Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#151

Post by otoburb » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #134

eertami wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I will not risk hiring a young woman Not everyone wants or will have children.

I am not allowed to ask though. That's the whole point: extended maternal leaves cause discrimination when hiring women. I would love to be able to hire on merits alone but if I am facing much higher risk of not being able to put my children in a good school when hiring a women then I won't do that. No amount of moral outrage is going to put someone's children above my own. If you want me to not discriminate then ple…

>If you want me to not discriminate then please make laws which remove incentives to do so.

I guess the question for small business owners to help answer: what laws would make this work? Gender-neutral parental leave seems to be the best (least-worst?) option that governments have been able to implement so far.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#152

Post by recursive » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #27

I am against one-year parental leaves. My wife and I want ten children. That means ten years off work? How can a company manage? What if I were a less moral man and got two women pregnant a year? I mean, it's not that difficult. Even for faithful men, we plan on trying again (last baby born in December) in a few months. Is it really fair to ask my company to pay for my sex life? More worryingly, what kind of incentiv…

> it would force companies to adopt policies that overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing.

I've heard that said many times. I'm surprised to hear someone imply the opposite.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#153

Post by jacobsenscott » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #118

simonsarris wrote: post #11

> [heading] How do they manage in Canada? > In Canada, companies have had no option but to make 52-week parental leaves work, when requested, since 2000. The question Canadian companies ask isn’t “Can we do it?” but “How do we do it?” Okay, so... how do they do it? They never answer the question. If you have say, a CFO or a specialist mechanic (that you only need 1 of, but definitely need) and they take a year off, w…

I can only speak from personal observations as a Canadian; note that I am using female workers/maternity examples and pronouns to try to answer the specific question posed, especially since historically my observed experience has been predominantly with maternity leaves, but also note that in Canada men can increasingly take paternity leave instead/in addition, which I 101% support and further believe will further ma…

I have never seen an irreplaceable employee at any level, from the c-suite on down. I've seen lots who think they are.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#154

Post by bluecalm » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #143

bluecalm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

> If I am looking for 3rd programmer in my 2 person small company I will not risk hiring a young woman as getting a new employee to the stage where they contribute value is a huge cost. Anybody can leave at any time for any reason. I had much worse luck young male developers out of school and them leaving after a few months than with a developer leaving on maternity leave and coming back.

Yeah, but you need to play the odds. If decision A means 5% chance you can't pay for a good college for your kid and decision B means 2% chance of being in that position which one do you choose? If I run 100+ people firm then the cost is small enough that I can eat it for making the world a better and fairer place and I also get benefits of more inclusive work place. If I run a small 2 people business I will weigh every decision in terms of "what is a chance my family well-being being intact if I do that".

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#155

Post by simion314 » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #95

unavoidable wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly few people are actually trying to answer this question on this thread. The answer is straightforward: you either structure your organization so that there are enough overlapping responsibilities to account for parental leaves (e.g. good business practice of not making a fragile organization), or you hire a temporary employee explicitly on a 1 year "parental leave" contract. The labour market is quite goo…

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

Isn't SV culture encourages to not stay more then 2 years in one place and always keep an eye for an opportunity, how do you screen for people that are a "risk" of leaving not at home to take care of a child but at a new company to get a salary bump and work on something new and shiny?

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#156

Post by empath75 » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #95

unavoidable wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly few people are actually trying to answer this question on this thread. The answer is straightforward: you either structure your organization so that there are enough overlapping responsibilities to account for parental leaves (e.g. good business practice of not making a fragile organization), or you hire a temporary employee explicitly on a 1 year "parental leave" contract. The labour market is quite goo…

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

> If I am looking for 3rd programmer in my 2 person small company I will not risk hiring a young woman as getting a new employee to the stage where they contribute value is a huge cost.

If you’re involved in hiring decisions in pretty much any western country you’ve just opened yourself to potential lawsuits.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#157

Post by gammateam » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

xutopia wrote: post #14

simonsarris wrote: post #11

> [heading] How do they manage in Canada? > In Canada, companies have had no option but to make 52-week parental leaves work, when requested, since 2000. The question Canadian companies ask isn’t “Can we do it?” but “How do we do it?” Okay, so... how do they do it? They never answer the question. If you have say, a CFO or a specialist mechanic (that you only need 1 of, but definitely need) and they take a year off, w…

We hire interims or share responsibilities between other members of the team. It happens all the time and we rarely find an issue with this. If any company is run in such a way that bus-factor means the company can't thrive with one person gone you're simply doing it wrong.

> you're simply doing it wrong.

In Canada

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#158

Post by nasalgoat » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #95

unavoidable wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly few people are actually trying to answer this question on this thread. The answer is straightforward: you either structure your organization so that there are enough overlapping responsibilities to account for parental leaves (e.g. good business practice of not making a fragile organization), or you hire a temporary employee explicitly on a 1 year "parental leave" contract. The labour market is quite goo…

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

My partner worked at a 10-person company and took the year off for parental leave. They hired a temp to fill her role, who left when she came back.

I work for a 15-person company and we had a developer take a year off. We hired a temp developer who left when the other dev came back.

Not sure why this is hard to understand?

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#159

Post by bluecalm » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #131

bluecalm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

> If I am looking for 3rd programmer in my 2 person small company I will not risk hiring a young woman as getting a new employee to the stage where they contribute value is a huge cost. So, OTOH, is a sex discrimination lawsuit, especially when you are blatantly guilty. Also, most Western jurisdictions with paid or even unpaid but job-protected parental leave policies apply them without limitation by gender. And thes…

>>So, OTOH, is a sex discrimination lawsuit, especially when you are blatantly guilty.

Yeah, lawsuit or my children not being able to afford college. Oh the choices... I think I am taking the lawsuit, especially that it will be very hard to prove anything with just one employee.

>>Also, most Western jurisdictions with paid or even unpaid but job-protected parental leave policies apply them without limitation by gender.

Maybe in theory, if you looks at statistics of what actually happens in most European countries you will see that women take much longer leaves and often several months medicals during pregnancy as well. I mean I live in one and my male friends usually take at most several days while women usually take close to a year if you count medical leave during pregnancy. I know exactly one couple who split the leave equally. It worked for them but it's definitely not usually happens.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backtracks on one-year parental leaves

#160

Post by akamel » Tue, Feb 05, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

celticninja wrote: post #136

bluecalm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost even if the government pays the salary of the worker on a leave (the only way it can really work). Maybe the answer to that problem is that really important employees who make a lot of money shouldn't be hired as normal workers but as contractors. Something like: if you get 3x more average salary then you are important but you only…

Your cognitive dissonance must be impressive. You have recently wrote: >She is openly racist and sexist so good riddance > I think it's very reasonable to be against Islam because of its stance on gay rights, women rights And here you are being sexist and ignoring the right of women to not be discriminated against because of their gender. How do you reconcile these positions inside your own head?

Holy Crap!