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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Wednesday April 6, 2016 @06:09AM from the work-and-family-balance dept.

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).

157 of 265 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Here I was all excited! by tlambert · 2016-04-06 06:16 · Score: 5, Funny

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".
1. Re:Here I was all excited! by SeaFox · 2016-04-06 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Here I was all excited! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-04-06 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:Here I was all excited! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-04-06 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Here I was all excited! by SeaFox · 2016-04-06 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Here I was all excited! by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
6. Re:Here I was all excited! by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
7. Re:Here I was all excited! by cthulhu11 · 2016-04-07 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  But, like unlimited vacation, would anyone actually dare to take it?
8. Re:Here I was all excited! by ripvlan · 2016-04-07 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - I came here looking to see where I could submit my reimbursement form to get those free 20 weeks !!?!
  Grammar Grammar.
Re:Business Model? by tnk1 · 2016-04-06 06:17 · Score: 1

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.
What abt people who don't want kids? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want 20 my weeks too, or I'll take a 1 year 38.5% raise instead.
1. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-04-06 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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]
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
3. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by alvinrod · 2016-04-06 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by NotDrWho · 2016-04-06 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You get a shitload of extra work to pick up the slack.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
5. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by NotDrWho · 2016-04-06 06:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's not my job to help other assholes procreate.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
6. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by mlw4428 · 2016-04-06 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
8. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
9. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
10. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by tom229 · 2016-04-06 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
11. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  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).
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
12. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Bengie · 2016-04-06 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
13. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by jimbolauski · 2016-04-06 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Can I still work and collect my normal paycheck and the $100k breeder incentive?
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
14. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by clong83 · 2016-04-06 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
15. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by blackomegax · 2016-04-06 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you think spending 20 weeks with a newborn child is "time off" equivalent to other peoples vacations, you are delusional.
16. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by mattyj · 2016-04-06 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by mattyj · 2016-04-06 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
18. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by clong83 · 2016-04-06 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
19. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by JackieBrown · 2016-04-06 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
20. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by NotDrWho · 2016-04-06 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
21. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
22. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
23. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Darinbob · 2016-04-06 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
24. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Darinbob · 2016-04-06 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by thegarbz · 2016-04-06 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  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.
26. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
27. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by clong83 · 2016-04-06 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
28. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by JeffOwl · 2016-04-06 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  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.
29. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
30. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
31. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by clong83 · 2016-04-06 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
32. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
33. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
34. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
35. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by CanadianMacFan · 2016-04-06 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're getting a 20 week vacation from them talking about their new child. Enjoy it while it lasts!
36. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Those kinds of people come from families that don't need an economic incentive.
  This isn't Europe.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
37. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by BobSutan · 2016-04-06 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
38. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  ...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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
39. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
40. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by serviscope_minor · 2016-04-06 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
41. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > 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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
42. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
43. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by serviscope_minor · 2016-04-06 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Europe makes everything harder on everyone, including having a kid.
  Do youwant to know how I know you know nothig about Europe?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
44. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
45. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
46. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
47. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by davester666 · 2016-04-06 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
48. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by ranton · 2016-04-06 16:28 · Score: 2
  
  > 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.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
49. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by goose-incarnated · 2016-04-06 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
50. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by BlackPignouf · 2016-04-06 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
51. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by thegarbz · 2016-04-07 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
52. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
53. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  My biggest knowledge takeaway at first was that nobody makes an informed choice to have a first child.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
54. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
55. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
56. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
57. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Heinlein said something about all morals are ultimately based on propagation of our species.
  Discuss.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
58. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's not my job to help other assholes procreate.
  Yeah, screw this. I want time off to procreate myself.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
59. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  "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!
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
60. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  +1 "Calling out an unpleasant entity"
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
61. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
62. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-08 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
63. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-08 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
64. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by david_thornley · 2016-04-08 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
65. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by phorm · 2016-04-08 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
66. Re: What abt people who don't want kids? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-04-08 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
67. Re:What abt people who don't want kids? by clong83 · 2016-04-11 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  ?
  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. by StayFrosty · 2016-04-06 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
Fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 06:19 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Fuck off. by Captain+Splendid · 2016-04-06 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're overestimating how much people prefer white people to babies.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
2. Re:Fuck off. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hahahaha, nobody will sleep with you AND you have to pay for it... loser!
3. Re:Fuck off. by mark-t · 2016-04-06 07:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
4. Re:Fuck off. by mark-t · 2016-04-06 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Fuck off. by Captain+Splendid · 2016-04-06 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  A dog is for LIFE, not 20 WEEKS, you heartless BASTARD
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
6. Re:Fuck off. by tom229 · 2016-04-06 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Reduce that to anything less than a number greater than 1 and see what happens to your economy. Anonymous, and probably quite literal, coward.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
7. Re:Fuck off. by mark-t · 2016-04-06 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:Fuck off. by mark-t · 2016-04-06 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's odd that you'd be fine with government benefits but not if the company is paying for it themselves.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Business Model? by jellomizer · 2016-04-06 06:24 · Score: 1

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.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Excellent by 31415926535897 · 2016-04-06 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Excellent by Notorious+G · 2016-04-06 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Excellent by tom229 · 2016-04-06 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
3. Re:Excellent by tom229 · 2016-04-06 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
4. Re: Excellent by ljw1004 · 2016-04-06 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  You can't do it indefinitely because your childcare costs will increase exponentially while your salary remains constant.
5. Re:Excellent by Notorious+G · 2016-04-06 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Excellent by tom229 · 2016-04-06 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
7. Re:Excellent by AmiMoJo · 2016-04-06 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Great plan, except that the rate your family is expanding at is likely to exceed to rate at which your salary increases.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Excellent by Jason+Levine · 2016-04-06 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
9. Re:Excellent by AmiMoJo · 2016-04-06 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:Excellent by CanadianMacFan · 2016-04-06 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Twins or triplets?
11. Re:Excellent by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that that's not how the real world works, I hope.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
12. Re:Excellent by sysrammer · 2016-04-07 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
All other employees get extra work by NotDrWho · 2016-04-06 06:38 · Score: 2

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!

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1. Re:All other employees get extra work by tom229 · 2016-04-06 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  *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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. Re:All other employees get extra work by serviscope_minor · 2016-04-06 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:All other employees get extra work by antdude · 2016-04-06 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  They should make a rule not to make parents and babies.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
4. Re:All other employees get extra work by Necroloth · 2016-04-07 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  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!!!!
5. Re:All other employees get extra work by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cute, by tom229 · 2016-04-06 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
1. Re:Cute, by Monkey · 2016-04-06 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  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/...
2. Re:Cute, by mattyj · 2016-04-06 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Businesses and jobs, but no Stanley Cup this year!
3. Re:Cute, by dbsnstuf · 2016-04-06 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Cute, by Darinbob · 2016-04-06 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Cute, by tom229 · 2016-04-06 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6. Re:Cute, by thegarbz · 2016-04-06 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Cute, by tom229 · 2016-04-06 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  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".
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
8. Re:Cute, by tom229 · 2016-04-06 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
9. Re:Cute, by wyHunter · 2016-04-06 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:Cute, by wyHunter · 2016-04-06 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your prosperity depends on you. From where is this 'prosperity' supposed to come, unearned?
11. Re:Cute, by Livius · 2016-04-06 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Cute, by tom229 · 2016-04-06 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  You son of a bitch....
  
  --
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
13. Re:Cute, by phorm · 2016-04-08 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Re:Business Model? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 06:44 · Score: 1

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.
only in San Francisco, New York by Joe_Dragon · 2016-04-06 06:50 · Score: 1

We are looking to get out of there and the factory floor is going to Mexico.
Re:Business Model? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 06:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

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? by tripleevenfall · 2016-04-06 06:59 · Score: 1

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:Nope by Notorious+G · 2016-04-06 07:15 · Score: 1

Why is the modded down? It's all the facts, not the feel good hyperbole.
Re:Business Model? by JackieBrown · 2016-04-06 07:19 · Score: 1

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:Nope by Major+Blud · 2016-04-06 07:20 · Score: 1

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 ;-)

--
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time by LWATCDR · 2016-04-06 07:20 · Score: 2

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.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
why don't we just give everyone a unicorn too? by argStyopa · 2016-04-06 07:21 · Score: 1

This is a company that has yet to show a profit from 200+ million regular users.
http://financials.morningstar....

--
-Styopa
no need to pay by kiviQr · 2016-04-06 07:26 · Score: 2

As a new parent I welcome 20 weeks without tweeter:)
Re:Business Model? by mattyj · 2016-04-06 07:26 · Score: 2

There's something to be said for perpetuating the species.
Welcome by ledow · 2016-04-06 07:31 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Welcome by ledow · 2016-04-07 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Welcome by johnlcallaway · 2016-04-07 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
What, all of them? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-04-06 07:39 · Score: 1

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.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Some problems with that... by sethstorm · 2016-04-06 07:52 · Score: 1

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

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yep by tom229 · 2016-04-06 08:06 · Score: 1

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).

--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re:Business Model? by jedidiah · 2016-04-06 09:32 · Score: 1

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.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time by aergern · 2016-04-06 09:54 · Score: 1

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.

--
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time by wyHunter · 2016-04-06 09:58 · Score: 1

It's called AFDC. and other things too.
Blizzard is a different game company ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-06 11:51 · Score: 1

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.
The devil is actually in the details by rsilvergun · 2016-04-06 12:20 · Score: 2

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...).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Your kids are the next batch of wage slaves by rsilvergun · 2016-04-06 12:23 · Score: 1

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.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's not about jobs by rsilvergun · 2016-04-06 12:28 · Score: 1

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...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Don't worry, we didn't actually do it for real by rsilvergun · 2016-04-06 12:30 · Score: 1

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?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:Blizzard helps those moving to coding and art . by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-04-06 12:36 · Score: 1

At Blizzard the QA manager knows who the aspiring programmers and artists are.
Mike Gilmartin was my boss at Atari as well.
news ? by Tom · 2016-04-06 17:57 · Score: 1

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.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Nice benefit in a free market society by johnlcallaway · 2016-04-07 00:43 · Score: 1

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.

--
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Re:Like edu benefits, have to pay if you leave ... by JackieBrown · 2016-04-07 01:20 · Score: 1

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
Re:So a Mormon man gets to work 1/2 time by LWATCDR · 2016-04-07 05:50 · Score: 1

"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.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Business Model? by nmr_andrew · 2016-04-07 06:04 · Score: 1

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:What about non-parents? by kmoser · 2016-04-07 07:57 · Score: 1

And single parents should get double the time off since they are acting as both father and mother!
Re:Business Model? by david_thornley · 2016-04-07 08:22 · Score: 1

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.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Quebec Canada Parental Leave by lsatenstein · 2016-04-07 10:34 · Score: 1

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

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
As somebody who recently had pat leave by phorm · 2016-04-08 04:14 · Score: 1

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?