Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 328 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#101

Post by mikekchar »

scurvy wrote: post #28
jedberg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is like the unspoken mantra of "unlimited vacation" really being only 2 - 2.5 weeks. I think it depends on your company and management chain. When I worked at Netflix I took more vacation than every before. I'm not even sure how much, since it was untracked, but definitely more than 4 weeks a year. Our management made sure to set a good example by taking plenty of vacation.

Netflix is the exception, not the rule. Take a poll of what "unlimited vacation" means to most companies with the policy, and you'll see 2-3 weeks being the overwhelming response.

I tried to google my way through verifying your statement, but didn't get very far. The number of companies offering "unlimited" or "discretionary" leave is very small. LinkedIn is the only other company I could find that I'd even heard of. I could find no statistics length of vacation for any of the companies I found.

Kickstarter removed it's "unlimited vacation" policy because it found that employees were not taking enough vacation. This seems to be a strong statement from the company that they want to encourage vacation taking.

I can find no evidence that most companies with "unlimited vacation" policies are trying to limit the amount of vacation for its employees. It would be great if you could furnish it, as I'm interested in this topic.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#102

Post by scurvy »

engi_nerd wrote: post #94
benihana wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Move to a state with family leave laws. Just move! Great and completely realistic solution to the problem of what to do about paternity leave within my company when a kid is on the way. Brilliant! I wish I'd thought of that.

In a complete aside, I've also moved 4 times since 2011. I am tired of moving. "Just move" is not the most useful advice ever.

Lobby your state representatives to keep up with the other states?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#103

Post by Turing_Machine »

pinkrooftop wrote: post #99
Turing_Machine wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably going to get me voted down, but maybe...just maybe ...you shouldn't be having kids if the only job you can get is McDonalds or Yum! Brands (i.e., Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.). If you choose to have a child when your resources are that limited, your non-paternity leave is going to be among the least of the child's problems.

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Lets fix that first with basic income. Not to mention that kids are a way to government benefits and tax benefits, financial concerns are not the real issue here anyway. It is time off to care for babies. Hell, time off to be sick for a day. These jobs have the least responsibility but have the most rigid level of service.

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying (again, with the understanding that there are accidents, people who get laid off from better jobs, etc.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#104

Post by engi_nerd »

scurvy wrote: post #102
engi_nerd wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a complete aside, I've also moved 4 times since 2011. I am tired of moving. "Just move" is not the most useful advice ever.

Lobby your state representatives to keep up with the other states?

A good idea. Hopefully hyphenated-corporation won't manage to avoid that law like they have several other laws I have been impacted by...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#105

Post by mikekchar »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #61
SCAQTony wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...But how long will it take for paternal leave to trickle down to the largest employers in America who pay near or at minimum wage? 1) Wal-Mart Stores 2,200,000 2) Yum! Brands 523,000 3) McDonald's 440,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers_in_t... IMHO a billionaire taking a two-month leave will not inspire a majority of the top 50 employers to allow their male workforce to take 2-months off. Y…

This is probably going to get me voted down, but maybe...just maybe ...you shouldn't be having kids if the only job you can get is McDonalds or Yum! Brands (i.e., Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.). If you choose to have a child when your resources are that limited, your non-paternity leave is going to be among the least of the child's problems.

I suppose it depends on what kind of society you want to live in. Is a family something that should only be available to those who can afford it? Should we compare having children with buying a new pair of shoes or having a car? Or is it something that we want everyone in society to have available to them: for example like quality healthcare or legal assistance?

I'm not trying to pose a rhetorical question. I think this is literally a choice that societies have to make. On one extreme, society does not have to cater to anyone. We could collect no taxes and have no shared services. We could have no rules about how companies should interact with their employees or society at large. At the other extreme we could make everything a shared service and have society dictate how people get access to things.

Of course neither of these extremes is desirable for most people. We have to decide where to draw the line and what we think is good for our society. Your comment seems to imply that the choice in this case is obvious: if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. However, I think you can imagine the suffering that could impose upon people who have little chance of being able to support a family by their own means.

Is a child a luxury like new shoes? Or is something that we want everyone (regardless of class or wealth) to be able to have (understanding that society will have to foot the bill)?

Even though I have couched the question in a slightly loaded way, you might be surprised that I am personally torn by this issue and can see huge drawbacks for both approaches.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#106

Post by x0054 »

scurvy wrote: post #8

Ugh. I'm not trying to be super negative, but he's setting a bad precedent by taking half the amount of allowed leave. "We offer 4 months, but Zuck only took 2. Wanna be like Zuck?" He should take the full 4 months and show everyone that it's OK. This is like the unspoken mantra of "unlimited vacation" really being only 2 - 2.5 weeks.

Or how about just taking a full year off. The guy is worth billions and basically never has to work again. He is also not the Steve Jobs of FB either. It's not like he massively contributes on a day to day level. What's the point of being so rich if you can't spend some time with your kid and wife.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#108

Post by lghh »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #103
pinkrooftop wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Lets fix that first with basic income. Not to mention that kids are a way to government benefits and tax benefits, financial concerns are not the real issue here anyway. It is time off to care for babies. Hell, time off to be sick for a day. These jobs have the least responsibility but have the most rigid level of service.

are you really saying having a minimum wage job should mean you don't have kids? Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying (again, with the understanding that there are accidents, people who get laid off from better jobs, etc.)

So you're suggesting a sort of eradication of the poor over a generation due to the lack of ability to bear and support a child?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#109

Post by scurvy »

engi_nerd wrote: post #104
scurvy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobby your state representatives to keep up with the other states?

A good idea. Hopefully hyphenated-corporation won't manage to avoid that law like they have several other laws I have been impacted by...

It's state run (part of the unemployment/disability system). The company really has no choice...

I'm not trying to patronize you, but it sounds like you should be looking for a new job!

Edit: Here's a HN thread where I asked "where should we move to?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10103373

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Will Take Two Months Off from Facebook for Paternity Leave

#110

Post by SamReidHughes »

engi_nerd wrote: post #98
SamReidHughes wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess what. If you want paid family leave as a benefit, you can choose between that and alternative benefits, like having a higher salary, not to mention (for young people that are likely to have a family) being hirable in the first place. It doesn't come for free.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? And I'm not sure how to parse the whole "not to mention being hirable in the first place" phrase. What exactly are you trying to say?

No. It's not a false dichotomy. The compensation you can negotiate depends on how much work people expect to get out of you. Your price also depends on other people's willingness to take advantage of benefits that you're not interested in.

Young people in general are riskier hires than older people -- they have less of a history, they're more likely to change jobs or move -- having a paid leave policy increases that risk even more and makes it harder for some people to find jobs, especially the kind that involve up-front costs of learning on the job or training, and that have slim margins.

Edit: The flip side is that regulatory enaction of such policies can help protect you from the effects of stupid behavior by other people. For example, the prices of houses, and the wages people negotiate, are in part an artifact of the fact that most people are willing to spend too much of their own money, buying houses they can barely afford and generally living paycheck to paycheck. These people negotiate wages down while pushing prices of goods up, to the detriment of savers. Policies like mandatory retirement savings and parental leave can help insulate people that want to save for retirement and want to take time off when their child is born from these market effects.

Post reply on HN