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

241–250 of 412 posts

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

#241

Post by rpvnwnkl »

wvenable wrote: post #188
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…

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...

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

#242

Post by vidarh »

woodpanel wrote: post #161
CodeCube wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

Which is why you'll see increasing pressure for longer paternity leave in places like Norway, so that it's harder to discriminate to avoid dealing with this.

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

#243

Post by danans »

tathougies wrote: post #181
Aloha wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Because your dream life is not everyone else's dream life. There are a lot of good reasons people want to work. Many people actually enjoy practicing their skill, and want to get back to it when they can.

Any such policy would need to have measures to ensure that it is not used to an extent that it is not intended for, including using it for more than N years in a row, or for more than M children.

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

#244

Post by lhorie »

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

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 professionals to interns still in school, I find it extremely hard to imagine a small business that is such a special snowflake that "getting a new employee to the stage where they contribute value is a huge cost". I could get interns to be productive in a day or two. In many fields of work, such as early education, there are standardized accreditations so an employer can basically just pick and choose from a pool of qualified individuals who will be ready-to-work on day 1.

As the other poster said, standard fare in parental leaves is to hire a contractor for a 1 year contract. By the end of the year, worst case is your business grew 0%, you get your full-time employee back and it's business as usual. A more realistic scenario is your business grew by some amount that now allows you to hire the temp person full time.

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

tathougies wrote: post #181
Aloha wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by dependsontheq »

GordonS wrote: post #195
erk__ wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men do now have 2 months of parental leave, if they do not use that they lose it. This is per a new EU law from last year.

EU bloke here (well, for now, pending Brexit...) - do you have any more info on this? I think last time I took paternity leave it was only 2 weeks on full pay, and a further 2 weeks on half pay. Is the 2 months you mention on full pay?

No it’s still decided on a country level, sounds like the German law.

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

#247

Post by bluecalm »

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?

Yeah it makes sense. My friend is doing it, hiring mainly 50+ yrs old women (in his profession there are way more job seeking women than men in the first place). It works great for him as he gets great work place atmosphere and not that much usual office politics.

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

#248

Post by e12e »

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…

On the other hand, say you and your wife each work for 40 years each. Take 10 years out, and that leaves 70 years. Take one parent out, and that leaves 40 years. You've just earned 30 years of skilled labour by granting parental leave.

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

#249

Post by Mirioron »

unavoidable wrote: post #75
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…

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…

>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)

Sure, but once one person takes parental leave you're back to being fragile on this one aspect.

>The labour market is quite good, and there is no shortage of qualified individuals for almost all positions (CFO, specialists included).

I heavily disagree here. There are plenty of jobs that basically work because of the unique set of skills that a person brings to the table. It might be possible to manage with other people filling in, but it's often not the same.

>There is a tacit understanding that you might have to pick up the slack a bit for someone else, but one day you might need the same in return - borrowing against the future is another way to think about it.

Except for the people that won't get this benefit, because they won't or can't have kids.

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

#250

Post by Certhas »

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…

Wow. Just wow.

So, in many European countries, fathers and mothers have a right to substantial amounts of parental leave. Like a year or more. In all of these places small businesses exist. In Sweden, with very extensive parental leave [1], there is a large number of start ups. So obviously, empirically, you must be missing something.

Generally speaking, if your employees care about your business (and getting their job back after the leave) they will not take decisions that destroy this business. Some laws will also vary depending on company size, though parental leave is just such an obvious fundamental need and right that I am not aware of a country where it does.

You might not think of yourself as immoral, but your post is definitely sexist, and I find the viewpoint you take towards your potential employers deeply unethical. Because people like you sometimes end up with power we need democratic states to fight back and keep a sense of perspective.

[1] "New parents in Sweden are entitled to 480 days of leave at 80% of their normal pay. That’s on top of the 18 weeks reserved just for mothers, after which the parents can split up the time however they choose. Swedish dads also get 90 paid paternity days reserved just for them. Out of these 480 days, 60 must be taken by the father or else all are lost. This leave can be taken by the month, week, day or even by the hour."

So fathers are forced to take more paternal leave in Sweden than mothers get in the US.

https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/parental-leave-working-sca...

Post reply on HN