Zuckerberg To Take 2 Months Paternity Leave To Give His Kid a Better Outcome (techcrunch.com)

theodp writes: TechCrunch reports that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will take two months off from Facebook for paternity leave. Why? "Studies show that when working parents take time to be with their newborns, outcomes are better for the children and families," Zuckerberg explained in a FB post on Friday. "At Facebook we offer our U.S. employees up to 4 months of paid maternity or paternity leave which they can take throughout the year." No word on why the child will only get 50% of that time — maybe that's what the gains chart suggested as a good tradeoff — or if expectant parents who apply to send their children to Zuckerberg's new Primary School, which aims to "help children from underserved communities reach their full potential," will be expected to make a similar commitment.

Comments

And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good on him, who cares. Next?

Re:And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[HuguesT]

Good on him indeed, this means several things:

He's a big-shot CEO who can delegate. Great

This sort of things is not reserved for women. Fathers should take time off too. Great

The workplace is not the be-all and end-all of all things. Kids are important too, they are our future. Great

Re: And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[bill_mcgonigle]

It doesn't matter if you give a shit - it only matters if you view ads and post comments. You've done your part for the day to encourage such stories.

But topically, there's a subset of IT where you're supposed to "understand" that you shouldn't ever expect to be a good father, spend meaningful time with your kids - "because you're in IT". That's not importance, it's abuse. Many nerds who don't know how to stand up for themselves could use a role model like TheZuck to point to. In my limited experience, the people who most detest him are those who waste their time on his site (projection).

Re: And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[kuzb]

Zuckerberg is hardly what I'd consider a positive role model, unless you feel screwing over millions of people by selling their personal information to the highest bidder while simultaneously looking down on them all as plebs is a virtue.

Re:And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's news in the US because you need to be the billionaire CEO of a powerful company in order to even GET paid paternity/materinity leave, let alone two months of it.

If youre not from the US i can see why this wouldnt be news, since only 3 of the worlds 198 nations dont require paid leave for having children.

two being 3rd world shit holes.
the the third the US.
but I repeat myself.

Re: And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[Solandri]

I hardly consider Zuckerberg a positive role model. But he's been a heckuva lot better than other people who've been in his position (Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates, etc).

• - Once he had his billions, he had the opportunity to select any gold-digging trophy wife. Instead, he married his pre-fortune girlfriend.
• - He wasn't arrogant, and understood when he was in over his head, and hired outside experts to advise him or do the job for him.
• - Facebook has more or less actually been competing with challengers, not playing shenanigans with standards or formats to create an unlevel playing field. That hasn't been true for their instant messaging, but their core service has pretty succeeded because it provided what people wanted and reached critical mass first, not because they crippled up and coming competitors.
• - He's been changing himself to follow the market (learning Chinese), not trying to change the market to follow his desires (biggest gripe I had with Jobs).
• - Those billions of people he screwed over agreed to allow him to sell their personal information to the highest bidder. If you dislike that FB does this, then you need to convince those people to stop agreeing to stuff like this. If you don't do that, even if Zuckerberg and FB vanished overnight, it would just mean a different company and different CEO would rise up to provide a social media service which did the exact same thing. This is not like Standard Oil or Windows, where you had to use their products if you wanted to survive in the modern world, so you were forced to pay their price. FB's market penetration is only a bit over 50% in the U.S., nothing like the 90+% those monopolies held/hold.
• - More than likely, you also probably look down on all those people who willingly give up their personal information as plebs.

Re:And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[davester666]

Yes, it is in writing. But can they actually take the time off. A ridiculous number of people can't even take their vacation time because of the fear they will be asked to stop bothering to come into the office.

And they won't say "we're letting you go because you took vacation time", because would be illegal, just something like "we want to move in a different direction, one without you on our team."

Re:And people on slashdot give a shit, why?

[Mass Overkiller]

Or when you come back to work after an approved vacation your boss approaches you and tells you that a customer complained about you, and that you're fired. Even though in the industry I work in, customer complaints, while taken seriously, are a frequent event. Everyone complains about something, and to get fired for it is rare, and in some shops, illegal under contract.

Though spoiled is a likely side effect...

[rmdingler]

Why? "Studies show that when working parents take time to be with their newborns, outcomes are better for the children and families," Zuckerberg explained.

In related research, children born to billionaire parents are statistically likely to experience better outcomes than those below the poverty line.

Re:Though spoiled is a likely side effect...

[alvinrod]

Which does raise an interesting point as to whether or not the effect is due to spending additional time with children or is merely a byproduct of the fact that those who can take time off to spend with their children are far more likely to be wealthy, which is more responsible for the outcome.

In looking for a study to back those assertions up, I immediately found an article from earlier this year reporting on a recent study which reported the opposite results, i.e., that time spent with children didn't matter. I haven't read through it yet, but here's a link to the study in question. (PDF Warning)

I'm all for workers getting maternity or paternity leave if they want to spend time with their newborns, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into why we're doing it.

Re:Though spoiled is a likely side effect...

[Nemyst]

Actually, I think there's an opposite effect going on. I'd say the children born to wealthy parents, but not unbelieveably so, have the best chances. Being the child of Zuckerberg or Gates means you're growing up in a very unique position which isn't necessarily good for a child's development. It becomes hard to have "normal" social interactions, you have a completely out of whack understanding and relationship with money, etc. This goes even more so as a teenager, where the other teens will know who your parents are, which will heavily color their interactions with you. Plus, many of those parents tend to be extremely busy and it's very well known that parental presence is one of the most important factors in a child's development.

Re:Though spoiled is a likely side effect...

[quenda]

I immediately found an article from earlier this year reporting on a recent study which reported the opposite results, i.e., that time spent with children didn't matter.

You did not look very hard - that article is talking about something very different, kids 3 to 11. Babies and toddlers need a lot more attention than older kids.
It seems quite possible we are neglecting our babies, and overindulging older children who could be more independent, e.g. ride a bicycle, walk or catch a bus to school, friends and soccer instead of being chauffeured everywhere.

Re:Though spoiled is a likely side effect...

[AthanasiusKircher]

You did not look very hard - that article is talking about something very different, kids 3 to 11. Babies and toddlers need a lot more attention than older kids.

Not only that. The article implies that extra time with kids is mostly detrimental when parents are stressed during that time. Extrapolating to infants, where Moms of newborns tend to be really stressed, it seems like having an extra hand (like a father) around would significantly reduce maternal stress, which the quoted study implies would be a good thing.

lolwut?

[Chris Johnson]

Wait, what? I clicked on this in my Twitter feed without looking, thinking it was going to be the Onion.

Re:Why is this news?

[Opportunist]

If they can afford it, yes. How many can these days?

Re:Why is this news?

[Troed]

I took out 19 months with our firstborn - from when he was 4 months old.

Of course, I'm Swedish. Anyone who would only take two months would be seen as quite uninterested in their children.

(In Sweden you get 480 days per child, to be divided as you see fit between mother and father. 120 of those days are however locked, divided up as 60 each, to each parent. You get 80% of your salary during parental leave, capped to a maximum which is far far below what anyone in "IT" makes)

What I'd like to know

[rsilvergun]

is how many contractors FB hires. When companies have super sweet benefits like this they usually use contractor positions to get out of giving them company wide. I can't think of a single major company I haven't seen this done at :(...

Re:Why is this news?

[rmdingler]

If they can afford it, yes. How many can these days?

I got my ass handed to me for missing half a day for the unanticipated and rather sudden onset labor of my firstborn, so.... certainly not all of us.

GP may be from a nation with scandinavian-like healthcare.

Re:Why is this news?

[Cederic]

..and you didn't quit on the spot? Who wants to work for that much of a cunt?

Re:Must be nice to be at a wealthy company

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that in every other developed country in the world, this is considered a basic human right that *every* company, small and large, can somehow afford to "hand out".

Re:Why is this news?

[ranton]

Why is this news? Don't most parents take (m|p)aternity leave when they have newborns?

I guess this is why this really is news that matters. Because paternity leave is a very rare thing in the US. You may live in Europe where this being news sounds like nonsense, which more Americans need to realize. Less than 15% of US employers offer paternity leave, and that is almost entirely exclusive to white collar professions. Paternity leave tends to be about two weeks here, as opposed to months in more progressive European countries.

The reasoning is absurd

[CaptBubba]

He should take the time, but the stated reason why he's taking the time is just silly. I really hope that it was written by a PR person and not Zuck himself.

Not everything a person does needs to be "backed by studies" as some sort of optimal behavior. It is his kid, not an A/B test opportunity.

Who refers to their child as an "outcome"?

[JoeyRox]

Does he think his Kid is one of his PHP scripts?

Re:Why is this news?

[thegarbz]

I got my ass handed to me for missing half a day for the unanticipated and rather sudden onset labor of my firstborn, so.... certainly not all of us.

In most sane western countries that would be grounds for taking your employer to court. Although I do know someone in Australia who also got into trouble, but he did so because he called in sick rather than take a separately accountable section of leave specifically intended for such purposes. I should mention the guy was an American expat, clearly not used to the fact that in some countries employees have some rights.

Poor billionaire

[nospam007]

I got 12 months in Luxembourg, like everybody else.

Re:Poor billionaire

[Hognoxious]

I only got 8. The judge took pity on me.

Re:Why is this news?

[rmdingler]

Well, I'd just had this baby, in a down economy, in which I possessed no marketable skill.

I was a bit of a poor young cunt myself.

Re:Why is this news?

[Rei]

Yes, because one just goes out and adopts - it's not like it's a multiyear process, often full of heartbreak, to get a child who more likely than not will grow up with identity issues and spend a lot of time seeing you as "not their real parent". I've been a stepmother before. It was a pretty heartbreaking experience. You know, they start crying over something and you try to console them and they start crying I want my mommy, and you reassure them that you're there for them, and they start crying, no, *MY* mommy, my *REAL* mommy.... think I really want those sort of experiences ever again? Sorry, I've just been reading some articles written from people who were adopted as children, about their attitudes toward the whole thing, and it's turning me even more off of ever considering that route.

Surrogacy is at least a bit closer. But it's illegal here. Some people pretend that they had a child overseas, but they can be investigated over it. In most cases it means spending years having to try to adopt your own child - and meanwhile having no rights over anything at all related to them.

Re: Must be nice to be at a wealthy company

[kenh]

The math in 'every other developed country' is the same as here - offering these types of benefits increase labor costs and and reduces employment opportunities.

How many months of paid paternity leave do Foxconn workers in China get?

How much free health care do Mexican factory workers get?

When an Indian woman that works in a sweat shop sewing together t-shirts gets pregnant, how much paid time off does she get?

Re:Must be nice to be at a wealthy company

[phantomfive]

You say that like not having to work is a bad thing.

The GP thinks not having to work is a great thing. It's paying for other people to not work that bothers him.

Re:Why is this news?

[Osgeld]

I took 4 days, cause that's all the vacation time I had and in the US no one is going to pay you

C!=C

[ShanghaiBill]

I believe this is a case of correlation rather than causation. Taking paternity leave is likely to be correlated with being a good dad, but it seems unlikely that it is the paternity leave itself that causes that. Newborns crave human contact. But until the are about 6 months old, they don't really care who that human is. Besides, for the first 2 months, they spend 20+ hours a day sleeping.

When my kids were born I arranged to work from home 2 days per week, and wrote code while the kid was sleeping. We saved money on daycare, and I treasure the memories of spending time with the babies, but I doubt if my kids are really doing any better because if it.

In related news

[codeButcher]

For us mundanes, preventing your children from accessing social media will probably make for even better outcomes.... Not sure if they could get together a statistically significant sample for that though, so its just my feeling.

Re:Why is this news?

[Troed]

Music streaming service Spotify announced it will offer six months of paid parental leave to full-time employees.

Guess which country spawned Spotify?

http://time.com/4120828/spotif...

Re:How about his employees?

[sociocapitalist]

I'd be more impressed if he was offering the same benefit to his employees.

So be impressed. You could even have read the summary which stated "At Facebook we offer our U.S. employees up to 4 months of paid maternity or paternity leave which they can take throughout the year."

As the 'up to' could mean that the claim is actually bullshit, I googled for a few seconds and found this:
"A Facebook spokesman, Slater Tow, said in an e-mail that the company offers four months of paid leave to both mothers and fathers, including same-sex couples, as long as they are full-time employees. The policy also covers the adoption of a child. Plus, new parents get $4,000 in “baby cash” for each child born to them or adopted."
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com...