Slashdot Mirror
American Express Will Give All Parents 20 Weeks Of Paid Leave (cnn.com)
Starting in January, the financial services giant will expand its paid parental leave policy for mothers and fathers to 20 weeks at full pay, plus another six to eight weeks for women who give birth and require medical leave. Full-time and part-time employees who have worked at Amex for at least a year are eligible. CNN adds: That's a big shift from the company's current policy of offering six weeks of paid leave for the primary parent plus another six to eight weeks for birth mothers who require medical leave. Secondary caregivers, meanwhile, have gotten just two weeks. Under the new policy, parents will also have access to a 24-hour lactation consultant. And mothers who go on business trips will be able to ship their breast milk home for free.
I'm a parent, I don't work for American Express... will they give me 20 weeks?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
get to pick up the slack with no extra PTO or a larger salary? I understand the need to help parents, and i don't dispute it. I get that maybe parents needsome time out for a new birth or to leave early or come in late or take time off now and again to deal with older kids, but 20 weeks at full pay? doesn't that put a huge burden on those who dont have kids to pick up the slack?
Because it certainly isn't "stuff that matters" !
Blue balls.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They must not be impressed with your work today.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They leave it in a bottle on your front porch
Unfortunately, population growth isn't happening in the industrialized world, but rather in the developing world. So unless you want to start letting in a lot of immigrants over the coming decades, you're going to have to accept that people in the West need to have children as well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Only in America.
I guess that this policy is far too wimpy and liberal for the USA. IF you don't like it, sue it to death!
Other countries are implementing policies like this. No lawsuits there!
Some are even making it transferrable between parents.
The USA is becoming more socially unequal by the day. This policy would help the lower paid more than the bosses (who can afford nannies).
You really are going to the dogs.
Sounds eerily like 3%
This sounds like a bad argument: We need to have lots of children to keep people from other countries from coming here by keeping them from being able to find work.
But it doesn't do that it just drives wages down further by increasing the supply of labor.
Limited immigration and low birthrates would eventually lower the labor force potentially to the point companies would pay to keep people they have spent the time to train instead of swapping through people like they are disposable.
I'm not against immigration i'm against the current complete fkup of an implementation that's another post though.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
this is america, it's going to happen. discrimination against those who don't want or can't have children. the latter being a medical condition that surely someone will consider an ada-covered disability... and they just might find a judge to agree with them.
Read TFA:
And employees who wish to have a child will receive up to $35,000 for adoption or surrogacy for up to two children. Those undergoing infertility treatments, meanwhile, will receive up to a lifetime maximum of $35,000 to help defray costs.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
As a single guy who doesn't smoke, I'm starting to think I'm getting screwed here.
If the Duggar's worked for AMEX... 7+ years of paid vacation over the course of time...
"you're going to have to accept that people in the West need to have children as well"
So, you're busy breeding cannon fodder?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
..you're only now 19 weeks behind Statutory Maternity Pay in the UK.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I'm curious how this story is technology or science related?
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
What an incredibly un-insightful post.
Does the earth care where the population growth is? What's wrong with letting immigrants in? It's not a contest.
Unequal benefits is a problem employers should solve, not one they should accelerate as an incentive to do harm to the environment.
I already see comments from single people or people who choose to not have kids saying we "breeders" are taking advantage of them. A policy like this makes sense. Families are already screwed up because unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere, a two-income household is becoming a requirement. Either both parents have to work low end jobs to make ends meet, or the cost of living is so high in regions with jobs that both parents have to be able to cover that so they can do the work they're qualified for. I have 2 kids, and will not be able to have more mainly because of that (and because I like my sanity...) The problem is that society and markets at large have adjusted to the 2-earner family being the default. The only families I know who have a stay-at-home parent live in very low-cost areas, have an incredibly well-compensated spouse (doctors, execs, etc.) or are working for something like state government where the lower household income is balanced by the job security. Everyone else has to pay through the nose for childcare, a not-insignificant expense. (And before you say we're consumer robots buying toys with our 2 incomes, we're not...but we also want to be able to save and not have 19 cents in the bank right before our next paychecks hit.)
If the 2-earner household is now the default, then AmEx's policy is a response to that. I think that even with all the crappy MBA-driven offshoring, outsourcing and layoffs, many companies really do want to find people who will stick with them, do beyond the bare minimum to avoid getting fired, and not be a basket of stress ready to keel over at a moment's notice. This seems to me like a decent response to these demands. Having a family is stressful enough -- I know I get into work in the morning, and the clock starts ticking so I can avoid working late after everyone goes to bed. Replacing an employee is expensive. The company I work for is on the downswing of a fad where all we do is hire contractors, and it absolutely stinks having to retrain someone every year. When that someone is doing a complex job that really requires an FTE, this goes double!
So, are we breeders? Maybe, but we do have a not-insignificant amount of extra responsibility, stress and financial burdens. Having a company actually extend a little help here and there is a good thing. The place I work was very understanding when my kids were born, even though there's no paternity leave policy...my bosses had all been in the same spot and made sure i didn't have to go all over the world during those first few months -- and they realized that there were some days I'd be a total mess and rolled with it. I think AmEx is going the right way with this, because I'm still with the employer who cut me slack...and I could have left for worse conditions and more money.
It changes the culture and culture matters. Whether people lie or tell the truth, expect a bribe to do their job, work hard or slack off as much as they can get away with is cultural. By objective measures quality of government is the single most important factor in economic development, success and well being of a country and culture is a bigger factor in quality of government than form of government. This delusion that people are all the same and fungible in a global open borders sense is just wrong. To the extend that cultures differ and those differences matter people are in fact different and replacing one culture with another can and will have negative impacts on a country if the culture that is replaced is more beneficial to society that the one that replaces it.
If you don't like that your company offers maternal benefits to people with children, then quit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Random comments...
Workers with families may actually be beneficial to companies. Why? Speaking as a parent in a single-income household, I would think they are less prone to job-hunting/switching frequently. It'd be interesting to see statistics on employee turnover rate for single vs. married vs. married-with-kids (or vs. single-with-kids, whatever). My income is very important to me, because I have three other people to provide for (plus associated "life" activities). It's stressful to not have a job; it's more stressful when you have a spouse and kids to provide for and, well, not starve, get into debt, lose your house, that sort of thing.
That said ... heh, 20 weeks is a lot, that's like 5 months. I'm happy with 2-4 weeks of paternal leave, but it's not a huge deal if a company didn't give paternal leave. I think it's great, because IMO, it's a statement of the importance of family and the importance of fathers in family life. I mean, I wouldn't complain about 20 weeks! But I can see how someone might think 20 weeks for a *father* is a lot.
Also, that said, 20 weeks for a mother is *not* that much. Even the official pediatric recommendation is to breastfeed, exclusively, if you can, for at least 6 months. It's really, really, really hard to exclusively breastfeed while working if you have any milk supply issues at all... because pumping just doesn't work the same. Sure, maybe companies should take that into account when working out pay, or maybe some of that should be without pay, or whatever, but unless we want to say to women that having kids is unimportant, or that making them healthy is unimportant, then time off for those critical months in a baby's development is a big deal to me. As a father. ;)
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Not to mention, that often those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off to care for the result of fucking without protection.
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation, they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders, and since they are probably salary, that will not come with any overtime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
and I could stay home on full pay for a very long time
HOW can a business afford to have employees off for that long. And, if a business CAN afford to have employees off that long, do they have too many employees working for them?
You do know the lawsuit remark is just an opinion, right? It's not an absolute guarantee that someone will sue AMEX over that.
A baby boom has been reported at cities where offices of AmEX are located, the same areas where Trojan and other condom makers have posted an abrupt drop in sales. Maternity wards are overwhelmed with demand and retail stores are having trouble keep their shelves stocked with baby accessories. More details at 11.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Property owners already pay school taxes whether or not they have kids, why is this any different?
Why do they need to have children? I thought automation was going to fill a large number of jobs.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
I suppose, then, that they won't advantage themselves of those benefits.
There's a box of Donuts in the break room. I don't want a donut. Have I been harmed by this in any way? How selfish do you need to be to complain about that sort of thing?
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation
With a newborn? It's not vacation.
they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders
Imagination land? If they're not already overstaffed, they'll hire a temp. If they are overstaffed, I suggest they downsize. Preferably starting with toxic, selfish, employees to improve workplace conditions of the remaining staff.
those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off
People like you should be happy about that, were that delusion true. After all, some overtime sure beats drinking alone in an empty apartment while trolling Slashdot and wondering why women aren't interested in a cool guy like you.
Required reading for internet skeptics
20 (Father) + 20 + 8 (Mother) = 48
So no, we are now 9 weeks ahead.
But all this is ridiculous, if global warming is half as serious as claimed we should in no way be subsidizing increasing the population. The number one worst thing you can do to increase carbon footprint is to have a child.
Nah, I'd much rather sue for a 40% raise.
It is *STILL* 20 weeks of Paid Time Off.
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Ok, who's in imagination land now? What company is going to go to all that extra trouble, of hiring temps, or adjusting staffing just for people going on parental leave? Nope, they're gonna target the poor schmucks that are left behind working to take up the slack for the new parents.
Well, if I weren't having to work so many LONG fucking hours, to make up for the new parental units taking paid time off that I don't get...I'd not be home nights sleeping, but I'd have time and energy to go out and get laid.
Going out drinking with ladies and getting laid is fun to do....maybe they should give me 20 weeks of paid vacation to pursue my lifestyle CHOICE.
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have been an American Express customer for twenty years. In those twenty years, I have had a few issues, like card numbers stolen and irregular charges. In all cases, they solved the problem immediately, at no cost or headaches for me, sometimes taking it in the chin for me. In one occasion, I had a dispute with a hotel about a $400 charge, and a call to American Express fixed it. They said to me that I did not have to worry about the issue any more, and they were true to their word: I don't know how they negotiated with the hotel, but the bill and the charge just disappeared. I have no complaints about paying American Express my annual fee - they really have gone the extra mile for me more than once.
Um... we are supposed toworking to make sure that everyoneis compensated equally for their work race, gender, or religious belief.
Are you saying that giving one group20 WEEKS of extra paid time off is compatible with that ideal? What are you smoking?
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Not to mention, that often those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off to care for the result of fucking without protection.
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation, they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders, and since they are probably salary, that will not come with any overtime.
Tell you what, if you're that butthurt about it, take the fucking condom off.
Seems there isn't a fucking thing that can be brought up at any time that someone won't find a way to bitch about. Fucking hell, shut the FUCK UP already, and go home and start breeding if you want this so fucking bad.
Then you can enjoy a couple of decades of "EXTRA work"
TL; DR - If you're not a parent, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
When you're 70 and need your diapers changed you'll be glad someone had kids and raised them to care for selfish people like you.
There's a box of Donuts in the break room. I don't want a donut. Have I been harmed by this in any way? How selfish do you need to be to complain about that sort of thing?
Er, what? Buddy, I'm on your side, but that analogy just doesn't work.
If you wanted to, you could choose to partake of the "donuts in the break room" benefit.
A person who does not want to have kids has no choice but to not partake in 20 extra weeks of PTO.
When women chose to drop out of the workforce to have children, whether it is 20 weeks or whatever, their non-childbearing cohorts--usually males--continue to accrue experience and visibility. They earn raises and promotions. The child-bearing women then sue because they were not given raises or promotions, or at least complain about the "gender gap" and push for laws that force employers to ignore the raw fact that the child-bearing women (and their partners who might also choose to sit out for weeks or months) are, in fact, now behind the experience curve. Repeat for second kid, and somehow it's discrimination because woman A and cohort B (probably a man) who were hired on the same day into the same job now are paid significantly differently due to woman A being 3 or 4 years behind the experience curve. And more lawsuits fly.
...I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Do the rest of those who have kids a favor and just shut the fuck up now while you're ahead. Your lifestyle decision will afford you to enjoy life in ways those with kids will only dream about for quite a long time, if ever.
You're already demonstrated you wish to prioritize *you* in this life, and the overwhelming majority of your paycheck and retirement will be dedicated to *you*, so go off and enjoy it.
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Well I guess you'll have to vote with your talent and keep on not working at Amex.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
It is *STILL* 20 weeks of Paid Time Off.
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Unfair to who? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Who is being cheated?
While you're not a parent now, should you opt to have children, and you can find a willing partner, you're welcome to take that time off. It's there for when you need it!
Are you saying that you want 20 weeks paid leave ... for no reason whatsoever? Because someone who is not you advantaged themselves of that benefit? On what basis? That you think you'll never have children? How would it be decided when that leave was granted? What would you do? Turn in your imaginary future wife's uterus along with your testicles in to HR?
The only thing I can see here is your fear that someone is getting something that you're not. I'm not convinced that that something is paid leave.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Thankfully natural selection will remove your genes from the pool. Ironically selfless of you.
And you see the people who 'plan' when to have kids often Never find the right time until it is to late and you get into IVF hell. Benefits like this can help make the decision easier. If you single folk need a rationalization think of having kids as the same as getting sick - you wouldn't begrudge a sick person taking leave.
People without newborn babies are not a race, gender, religion, or any other class of person subject to discrimination. We have all been people without newborns. People with newborns will, in a very short time, be people without newborns.
If you are an AMEX employee, and you want to take 20weeks of paid leave, you need only find a willing partner and have a baby. (I understand that the first part might be very difficult for you.)
I'll bet you'd complain that sick days are unfair to healthy people!
Required reading for internet skeptics
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Well, if they'd stop slacking and do their proper duty to their country and have kids, everybody would be happy. If the nation is to prosper, it needs more population and particularly from well off people who will raise their kids to also be well off. Even ancient Rome had incentives to get people to have kids. Now this is a company, and not a country, but since IIRC the US is the only industrialized country to not have mandatory leave for havign children, I expect that American Express is just doing this to unify policies across all their operations and keep their American employees from getting pissed about not getting what employees in other countries get.
Was so pleased to read this article, I reactivated my amex. Companies that care beyond the level prescribed by law are the ones to do business with in my opinion.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids? Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!
Does the earth care where the population growth is?
Doesn't matter. Population growth is not a problem. The developed world is already at negative population growth overall and the whole world is already at negative growth in annual births, which means that all of the net population growth worldwide is due to filling out of the age categories. That in turn means that, barring significant increases in lifespans, as soon as those are all filled out worldwide population growth will go negative as well. It appears we'll hit that peak population point in the 2050s, at around 10B people.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How is this discrimination? there is a benefit that you decide not to use, period. It's available to everyone who wants to use it and they will even cover all the expenses to be able to use it y you have trouble doing it naturally (adoption, insemination, surrogacy, etc.)
By your same logic any benefit is discrimination, I don't want to save in a 401k, so I should get the matching money anyway. I don't like the food that is given for free and I decide not to eat it and should get money instead. I don't go to the gym, so that paid gym benefit is discriminatory.
I can't believe the weird logic people get to use to complain about everything.
Have a kid and then give it up for adoption after 20 weeks.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Well, if they'd stop slacking and do their proper duty to their country and have kids, everybody would be happy. If the nation is to prosper, it needs more population [...]
It's not even about "more", but about keeping (at least) even, which means two kids per couple. (Technically 2.1, because of unfortunately deaths.)
Schools raise property values which benefits everyone in the town. Not really seeing any solid analogy in this case, though.
Other countries are implementing policies like this.
If the company had been "Canadian Express" they would have to offer just short of a year off per family which can be split between parents almost as desired (the mother must take some minimum)...and they would have been doing this for well over a decade. So well done American Express for finally managing to catch up with late 20th century employment conditions only a few more decades to go...
I am gladly surprised, as I did not expect a big multinational company to give anything to workers without fighting. Perhaps there is some fine print somewhere?
Well, one can have oneself fixed pretty readily and easily, so as not to risk kids.
I for one, am getting past the age of even thinking I'd ever want to deal with kids, I do not want to ruin my later years with kids. Most of my friends who have them, have them now getting out of HS and into college or maybe even out of there.
So, people in my age group are starting to free themselves up....and on the times I do date more age appropriate women, their kids usually are about out of the house too....
So, I'm pretty much settled that I DO NOT WANT kids.
So, you should have the option to have that 20 weeks for whatever you want...childbirth, motorcycle tour of the US...etc.
It is not fair that one set of people are offered this PAID BENEFIT, and other are not...that is discrimination, and in this PC day in age, its hard to believe that everyone wouldn't see and jump on this too.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Those kids are gonna be paying your pension and looking after you in the years to come. Don't piss them off now ;)
It is not fair that one set of people are offered this PAID BENEFIT, and other are not.
All those childless AMEX employees are offered that same paid benefit. All they need do is have a child. That's what it's for.
.that is discrimination
You're kidding right? Everyone is being offered the same benefit. No one is being excluded. That's not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.
its hard to believe that everyone wouldn't see and jump on this too.
They don't see the discrimination because it doesn't exist. Again, everyone is being offered that same benefit. No one is being excluded.
I'm pretty much settled that I DO NOT WANT kids.
First, let me say Thank You. I couldn't be happier with your decision.
Moving on, just because you don't want to participate in a particular benefit, does not mean that you're being excluded. If a coworker brings in a plate of cookies, and you decline to take one, you don't get to complain that Alice and Bob each got a cookie, but you didn't. If you don't want it, then no one should have it, right?
What I'm seeing here is a disturbingly childlike selfishness. You're absolutely terrified that someone, somewhere, got a bigger cookie than you.
Still, even though you don't want to participate, that benefit is still being offered to you (assuming you're an AMEX employee). You can take your 20 weeks just as soon as you find a willing partner who ultimately delivers.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Society needs children to keep on going. Nobody is forcing you to have kids, but kids are a benefit to society, so we encourage that. You've received innumerable benefits from living in a human society, complaining about something you choose not to participate in is ridiculous.
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Because their decision actually is more important than yours. They're producing the next generation who you will want to care for you when you're needing medical care in your 70s.
You don't want to contribute to the next generation? Fine, no one is asking you to. However society has always catered for and helped those who produce the next generation because you and your generation will one day stop being a contributing member of society and you and your generation needs to be replaced by another contributing member of society.
Selfishly proclaiming that society should end with you is (like I said) selfish, but also stupid - no one really buys your arguments because most (everyone?) knows that the current population will one day be non-productive. People who have kids ensure that there will be a new population of productive people. You aren't ensuring shit.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
In civilized countries payed leave is a parental right by law and not dependent from goodwill of employer.
Nope, I think you mistook me for someone else.
It's not discrimatory. The time is to take care of the child and bond, not play video games and pick your nose.
So who is the executive at AMEX that had a power in that decision that will become parent in 2017?
For the people who do not want to have kids but want the benefits, companies should allow that, but with the caveat that enforcement personnel will show up at said kidless-but-benefitful employees randomly through the night and ring the doorbell. For the next 18 years.
Then the enforcement personnel need to live in the basements of those individuals, maybe steal jewelry and cash to simulate a drug problem. And when those individuals retire, the company needs to dump them into the cheapest old folks home possible and never visit.
Mothers get a year in Canada. 52 weeks. Every one of them. The first 16 or 17 are at full pay, the rest are part of everyone's unemployment insurance, so it's 55% pay. It's considered too short, and they're thinking of extending it to 18 months.
Our kid just turned 11 months, and we're preparing for daycare. I can't even imagine that at 20 weeks.
You're being obviously trolled. You fail internet.
Now they will have more time to work on their resumes, they'll need it.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
If it was bought with company money, then you have been harmed.
If you are too dumb to realise that, please come work for me. I need some gullible idiots to accept less pay than they earn.
Does this apply to current cardholders only? I'm thinking of getting an American express credit card if this applies to new members as well.
If you don't have kids, you'll be able to retire MUCH more than 20 weeks earlier than someone who did have kids. You're bitching about someone else getting a slight discount when you have chosen a path that gets you a massive one.
"Are you saying that you want 20 weeks paid leave ... for no reason whatsoever? "
Yes, if the company is handing out 20 weeks of paid leave why have a restriction on what i can do with it.
"Because someone who is not you advantaged themselves of that benefit? On what basis?"
on the basis that a benefit is being provided to some employees but not others due to their lifestyle choices. HR is determining that one lifestyle if better then another. What if they decided that only straight people get 20 weeks off. Would it be wrong for a gay person to complain that they didn't get the benefit because of their lifestyle choice? Would your reply be well you might turn straight one day and if so it'll be there if you need it.
"How would it be decided when that leave was granted?"
I would simply notify HR i was taking leave. the same way it is granted to new parents. Its on the parents schedule, so it would be on my schedule
What would you do? Turn in your imaginary future wife's uterus along with your testicles in to HR?
No there should be a 20 week leave policy that can be used for whatever you want. The unfairness comes from only giving it to parents. to make it fair it would be granted to anyone.
Moving on, just because you don't want to participate in a particular benefit, does not mean that you're being excluded. If a coworker brings in a plate of cookies, and you decline to take one, you don't get to complain that Alice and Bob each got a cookie, but you didn't. If you don't want it, then no one should have it, right?
thats not what happening. you want the cookie (paid vacation). but a condition has been placed on the cookie (being a parent). its not worth it to you to become a parent just to get a cookie so you have to go cookieless while you parent coworkers are swimming in cookies. Is it fair for you to go without while others get more.
Subj says it all.
Cf: SI.SE to learn more about Sweden.
A land that's - by Law - stayed out of Other People's Wars for generations.
"USA needs more Sweden"
My Title got clipped short. The missing bit was:
(Provided Dad takes enough of the Parental Leave)
You got a Long Way to Go, USA. :-)