's rather hard to surprise someone -- any irregular meetings on your birthday are extremely suspect. So for one coworker's birthday, a week after we'd just done another's, I scheduled JACK'S BIG ANNOUNCEMENT on his birthday. He, of course, was extremely suspicious, and assumed it was a front for his birthday. I made my announcement, brought out the champagne (well, sparkling Catawba), went out into the hallway to get a corkscrew, and came back in with the birthday cake. So he had the whiplash of, wait, is this not for my birthday after all, wait, if it is, then are you not having a baby? And I declined to clarify until after I started my paternity leave, and half my coworkers didn't believe it until after I brought the kiddo in to show off. It was glorious.
- otteromkram 3y ago
  This seems like a very good anecdote in favor of continuing remote work.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    Definitely an illustration of how different persons want different workplace experiences.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Replies are an illustration of how people can't respect others preferences as well.
- caymanjim 3y ago
  I can't parse what you wrote to figure out what you were celebrating, but whatever it is, this is my idea of a workplace nightmare. It's bad enough being forced to celebrate someone else's birthday, but it sounds like you're also forcing people to celebrate their own birthdays without their permission, and possibly forcing people to celebrate pregnancies and other personal events without their permission? I would hate you if I worked with you.
sneak 3y ago
[flagged]

jjulius 3y ago

Why wouldn't you communicate ahead of time that you're going to be taking a chunk of time off in the near future, specifically for something so important?

camdenreslink 3y ago
Letting HR know your wife is expecting is that communication. Is he supposed to let HR know when they are trying to conceive? That seems unreasonable and TMI…
- Dakizhu 3y ago
  I'm not clear on when exactly he let HR know, but the original post makes it seem like he let them know a week before. I think at least a couple months notice makes more sense depending on the duration of leave.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I read that as he told HR on Tuesday, and then was fired three days later, on Friday. Not that the wife was due the following Tuesday. We don't know how far out the due date was based on what OP said. I agree that employees should give sufficient notice for something like that. But even if they don't, that's not grounds for firing. It might be grounds for disallowing the leave until the required notice period has passed, assuming that's documented and legally allowed.