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

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

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 412 posts

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

#181

Post by tathougies »

Aloha wrote: post #64
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…

You dont need to take the whole year.

I don't see why anyone in his/her self-interest would not. If I could take all the time in the world to play with babies and be paid my current salary to do it, that's honestly my dream life.

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

#182

Post by otoburb »

muizelaar wrote: post #149
sandworm101 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in canada and there is an actual problem. I know of a lawfirm that suffered through a new hire. She had one kid, took the leave and then was pregnant with another within months of returning. The nasty part was that she made is known she intended on leaving the firm after the second kid. She did then leave. The firm effectively paid her for two years only to have her then walk out the door. Women should get the ti…

Parental leave in Canada is paid by Employment Insurance not the employer.

True, but Canadian firms also compete with one another for talent, and many top firms (presumably more applicable to a whiteshoe law firm) offer "top up" the employe's parental leave salary to X% -- the best I've seen is 80%, but perhaps competing for top talent employers could offer up to 100%.

In this instance, both the government and the employers are shouldering that cost.

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

#183

Post by randyrand »

It seems very odd to me that parental leave is paid for by companies and not by taxes/society. It completely messes up incentives.

Should it really be the case that if you're unemployed when you give birth that you have go a significant time without work?

Or if you start you 1-year leave 5 weeks into a new job that the company has to pay you for a year?

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

#184

Post by tathougies »

pjc50 wrote: post #97
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…

> My wife and I want ten children This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that. > overall reduce the reproduction rate of society. This can hardly be said to be a good thing This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children.

> This isn't the Soviet Union, nobody's going to give you a medal for that.

I don't want a medal. That's why I think it's ridiculous that some countries mandate private companies pay me money to do it.

> This is questionable in the era of global warming. Both society as a whole and maternity leave as a policy rely on very few people having a lot of children.

Sure, but it lets us be leeches on the system, which is something most welfare states should seek to minimize. One way to minimize this is by not offering this benefit. Another way to minimize it is to adopt programs encouraging people to make certain reproductive decisions. In the interest of minimal coercion, I'd think the former was better.

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

#185

Post by bluecalm »

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?

There is a difference between saying things like women are worse employees or don't deserve same rights as men and being put in position to choose between being sexist when hiring and putting someone's else children above well-being of your family. I hope you can understand the difference.

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

#186

Post by Pfhreak »

randyrand wrote: post #167

My mom had 4 children within 7 years. It's crazy to think someone could be employed somewhere 7 years and only work 3. You'd have to hire 2.3 people to get 1 full-time employee!

> It's crazy to think someone could be employed somewhere 7 years and only work 3.

Alternative take: It's humane to think that someone who had four kids wouldn't lose their job because they had four kids.

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

#187

Post by jstanley »

dragonwriter wrote: post #171
bluecalm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 gende…

> Yeah, lawsuit or my children not being able to afford college. I don't think you've researched the costs of the kind of lawsuit at issue for your business if you think that it's less than you'd lose by having the employee in the position take a year off on job-protected leave.

Risk = Probability * Consequence

I don't think he (or she!) is saying that the consequence is low, just that the risk of suffering that consequence is low enough to outweigh it.

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

#188

Post by wvenable »

bluecalm wrote: post #154
wvenable wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ev…

But you're making assumptions and predictions based on nothing. If someone leaves, they leave. If they come back, they come back. Male or female. Makes no difference. You can't control it. You can't predict it.

You imagine a level of control that you simply don't have.

Conversely, there is a net benefit to society that simply cannot be ignored. It's life.

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

#189

Post by celticninja »

bluecalm wrote: post #185
celticninja wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is a difference between saying things like women are worse employees or don't deserve same rights as men and being put in position to choose between being sexist when hiring and putting someone's else children above well-being of your family. I hope you can understand the difference.

Talk the talk, just don't walk the walk.

I understand.

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

#190

Post by GordonS »

woodpanel wrote: post #169
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…

While I can relate to your logic, I wonder: Since men are increasingly considering taking maternity leave as well, wouldn't it be a good alternative to focus on people older than say 40? What would keep you from hiring them?

Not trying to be a dick, but for info, male 'baby leave' is called "paternity leave"
Post reply on HN