Slashdot Mirror
Starting Now At Netflix: Unlimited Maternity and Paternity Leave
vivaoporto writes: Netflix announced Tuesday that, during the first year after their child's birth or adoption, employees will be able to take off however long they feel they need to. They can return on a full- or part-time basis, and even take subsequent time off later in the year if needed. Netflix will "keep paying them normally." Time comments that Netflix's policy "deserves high marks for extending leave to fathers, as well as understanding that the entire first year after childbirth can be challenging for new parents".
Take as much holidays as you want, come to work when you want, etc...
Check this presentation about the Netflix Culture (http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664?from=ss_embed).
Basically they want high performers, and if that means you perform high coming to work 20 hrs a week, so be it. It also means if you're pulling 80 hrs a week and are just getting by, that's not enough. You don't get an A+ for "trying hard", you get an A+ for achieving high performance. That's all that matters.
Ask Sweden. This is pretty much the legal minimum there.
It's not really unlimited if it's limited to a year now is it. Bad title. Commendable policy though, much better than what many places offer.
If it's anything like my brother's company's "Unlimited Vacation Time" policy, it's a scam. He used to have 5 weeks of vacation time every year. He could pretty much always get approved for all that time. Now he has "unlimited" time, with managerial approval. His company did a trial of the policy with a limited number of employees and found that people take 30-40% less vacation time, on average, when they do not have a set amount of time off. The point of the change in policy was to make everyone think they were working for a great company while at the same time giving the employees less time off. Sure there are employees that end up coming out ahead, but most employees feel guilty about asking for time off when they aren't pulling from a fixed pool of leave.
Also, depending on the fine print with their policy, you might not come back to the same job.
In Massachusetts (where I have personal experience) the law is that there must be an equivalent job for you to return to, not necessarily your old job. After all, the company doesn't stop needing someone to do the work just because you need to take time off to care for your slobbering bundle of joy. When my wife took her first maternity leave, she did, in fact, return to the same position; after her second maternity leave (with the same company), she was moved horizontally to a job in a different group that, while it had similar responsibilities and identical pay, was far, far less desirable because of her new boss.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Clue #1: a minimum wage job isn't something you should live off of. It is expressly for teenagers and for folks who use it as a stepping stone or fallback until something better comes along.
---Shouldn't be, but is. Reality sucks. We have people in their adult years working fast food. It is a fantasy that only teens should be 'flipping burgers'.
Clue #2: these jobs usually require little-to-no skill, and consequently do not bear the value of $15/hr at current inflation/valuation.
---Neither does working at a factory in many cases, but that seemed to be deemed 'middle class worthy' in the 60s-70s where a single worker could support an entire family. What you're saying is 'you deserve to be destitute, you unskilled scum'.
Clue #3: when you price human labor too high, automation becomes more attractive. There are already machines that can effectively replace fast-food cashiers, and are cheaper to operate and maintain than $15/hr people. There are also machines coming online that can operate the back-end of a fast food joint as well, which will also just come under the wire as being cheaper (but would come out ahead by being reliable, on-time, etc.) /hr would hasten that. All the more reason to support things like a basic income now (perhaps with some civil service requirement), since the mass unemployment problem is only going to get worse.
---Can't argue with that. Automation is coming, regardless of where the minimum wage is. No doubt that raising it to $15
Clue #4: sucks to say it, but no one owes you a living -anything, let alone a "living wage" (whatever that means). Safety nets and charity are for those unable to help themselves, and obviously for those among us in temporary desperate situations, but that's it. Meanwhile, if you are able-bodied and not mentally defective, then it is up to you to better yourself by any legal means possible.
---Ah yes, the 'brutalist' libertarian view. I guess that's where we differ. I'm for treating all people with respect, and providing a safe place to live/eat/prosper. Not 'too bad, so sad, fuck off.' Ideally, regardless of borders, but that's more of a long term thing. You seem to still think that if you're 'able bodied' there is good work available, and you're just lazy if you don't grab it. I'd consider that pretty naive given the population explosion the world has experienced in the past 50 years alone.
Where/how do we pay for all of this idealism? It's pretty obvious that money is essentially made up and totally fiat. It's also pretty obvious that a tiny tiny percentage of people hoard a crazy-huge sum of that money. Arguably, keeping it out of circulation avoids hyperinflation and all that. Considering that over 70% of our economy is consumer-driven, wouldn't giving those consumers more money to...consume with...the economy would benefit immensely? I think such benefits would far outweigh any inflationary risks, but I'm no economist.
What is this bullshit? Why the hell must everybody want kids?
My wife and I want no damned part in raising children. Neither of us have ever wanted children. We don't generally like children.
To borrow your false dilemma, are you a moron or an asshole?
Why the hell does every smug idiot with children think the rest of us give a damn or want one of the little mewling puking brats?
I don't begrudge you having kids, so get over it if some of us choose not to.
But it's not like some of us haven't had to work with someone who is conveniently never available after hours because of their children. So we're supposed to cover all of those times so you can spend time parenting?
Why would we do that again? Because we think you parenting is such an awesome thing?
Hell, no.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.