Facebook Expands Parental Leave Policy For All Employees Globally (mashable.com)

Reuters reports that Mark Zuckerberg's not the only Facebook employee who will enjoy a nice chunk of time off to spend with a new baby; the company is expanding its parental leave policy (and posting on Facebook about it). The benefit includes up to four months of paid leave, to all full-time employees, including those outside the U.S., regardless of sex, within a new child's first year. That means that new parents of either sex will be allowed to take a longer absence; previously, non-U.S. employees who were not primary caregivers were granted four weeks of leave. From the Reuters story: [Facebook HR head Lori Matloff] Goler said the new policy will primarily help new fathers and employees in same-sex relationships outside the United States, noting that it will not change maternity leave already available to employees worldwide. ... Technology companies in Silicon Valley have been rushing to extend parental leave allowances and other benefits to help recruit and retain employees. Many high-tech workers, however, do not take advantage of such benefits for fear of falling behind at work or missing out on promotions.

Comments

This wasn't the policy before?

[SeaFox]

Sounds like Zuck made a mistake talking about his own leave, and caused some complaints in the company.

Re:Bias?

[Opportunist]

Quite the other way around, most of Europe has extensive parental leave provisions by law. In a nutshell, for most of Europe, Zuck can take his 4 months and stick 'em.

What about other life goals?

[TheGavster]

Allowing employees to take a big block off to get started on what may be the biggest achievement of their life is great, but what about for people whose aspiration is something other than being a parent? Even a guaranteed job after an unpaid sabbatical is a rare benefit. A generic "life goal" leave is, I would think, even cheaper to offer since the leave can be planned in advance to avoid crunch times (not that parents can't plan, but it's a rare one that seems to).

Re:Bias?

[saigon_from_europe]

which causes those insurances to go up in cost for everyone, even those not having kids.

Exactly, but there is consensus in most of the societies that kids are a good thing.

Sigh

[ledow]

Welcome to the 21st-fucking-century.

UK Statutory Maternity / Paternity Pay:

https://www.gov.uk/paternity-p...

Gives up to 52 weeks paid leave for one/either/both parents (shared among them), including in case of stillborn, including for adoption, legally allowing you to build up holiday, get rises and return to work while it goes on.

Sure, it won't necessarily be at full-pay-rates but this is the fucking bare, legal, statutory MINIMUM that you're required to give by even being an employer in the UK

So let's not shout about how great Facebook are for letting you spend more than a fucking month with your newborn child.

The US really need to get out more and look at what other countries consider normal and/or moral.

Re:Sigh

[Harlequin80]

Direct copy from wikipedia. Kinda calls out your whole 1/2 the pay bullshit argument.

From the 1930s up until 1980, the average American income (after taxes and inflation) tripled,[12] which translated into higher living standards for the American population.[13][14][15][16][17][18][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Between 1949 and 1969, real median family income grew by 99.3%.[32] From 1946 to 1978, the standard of living for the average family more than doubled.[33]

Average family income (in real terms) more than doubled from 1945 up until the 1970s, while unemployment steadily fell until it reached 4% in the Sixties.[34] Between 1949-50 and 1965–66, median family income (in constant 2009 dollars) rose from $25,814 to $43,614,[35] and from 1947 to 1960, consumer spending went up by a full 60%, and for the first time, as noted by Mary P. Ryan, "the majority of Americans would enjoy something called discretionary income, earnings that were secure and substantial enough to permit them to enter sectors of the marketplace that were once reserved for the affluent."[36]

Re:News for Facebook employees

[PopeRatzo]

If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. Or, it means someone else is will have to work harder (with no extra pay) to make up for your absence

That's why God made temporary workers. If the absence of one employee means "someone else will have to work harder", then companies need to examine their staffing strategy.

Re:Bias?

[PopeRatzo]

as it seems like it was coincidence that he ended up there (story is looking more like he hit a bank and ended up at PP, being that no one from PP was actually hurt....)

So when the police said that the shooter mentioned "baby parts" it was because he was at the local bank trying to withdraw baby parts?

And the propane tanks he carried into the Planned Parenthood were going to be used for his camp stove?

Jesus, man. Will you really twist yourself into a pretzel rationalizing terrorism just because you share the same ideology as the perpetrator?

In Germany you have 14 months by law

[ynnutvar]

In Germany parents have to take 14 months in the first three years, and one parents can take 12 months maximum, so both have to stay home for at least two months: payed by the state, of course.

Re:Bias?

[unixisc]

Precisely!!! How many can afford to take 4 months or so of time off? Usually, the best they can do is just take as much paid leave as accumulated to that point, and use it.

Re: Bias?

[rsborg]

you think there will be social security when we retire? (im under 30) doubt it

Social Security trust fund is solvent till ~2035 given current input percentages and projected workforce makeup .

What's likely is that GOP and corporate-licking Dems will both agree to fuck you over in the meanwhile and do something shitty like raise retirement age, or twist verbiage to deny COLA despite constant hikes in non-core inflation rate (why would energy - read gas - and healthcare costs not be "core inflation"?).

So you may be right, you may not have a meaningful Social Security when you retire. But I bet it'll be there.

Re:News for Facebook employees

[serviscope_minor]

If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. ...

Yes, but your comment is just plain wrong-headed, frankly. Small companies really, really need their employees. Departure of a key employee can sink a small company.

A large company like facebook has people leaving ALL the time. People retire, quit, move, change jobs, get sick, die and so on continuously. Any company over about 10 people is going to have to deal with departing and absent employees on a regular basis. You absolutely cannot have key employees for a large and/or long running organisation.

So yes, they don't "need" you, because they can't afford to need you: if the company is successful you'll probably leave long before it folds.

Or, it means someone else is will have to work harder (with no extra pay) to make up for your absence

Well, there's a sucker born every minute, I guess.