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

261–270 of 412 posts

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

#261

Post by charlie0 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #93
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'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…

This right here. I heard at my old job that a woman who was having a job orientation got nauseated and was throwing up. She came back stating she was pregnant and due to the law she could not be fired and was entitled to some sort of leave. For HR the position is technically filled, so they aren't able to hire someone else without making exceptions. While I think maternity leave is great, I think there should be something that stops this type of leech-like behavior. This woman didn't even work one damn day!

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

#262

Post by Mirioron »

nasalgoat wrote: post #158
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…

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?

Because many businesses can't afford to do so. I worked at a small company where a senior dev took a year off. His replacement didn't quite fit the same roles as well and the project fell apart. I believe the company fell apart afterwards too.

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

#263

Post by munk-a »

rytor718 wrote: post #178
woodpanel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't like the outcome of his thought-process as well but to be fair, it's just logical self-interest which is exactly his #1 job if he's running his own business. The answer to this in my opinion is a job-market with less job-security regulation (so that "getting new workers up to speed" will be the norm not the exception for companies) coupled with a tighter social security net (maternity leave paid for by the gove…

> it's just logical self-interest which is exactly his #1 job if he's running his own business. This is precisely one of the cultural obstacles to correct. Dropping in a 1 year policy without substantial organizational preparation and planning is -- surprise -- doomed to fail. Like every single other aspect of organizational planning. The problem in the US is we simply do not value these kinds of things. We value ind…

> We value individuality foremost and I believe its among the top reasons parental leave is incomprehensible to many people.

Uh... that's not valuing the individual (or individuality, the ability to make choices freely for one's self). The lack of paid parental leave adds an outside a government mandated influence to the decision of whether to have children or not.

Unless... you're talking about the individual rights of the corporation to not have to pay parental leave, through some twisted extension of citizen's united. As a society it benefits us to encourage people to have children, so making the process even more difficult is a bit silly.

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

#264

Post by ThomPete »

lhorie wrote: post #244
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 Ignoring the fact that this kind of discrimination is flat out illegal, you are forgetting to consider that the Canadian policy allows males to take parental leave as well, so the excuse for the discrimination isn't even logically consistent. Personally, having lead teams of people ranging from experienced professio…

This is an unrealistic description of reality.

Most small companies do not actually worry about growth, they worry about staying in business and small things matter.

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

#265

Post by [deleted] »

dwild wrote: post #179
bluecalm wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you are saying that you have a higher chance that a young woman will carry a baby than having a young man change for a better paying offer? I'm one of theses young one out of college and I can tell you, based around me, your stats are clearly wrong ;). Most don't care about babies, but they all certainly care about getting more interesting jobs. I'm Canadian too.

[deleted]

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

#266

Post by bluecalm »

rpvnwnkl wrote: post #241
wvenable wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The approach blucalm is offering is nearly the definition of sex discrimination. You can’t play the odds when hiring in protected classes, you need to assess the applicants on an individual basis...

Yes. You're either sexist, eat the costs or not hire at all. Quite a tough spot for a very small business. I think the laws should align incentives instead of creating situations like that.

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

#267

Post by mattnewton »

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.

IANAL but my understanding is this is very illegal in the US. Personally I think this is also terrible reasoning; there are many un-gendered life events that people will go on leave for.

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

#268

Post by ThomPete »

CodeCube wrote: post #108
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…

> It's surely doable in big organizations but small businesses it's an overwhelming cost And yet, there they are ... still having small businesses, and consulting shops, and all manner of people continuing operations in the face of such start conditions ;) edit: Holy crap, I hadn't even finished reading your comment > If I am looking for 3rd programmer in my 2 person small company I will not risk hiring a young woman…

Unless you are running your own small company you are in no position to judge other people. It doesn't sound like it's an ideology but rather necessity.

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

#269

Post by duderific »

nasalgoat wrote: post #168
beart wrote: post #9

As a parent, I would much rather take that year and use it to shorten my normal working week for as long as possible. With 260 working days a year, you could work 4 days a week for the first five years of your child's life.

Who's watching the kid the four days you're working? Watching a baby is a full time job.

Presumably they have day care, nanny or family helping out.

As a parent, I'm pretty sure the GP was imagining how nice it would be to have that extra day a week to spend time with their kid, or simply run errands, as the weekends are taken up with kid activities.

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

#270

Post by duderific »

randyrand wrote: post #183

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?

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

Indeed. The same could be said for health care.

Post reply on HN