Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

301–310 of 412 posts

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

#301

> [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…

From what I could find, Canada offers 52 weeks total for both parents. Whereas the Gates Foundation was offering 52 weeks per parent (about twice as good), and is now rolling that back to 6 months plus daycare. So that seems totally on par. I couldn't find exact figures, but it looks like the Canadian policy pays up to 55% of earnings, and usually closer to 33%. I couldn't find how much the Gates foundation pays.

Canada pays the same benefits as unemployment insurance would for maternity leave.

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

#302
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany we have 12 months parental leave and it seems the country is doing quite well.

Salaries especially for specialist jobs tend to be quite a bit lower in Germany (as is the case in Canada) than in countries like the U.S. or Switzerland which have much less generous parental leave, though. Of course, parental leave is just one variable here, but in a way this is the obvious trade-off: You can have more parental leave and lower salaries, or less parental leave and higher salaries. (The same is true…

Yeah it would be amazing if people could understand that there are big trade-offs with every socialistic policy.

U.S. GDP per capita [1] (2018): $65,060 Germany GDP per capita [1] (2018): $49,690

The U.S. earns 22% more per capita than Germany.

Imagine if the U.S. implemented policies such that our economy slowed to Germany's per capita rate. At our current GDP of $20.66 trillion, it would wipe over $4 trillion from our GDP. Seeing as the U.S. is the biggest marketplace in the world (in terms of dollars), it would have trickle down effects that would dramatically depress the world economy.

[1]: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/USA/DEU/...

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

#303

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…

Most leave laws don't apply to a company as small as three people. So this is just a hypothetical situation that is so absurd that it would never happen.

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

#304

> [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…

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 provides opportunties for others to grow as well. Getting a temp role as cfo can open doors.

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

#305
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Parental leave as currently implemented in European countries incentivize having children later in life which is happening resulting in less children overall. There is absolutely no reason employers should be burdened by parental leave. If we as a society decide we want to support parents let's collect enough taxes and have the government pay. If the support is independent of your job status and salary it will remove twisted incentive to wait till your 30s do have children (which is the case when benefits are based on your current salary).

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

#306
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've literally never heard of anyone offering better. My company offers 12 weeks parental leave plus 2 (I think?) weeks medical leave for birth mothers, and that's waaaay better than average.

Norway gives 14 weeks for the mother, 14 weeks for the father, and then either 49 weeks or 59 weeks to be allocated freely between the parents. If you choose 49 weeks, all of the leave is at 100% of salary. If you choose 59 weeks, the leave is at 80% of salary.

There was an implicit "in the United States" in that comment, sorry if I didn't make it clear. I'm aware that there are better parental leave policies in other countries.

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

#307

> [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…

First, on the legal side: the firm can leave the position open, or hire a full or temporary person for it, but when the parent returns they get their old job back (or an equivalent one). Also it's not exactly 52 weeks parental leave, it's 13 weeks medical leave (for the mother expressly) and 39 weeks for either parent, to be split as desired. And that's just the paid component (which is paid by the unemployment insurance system). You're also able to take unpaid leave as the other parent. Same difference to the employer, of course. They're not on the hook for the direct cost.

What generally happens is the firm hires a person on a one year term, and then at the end of the year the original person comes back and the replacement person is either kept on (if they were good) or not (if they weren't). It's a decent way to hire new people, actually.

>>What if the person takes parental leave again after 1 month back? Do you accept that you've torpedoed some role? Do you try to slowly phase out this person's job description and offload their work onto their coworkers?

In Canada you can't take parental leave simply at any time, it's tied to the birth of the kid (wth leeway). It's very unusual to have a child 13 months after the previous one, and there are rules about how often you can take the paid unemployment insurance (tied to how much you've worked over the last year). But yes, you'd be entitled to leave from you job.

>>More succinctly, what if someone is definitely necessary in the near-day-to-day, and does not do work that is interchangeable with other employees?

A well-structured organization typically doesn't have very many of these people, because it's a ticking time bomb. That person will leave; they'll quit or get fired or get hit by a bus or get cancer or take a three week vacation and the business has to figure it out. And babies don't really sneak up on you that much - there's plenty of time to train someone, etc.

>>I suspect that firms have learned to deal with it, but by doing things like passively selecting against women and younger people for critical roles. Is that how they manage?

I've never seen any data that Canada has poorer gender equality or more age discrimination than the US.

Overall I think that the parental leave laws in Canada do make things marginally more difficult for businesses but significantly easier for new parents. That's a tradeoff I consider reasonable.

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

#308
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I'm opposed to free trade and want fair trade instead. Like, it's not wrong for e.g. EU to impose a tax on products/services produced by companies abroad that have much less strict environmental/employment laws.

Right, but your definition of 'fair' employment laws might make poor countries unable to compete and thus stay poor. Example: poor countries can't afford the level of worker safety that rich countries can. So do you not trade with them? They then stay poor and work as subsistence farmers, something a lot worse than working in a sweatshop.

You’re right, that’s not good either. We need a better balance. Right now, European companies can just export production to India/China, skirting our environmental laws, making them essentially useless.

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

State sponsored basic income like support for pregnant women and more support for parents. Tying benefits to your job and salary results in discrimination of women when hiring, women postponing motherhood and employers eating the risk of women looking for a job just to get pregnant and get benefits.

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

#310

> [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…

Those who have studied economics will not be surprised at how Canadian companies do this. The law effectively makes it illegal for all Canadian companies to operate in Canada if they can not afford this 52 week leave. Pretty much like how minimum wage makes it illegal for low productivity individuals to work or be employed.

There is a definite cost to this which is paid for by the other employees,share-holders and economy in general. It also makes age an issue in hiring decisions and employers would be less willing to hire potential new parents. Secondly, people figure out clever ways to avoid this through contractual employees, outsourcing and other methods.

Without such law Canadian society would have been more rich, more innovative and ensured welfare of all in the society.

Post reply on HN