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

Post by frik » Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 5:46 AM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #55

PinguTS wrote: post #35

To be honest, compared to Germany that is not a good news. In Germany, you can have this up to 36 months (3 years) for both parants and your employer can't send you a notice to quit. So, to be honest, I have to laugh at Zuck. Or say it another way: I think, he does not value his kids. I am a shamed of him.

What if you have four children, spaced out evenly over twelve years in Germany? Do you just not need to work for twelve years?

Post by wpietri » Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 5:57 AM UTC

dimdimdim wrote: post #142

The point is --- there was no real need to even mention this on an FB post! the CEO is also an employee and he could have done this more privately. I hate it when top CEOs try to prove that love "work-life" balance when in reality once you reach the top, its always easy to do the "right thing" in any circumstance. If she would have been pregnant when he just started FB, then would have taken more than 2 days off?

Post by mikeash » Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 5:58 AM UTC

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.

Post by abalashov » Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 6:00 AM UTC

aianus wrote: post #115

click170 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got a valid point that available resources should factor into the decision making process for having a child. That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children so clearly there has to be more to this. What if instead, a CEO is only allowed to take time off equal to or less than the average of every other employee.

> That said, if that's the only measure then only the rich can afford to have children You say this like it's a bad thing. If only rich people had children we could nearly eliminate human suffering within a generation.

Post by zhte415 » Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 6:00 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #146

veidr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha ha! You probably should have been voted down, but OK, let's take a look at your idea. You are saying 1 out of 4 American workers shouldn't have kids[1]. If everybody followed your advice, a lot of pretty influential people wouldn't have been born: Steve Jobs, J.K. Rowling, Larry Ellison (OK maybe that works in your argument's favor). Jay Z. Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama. I wouldn't be here, either; my dad was a sh…

The logical extension of this argument is that everyone on earth should be forced to have as many children as possible all the time, because - gasp - think of all the wonderful human beings that we're missing out on. In fact, all those women of childbearing age you see walking around without a baby in their womb are guilty of a certain kind of murder . Strap them down and get to work!