Twitter To Give All New Parents 20 Weeks of Paid Leave (fortune.com)

Michal Lev-Ram, reporting for Fortune: May 1 will be a happy day for Twitter employees -- at least those expecting a baby. The social media site is the latest tech player to offer so-called "gender-neutral" parental leave, guaranteeing any parent up to 20 weeks of fully paid time off. Other companies that have embraced such policies include Etsy, Facebook, and Change.org. The rationale? Family structures have changed, and allowing for more evenly distributed parenting equals happier employees, both male and female (within, of course, both heterosexual and same-sex couples).

Comments

Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Twitter even still exist? I know user growth has stagnated, have they ever come close to making a profit?

Re:Business Model?

[tnk1]

Many companies can zombie along for fairly long periods because they had considerable amount of startup hype and the investment money that goes with it.

It is also possible that they do have a reasonably decent revenue stream from current operations which may not put them in the black, but gives them a considerable amount of remaining runway before they would have to close down, or more likely, be bought out.

I am not a fan of Twitter, but it seems to have invaded the consciousness of news sites and such as a PR vehicle for companies and celebrities. That alone does give it a certain inherent value, even if that value is a lot less than what you might be able to build a successful independent company around.

Re:Business Model?

[jellomizer]

There is value in the brand name (Good Will), Personal Info for a huge user base. A lot of this stuff allows them to borrow money much easier.

However Turnover is very expensive to an institution. So preventing turnover is probably worth the cost of a 20 week paid time off.

Re:Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has never generated any profit and loses hundreds of millions of dollars every year. No matter how much revenue they have, losing is losing. They still spend hundreds of millions more than they take in. You can only keep doing that for so long. I'm no financial expert, but Twitter's continued existance makes no sense.

Re:Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Difficulty is, especially with parents, there is a degree of animosity from other childless employees.

As it is, parenting tends to be an all-inclusive excuse to place further burdens on other employees, whether it be from constant tardiness, special schedules, or infighting over taking summer vacation.

It would be fairer to offer all employees sufficient time off to either care for a sick relative, etc. to use as they see fit (including having a new child).

But that doesn't pander to the right groups, so essentially all the other employees get to subsidize this, and Twitter gets good PR for preferential treatment.

Re:Business Model?

[tripleevenfall]

I'm guessing they are still burning through all the money they raised with their IPO, while they try to build a doghouse without any nails.

Re:Business Model?

[JackieBrown]

Difficulty is, especially with parents, there is a degree of animosity from other childless employees.

As it is, parenting tends to be an all-inclusive excuse to place further burdens on other employees, whether it be from constant tardiness, special schedules, or infighting over taking summer vacation.

Most jobs I have worked at will count these tardies/ absences/ ect the same as any other absence. We have to to show HR that we do not pander or play favorites.

I have termed several people that have had to miss work due to a sick kid (granted, that was after missing work for other reasons before that.)

It would be fairer to offer all employees sufficient time off to either care for a sick relative, etc. to use as they see fit (including having a new child).

But that doesn't pander to the right groups, so essentially all the other employees get to subsidize this, and Twitter gets good PR for preferential treatment.

Why should a business have to support any of this? But in any case, FMLA cover this for 3 months.

Re:Business Model?

[mattyj]

There's something to be said for perpetuating the species.

Re:Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Qualifier being most jobs, and nearly all jobs give parents extra slack in taking unexpected time off.

Re:Business Model?

[bricko]

Great way for Twitter to go broke even faster

Re:Business Model?

[jedidiah]

That doesn't seem to be a problem in America. It only seems to be a problem in "socialist utopias", especially the Scandanavian ones.

They're like how giant pandas used to be.

Re:Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their SEC filings are hilarious: a ton of their revenue is immediately siphoned away for employee compensation, mostly stock options & bonuses.

Re: Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in the "capitalist utopia" Japan.

Re:Business Model?

[nmr_andrew]

Why should a business have to support any of this? But in any case, FMLA cover this for 3 months.

Well, for starters, as someone mentioned above, it's goodwill toward employees and may just make them a bit more loyal to the business, not that most businesses seem to care about that these days.

But it's also a bit of a big deal because while federal law requires that you still have a job after parental leave, it doesn't require you to be paid for that time off. Actually, IIRC, federal law only REQUIRES that for the mother, my understanding of FMLA is that your employer can't fire you for using existing sick leave/vacation for family issues, including childbirth, but it doesn't require your employer to give you additional time off beyond what you've accrued. I could be partially wrong about that last part, that was the explanation I got filtered through our HR department.

Re:Business Model?

[david_thornley]

Last I looked, the US was below replacement rate fertility, and was getting population growth from immigration. If we're going to keep the population of developed nations stable, we need to encourage more children. One way might be to make it easier to be a parent along with everything else an adult has to be.

Here I was all excited!

[tlambert]

Here I was all excited!

But reading the article, the headline is not correct: "Twitter To Give All New Parents 20 Weeks of Paid Leave"

Apparently, this only applies to Twitter employees, and not actually "All New Parents".

Re:Here I was all excited!

[SeaFox]

Here I was all excited!

But reading the article, the headline is not correct: "Twitter To Give All New Parents 20 Weeks of Paid Leave"

Apparently, this only applies to Twitter employees, and not actually "All New Parents".

Well, only Twitter employees are fit to be new parents anyway. Or Facebook employees.
All you people working outside Silicon Valley should just be adopting orphans that can go straight to latchkey kid status.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Twitter salary will remain the same ($0) during your leave as your regular Twitter salary. I'm going to start my Twitter-free 20 weeks now, and I don't even have kids.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem a little insane. Try getting off this reactionary blog and spending time in the real world. Or spend some time in VR if you have a Rift or Vive. Getting free of reactionary media to let your mind heal is the important part.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[__aaclcg7560]

Apparently, this only applies to Twitter employees, and not actually "All New Parents".

I worked at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari (same company, different owners, multiple personality disoders), the French VP announced to everyone that they were getting stock options at staff meeting. Everyone was happy — except the HR manager, who did a face palm. He then read off the paper that the stock options were restricted to managers, looked up and got confused by all the angry faces. We all got 160 stock options that vested over five years. For the next two years, we watched the share price go from $20.00 to $0.20 per share as the dot com bust unfolded and the company slid into bankruptcy.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[Anonymous Coward]

All game companies. And game companies treat you like shit. My advice is get some education and plunge into corporate America, Europe or wherever you are.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[__aaclcg7560]

My advice is get some education and plunge into corporate America, Europe or wherever you are.

When I made a transition from being a video game tester to lead tester, I went back to college to learn computer programming and earn my technical certifications. I was immediately branded as "not a team player" because I had an exit strategy. Three years later I left the company, went back to school full-time for a year, and started my career in IT. I haven't looked back.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[SeaFox]

You seem a little insane.

You sarcasm detector seems to be broken. ...or your insight detector.
There's something slightly wrong about only people working for elite Silicon Valley companies being able to get some time off to raise a family. But I doubt we'll see the government step in and take action, as they often have to when it comes to fair labor practices, as long as we keep hiring the same type of leaders.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[jedidiah]

The "reactionary" brings up an important point. People these days seem to like to fawn all over this idea but they don't seem to realize that it's a commitment that doesn't end suddenly once those 20 weeks is up.

It's almost as if they've never actually done it themselves. They're the typical bleeding hearts trying to rescue other people whether they want to be rescued or not.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[jedidiah]

All companies treat you like shit. At least in a game company you get to work with smart people versus a bunch of rocks. In the really large companies, they will try to treat you as a disposable cog and aspire to give your job away to a trained monkey. Plus you will have more political nonsense to deal with.

There is no Promised Land.

Re:Here I was all excited!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how dare they not solve all problems at the same time! Solving just one clearly means that they're a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, completely out-of-touch with reality.

I'll bet all those new parents are outraged that they now have the time they need need during a very difficult period in their lives. They want the liberty and freedom that comes from being unable to take time off while they're sleep-deprived from getting up every few hours to tend to their newborn! Fuck Twitter and their libtard bullshit!

Re:Here I was all excited!

[cthulhu11]

But, like unlimited vacation, would anyone actually dare to take it?

Re:Here I was all excited!

[ripvlan]

Yeah - I came here looking to see where I could submit my reimbursement form to get those free 20 weeks !!?!

Grammar Grammar.

What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want 20 my weeks too, or I'll take a 1 year 38.5% raise instead.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Somebody has to make more humans for the species' survival. If you work at Twitter, you might be doing nice work, but you're not doing anything as socially critical as reproduction. As far as socially-responsible practices go, this is a good one.

It's a good sign that,in modern times companies must compete for top employees. The only force making Twitter do this is market pressure. This will likely diffuse into society, working down the income ladder, just as Sundays and then two-day weekends and 9-5 hours did, as technology and productivity created the wealth required for societies to afford it (not to mention and end to child labor).

[Out before the curmudgeons equate child labor to Twitter developers]

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, I agree with you. It's unequal compensation for people who don't want kids.

On the other hand.. I'd rather have no extra vacation and no kids, than 20 extra weeks of vacation (valid for 1 year only) but be burdened with a kid for the next 18+ years.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already too many people without incentivizing making more.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

I want 20 my weeks too, or I'll take a 1 year 38.5% raise instead.

Invest 20,000+ hours in creating the next generation, and then you can talk about getting another 160-480 hours off from your job.

This isn't charity. I am one of the highly skilled workers with two young children who put family related benefits high on my priority list. My first daughter was born at a company with paid paternity leave, and for my second child my current company gave me weeks of PTO up front because my wife was pregnant when I joined. I assure you my boss and his superiors didn't bat an eye at giving me extra time off if it meant being able to get me to join.

If you care so much about this, negotiate for more PTO time for yourself because of your needs as a single person. If you are worth it they will give it to you.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[alvinrod]

Use that time to make yourself stand out in other ways so that when it comes time to promote someone, you've got a lot more to say for yourself.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[NotDrWho]

You get a shitload of extra work to pick up the slack.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[NotDrWho]

It's not my job to help other assholes procreate.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[mlw4428]

But, to be fair, those rights/benefits weren't segregated by the act of having a child. The original post marks a valid concern: why is it that *only* parents should get 20 extra weeks? Maybe what they do is socially important, but going on vacation and spending money is also socially important. The act of raising a child is what's socially important, not just having them.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

Ugh, math fail, that's 20 weeks not 20 days, so 800-2400 hours. Still a tiny portion of what it takes to raise the next generation.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's problem with this policy. People who don't have/don't want kids have to show up for work every day and do extra work to cover for the people taking their 20 weeks off.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

There are already too many people without incentivizing making more.

But not nearly enough people with the financial capabilities and social upbringing who are likely to raise the next generation of high skilled workers the world still needs many more of. I would like to keep Idiocracy just a comedy and not an accurate prophecy.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

You get a shitload of extra work to pick up the slack.

It almost makes up for the extra work these parent's are doing to create the next generation to pay your social security benefits and keep society running. Its only off by a factor of 10-20, so you're getting a hell of a deal here.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[tom229]

Which you will get. Women who return from a 20 week leave usually don't have much to brag about in a performance review. This is a big reason men make more than women in the workforce.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Major Blud]

How about we just give all parents a $100,000 annual salary, if raising children is the most important task there is.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will likely diffuse into society, working down the income ladder, just as Sundays and then two-day weekends and 9-5 hours did, as technology and productivity created the wealth required for societies to afford it.

Won't happen. That society doesn't exist any more.

The continued destruction of jobs has resulted in a society where there are far more people than there are jobs that allow you to earn a decent living.. That's why there has been such a big push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or more. Even if you have actual skills, there aren't enough Googles, Facebooks and Microsofts to provide meaningful employment for everyone.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

Maybe what they do is socially important, but going on vacation and spending money is also socially important. The act of raising a child is what's socially important, not just having them.

Well technically they are not getting this leave to have children. They already are given more than enough PTO time to cover the delivery and disability insurance would cover complications. This leave is for the extra burden of raising a child during its first few months, which is far greater than it is later in life. So this leave is for the act of raising a child.

And in reality this leave is not a benefit given for the public good. It is a recruiting and retention tool. There are plenty of benefits that don't affect every employee, and the usefulness of most of them are closely tied to decisions made by employees (such as having a child).

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Bengie]

Your compensation is a better work environment. The same reason I don't try to kill off all of the bacteria in my body, I understand supporting and helping parents.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the stupidest thing I've read in months.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your compensation is a better work environment.

No, my compensation is not having to deal with a kid for 18+ years. I apologize if my joke was not clear.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[jimbolauski]

Can I still work and collect my normal paycheck and the $100k breeder incentive?

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is if you work at Twitter. Do you think Twitter is going to hire more people to cover for those who are out for 20 weeks? Nope. Everyone else will have to do their work for them while they are gone.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off.

It's pandering no matter how you dress it up, with an overflowing heap of smugness on top.

While it's very white of you to dress up your personal decision to have kids as creating the next generation (ahem), I doubt you'd be as sympathetic to a company's attempt to social engineer in other contexts (should women be paid more at your company because the have the most burden in "creating the next generation").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJRzBpFjJS8

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[clong83]

Yeah, I have a couple of thoughts about that, as a new parent myself (baby is 11 weeks old). Granted, for places that offer paid leave, it must seem like a free vacation to some. But paid leave for a new child isn't exactly a vacation. It is mostly an exhausting and stressful period of time, as well as one that is of critical importance to the development of the child. Honestly, I'm generally more worn out each day than I was when I was in grad school.

I do, however, agree that non-parents can get the shaft in a number of ways for time off, and that paid leave does amount to an added "perk" for those that choose to have kids. As a compromise, I would settle for a much higher minimum standard on annual vacation, say from 6-8 weeks somewhere. Then, a simple rule: you can use up to 26 weeks (6 months) of vacation time for family leave whether you have it accumulated yet or not. If you don't have it accumulated, you go negative, and will owe your employer that amount of pay when you separate if you don't accumulate back up to 0. A brand new employee might be hesitant to take all 26 weeks for fear of owing a ton of money in the event of a separation, but a "forgiveness" could be made in the event of a forced layoff or something. To reduce negative hours for newer staff, you could also use a shorter term, or stipulate lower pay. Example: give yourself half pay for 16 weeks and use only 8 weeks of vacation, which will be made up within 2 years easily assuming you start with 0 accumulated. You can still charge vacation hours while you are making up your time, but are limited to 1 week per year until you get back up to zero. It would skew the benefit towards more senior staff, but would still be hugely better than what most people currently get.

Aside: I got my 12 weeks of FMLA, but it was unpaid unless I used vacation time, which I only accumulate 2 weeks of per year and didn't have anywhere close to enough of. I'm the dad, so it was back to work for me. But my wife just quit her job, which also gave a whole heaping 0 weeks of paid leave. You want to know where the "gender gap" comes from in the workplace payscales? Look no further than interrupted careers due to childrearing, due to the fact that you can't get any paid leave but yet still need to raise a child. Then people look at you funny and lowball your salary when you come looking for a job again a year later because you have a "blank spot" on your resume.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[blackomegax]

If you think spending 20 weeks with a newborn child is "time off" equivalent to other peoples vacations, you are delusional.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter employees get 20 weeks PTO for having a baby but don't earn enough to invest into a proper retirement portfolio relying instead on the bare minimum existence known as Social Security?

And what does the future society have to do with me? Am I going to live long enough to enjoy the outcome of society's babies being born today? In short: F the future, what's it doing for me? Nothing, that's what.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[mattyj]

I'm fairly certain that people who don't plan on having kids will not suddenly have them to get that sweet 20 weeks of pay, nimrod.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. How about we change it to let you be assigned as a volunteer to the NICU for 24 hours a day for 20 weeks. Legal in some countries, actually, and the list includes a lot of countries you'd never believe let someone work 24 hours straight at a job like that.

But no raise, that wouldn't make any sense.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[mattyj]

We childless people also enjoy:

- discretionary income
- smaller house/apartment
- social life
- motorcycles and sports cars
- a good night's sleep

Don't act like new parents are somehow gaming the system to come out ahead of you, our team has a lot of perks, too.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[clong83]

It's funny because properly raising a child is one of the least selfish things you can do... It requires you to think of another person above yourself.

You, on the other hand, can only think of how someone is getting a "free vacation" on your dime, and lack a shred of empathy for your fellow man who have given in to one of the most common human instincts out there, procreation.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[JackieBrown]

Use that time to make yourself stand out in other ways so that when it comes time to promote someone, you've got a lot more to say for yourself.

That would be discriminating against parents who did not have the same opportunity since they were at home.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[NotDrWho]

It's funny because properly raising a child is one of the least selfish things you can do

Bullshit. You want some cute kid to play with and love and to carry on your name. Fine. But stop acting like it makes you Jesus, you self-centered fuckhead.

I don't owe you jack-fucking-shit. And neither do any of your co-workers.

When you adopted a dog, did you run to your co-workers and ask them to pay for your fucking Purina too, you arrogant douche?

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

too late.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

It's funny because properly raising a child is one of the least selfish things you can do

Bullshit. You want some cute kid to play with and love and to carry on your name. Fine. But stop acting like it makes you Jesus, you self-centered fuckhead.

I don't owe you jack-fucking-shit. And neither do any of your co-workers.

When you adopted a dog, did you run to your co-workers and ask them to pay for your fucking Purina too, you arrogant douche?

You are quite an unpleasant person all around. Its good you have the self-awareness to not have kids.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

I don't give a flying fuck if everyone stops having kids tomorrow. It's not my job to help other people have kids, and no it doesn't benefit me. If I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, I'll do the responsible thing and eat a bullet.

I sincerely doubt you can take care of yourself.

Can you grow your own food without any tools built by others or seeds gathered by others?
Can you build your own dwelling without tools or materials provided by others?
Can you secure your dwelling, water supply, and food supply from a few dozen people willing to take them from you by force? Without weaponry built by others?

You depend on society for far more than you are willing to accept. And don't use a lame cop-out like "I work hard and pay for those services without the help of others", because without other human beings creating a society they are willing to accept you into, you wouldn't have anyone to pay.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Darinbob]

So when the parents come back after 20 weeks they will also have 20 weeks of unread email to sort through, spend 20 weeks fixing everything that's gone wrong on their projects, then get yelled at for being late on their commitments.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Darinbob]

Of course there are also those times when you're made to work on the weekend because you're the one everyone knows has no social life. Everyone else says "I have to coach my kid's team this weekend" and the boss says "you're excused"; you say "I've got a LARP planning sessions" and you're told "that's not a real thing, I'll see you at 8am on saturday."

They should already be happy that single people are saving them boatloads on health insurance costs compared to families, so they should be happy to grant some extra time off in exchange.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[thegarbz]

If you care so much about this, negotiate

The fact that people live in a civilised country where they are required to "negotiate" time off to create the following generation has scary implications.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can see the management are determined to floor the share price as quickly as possible. And this is just one more way they can help do that, although in mitigation I'm sure there can't be THAT many new parents at Twitter in any given year, so it's probably not hugely expensive. Also as you say, it's not something a singleton can resent given the propagation of the species is quite important and being a new parent is utterly horrific for the first 20 weeks. It's swings and roundabouts with kids isn't it.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You should have adopted. That would be thinking of another person above yourself. You want a legacy. You want your genes to continue. If you really cared about being socially responsible, adoption is clearly the way to go.

Sure, be proud of being a parent, but don't think you aren't selfish for being one.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[clong83]

Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[JeffOwl]

I don't know how civilized it is, but it is supply and demand. If you are in demand you have leverage to negotiate. If you are one of thousands competing for the same 10 jobs *cough*Walmart*cough*, you do not have leverage. Frankly I like the negotiating process because it lets me optimize for my own situation.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[NotDrWho]

Oh, go fuck yourself. You just want some excuse to justify taking advantage of your co-workers and making them pay the price for your decision to have kids.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

This leave is for the extra burden of raising a child during its first few months, which is far greater than it is later in life. So this leave is for the act of raising a child.

And for any childless people who are thinking "well, the first few months of a baby's life are a cakewalk. It eats, it sleeps, you change a few diapers, no problem. It doesn't even move if you put it down", then think again. I've had two kids. I love them dearly and still think having kids is totally worth it (though I don't act like people who don't want kids are crazy - different strokes and all). Still, I warn all new parents about the "hell months."

While your child-to-be is in utero, it doesn't need to have a schedule. If it needs to feed, the umbilical cord takes care of it. If it needs to expel waste (pee since it doesn't poop until it is born), the woman's body processes out the waste. It can sleep or wake, at any time. After birth, though, the baby needs to rely on the parents for feeding, changing, etc. Since the baby can't say "Hey, I'd really like to eat now", it cries. It cries loud. You think you get annoyed when some baby is crying in the store, think how the mother feels since she's tried feeding it, changing it, rocking it, burping it, and it won't stop crying.

Oh, and did I mention that the mother has had 3 hours of sleep in the past 5 days?

The new baby has no schedule. It can cry at any moment for any reason and it's up to you, the new parent, to take care of it. It doesn't matter that it cried at 10pm to be fed, 11:15pm to be changed, 1am to be changed again, and 1:30am just because it was fussy. It'll still cry at 2:03am for no apparent reason. Then, it won't cry for 5 hours and you should sleep but you can't because you are expecting that cry to happen at any moment. And just as you fall asleep, it cries again. It takes about three months of this for the baby to develop a schedule.

And lest any men think that their wives will just get up to take care of the baby, I was the "night shift" with my boys. My wife was exhausted after taking care of them all day. Besides, if she picked them up at night, they'd smell milk and think "feeding time" not "time to sleep." If I picked them up, they'd think "no milk and this guy's rocking us, time for sleep." Of course, putting them down could wake them up so I'd rest my eyes while standing and rocking them. It's amazing how little sleep you can function on!

If any non-parent wants to simulate this, connect a loud buzzer to a random timer. Have it go off at all hours of the night (and day) and require that you hit one of five buttons (again, randomly chosen) to shut it off. Have a fifty-fifty chance that the buzzer will go off ten seconds after you hit the right button with a new "right button" randomly picked. This should give you some idea of what new parents go through (though it will still be easier).

So don't envy these new parents for their 20 week "vacations." Chances are, they are using that time to keep their sanity in check and get some order re-established in their households so they can come back into work and be productive instead of barely functional zombies.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention that the first three months are the "hell months" when the baby has no set schedule and the parents are severely sleep deprived (and would likely not be very productive workers). That's 12 or 13 of the 20 weeks right there.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[clong83]

What's even funnier is the constant ad hominem attack, when I point out in another post elsewhere in the thread that I agree that paid paternity/maternity leave (of which I have received NONE) is an unfair perk, and I think it would be better if employees simply had much better access to generous vacation time.

Regardless of your thoughts on this subject, you really have a lot to learn about positive and productive human interactions. Agree it is best for you not to have kids.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

It almost makes up for the extra work these parent's are doing to create the next generation to pay your social security benefits and keep society running.

I guess that makes every 14-year-old girl getting knocked up in high school a hero then. Yeah, let's all celebrate those brave heroes doing their part to create the next generation to pay your social security benefits! HOORAY!!

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm single and work for a tech firm with a family leave policy. I make up the difference by stealing laptops off people's desks and selling them on Ebay.

Oh yeah, and it's social justice because I wear a Guy Fawkes mask while I'm doing it.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

When I first went to work for my company, I told them that my day ended when I left the office. I was fine with emergency work ("the server's not responding! we need you to come in and reboot it!") but not normal "we expect that you'll work on this application on Saturday and Sunday also" work. This was pre-kids, so my rationale wasn't anything related to having children.

My rationale came from seeing my father work. He'd go to work at 5am, come home about 6pm with a stack of work, eat, sign into his office, and then work until 10pm. On the weekend, he came home with an even bigger stack of work. When I asked him why he did so much work, he answered "My boss expects it from me." I pointed out that his boss only expected that much work because he put in that much work, but he couldn't continue the conversation - he had work to do. I didn't want this to become me so I set the ground rules right from the start.

(By the way, after all that work, my father wasn't given a promotion or a raise. He was fired at around 60. Nobody would hire a 60 year old because they figured he was just retiring in a few years and they could hire a young guy for much less. So he retired and he's never been happier.)

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

My second child is only a month old right now, and we are currently mentally preparing ourselves for months 4-6 (or so) when we are both working but the baby isn't on a sleep schedule yet. It certainly isn't easy in week 5 with only one of us working, but its a cake walk compared to what is coming. My best friend had one kid who was on a good sleep schedule by month 3, so I am clinging to that hope right now.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can import more from africa, or even mexico.
They are procreating like rabbits over there.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

Congrats on the new baby. (11 weeks is mostly new.) I hope he/she is settling into a routine. Despite sleep deprivation, I still remember those early months and am so glad my boys (now 12 and 8) mostly sleep through the night. My wife quit her job also after our second. The cost of child care would have eaten up all of her income so it made more sense for her to become a stay-at-home mother. I've got to admit that I envied her at times when I'd come home to hear "He did this for the first time today" and I was stuck at work instead.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, really, you don't need 5 months of off time right after the child is born in order to properly raise the next generation. You need 6 hour work days and weekends off so that you can properly care for the child and ensure their mind isn't warped too badly by the education system's propaganda.

I'll take 400 days of getting off work two hours early rather than 5 months off during the time when the kid literally hasn't the capacity to remember.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we get a refund should you fuck it up?

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[CanadianMacFan]

You're getting a 20 week vacation from them talking about their new child. Enjoy it while it lasts!

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

People with kids are "more equal". Didn't you know?

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

Those kinds of people come from families that don't need an economic incentive.

This isn't Europe.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[BobSutan]

Meanwhile Twitter's stock is in freefall. I don't understand how this is going to make shareholders happy taking on a huge fiscal burden like this.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

It's paid time off just like any other. Doesn't matter if they are going on a world tour or having a bone marrow transplant. They are getting something handed to them because of someone's idea of what sounds "good".

I'm really fascinated by 3rd wave feminists that are all over this idea that women should be paid to breed, as if that's all that women are about in the 21st century.

Forget about the other marks of distinction like running for president, almost dominating the SCOTUS, or running high profile corporations.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

...except that does nothing of the kind. This is just stupid propaganda perpetrated by people that think America should be turned into Europe.

Europe makes everything harder on everyone, including having a kid.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

We don't need to negotiate anything because we are self-reliant. We don't need to be a burden on others. We plan for our own future including the possibility of things going poorly. We both know enough about corporate America to expect trouble sooner or later.

We don't feel the need to make others pay for our personal choices or even an unexpected calamity.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[serviscope_minor]

You seem to feel that this time off for parents is really unjust.

The ironic thing of course is that it's not a criminal justie issue, which means it is a social justice issue. And you're arguing vociferously in favour of greater social justice as you see it. Didn't your .sig used to be some pithy comment about people who did such things?

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

> You are quite an unpleasant person all around. Its good you have the self-awareness to not have kids.

I agree with him completely and I do have kids. It's not my job or his to pay for your life choices, it's YOURS.

That's what it means to be an ADULT.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

This is just the usual retarded nonsense that you communists come up with any time anyone suggests any measure of self reliance.

Those of us that choose not to be man children at least have some hope of achieving any of those things that you clearly think are so impossible. Not all of us are dependent ninnies.

I like interesting people, not helpless SJWs. So farmers and blacksmiths are actually among my friends and family.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[serviscope_minor]

Europe makes everything harder on everyone, including having a kid.

Do youwant to know how I know you know nothig about Europe?

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[jedidiah]

ppphhhffft!

The last time I was out of the office for 4 weeks, it was a disaster. It completely cured me of pining for 60 days off at once. I would be useless at that point. I can't imagine Europeans get much done. As it turns out, many of them (Germans) don't.

This has to be terribly disruptive.

I will acknowledge that business has to continue despite the fact that I am dying. The world does not revolve around me. It can't just stop because I'm indisposed. I would not fault my employer for trying to pick up the pieces at the office while they're trying to put me back together again.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you clearly are incapable of basic communication?

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

My boys (if I remember correctly) got onto good sleep schedules by the third month. Of course, just as you think you've got this parenting thing down, more challenges present themselves. Right now, I'm dealing with hormones causing pre-teen attitude. Trust me, there are days when I long for my oldest to be 5 weeks old again. (Of course, then I remember The Seven Diaper Diaper Change and that feeling passes.)

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a teenager or a neckbeard loser.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, someone has to drive that ambulance that will take you to the hospital when you, living all alone in your old age, falls down and cannot get up. That driver is NOT going to raise himself you know, and you for sure are not creating that human being.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

it may well not be a "vacation", but let's not pretend that becoming a parent is other than an active choice.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd fire someone on the spot if they said they had a LARP planning session.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a disgusting disgrace to humanity.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to negotiate anything because we are self-reliant

LOL! You actually think you're self-reliant?

Not only are you an irredeemable asshole, you're delusional as well!

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

Its a very good thing almost all people in the developed world no longer think like you. The few remnants will die off soon, while the rest of us continue to build a more inclusive and mutually cooperative society.

Those self reliant skills you claim to have are nothing to be proud of. They are a shadow of a past our species has moved on from. I may have more survivor skills than most from my childhood on my father's farm, I'm not delusional enough to think they are enough to keep up my quality of life if civilization as we know it breaks down. While you dream of an apocalyptic scenario where those survivor skills become useful, the socialists of the world will go on building a better world together.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being defensive in the face of reason is a good indication that you agree but feel guilty about it. Freudian slip perchance?

There is no false dichotomy in saying that adoption is thinking of someone over yourself more than having a child of your own. Saying that having a child shows a lack of selfishness is a false dichotomy.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[davester666]

No, this is mainly for PR. Twitter has a relatively small workforce, and when you work the hell out of people, they don't have a lot of extra time to touch naughty bits together.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[ranton]

> You are quite an unpleasant person all around. Its good you have the self-awareness to not have kids.

I agree with him completely and I do have kids. It's not my job or his to pay for your life choices, it's YOURS.

That's what it means to be an ADULT.

That's just the thing; we live in mostly the same society and often it really is your job to pay for the life choices of others. You may not like it, just as I don't like funding our huge military complex, but you don't really have a choice. People like you fight against social progress, but you almost always lose. And your wins are short lived. The world is moving to a more inclusive and cooperative place whether you like it or not.

You certainly aren't very pleasant either. That is of course your right, but you would have to be oblivious not to see the developed world almost unanimously does not agree with you. The propaganda the moneyed elite in the US have used to convince the working class (and those who have attained middle class status while still clinging to working class values) to not demand their fair share of the social contract is reaching the end of its effectiveness. That viewpoint, while powerful, could never withstand a ever more educated population for long.

Men like Trump and Cruz are showing those moneyed elites that keeping their core voting block so ignorant of reality has finally backfired. It was a quite effective tactic for decades, but you can only get millions of people to act against their own self interests for so long. It is good it is coming to an end.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[goose-incarnated]

Jesus, you self-centered fuckhead.

I don't owe you jack-fucking-shit. And neither do any of your co-workers.

When you adopted a dog, did you run to your co-workers and ask them to pay for your fucking Purina too, you arrogant douche?

You are quite an unpleasant person all around. Its good you have the self-awareness to not have kids.

Ignore him. The demographic "people who hate parents and refuses to be one themselves" is a self-solving problem for humanity.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[BlackPignouf]

Somebody has to make more humans for the species' survival.

Darwinism is so 20th century (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03...).
With climate change and peak oil, you might actually want to make less humans for the species' survival.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an adult also means not acting like a whiny little child because someone gets something you don't. Of all the unfair bullshit in life, this is one of the stupidest and most childish complaints I've heard.

There are only four countries on this planet that don't have mandatory paid maternity leave. They are Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and the United States. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have mandatory paid maternity leave. Honestly, is that something that you think we should be proud of?

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, society as a whole disagrees with you. If everyone thought like you, you and most likely the rest of the species wouldn't be here. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a rant about having to pay taxes for schools and a tirade about having to stop for school buses. For someone who seems to hate children so much, you sure do act like one.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just want an excuse to throw a tantrum because your job sucks and you want to whine and bitch because someone gets something you don't. Whats next, a tirade about people who are smarter and better looking than you? Grow the fuck up, find a better job, and develop some empathy you selfish, callous, sociopathic piece of shit.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sucks for those Europeans with their high standard of living. Canadians too. It must be very frustrating for you when you see someone who has something that you wan't and you can't just kill them and take it. I once thought like you, but then I grew up and stopped acting like a selfish 3 year old.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a very good thing almost all people in the developed world no longer think like you.

Don't worry, with the "developed world" inviting in their radical Islamic conquerors, the days of all this liberal bullshit are numbered anyway. The SJW's are going to be the first ones against the wall when the poor downtrodden Muslims they brought in by the trainload take over. Or maybe you think that since you showed them "cultural sensitivity" that they're going to start loving homosexuals, feminists, and atheists. Yeah, let's just see how that works out.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[thegarbz]

Frankly I like the negotiating process because it lets me optimize for my own situation

Oh I agree, but I believe there needs to be a baseline minimum mandated.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the parents come back after 20 weeks they will also have 20 weeks of unread email to sort through...

My company deletes emails on the server older than 21 days. Hate the policy but in this case at least there's a positive aspect.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

what that guy said!

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't feel this time off is unjust.
I feel that everyone should get 20 weeks off, or no one should.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who pissed in your corn flakes this morning? Let me guess you're one of those it's all about me people.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

So, in your old age, you intend to rely on the fact that people like me have spent a large amount of money, time, and energy reproducing and raising offspring?

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

My biggest knowledge takeaway at first was that nobody makes an informed choice to have a first child.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

I'm willing to bet that you'll be old and feeble sometime, unless you die first. I'd love to find a third option, but I haven't. At that time, you're going to need younger people around you to have anything approximating a semi-dignified life. If nobody reproduces, it won't matter what the numbers in your investment accounts say, you're SOL. You seem to want to take advantage of others who spend lots of time, energy, and money to produce the people who will keep the economy running and take care of you when you're old.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

If I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, I'll do the responsible thing and eat a bullet.

Can we get that in writing? With a promise that you won't change your mind? Will you take out a death insurance plan so that, when you lose the ability to work, somebody will kill you no matter how you feel about it then?

I have a suspicion that, when that time arrives, you aren't going to want to kill yourself. It's much easier just to talk about suicide in the distant future.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

I can't imagine Europeans get much done. As it turns out, many of them (Germans) don't.

Should I start listing GDP per capita? Germany's up there. Do we adjust for the fact that the US is resource-rich, while many European countries aren't? If so, why don't we have GDP per capita equal to Norway's?

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[sysrammer]

Heinlein said something about all morals are ultimately based on propagation of our species.

Discuss.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[sysrammer]

It's not my job to help other assholes procreate.

Yeah, screw this. I want time off to procreate myself.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[sysrammer]

"If any non-parent wants to simulate this, connect a loud buzzer to a random timer. Have it go off at all hours of the night (and day) and require that you hit one of five buttons (again, randomly chosen) to shut it off. Have a fifty-fifty chance that the buzzer will go off ten seconds after you hit the right button with a new "right button" randomly picked. This should give you some idea of what new parents go through (though it will still be easier)."

Ha! You forgot about having to physically get up to press the buzzer. And sometimes having to pick up and caress your buzzer. And, of course, there's the semi-automatic buzzer activation mode for when it's set down. Other than that, spot on!

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[sysrammer]

+1 "Calling out an unpleasant entity"

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[sysrammer]

So, answer the questions, retard...

"
Can you grow your own food without any tools built by others or seeds gathered by others?
Can you build your own dwelling without tools or materials provided by others?
Can you secure your dwelling, water supply, and food supply from a few dozen people willing to take them from you by force? Without weaponry built by others?
" ...then go back to your cave. Wikipedia has an excellent article on how to create your own handaxes.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not my job or his to pay for your life choices, it's YOURS.

Wrong, because "you and everybody else seemingly agree to it" taxes fixes this right up for you.

The thing about being a nice person is that sharing comes naturally and smiles are abundant, whether you are happy inside or not...

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

You know beforehand what's going to happen, but there's a big difference between knowing about something and experiencing it firsthand. You might know (now that I posted about it) that your first child is going to be a lot of work and will involve sleep deprivation. However, you won't know exactly what this is like until you actually HAVE your first child and experience it first hand.

That said, every baby is different. Some babies get on a schedule quicker than others and some are more/less fussy than other ones. Finally, having my boys was totally worth every second of lost sleep, every diaper change, and every second of worry when they got sick.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Jason Levine]

I assumed they would be getting up for the buzzer buttons, but you're right. No assumptions. The buzzer's in your room (to get you to wake up) but the buttons are in a different room (or, at least, out of reach of your bed). And the "place the baby down and he/she instantly wakes up" was the reason for my 50-50 chance that pushing the button will just activate another button 10 seconds later. Just enough time for you to think you've silenced it, but not enough to actually head back to sleep.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[david_thornley]

I have a child, who cried constantly for about the first three months, and I do know about the sleep deprivation.

What I don't think can properly be explained is how the parents feel about it. That has to be experienced.

There are other extremely demanding things, like startups, that people feel good over afterwards. Not having experience in that, I can only conjecture if it's the same sort of thing.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[phorm]

Here's a thing for you: look at the people who tend to have the most kids. I can almost guarantee you they aren't going to be domestic well-off or even middle-class families with a stable financial situation.

So if companies don't give a little "help" that means less people with decent jobs having kids, or people with crappy jobs having kids but not having time. That means less middle-class kids and generally less well-educated kids.

At that point, YOUR life-choice means that the next generation is going to have a lot of poorly-raised, maladjusted kids because the only people that are HAVING kids are those that either are on welfare, or are working-poor who have no time to spend with the kids because they're scraping to make ends meet and get no leave.

Re: What abt people who don't want kids?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Being anti-"SJW" doesn't necessarily mean being anti-social justice. Of course, that really depends on what your definition of "social justice" is, and who you think the "SJWs" are.

Re:What abt people who don't want kids?

[clong83]

?
The false dichotomy is pretty clear. He did not simply say that adopting is an unselfish act, perhaps more so than having your own natural child. He said that having your own children is selfish, and that the only way to raise a child unselfishly is to adopt. That pretty clearly sets up a false choice.

So I'm just confused why I'm being called selfish for making that choice, when I never asked or advocated for "handouts" from anybody to do it. And if your position is that parents are necessarily defined by being selfish at some deep core level... Well, okay then, but then why should I feel shame about it? That would speak to a pretty essential part of being human.

Probably not much of a productivity difference.

[StayFrosty]

My experience (not personal, but second-hand) is that new parents--both male and female--seem to get next to no sleep for the first couple of months and don't get a heck of a lot accomplished at work. Staying awake seems to be the biggest challenge. Programs like this will go a long way to improve morale and employee health and might be a net gain (in profit) by the time employee retention and productivity are figured in. I'd like to see a study in a couple of years.

I'm also betting not everyone is going to take the full 20 weeks. I'm betting these new parents may want to go to work (or, more accurately, get out of the house) one or two days a week for a bit of a mental health break.

Re:Probably not much of a productivity difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like Twitter may have realized that this 21st century trend to cut headcount, and run the remaining employees into the ground, is not profitable in the long-run.

Re:Probably not much of a productivity difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if there is one thing Twitter knows how to do, it is make a profit.

Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do these parasites get rewarded for procreating?
By giving them more time off you are paying them more.
Why do they get rewarded more than me?
Not getting a kid is a choice which should not result in me getting paid less.
If this was "Twitter guarantees whites 20 weeks of paid leave" everyone would be up in arms.

Re:Fuck off.

[Captain Splendid]

I think you're overestimating how much people prefer white people to babies.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad your parents didn't share the opinion that parents==parasites. If they had, the world would be a much better place.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people want babies. Good for them.
I want a dog. Why don't I get 20 weeks off to look after it?

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha, nobody will sleep with you AND you have to pay for it... loser!

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, he's right. Your parents, on the other hand, would have done the world a favor by using condoms.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply and demand.

Re:Fuck off.

[tom229]

Why do these parasites get rewarded for procreating?

Probably because creating new people isn't parasitic and is actually a required function of a species. You want to know what's parasitic? A person that takes great advantage of the society in which they live and refuses to invest in its future. Hypocrit, meet mirror.

Re:Fuck off.

[mark-t]

Of course... because everyone knows that being a new parent is "time off" from doing any actual work.

It's less about rewarding people for procreating and more about the company trying to not lose valuable employees just because they've had a kid and would otherwise leave.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Right. The problem with the world today is that there just aren't enough people having children. Fucking idiot.

Re:Fuck off.

[mark-t]

"costs" more? Hmmm... I wasn't aware it costs anything. I would imagine it could run afoul of laws prohibiting sale of human beings otherwise.

Re:Fuck off.

[Captain Splendid]

A dog is for LIFE, not 20 WEEKS, you heartless BASTARD

Re:Fuck off.

[tom229]

Reduce that to anything less than a number greater than 1 and see what happens to your economy. Anonymous, and probably quite literal, coward.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Function of species, yes.
Function of job at twitter no.
There are plenty of people.
Import some chinese or africans or indians if you have a shortage.

Re:Fuck off.

[mark-t]

I think he's really overestimating how many people would consider parenting a new-born child any kind of "time off" from work at all.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a company rewarding new parents at all?

This isn't about how hard it is to be a parent. It isn't about the time off. It is about compensation for work offered to the company. A below-average tech worker in my area grosses more than $1500/week - which means that this a $30,000 benefit for those below average tech workers. So tell me: should all parents get an instant few thousand dollar bump in salary just because they're parents? Because that's what this is.

If the *government* wants to offer a benefit, then fine. I'm also not without compassion: rules against unjust firing because you're out for a few months taking care of a newborn are also fine. But you have, in essence, been declared *a more valuable employee* because you suddenly have a family.

In the man time, I'm picking up your slack because you aren't there doing the job you're supposedly getting paid for.

If anything, *I* should be getting a $30K bonus every time you take that leave. Newsflash: having kids does not suddenly make your time any more valuable than mine -- either to me, or to the company that's paying us. Talk

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

(and may I just say that slashdot's editor sucks. :)

Re:Fuck off.

[mark-t]

It's odd that you'd be fine with government benefits but not if the company is paying for it themselves.

Re:Fuck off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Society has come to the conclusion that its best for everyone this way. Just like everyone collectively decided that its not in our best interest to simply kill people like you on the spot for being a whiny obnoxious little fuck that cries because someone got a new bike but your parents wouldn't buy you one.

And we all know that by not having a kid by choice you mean no woman has made the choice to let you stick your dick inside them.

Excellent

[31415926535897]

So I just need three women whom I can become a new parent by, some proper spacing, and I can get permanent, paid paternity leave from Twitter. If more and more companies go down this road, I don't see any reason why I can't be simultaneously employed by all of them.

Re:Excellent

[Notorious G]

I hope this is being modded insightful (I have no mod points!). Just knock out a couple of kids a year, easy to do with 2 or 3 female partners and even easier if you are female, and you can be the modern version of a welfare queen/king. Go full Dugger and you may never work again.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a stupid idea.

Simpler and easier one: become a sperm donor!

P.S. Funny thing when I went to post this comment, the captcha was "Maternal"

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, sorry, it's 20 weeks a year, not 20 weeks per child.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

This.
They should just offer 20 weeks off for every employee.
That way they won't be discriminating against people who choose not to have kids.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

I live in Canada, where mothers are eligible for 50 weeks paid maternity leave and fathers a total of 37 paid weeks (well, at least here in Quebec). Despite the generous parental benefits, there's no sign that Canadians are popping kids to live off the benefits. Our birth rate is less than that of the United States, despite the US having little to no parental benefits. Perhaps because those of use who have kids realize that the time off is barely enough to compensate for the extra cost and burden that caring for a baby entails.

Re:Excellent

[tom229]

Except, you still have to care for those kids in the form of child support or, you know, food. You might be thinking you can just give them to the state? Well you could, if you were a very dedicated sociopath. Much longer terms exist in other countries without this problem probably because it's much easier to make money as a sociopath in other ways than to run a government sponsored child birth racket. I'm aware this might be a joke, but I had to say this just in case it isn't. It's a very common approach of hardcore capitalists to erroneously assume all social programs automatically devolve to chaos.

Re:Excellent

[tom229]

Knocking out a couple of kids a year is even easier to do if you're female? I'm sorry, but you don't get to have an opinion on this if you don't even have an 8 year olds understanding of biology.

Re: Excellent

[ljw1004]

You can't do it indefinitely because your childcare costs will increase exponentially while your salary remains constant.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, if you are female you don't even need Twitter's help. By kid #3 (from different baby daddys of course) you are set. Between child support checks, free food (EBT, WIC, Other state and local programs,) Cheap/free rent (low income housing assistance,) and your earned income credit bonus from the IRS, you can afford a new car (albeit a shitty kia or something) and have plenty left over to buy drinks and condoms (maybe) for the random losers you pick up at the local bar. It's like Twitter's program, but for 18 years!

Re:Excellent

[StayFrosty]

Wow, you just described 25% of the population of Small-Town USA!

Re:Excellent

[Notorious G]

Google "Irish Twins" genius, having 2 kids in one 12 month period is possible and happens. Maybe you should take a turn through elementary biology again, see if it sticks this time.

Re:Excellent

[tom229]

I probably do seem like a genius to you but really I just have greater than a grade 3 education. So let's start by clearing something up. The gestational period for human beings is 9 months. A year has 12. There's generally a one month period before a woman will become fertile so the effective gestational period could be considered 10. Therefore children 10 months apart could be born in the same calendar year but would be 4 months short of qualifying for your "couple kids a year" definition (remember a year is 12 months?). Furthermore, each child only gives you 20 weeks leave. With 52 weeks in a year that means you need to have 2.6 kids per year to realize the idiotic perpetual benefits proposed by the GP. In case you haven't gotten out your calculator by now (who am I kidding, of course you haven't) a woman is only able to have, on average, 1.2 children per year. Since a 0.2 child isn't eligible for 0.2 benefits it presents a pretty significant problem.

Re:Excellent

[AmiMoJo]

Great plan, except that the rate your family is expanding at is likely to exceed to rate at which your salary increases.

Re:Excellent

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention that a woman's body needs time to recover before it goes through pregnancy again. Having a child isn't like ordering something from Amazon. You don't just get a package one day, open it up, and there's your baby. The woman's body goes through some radical changes followed by something the size of a watermelon getting shoved through an opening the size of an orange. Needless to say, this last part leaves the woman's body in need of time to heal up. If you want to get permanently castrated, just hint at the possibility of making another child to a woman who's just given birth. Just wait for the rest of us to get safely out of the room first and put on some noise canceling headphones.

Re:Excellent

[AmiMoJo]

I'm pretty sure it's impossible for a female human to knock out two or three kids a year.

Also, it might seem look like an easy life living off your kids welfare, but actually it sucks most places.

Re:Excellent

[CanadianMacFan]

Twins or triplets?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Twins or triplets?

My company gives two weeks paid leave per pregnancy (which results in a live birth) or per adoption (adopting multiple children at the same time counts as a single adoption). We are also allowed to carry a negative PTO (up to 40 hours!) . State law allows a three month leave for new parents (doesn't have to be paid, and companies may provide more time). Firing an employee during this period for excessive time off falls under discrimination

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a second job. So you keep getting pay checks from Twitter plus a paycheck from the job you are working.

I would got and try to have kids with multiple females every 5 months but I would take the 5 months off and take at least a part time job during that 5 months for extra money.

Social programs will always have a high % that will abuse it. We all complain about "corporate loop-holes" but the same thing apply to social programs. Some of those loop-holes help the company grow and create wealth, some abuse it that should not get it. Some people use social programs because they really need the help, some people use it because it is free but don't need it.

Nice that twitter has money to throw away, but makes it more likely they hire someone gay since they can't have kids.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Its such an attractive lifestyle, its no wonder everyone is doing it! Oh, wait, you're full of shit and massively exaggerated about all of the government programs you mentioned.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Just have post-birth abortions. Super progressive San Francisco allows it, right? Your inconvenience solved. You just need to have a bunch of feminist partners.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "Irish Twins" genius, having 2 kids in one 12 month period is possible and happens. Maybe you should take a turn through elementary biology again, see if it sticks this time.

Wow... This is the dumbest thing I've seen here in almost a year. That's an impressive feat. I didn't know you could be over 12 years old and not know the length of the human gestation period. Maybe you should Google Irish Twins because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:Excellent

[david_thornley]

You do realize that that's not how the real world works, I hope.

Re:Excellent

[sysrammer]

"Except, you still have to care for those kids in the form of child support or, you know, food. "

Careful. A simple modification of technique, and he has a food pyramid scheme.

I'm sure their unhappy shareholders

[Anonymous Coward]

will be happy with this gratuity.

All other employees get extra work

[NotDrWho]

Guess who gets to pick up the slack of all the workers who managed to get knocked up or knock someone up?

If you guessed "All of you responsible employees who don't have kids" you win!

Re:All other employees get extra work

[tom229]

*Plays the world's smallest violin*

Let me be the first to thank you for your selfless sacrifice to humanity. If you're lucky, one day, some woman might find you tolerable enough and we'll get to return the favor.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who picks up all the slack when people who didn't have kids retire?

If you guessed "The kids of the people who had kids" you win!

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look. Baseless bullshit. Telling that it's the best response you could muster.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck you and your selfish justification for screwing over your co-workers. Your kids aren't going to be paying for anyone's retirement. If anything they're going to be sucking up public resources themselves and probably acting a lot less responsibly than people who wisely chose to not have kids.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[serviscope_minor]

Are youbeing asked to work longer hours than the regular 9-5?

a. Yes. (a) refuse, (b) negotiate more pay, or more days off (c) quit and get a job somewhere less abusive.

b. No. Quit whining, you're being paid for the hours you're working for.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[antdude]

They should make a rule not to make parents and babies.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Necroloth]

So in any team, there's only one new parent and everyone else are childless people right? There's no other parents who pick up the slack. Fuck, all these people around me with children's photos on their desks, they're all kiddy fiddlers!!!!

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who gets to pick up the slack of all the workers who managed to get knocked up or knock someone up?

If you guessed "All of you responsible employees who don't have kids" you win!

Yeah! They should be FIRED for such irresponsible behavior! How dare they do anything other than licking the corporation's boots!?! /sarcastic

Grow the fuck up. It's idiots like yourself who have dehumanized American business.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[david_thornley]

You seem to have some sort of delusional belief that money is going to be useful after you retire even if other people stop having kids.

Re:All other employees get extra work

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, blame your coworkers. Its not like management knows that someone is going to be out on leave sometime within the next 6 months. People don't get pregnant and give birth the next day. If your managers don't want to hire someone to pick up the slack then you should take up your complaints with them.

Cute,

[tom229]

But in Canada we get a full year, by law. I was actually horrified to learn that most American mothers only get a few weeks before they have to go back to work. So for any of you hardcore conservatives out there, we get a full year and still have plenty of businesses and jobs. So you can do it too.

Re:Cute,

[Monkey]

In fact, the U.S. is one of the *only* industrialized countries that does not offer paid parental leave as a national standard benefit. I'm not sure why so many people here think what Twitter is doing is unusual or unfair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Cute,

[mattyj]

Businesses and jobs, but no Stanley Cup this year!

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

>But in Canada we get a full year, by law

Absolutely. We we about 1 year by law (varies by province, most provide less). Of legal time away from work. WITHOUT PAY.

Those last two words are why you get to go on Employment Insurance. You don't collect your regular salary. In most provinces, assuming you have a decent wage, you'll collect a percentage of about $49,000 a year (your EI insurable earnings). This results in a taxable benefit cheque of $537 per week.

Twitter is paying their staff full wages for the 20 weeks. Considering that minimum wage in my province is $11.25 an hour, that means $24,300 yearly minimum income here. EI pays $27,924 yearly. Unless you earn between those numbers, Twitter is doing you a HUGE favour.

>So for any of you hardcore conservatives out there, we get a full year and still have plenty of businesses and jobs.

Unsurprising since the company paid $0 for your time away from work (Employment Insurance is paid for by the employee as a deduction from your wages). Must have been real hard on them!

Have you ever even received a paycheque in Canada before?

Re:Cute,

[dbsnstuf]

America according its founding principals is not supposed to mandate things like this. And yet there is a trend toward better leave, without Federal involvement, from many prominent companies. I know it's slow and painful, and not all companies may change, but the US is not like Europe et al in respect to government's role in business. I for one would like to keep it that way.

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the problem isn't education. The hardcore conservatives ALREADY KNOW you have this benefit, UNDERSTAND the rich (their supporters) don't need it, and DON'T CARE to further help the poor (What have the poor done for hardcore conservatives, anyway?). That's what makes them garbage wrapped in skin.

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

I am horrified to learn that you recognize the value of allowing a mother to stay at home with her newborn while simultaneously completely brushing off the possibility of a father taking paternity leave to be part of the child's development.

Re:Cute,

[Darinbob]

A full year also means they company has a full year to realize that they can do very well even when you're not showing up for work and set yourself up to be redundant.

Re:Cute,

[tom229]

America according its founding principals is not supposed to mandate things like this.

This is an interpretation, and a false one. America's founding principles are liberty and prosperity for all. To achieve that it is generally recognized that society needs to have some rules. For example, you can't murder people, steal their shit, or take out a patent on air. You can't own all the water, license the use of wood, or trademark the name John. The argument has always been where do you draw the line. You may draw the line at creating and nurturing human life, but many more reasonable people would not.

Re:Cute,

[thegarbz]

And yet there is a trend toward better leave, without Federal involvement

ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahha hahhahah ...ha ha ha ... shit I'm out of breath. ... give me a moment. .. Ok I'm good again.... ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahah hahahahaha...

Shit if I keep this up I may have to call in sick at work tomorrow, and then go see a doctor without it costing me a cent.

Sorry but your "trends" are laughable. Like a really really good joke that makes you laugh so hard you cry, but then you keep crying because you realise just how much of a joke your leave actually is despite it's "trend". The productivity in the USA is good. But as a whole I have never seen a more overworked and miserable folk in the general workforce. You guys talk about work life balance as a negotiated privilege, while the rest of the world lives it on a daily basis.

I am happily part of a multinational which moves people all over the world constantly, including the USA. I've never seen someone from the USA who has lived abroad praise leave or work life balance in the USA. I've never seen someone from abroad who's done a stint in the USA praise the work life balance there either.

You may like a disassociated government, and true a lot of countries have gone too far. But please pick a better example when justifying it.

Re:Cute,

[tom229]

varies by province, most provide less

It's minimum one year. (link provided by another dipshit in this thread)

Unsurprising since the company paid $0 for your time away from work

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that the insurance is publicly managed and not for profit. This is a social benefit running, generally at a surplus, and with great success. The USA should strive to emulate it. My entire point with the statement "so you can do it too".

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's minimum one year. [babycenter.ca] (link provided by another dipshit in this thread)

How are you getting that?

Are you adding 17 + 37? The 35 is a total to be shared between both parents (I have been through this system myself so I know this is, in fact, how it works in Ontario, though Ontario provides 37 instead of 35). So, compared to twitter's 20 weeks (38% of a year) for ANY new parent offering (key word is parent, not mother):

Man: 20 weeks, 15 weeks parental leave remaining = 38% of a year
Woman: 17 weeks maternal + 15 remaining parental leave weeks = 61% of a year

Or, in the case of adoption by a homosexual couple, each partner receives 17 weeks if divided evenly (read the adoption column). This is 6 weeks (total) less than Twitter offers.

So, if you are a man, Twitter's offering is reasonable. If you're a woman, Twitter's offering is not as good as Canada's. If you are homosexual, Twitter's offering is much better than Canada's (Surprising, I know! But Canada is only so much progressive... Not perfect, otherwise you'd see the Adoption Leave column would equal Maternal + Parental leave for all provinces instead of just a few.)

And this is just for the time off portion. Twitter's offering is better in all ways in that you receive your full salary, rather than Employment Insurance.

>That doesn't change the fact that the insurance is publicly managed and not for profit.

Publicly managed sucks, IMHO, but that's an opinion based item. It is factually not for profit.

>The USA should strive to emulate it

The USA does:

http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/unemployment-insurance

And, in fact, several US states exceed Canada's employment insurance benefit (Canadian maximum weekly benefit of $537 expressed in US $410). Massachusetts especially so ($914 expressed in Canadian dollars, almost double!)

http://www.savingtoinvest.com/maximum-weekly-unemployment-benefits-by-state/

Re:Cute,

[tom229]

Are you adding 17 + 37? The 35 is a total to be shared between both parents

Yes, yes I am. What in the sam-fuck are you even talking about? 17+37=54 and 20+20=40. So even if both parents happen to work at twitter, the Canadian benefits are better.

in fact, several US states exceed Canada's employment insurance benefit

Everywhere has employment insurance. Insurance is easy to provide becuase it's simple a matter of math: Subscribers x premium = Total coverage / # of claims. In the United States, birthing a child is not a qualified reason to claim EI benefits, at least not in most states I'm aware. This is the entire point of this thread.

Re:Cute,

[wyHunter]

Interestingly enough, we conservatives do support this. My observation is that it is the feminazis who believe they, who have no children, are being discriminated against.

Re:Cute,

[wyHunter]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your prosperity depends on you. From where is this 'prosperity' supposed to come, unearned?

Re:Cute,

[Livius]

we get a full year and still have plenty of businesses and jobs.

Don't tell them about the jobs! The unemployed in the US outnumber the whole Canadian population.

Re:Cute,

[tom229]

You son of a bitch....

Re: Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

You were talking as if parents could get 1 year. That is false. Only a woman giving birth can have that. Nice backpedaling though.

And you suggested us ei compensation is lower than Canada. But it really isn't. Now you backpedal by changing the narrative to the US doesn't offer it for having a baby. No shit. That doesn't change the fact that us and Canadian ei compensation for eligible takers is similar despite your original suggestion otherwise.

Learn to accept when you are wrong and your life will improve rather than making excuses befitting of a drama teaching politician.

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard this story on NPR today. Here is one significant fact I took from the story: "Nandi adds that the United States – which is among only three countries in the world that don’t guarantee paid maternity leave – has a higher infant mortality rate than it should, given its economic output."

Re:Cute,

[Anonymous Coward]

Who pays for self employed people in Canada to get a full year off? In the U.S., the self employed are always screwed (and they are the ones living the American dream, working for themselves). They have no paid leave, they pay their own health insurance, they pay twice the SS/Med (called the self employment tax), etc...

Re:Cute,

[phorm]

Which comes tied to unemployment insurance, and tops out at what, 60% of your wage? Also, for people who work tip-based jobs, that's not included in the wage calculation (even if you've been honest, declared and paid taxes on those tips for preceding years).
It's better than the USA but still not great.

only in San Francisco, New York

[Joe_Dragon]

We are looking to get out of there and the factory floor is going to Mexico.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm, nope.

It varies from province to province but you don't get a full year of paid parental leave.
http://www.babycenter.ca/a1012481/a-province-by-province-guide-to-parental-leave

Firstly:
1) The twitter leave is paid
2) The twitter leave can be for the father or/and mother

Secondly:
1) The provincial leave is unpaid [you can get unemployment benefits up to $537/week but that is paid by the government, not the company]
2) The maternity leave only applies to mothers
3) The paternal leave is limited and shared between the father and mother

Re:Nope

[Notorious G]

Why is the modded down? It's all the facts, not the feel good hyperbole.

Re:Nope

[Major Blud]

Why is the modded down?

I think it's because he posted as A.C.

It's all the facts, not the feel good hyperbole.

You must be new here ;-)

Yawn who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this relevant? How many employees does Twitter have? I'm guessing like 2 to vaguely upkeep the trivial messaging codebase.

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he is perpetuating the species.

Seems like an important job.

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[LWATCDR]

Umm..
I am a Mormon man and I have no kids.
Funny how some bigotry gets an easy pass on Slashdot. It is not like members of the LDS church all have large families or are the only people that have kids on the planet.

why don't we just give everyone a unicorn too?

[argStyopa]

This is a company that has yet to show a profit from 200+ million regular users.

http://financials.morningstar....

no need to pay

[kiviQr]

As a new parent I welcome 20 weeks without tweeter:)

Welcome

[ledow]

Welcome, America, to the beginnings of civilisation:

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

Government-mandated statutory maternity (and/or paternity) leave, including pay (not the full amount but enough), for 26 weeks, guaranteed by law, for EVERY SINGLE FUCKING WORKING PERSON, no matter their job.

What with Facebook and this, you might soon get into something called a civilised state where you actually have a social support network that vaguely resembles humanity.

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should people's breeding choices be subsidized by others? If you want to pop out another spawn, go ahead. I'm not stopping you. But it's your responsibility to pay for yourself, and it. If you can't, then Social Services will gladly take it away from your incompetent hands and give to someone that isn't stupid to raise.

Funny how lazy gits like you always think "civilization" means "other people buy me stuff".

Re:Welcome

[ledow]

What an ignorant comment.

Parental leave isn't about freeloading, it's about a medical condition and massive change of circumstances that employers have always been required to recognise anyway and formalising the thing that EVERY employer has to do such that it becomes a legal duty is merely formalising a process that you have to endure anyway to stop arguments, override employers with attitudes like your own, and provide some security and stability in a major life event.

You get a day off work in any extraordinary circumstance. So you get days off work for destroying your body to push out offspring (that will pay more tax than it costs to live over the course of its life, you seem to forget) and stop employers abusing such events to force people not fit for work back into it.

It's not permanent, it's not "free" (it's enough to survive), it's not able to be instigated for more than a handful of times in ANYONE'S life.

This isn't even about the child. Social services sort that out. It's about the mother and father who can't even have a day off work for a major change of circumstance - the same UK law also covers parental paid leave for ADOPTION, FOSTERING and MISCARRIAGE, you ignorant prick, which are counter to your arguments (i.e. taking children away from state care and/or serious medical bereavement that can occur to any couple). Even in the case of no medical intervention (adoption/fostering), it's a major life-change that needs support to ensure it starts properly. Not someone forced to go back to work at 9am the next morning and "do something" (hand it to a stranger on a paid service) with their newborn for that time.

You get a day off for granny's funeral but not a day off to have your baby, recover from serious bodily trauma and/or adjusting to the new living pattern, even if it's healthy? This is EXACTLY what you should pay for in order to avoid things like parents strangling their babies, abandoning them to the state, and other things that might mean you have to "buy stuff" for others.

If ever a comment existed to highlight how some people don't get humanity, it's yours.

This is how humanity works.

YOU PAY TO SUPPORT PEOPLE IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
YOU PAY FOR SCHOOLS.
YOU PAY FOR MEDICAL AID.
YOU PAY FOR BASIC SERVICES LIKE THE ABOVE.

That's what taxes are FOR. That's why you pay them. That's why you're FORCED to pay them. And people like you are the reason you don't get a choice.

This has nothing to do with people pushing out kids in place of getting a job, or drug-addicts abandoning their babies in public places, or anything even remotely about that. Those are matters for social services and employment benefits. If anything, I'm so against people being able to live off the state for anything more than a few months, that your comment is just insulting.

It's about a couple who, having decided they have the finances, desire and capability to start a family (whether with their own DNA or others) are not press-ganged back into work the next morning by people who don't care about their personal circumstances but just want to make a quick buck.

So the government says that employers get NO choice over the matter, and the parents get enough pay to keep them in bread and water and pay a few bills for the first few weeks. And the government GUARANTEES they still have a job to go back to, under threat of prosecution, if their employers try and wheedle out of their responsibility just because they have a few days off to cope with a newborn and get into the pattern of looking after the child, healthy or not.

Civilisation doesn't mean "buy me stuff" at all. It means "others who are able pay for those who are not".

P.S. ZERO fucking days on social benefit in my entire life, since leaving education. ZERO income support. NEVER taken paternity leave (even though I have a child). ZERO non-trivial medical treatment since I was a kid (and it's free here). Every single tax return paid in full, on-time, and not even claiming half of what I could have been entitled to.

Re:Welcome

[johnlcallaway]

Charity also works that way. And it's not forced upon people.

NOTHING requires ANY government to tax it's citizens and provide any social services. They do it because society wants it, and deems it necessary (in theory) or because someone wants to excercise power over other people and control things (more realistic).

And NO company is required to give a shit about their employee's personal circumstances. The good news is that those that do usually are able to have the better employees.What BS regulations like this do is reduce the number of incentives really good companies can offer to entice good people to come work for them. So we all end up with mediocre benefits, and society ends up paying for people who can't manage their own lives.

These types of regulations force the majority to subsidize people who make poor decisions. Schooling benefits society, so we agree to pay taxes to subsidize a minium level of public education. Fire and police also benefit society.

This only benefits people who are unable to make good decisions in their lives, don't know how to budget, are unable to save money, or don't have enough skills to work for the best companies. Those are not character traits that should be rewarded. For my entire life, I have gotten at least two weeks of vacation. And, as far as I know, every company I have ever worked with has leave-of-absence opportunities for reasonable periods.

For DECADES, people have managed in the US to deal with having a child and dealing with the life changes that come along with it. As an example, when my first wife had a child, she was able to have a friend watch our new son and was able to go back to work right away. She worked the early nursing shift, so we only needed 4 hours of child care. Later in life, she started working evenings and we didn't need any. I took ZERO time off other than some vacation time.

So .. what's the problem?? Why suddenly is it that people can't do this? My guess is it's the push towards people who want the government to wipe their own ass because they aren't capable (or unwilling) to do it themselves. The problem with that is then the government makes the rules, and creates a 'one size fits all' system that, for the most part, is just mediocre. Almost every US government program is mediocre at best .. public education, Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration. They all suffer from the same thing ... a bureaucracy that is more concerned with keeping employed that serving needs. I see nothing in any of those systems that shows any indication that the government gives a crap about the people they are servicing. The horror stories in each of those program can fill volumes.

It's always amazing to me how many idiots run to the US government for help when their track record at doing anything sucks so badly. I like my choices better, take government benefits if I can, but not depend on them at all. I'll take my social security check when I get old enough, but I have enough saved up to not need it. I'll fall back on Medicaid if I have to, but I'll pay for my own insurance as long as I can.

And .. I'll decide what benefits I need from an employer. I don't need the government telling me what I have to take. They have already screwed up my health insurance, I'd prefer they don't start screwing around with really unimportant things to the majority of workers.

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok then. Time for the rest of us to stop working. We will see if people having kids sitting at home getting paid magically makes the economy turn.

What, all of them?

[wonkey_monkey]

Twitter To Give All New Parents 20 Weeks of Paid Leave

That's very generous, especially if said parents don't even work for Twitter.

Some problems with that...

[sethstorm]

First of all, given their pandering to the SJW-cause-du-jour, they seem to be going downhill. Instead of trying to dig a deeper hole by alienating everyone not SOCJUS, how about they purge the SJW's?

Second, what says they will extend it to the lower-tier individuals known as contractors? That's how you end up giving a lesser set of benefits while being able to make these claims. Besides, when have they been given similarly generous benefits, much less

Re:Some problems with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a bot created by feeding posts from Gamergate into an AI? Because if so, you need to get some more data, or just... actually, just stop.

Yep

[tom229]

Ummm, Yep. Did you even look at your own link? All provinces are virtually the same. The shortest amount of time is 52 weeks (1 year) with many provinces exceeding that. So, my statement of Canada giving a full year is very true in literally every case. The government does pay it, and it is at a reduced rate. But many companies top up this benefit as a hiring incentive (just like twitter), or even allow both parents to leave at the same time (admittedly much rarer).

Legal minimum

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that below the legal minimum in many countries?

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[aergern]

You must be the odd person out or you don't participate in the culture. I work with a lot of LDS in Lehi, UT. They get married and 9 months later comes the first one then they give their wives a few months to recoup and boom .. another kid on the way. Between PTO and maternity/paternity leave .. they are out for at least 7 to 9 weeks a year. It's not bigotry to bring up facts. I do know a few mormons that don't have huge families but it's in the 5% range. Sorry man .. it is what it is. But the non-mormons in my work circle end up with much more work with the same level of pay.

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[wyHunter]

It's called AFDC. and other things too.

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[Anonymous Coward]

I have chosen not to have children (last time I looked there seems to be enough), and I have to work the whole year minus vacation and personal days. My Mormon peer gets about six months off a year (parental leave + vacation + sick/personal days) for the next six to 20 years. Yeah, that's fair.

I'm posting anonymous to not undo moderation in this topic. I am Mormon, of the Latter-day Saint variety. There are flaws to your complaint. Firstly, the only thing different between your benefits and your pro-creating peers is a 20 week parental leave per pregnancy, so your appeal to Mormons getting a six month vacation is misleading. Secondly, Mormons tend to space their children every two or three years. Therefore, it's not every year for the next 6 to 20 years. Parents do not get 20 weeks off a year for the duration of raising their children. Thirdly, it's rare for Mormon couples of my generation to have more than 5 children, so your claim to twenty years is pure hyperbole.

It may surprise you, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not view preventative birth control as sinful. Just about any means may be employed to prevent the sperm from meeting up with the egg. However, the morning after pill or elective abortion is considered a sin (one should know the effectiveness of the chosen method and accept responsibility if pregnancy results). Mormons are huge proponents of family planning. Couples should only procreate if they feel they are able to provide for the child's needs - physical, emotional, educational, financial, and spiritual. As the cost of raising children increases (last I checked, it costs a quarter million dollars for the first 18 years of life!), Mormon couples are having fewer children

As an aside, why use Mormons when Catholics are equally known for traditionally having large families?

No time off for me or my wife

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither myself or my wife were rewarded with time off while trying to have a child. Many might think this is trivial but not all of us were blessed with functional reproduction equipment. The IVF process is expensive, painful and requires many personal days. As insult to injury there are zero tax breaks or assistantance. Remember this when you hear another SJW asshole crowing about reproductive rights and womens health. That only means abortion and contraception.

Like edu benefits, have to pay if you leave ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a business have to support any of this?

Is it like many education benefits, you have to refund what the company paid if you leave within a couple of years?

Re:Like edu benefits, have to pay if you leave ...

[JackieBrown]

Why should a business have to support any of this?

Is it like many education benefits, you have to refund what the company paid if you leave within a couple of years?

You'd be surprised how many people quit after their paid parental leave is over

Blizzard is a different game company ...

[Anonymous Coward]

All game companies. And game companies treat you like shit.

Very very misinformed. Blizzard Entertainment has been run for the last 25 years by its original founders. Its wild success has led to a successive series owners over the decades that leave it alone, owners who don't muck with it like other game companies they own (sympathies to various Sierra and Activision folks). Salaries are average (which is good for the game industry) and bonuses are profit sharing based and generous and applies to workers too not just management, stock participation applies to workers too, and the culture is one that takes care of its people.

And if you are working on the legacy games its entirely possible to get the CEO to come to your office and explain some 20 year old Starcraft 1 code to you. The Senior VP has been know to do such things too.

Blizzard is a different game company.

PRIVATE business

[p51d007]

They can do as they please, but, don't look for this to LAST very long when it starts impacting their business bottom line.

Blizzard helps those moving to coding and art ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I made a transition from being a video game tester to lead tester, I went back to college to learn computer programming and earn my technical certifications. I was immediately branded as "not a team player" because I had an exit strategy.

More detail in other comment, "Blizzard is a different game company", but you offer a nice example ...

At Blizzard the QA manager knows who the aspiring programmers and artists are. The development and art teams sometimes have minor tasks that need to be performed but everyone is too busy on higher priority stuff, a QA team member with appropriate aspirations is sometimes loaned and given some time to work on this task. Its an evaluation of sorts. Note that Blizzard does not advertise many entry level positions, it can often develop talent internally. Well internally plus a handful of interns from the local universities might show promise too.

Mmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Good company policy. Perhaps they're trying to breed future employees. Still, you'd think that they'd want little baby robots instead, just to stay ahead of the curve.

The devil is actually in the details

[rsilvergun]

companies love to announce stuff like this and soak in the good press. They forget to mention that the vast majority of work they get done is by contractors (often H1-Bs, but I digress) who get none of these benefits. Companies today fall into two categories: the ones that use contractors to do day to day work without paying them benefits and the ones who have so few employees they don't bother ( it's called "scalability" and it means investors can put a little money in and not have to pay for all those pesky employees and their middle class jobs...).

Your kids are the next batch of wage slaves

[rsilvergun]

so we're subsidize them to keep the economy growing so the 1% can siphon 40% off the top of their labor. If you're not contributing to that system then don't expect a subsidy for it.

Yeah, that's a crass way to put it, but it really is why we do as much for parents and children as we do in this country. Trying and get the right wing to do something for the poor and middle class without a reward is basically impossible.

It's not about jobs

[rsilvergun]

Our right wing find it morally reprehensible that somebody gets paid to not work. I think it has to do with our obsession with punishment plus a general attitude that if they're not happy with their lives nobody else should be. There are other contributing factors to that belief system, all of them rotten.

What really kills us is our two party system. It's easy to mobilize enough voters full of hatred and bile to win an election and do whatever you please. Also nobody ever believes our right wing is going to do the crap they say they are. Donald Trump just got in a lot of trouble and lost a key race because he said out loud that if we make Abortion murder then we make the woman getting the abortion a murderer. Sounds reasonable, and everywhere abortion is illegal it's what happens. But try telling people that and see if they believe it. It's one of the key reasons we legalized it in the first place but everyone forgets. Crap like that is how you get people saying minimum wage isn't needed anymore because wages are higher, ignoring the fact that minimum wage caused that...

Don't worry, we didn't actually do it for real

[rsilvergun]

Twitter, like all tech companies, makes liberal use of contractors who do not get these benefits. You didn't think we actually did something nice for real did you?

Re:Blizzard helps those moving to coding and art .

[__aaclcg7560]

At Blizzard the QA manager knows who the aspiring programmers and artists are.

Mike Gilmartin was my boss at Atari as well.

Focus on emergency leave, not just birth leave.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of other reasons people need large amounts of time off that seem to be ignored here. I had to take *unpaid* leave from my job to full time care for my very ill wife. 12 weeks later I was terminated, despite the fact the need for leave continued.

20 weeks of *paid* leave would have been a godsend. Try staring death down with no income, the abrupt end of employee benefits, and absolutely mind-blowing medical bills with only COBRA for cover.

Paid leave would have helped immensely. Even just benefits continuation would have helped. Try it with neither. It's not fun.

Family emergencies come in all shapes and sizes, and frankly, birth is at the easy-peasy end of the spectrum.

news ?

[Tom]

This is news, wh... oh, wait. USA. Everywhere else in the world, that kind of leave is absolute standard, mandated by law, and typically longer than 20 weeks.

Hi guys. How does it feel to get a bit closer to civilization? Congratulations, step by step, you will eventually be a first world country.

Re:Blizzard helps those moving to coding and art .

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly he was also a US Marine so he knows that it is a leader's role to develop talent that serves the larger organization, not just the leader's little domain.

Nice benefit in a free market society

[johnlcallaway]

Please explain again why it's my company's responsibility to pay me for not working because I don't have any budgeting skills and, given 8 months lead time, can't possibly save enough money to take some unpaid leave. And I decided to have a child knowing I didn't have the money to take time off? And I'm also too stupid to have a financial reserve in case something comes up and I can't work for a period of time, or, heaven forbid, get fired or laid off.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any issues with companies doing this. Competing for employees is one of the greatest features of a capitalistic system, and companies that offer the best compensation packages will end up with the best workers.

I think the expectation that it's their responsibility to do it is terribly misguided. Once again, we want to force everyone into a 'one size fits all' mentality, no longer differentiating between great places to work and crappy places to work because we want to force them all to have the same benefits.

I'm a firm believer in letting the open job market drive benefits. Companies were handing out domestic partner coverage long before it became a 'thing'. I know, I used it to get insurance for my girl friend over 10 years ago.

When I go to a job interview, I have a list of 'must have' benefits. This isn't on it, because I won't be having any kids anytime soon. But I might look for benefits like working remotely, which I currently do, because I'm old and want to be around my grandkids instead of where I can get a good paying job. I consider working remotely far more important than parental leave, because *I* need it.

Stop asking everyone to provide everything, and start taking responsibility for making decisions in your life. For those that live in nanny governments, you have no idea what you are giving up when you ask the government wipe your ass because you are too stupid to do it yourself.

Sanity check.. FAILED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody has to make more humans for the species' survival.

Oh, you think that will pass a sanity check?
Lets see
Current pop 7.4 billion. That is up 400 million in 4 years. http://www.latimes.com/world/p...
  So 100 million new mouths per year and growing.

  55.3 million people die each year http://www.ecology.com/birth-d...

If the world quit spawning right now, we would be just under 7 billion people in a FREAKING DECADE.

We would still be over 6 Billion mouths in two FREAKING DECADES of 0 people on the planet making babies.

So with the global warming caused by excess people, as well as other issues like "We ate all the big fish in the sea and are now creating dead spots" and "Hey that oil that grows and moves our crops/food should run out by ~2038.", you think we need more people..

"I WANT BABY! BABY BABY BABY!!!" Is an emotional response that doesn't stand up to thinking about whether having one is a good plan. Sadly those more likely to feel about breeding rather than think about breeding are also more likely to reproduce. Good by thinkers, hello feelers.

We are at the point where irresponsible reproduction may be participating in the deaths of billions. Or we may be well past that point already.

Captcha: "maternal". Slashdot you be trollin' me.

What about non-parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

They deserve some time off for having to deal with all the extra baby-related stress caused by these absences.

Re:What about non-parents?

[kmoser]

And single parents should get double the time off since they are acting as both father and mother!

Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time

[LWATCDR]

"You must be the odd person out or you don't participate in the culture."
My wife is a BYU grad and I am in the elders quorum presidency so we are pretty Mormon. Most of the families in my ward have two to three kids which is pretty normal. Some only have one or none and some have four or five. Maybe it is just me but that does not seem to be all that odd from when I was growing up. I am a convert but not a recent one.
Sorry that you feel out of place culturally but yes it is bigotry. If you said the same thing about members of the Roman Catholic church or of hispanics or african americans you would have people coming down on you like a ton of bricks. In other words be grateful that the company you work for seems to offer this and maybe you will get to benefit from it also.

Quebec Canada Parental Leave

[lsatenstein]

http://www.rqap.gouv.qc.ca/inc...

For the mother there are a few weeks before birth and up to 18 weeks after at 70% of salary.
And the husband is entitled to parental leave as well.

To get an appreciation of what Sanders would also like to bring in, read the contents pointed to by the link

As somebody who recently had pat leave

[phorm]

Getting asked how my "time off" was is actually quite irritating. It was NOT a vacation. I took mine at the tail-end of things, so my wife had about the first 8mo and I have 12 weeks with a kid who was *very* attached to having mom around all the time.

Lots of crying.
Lots of poop.
Not much sleeping at night (nap-time was awesome though).

The best part is where apparently every family member who needed something taken care of assumed I was "free" because I wasn't at the day-job.
Can I drive my sister's kid home 8h from a visit to her father? Yeahhhh, that's fun with a constipated baby.
Can I mow my old man's lawn? What am I supposed to do strap the kid to my back and give her earplugs, or just let her roam the lawn while I run around with a sharp-bladed death-machine?