7 ms·

I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work ha

by reuven 12y ago

I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work harder and put their family plans on hold, in favor of the company. I can easily imagine a situation in which this benefit will be used to force women to choose between advancing their careers ("why not freeze your eggs, and have children later?") and starting or expanding a family. Part of the problem here would seem to be that the US still lags behind the rest of the world in maternity leave. If the government were to mandate that companies let women take off from work, and then return to their jobs without penalty, it would result in a level playing field, and a sense (among women) that they don't have to choose. Actually, that's not entirely true: In Israel, where I live, there is government-mandated maternity leave with decent benefits, and women still find it hard to compete. It's not unusual for potential employers to (illegally) ask women how old they are, when they plan to have children, or how many children they plan to have. So even with such a benefit in place, things are still tough for women in the workplace. I should add that I'm male and the owner of a small (currently 3-person) company. I have hired women before, and see having children as something to be encouraged and integrated into the business lifecycle, rather than ignored.

myhf 12y ago
Maternity leave makes it more expensive for a company to hire a woman than a man with equivalent family plans. Paternity leave is also necessary to make progress against sexism.
- reuven 12y ago
  Israeli law says that men may take paternity leave. My brother-in-law did so when his youngest daughter was born. I wish all countries had such laws. That said, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that maternity leave is a "special privilege" for women. Women are the only ones (so far as I know) who can have children, and we do (I think) want to encourage employees to have them. Maternity leave isn't a special privilege. It's an acknowledgment that women give birth, and that they also can contribute to a company's success, and that they shouldn't have to choose between the two.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    Actually, if you want "acting in the best interest of the company" to not mean "hire men over women", you want mandatory paternity leave requirements, not just voluntary. Enough men don't take paternity leave when it's voluntary that it ends up being cheaper for the company to hire men over women.
- verroq 12y ago
  Exactly, by giving women special privileges, it makes it more optimal to just not hire them. However, it won't equalise until you have completely broken traditional gender roles. Until it's completely socially acceptable for men to stay at home and take care of kids, it will still be more optimal to hire men who have a lesser chance of taking paternity leave.
- radicalbyte 12y ago
  Absolutely. Men should have the right (and should be forced to take it) to the same level of paternity leave as women. That will instantly level the playing field, and make the first three months of parenthood a pleasure instead of the pain that it is when having to work.. EDIT: my wife just pointed out that this will never work. Unlike women, men can father in parallel..
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Why should people be forced to trade (wanted) money for (unwanted) leave? Is the goal of statistically equal outcomes (as distinguished from equal treatment) so pressing that people should be forced to make undesirable tradeoffs? I'm curious what your underlying ethical/political principle is here.
    - wlievens 12y ago
      If leave for taking care of your kids is "unwanted", you should not be having kids. That counts for both parents. I can understand the tradeoff can be undesirable, but the tradeoff ought be between wanted money and wanted leave.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    Then there would be a huge incentive to hire older people, who are (statistically) done having children. Just accept that having children comes with a career penalty and choose what you prefer: kids or career?
    - scobar 12y ago
      I agree that changing paternity leave rules to match maternity leave would reposition employer incentives with little or no improvement to unfair bias. I disagree that we should just accept that a choice must be made between preferring kids or career. We haven't figured out the best system yet, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Most reasonable countries have paternity leave that gives the exact same benefits as maternity leave.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  "Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive. In this situation companies have no particular opinion about women - they only want employees who will remain productive. Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias. Could you explain what definition you are using for "sexism" in your comment?
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Taking a year off is not a big deal. Also, I've quit places which leaves them without my services for a lot a lot longer with significantly shorter notice. No one ever questions my ability to get the job done despite having kids. I also find my children quite a lot more important than work. I have my children for life, I might have a job for 5 years tops. If you don't have kids why would you even give a shit about climbing the corporate ladder? There's a lot more entertaining shit in the world to do than sit in a chair with a desk looking at a screen.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      You are responding to the tone/mood affiliation of what I wrote, not the actual content.
      - fleitz 12y ago
        Actually I'm not. Sexism isn't a weird term to use when women are discriminated against for having kids, when men are not. I have heard from a former bosses mouth that women are less productive having kids, despite myself and my former boss having had kids and being quite able to deal with having kids and getting shit done. There certainly are women who can't set appropriate boundaries just like there are men who always need to rush off to save their children from some emergency. At one job we joked about starting to coach sports so we could take Friday afternoon off because most Fridays one guy was always gone 'coaching basketball'.
        12y ago
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  The couple should be allocated some large number of days which they can choose to divide between them in any way they want. This is how it works in many scananavian countries, and I think a similar system was recently introduced in the UK too.
  - LBarret 12y ago
    Scandinavian societies are far less sexist than the rest of europe and the US. The need for a specific, targeted law is less important. In law, the government can either follow a trend, or change the status quo. In this case, changing the status quo and forcing the fathers to take some responsabilities of mothers is the only way. A sexist society doesn't change by itself because the men in power doesn't want it to.
    - snogglethorpe 12y ago
      Maybe Scandinavian government policies are less sexist, but people I've known who've worked in Sweden have told me that Swedish society still seems to be fairly sexist (despite Sweden's progressive reputation)...
  - steanne 12y ago
    actually, sweden's been tweaking their laws to encourage men to take more because there's still a large disparity between what men and women use. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/ec...
- polskibus 12y ago
  Maternity leave is paid by the government not by the employer in all the countries I heard it exists in.
  - wlievens 12y ago
    Yes, but you have an employee less for months on end, that's the true cost.
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > Maternity leave is paid by the government not by the employer in all the countries I heard it exists in. In the UK, it is paid by the Government for the first two weeks. The employer is then required to pay the employee on a reduced basis for six weeks before the Government takes-over again for 33 weeks ( edit: at a standard rate not associated with the original salary ). There is no financial support for the hiring or training of another employee to provide cover during the period of absence. Source: recent personal experience
    - snogglethorpe 12y ago
      Why the oddly complicated procedure...?
x0x0 12y ago
protip: working for facebook or apple is voluntary also, google offers 6 months of fully paid -- they top up what CA gives you -- maternity leave; I know they offer paternity leave but I don't know details fb apparently offers 4 months [1] apple is less generous [2] [1] http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/parental-leave-policies-at-some-big-technology-firms/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/parental-leave-pol... [2] http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-young-smith-announces-major-enhancements-to-employee-benefits/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-youn...
- fleitz 12y ago
  Wow, thats like almost what everyone is entitled to in most industrialized countries! What a great company to work for!
  - argonaut 12y ago
    Let's be a little careful here. "<X> should do <Y> because most <Z>'s do <Y>" (or some variation thereof) is an incredibly poor argument to make. Most industrialized nations have stronger restrictions on free speech than America, for example.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > Most industrialized nations have stronger restrictions on free speech than America, for example. Yet, most have a higher quality of life. France (for example) works the fewest hours per week, yet the highest GDP per capita (EDIT: added hour) hour. They get 5 weeks minimum for vacation per year, plus 22 days more if you choose to work more than 35 hours per week! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_emplo... "Think about it. Nationmaster ranks France as #18 in terms of GDP per capita, at $36,500 per person, yet France works much less than most developed nations. They achieve their high standard of living while working 16% less hours than the average world citizen, and almost 25% than their Asian peers as per UBS. Plus, if you visit France you'll also realize that their actual standard of living is probably much higher than GDP numbers would indicate. Thus, if one were to divide France's GDP per capita by actual hours worked, you'd probably find that the French are achieving some of the highest returns on work-hours invested. Labor Alpha, if you will. We can actually calculate this Labor Alpha using statistics from Nation Master. France has $36,500 GDP/Capita and works 1,453 hours per year. This equates to a GDP/Capita/Hour of $25.10. Americans, on the other hand, have $44,150 GDP/Capita but work 1,792 hours per year. Thus Americans only achieve $24.60 of GDP/Capita/Hour. This puts the French Labor Alpha at about $0.50 GDP/Capita/Hour over the US. It may sound small at first, but add that up across millions of people, and a few decades. Now you've built a lesson for the rest of the world to learn." http://www.businessinsider.com/are-the-french-the-most-productive-people-in-the-world-2009-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/are-the-french-the-most-produ...

by reuven 12y ago

myhf 12y ago

Maternity leave makes it more expensive for a company to hire a woman than a man with equivalent family plans. Paternity leave is also necessary to make progress against sexism.

reuven 12y ago
Israeli law says that men may take paternity leave. My brother-in-law did so when his youngest daughter was born. I wish all countries had such laws. That said, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that maternity leave is a "special privilege" for women. Women are the only ones (so far as I know) who can have children, and we do (I think) want to encourage employees to have them. Maternity leave isn't a special privilege. It's an acknowledgment that women give birth, and that they also can contribute to a company's success, and that they shouldn't have to choose between the two.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Actually, if you want "acting in the best interest of the company" to not mean "hire men over women", you want mandatory paternity leave requirements, not just voluntary. Enough men don't take paternity leave when it's voluntary that it ends up being cheaper for the company to hire men over women.
verroq 12y ago
Exactly, by giving women special privileges, it makes it more optimal to just not hire them. However, it won't equalise until you have completely broken traditional gender roles. Until it's completely socially acceptable for men to stay at home and take care of kids, it will still be more optimal to hire men who have a lesser chance of taking paternity leave.
radicalbyte 12y ago
Absolutely. Men should have the right (and should be forced to take it) to the same level of paternity leave as women. That will instantly level the playing field, and make the first three months of parenthood a pleasure instead of the pain that it is when having to work.. EDIT: my wife just pointed out that this will never work. Unlike women, men can father in parallel..
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Why should people be forced to trade (wanted) money for (unwanted) leave? Is the goal of statistically equal outcomes (as distinguished from equal treatment) so pressing that people should be forced to make undesirable tradeoffs? I'm curious what your underlying ethical/political principle is here.
  - wlievens 12y ago
    If leave for taking care of your kids is "unwanted", you should not be having kids. That counts for both parents. I can understand the tradeoff can be undesirable, but the tradeoff ought be between wanted money and wanted leave.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Then there would be a huge incentive to hire older people, who are (statistically) done having children. Just accept that having children comes with a career penalty and choose what you prefer: kids or career?
  - scobar 12y ago
    I agree that changing paternity leave rules to match maternity leave would reposition employer incentives with little or no improvement to unfair bias. I disagree that we should just accept that a choice must be made between preferring kids or career. We haven't figured out the best system yet, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
fleitz 12y ago
Most reasonable countries have paternity leave that gives the exact same benefits as maternity leave.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
"Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive. In this situation companies have no particular opinion about women - they only want employees who will remain productive. Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias. Could you explain what definition you are using for "sexism" in your comment?
- fleitz 12y ago
  Taking a year off is not a big deal. Also, I've quit places which leaves them without my services for a lot a lot longer with significantly shorter notice. No one ever questions my ability to get the job done despite having kids. I also find my children quite a lot more important than work. I have my children for life, I might have a job for 5 years tops. If you don't have kids why would you even give a shit about climbing the corporate ladder? There's a lot more entertaining shit in the world to do than sit in a chair with a desk looking at a screen.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    You are responding to the tone/mood affiliation of what I wrote, not the actual content.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Actually I'm not. Sexism isn't a weird term to use when women are discriminated against for having kids, when men are not. I have heard from a former bosses mouth that women are less productive having kids, despite myself and my former boss having had kids and being quite able to deal with having kids and getting shit done. There certainly are women who can't set appropriate boundaries just like there are men who always need to rush off to save their children from some emergency. At one job we joked about starting to coach sports so we could take Friday afternoon off because most Fridays one guy was always gone 'coaching basketball'.
      - 12y ago
JonnieCache 12y ago
The couple should be allocated some large number of days which they can choose to divide between them in any way they want. This is how it works in many scananavian countries, and I think a similar system was recently introduced in the UK too.
- LBarret 12y ago
  Scandinavian societies are far less sexist than the rest of europe and the US. The need for a specific, targeted law is less important. In law, the government can either follow a trend, or change the status quo. In this case, changing the status quo and forcing the fathers to take some responsabilities of mothers is the only way. A sexist society doesn't change by itself because the men in power doesn't want it to.
  - snogglethorpe 12y ago
    Maybe Scandinavian government policies are less sexist, but people I've known who've worked in Sweden have told me that Swedish society still seems to be fairly sexist (despite Sweden's progressive reputation)...
- steanne 12y ago
  actually, sweden's been tweaking their laws to encourage men to take more because there's still a large disparity between what men and women use. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/ec...
polskibus 12y ago
Maternity leave is paid by the government not by the employer in all the countries I heard it exists in.
- wlievens 12y ago
  Yes, but you have an employee less for months on end, that's the true cost.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > Maternity leave is paid by the government not by the employer in all the countries I heard it exists in. In the UK, it is paid by the Government for the first two weeks. The employer is then required to pay the employee on a reduced basis for six weeks before the Government takes-over again for 33 weeks ( edit: at a standard rate not associated with the original salary ). There is no financial support for the hiring or training of another employee to provide cover during the period of absence. Source: recent personal experience
  - snogglethorpe 12y ago
    Why the oddly complicated procedure...?

x0x0 12y ago

protip: working for facebook or apple is voluntary also, google offers 6 months of fully paid -- they top up what CA gives you -- maternity leave; I know they offer paternity leave but I don't know details fb apparently offers 4 months [1] apple is less generous [2] [1] http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/parental-leave-policies-at-some-big-technology-firms/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/parental-leave-pol... [2] http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-young-smith-announces-major-enhancements-to-employee-benefits/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-youn...

fleitz 12y ago
Wow, thats like almost what everyone is entitled to in most industrialized countries! What a great company to work for!
- argonaut 12y ago
  Let's be a little careful here. "<X> should do <Y> because most <Z>'s do <Y>" (or some variation thereof) is an incredibly poor argument to make. Most industrialized nations have stronger restrictions on free speech than America, for example.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > Most industrialized nations have stronger restrictions on free speech than America, for example. Yet, most have a higher quality of life. France (for example) works the fewest hours per week, yet the highest GDP per capita (EDIT: added hour) hour. They get 5 weeks minimum for vacation per year, plus 22 days more if you choose to work more than 35 hours per week! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_emplo... "Think about it. Nationmaster ranks France as #18 in terms of GDP per capita, at $36,500 per person, yet France works much less than most developed nations. They achieve their high standard of living while working 16% less hours than the average world citizen, and almost 25% than their Asian peers as per UBS. Plus, if you visit France you'll also realize that their actual standard of living is probably much higher than GDP numbers would indicate. Thus, if one were to divide France's GDP per capita by actual hours worked, you'd probably find that the French are achieving some of the highest returns on work-hours invested. Labor Alpha, if you will. We can actually calculate this Labor Alpha using statistics from Nation Master. France has $36,500 GDP/Capita and works 1,453 hours per year. This equates to a GDP/Capita/Hour of $25.10. Americans, on the other hand, have $44,150 GDP/Capita but work 1,792 hours per year. Thus Americans only achieve $24.60 of GDP/Capita/Hour. This puts the French Labor Alpha at about $0.50 GDP/Capita/Hour over the US. It may sound small at first, but add that up across millions of people, and a few decades. Now you've built a lesson for the rest of the world to learn." http://www.businessinsider.com/are-the-french-the-most-productive-people-in-the-world-2009-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/are-the-french-the-most-produ...