Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Require Business Partners To Offer Paid Parental Leave (washingtonpost.com)
Microsoft has unveiled a new paid parental leave policy on Thursday that will affect the more than 1,000 firms it does business with across the U.S. An anonymous reader shares the report from the Washington Post: Technology giants in the United States offer some of the country's most generous employee benefits, but the workers who mow the lawns or serve lunch in the company cafeteria -- jobs that are often staffed by outside firms -- tend to get far smaller packages. Microsoft announced a new policy Thursday that it hopes will shrink that gap, pledging it will ink contracts only with service providers who give their employees 12 weeks of paid family leave. Per the requirement, mothers and fathers who perform work for Microsoft -- biological and adoptive -- must receive 12 weeks of leave at two-thirds of their wages or up to $1,000 weekly. The announcement comes as Washington state, where the company is based, prepares to introduce paid family leave for workers, the fifth state to do so. Microsoft currently offers its direct employees 12 weeks of paid family leave at full pay, and birth mothers receive an additional eight paid weeks for physical recovery.
Trump, meanwhile giving out Trillions to megacorporations, cancels a 2% pay raise planned for years. Because he's worried about sending the wrong message, lol. Corporations deserve all the money, fuck public service.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/politics/trump-cancels-federal-employee-pay-raises/index.html
He sure knows how to make loyal relationships, lol.
That they have far too much control of the industry.
1. Trump goes to prison for life
2. Trump's phat booty is raped by a well-hung inmate daily
3. NO COLLUSION!
4. Trump pretends it never happened
5. Trump dies and is buried under the prison
The End
You probably would feel better if you took a walk, or not worried about other peoples lives and concentrated on your own. Take up drinking meth.
Seriously, paid parental leave should be obvious to society. Countless studies have shown benefits across the whole family when BOTH parents get time off to raise the child at birth. If this is the case, one can only assume that the price of these contracts will go up, which means that MS is willing to accept an additional cost in order to do the right thing. Good on them.
Amazing that it takes a private company to start going where every other Western country has been at for some time.
Twelve weeks is a good amount of time to properly train a puppy. I'll happily take it.
Just for popping out a kid. Not at all disruptive to work. Ridiculous.
I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
And anyway, if something did go horribly wrong during pregnancy wouldn't that be covered by long-term disability? Why would a separate period for physical recovery be necessary?
I skipped over this article and only later found it on Twitter. Yes, it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners, using it substantial economic power to help this happen ... but it's quite significant that they're demanding twelve weeks of paid parental leave for all partners, even landscapers, janitors, and cafeteria workers.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Yeesh... there's gonna be more crying in the streets when he doesn't go to jail, isn't there?
And here I thought people were -finally- starting to calm down and get a life.
This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
It's standard here to have up to 17 weeks pregnancy leave and up to 63 weeks of parental leave (by either parent). It's all unpaid with employment insurance covering 52 weeks of it.
12 weeks is an insult to parents.
We're rugged individualists and our kids are born quite ready to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, so we don't need that kind of time off. Plus: socialism. And Obama.
They employ a lot. Last I checked all US tech support is still done out of India (might be the Philippians now, India was getting a little pricey...).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You know, all those people at redmond headquarters with the wrong color badge.
Thanks for the ultimatum.. partner!
> This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
Everything has to be paid for.
Americans hate paying for stuff.
That's a double edged sword. On the one hand, I have to pay for my own little one month "vacation" in the hospital. On the other hand, I make a better salary and keep more of it.
So I probably made out better in the end.
it was bad enough getting back in the grove after a mere month away from the office. Don't even want to contemplate 3 months or a whole year.
Do you even get anything done in your country?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
its mega corporations like them that push for things that can easily drive the small businessman out of business.
I skipped over this article and only later found it on Twitter. Yes, it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners, using it substantial economic power to help this happen ... but it's quite significant that they're demanding twelve weeks of paid parental leave for all partners, even landscapers, janitors, and cafeteria workers.
I think it's called Windows, Maternity Edition.
And could you imagine hiring the Duggars? 3 lost months from each person every year.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's standard here to have up to 17 weeks pregnancy leave and up to 63 weeks of parental leave (by either parent). It's all unpaid with employment insurance covering 52 weeks of it.
This is paid leave, though. Why should you get paid for not working, ever?
The answer of course is that the US native reproductive rate has fallen below sustaining. If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids. Not to mention that both parents are generally pretty damn useless until the kid starts sleeping through the night, so you might as well deal with that reality.
We sure need to do something to keep professional parents from waiting until nearly 40 before having kids - that's almost certainly the reason for the spike in autism. Personally, I'd like to see a cultural shift in the US to "bust your ass in your 20s, work part time for the rest of your career". I doubt it will happen. but IMO is the correct way to address work-life balance, strategically.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> This is just nucking futs that this is news in the US.
Much of America isn't so poor or desperate that they need such a measure. They can stay out of work indefinitely and have as many kids as they want. They might not even go back to work ever.
I know a girl who was a COBOL programmer who did this.
I don't blame her one bit.
COBOL would drive me into permanent retirement.
Thanks to the level of economic opportunity that liberals will tell you doesn't exist, I could leave the rat race entirely if I wanted to.
I find work therapeutic. It distracts me from my illness. I could probably claim disability if I wanted to. I would rather curse the stupidity of my boss and coworkers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners,
No it isn't. They using their market position to act as a bully.
They are trying to act as a de facto government entity. They are pretty blatantly trying to be Robber Barons.
This is the worst kind of corporate fascism possible.
Yet you gits eat it up because today's abuse of power suits you. You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I don't know what reality you live in, but you must be really lonely there. It sure as hell doesn't reflect the vast majority of Americans.
GDP Per Capita (USD):
Canada - 51,315.89
US - 53,128.54
We're gettin'er done and enjoying the benefits along the way.
Why is it nuts to harm people that don't decide to become breeders? We get less vacation time and screwed when our coworkers refuse to work because of a child so we get screwed twice over.
Wow. Overreact much? Nevermind that the US is way behind the curve on this. People can choose not to do business with Microsoft if they don't like.
Your number is a bit off for Canada, it's around $48k/year right now. Been a long time, decades that the GDP-per-person has dropped like this. On top of that we pay ~43% in taxes, and everything that's supposed to be covered becomes less of every year. We're getting less for our money and paying more for it.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
And don't forget that next on the docket is paid Menstrual leave. https://www.self.com/story/pai... .
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
So here we have a person getting 3 months off of every year that she decides to have a child, and then an extra 12 days of leave every year that she doesn't.
Folks, we really need to look at the reality of the situation. This sort of thing tends to be well meaning, but eventually backfires. So you have a young woman of childbearing age and a young man interviewing for the same job. They are both similarly qualified. By law, you cannot ask her many questions. I had a big list of verboten questions, and often had to ride herd over a co-worker who tried to sneak them in.
Who are you going to hire?
It is actually an important question, especially for demanding positions that require a lot of training. If, as one of the women where I worked had several children over a short period of time, her replacements were putting in more time than she was for several years. Side note - every time she came back to work at her guaranteed job, another woman - the replacement - lost her job.
I wonder though if Microsoft's demand includes paid maternity leave for the replacement workers filling in while the first worker is out on maternity leave.
But back to that question of how much time off is to be expected, it will come into question, because there will be a tendency to hire the person who is going to cost your company less. Single men will have a big advantage.
another note: several women candidate interviewees would quickly blurt out their marital status, and that they didn't intend to have children or already did, so that they could sidestep the issue of our not being allowed to ask anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, they tended to be more qualified and worked out well when hired. Seems like the understood that workplace omertà wasn't working in their favor. third note. I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from https://tradingeconomics.com/c...
Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c...
As to the "less every year", it's different from year to year as priorities change. Just because the things you may use seem "less" does not mean other more important things aren't being covered elsewhere.
Which means those jobs will be even less likely to hire women since they cost more. It's already hard enough to get an interview with Microsoft or one of their vendors with a feminine name.
Data sources vary depending on the methodology. I grabbed mine from
I grabbed mine from stats canada.
Way off means 1% oh no.
Om, nomnomnom...
Because raising the next generation of workers is productive activity and is, yaknow, vital to the survival of capitalism if not the human race.
I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Differently Justin Trudeau has a Slashdot account. Sexist twat bending over backwards to try and not look sexist.
No, it's nuts to give people more than their coworkers because of a voluntary decision they made. It's bad enough working with a bunch of Chinese and Indian guys that always get a month off each year to go home, but the rest of us can't take time off since they take so much time off.
I think it's hilarious that you idiots see this as progress. First you upend traditional values to the point that "stay at home mom" is seen as some shameful betrayal of feminism. Then you fuck up the male/female dynamic so that fewer people are getting married an having children. Thanks to both of those things you guarantee that the economics of our societies change to the point where single-income families are no longer possible for the vast majority of couples. And then you ry to fix this by making employers pay one parent to be at home.
Congrats, you've come full circle. Very "progressive".
Oh my. Well. An exclamation point. Okay then.
LOLno
captcha: vacuous
Single men will have a big advantage.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
No it isn't. They using their market position to act as a bully.
What market position? Please explain.
but ONLY to the actual employees of the companies.
if you're a slave^H^H^H^Hcontractor, you're still, and always going to be, butt-fucked by your actual employer.
if you're somewhere in the middle.. i.e. h1-b, you're getting paid less than what an american would get (which is why you got the job), but at least you have the benefits package, right?
Your 43% is way off - https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]
As a matter of fact, his numbers are accurate. Your link only shows Income Tax. You forget that every dollar you take home after that is taxed again with sales tax. Then there's gas, booze and cigarette taxes. I'd bet 43% is actually a bit low.
How is a single male going to qualify for paternity leave?
I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Differently Justin Trudeau has a Slashdot account. Sexist twat bending over backwards to try and not look sexist.
Nope. The field most of the office worked in had a lot of women candidates. So there were going to be qualified women. My experience was that if there was few women compared to men, they would tend to feel overwhelmed, and oppressed. If there were a large majority of women, there was a remarkable amount of infighting with each other. This was over some 30 years, and no doubt serviscope_minor and Animojo will chime in to call me a sexist male along with you calling me Justin Trudeau.
Slashdot is funny that way.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Single men will have a big advantage.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
I'm not certain if you didn't read that right or not, but a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave. So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
So is this leave forced or something? There is no way I could take off three months.
"Sorry, but the lead person on the project just had a baby, so your project is going to be delayed by three months at least. I'm certain that you understand!"
And no, not all jobs can have anyone in the office or a temp replace them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Then tell them to KISS MY *SS! They can't dictate how another business is run, unless they have stock/ownership in another company. I bet there will be some lawsuits. "oh, but you don't have to do business" with them. Yeah, MS blackmailing another company to achieve Mr. Bill's idea of a socialist utopia. Ever notice it's the WEALTHY that think socialism would be good? Hey Bill & Company...STUFF IT!
But he's absolutely correct. The vast majority of Americans are very well off. It's only the rich that are struggling.
I don't know what reality you live in, but you must be really lonely there. It sure as hell doesn't reflect the vast majority of Americans.
Although the OP might be a bit of an exaggeration, where I live most women still leave the workforce almost entirely after they start having kids. They might get a part time or work at home job once the kids go to school but there are still a bunch of single income families where I live.
Consider this: A secular business wants to pay a higher price on a vendor in exchange for absolutely nothing but muh feels? That means they're laundering money for Big Crime. Stuff you won't read about in the papers. The rules of business never changed. Trump will expose them all. They better dump the money any way they can.
Does this include Indian "partners"?
Paternity leave applies to a father, whether or not he is married. Just as maternity leave applies to a mother, whether or not she is married. So while a single person might be less likely to have children, the premise is still the same that neither gender would have an advantage.
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's another thing which should probably change, and giving him the opportunity to be involved in that upbringing is one part of that.
Personally, I don't think that encouraging good parenting should be up to the employer. I doubt that the leave is forced, but that's kind of an interesting idea. I can see some benefits and drawbacks to doing it that way.
Seriously, at least until age 16, kids need someone at home. Nannies can handle somethings for a few years, but after that -- you need a mom, dad, or grand parent at home. All the time. And, having children should be something has been planned for a few years...there shouldn't be any surprise.
I'd be happier if employers offered more generous vacation and parental leave options for their employees. But, this should be their decision, not the government.
The best the government can do is to promote an economy where employees are valued/highly traned and where business are willing to take on extra costs to get access to the talent pool. For too long, the USA has been miserable at letting low wage labor flood in while not encouraging any continuing training and education of employees. When businesses get desperate to hire, that's when life gets better for more of the population...that takes strong economic growth and good government policies...not mandatory parental leave laws.
So since I have a cock, I can go fuck myself if I want to have some time off to spend with my new baby in a way that doesn't cost me all my yearly vacation time? Spoken like an ignorant asshole who doesn't have kids. Good, stay that way.
The "and I'm probably better off in the end" is the mass lie that Americans tell themselves. No, you are not. Source: Math.
Well if you own a company that does the type of work they are looking for, you don't have to bid on the contract.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Rather than spend money and time tracking which employees they can ignore, Microsoft has decided to extend compulsory regulations for a few, to everyone. Demanding their sub-contractors do the same, is an unusual act of corporate social responsibility; that's where Microsoft deserves kudos.
Paid leave imitates a short-term UBI, funding the job of reproducing. The problem is women produce healthier children if they reproduce while young, which is when they are earning less and required to compete against other employees for a promotion. This doesn't solve the issue of women starting families later in life and the subsequent poor health of the next generation.
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's another thing which should probably change, and giving him the opportunity to be involved in that upbringing is one part of that.
Allow me to try once again, I must be really poor at communicating tonight.
A man who is not married and has no children will not take 3 months of leave. He has no children, therefore no paternity leave applies.
Why might this be an advantage? A person who does not take as many as 3 mandated months off every year for a number of years is probably going to be available to come into work during the time a new father or new mother is taking that three months off. Now is this person taking the leave time going to do that? I would have said no at one time, but I saw exactly that in one case.
Now back to my quixotic quest to make you understand.
Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water.
You have one candidate who is very likely to need maternity leave, perhaps more than one over the life of the project. But you are not allowed to ask any questions that might help you gauge that possibility. You have another who might. And a third one who assures you that he is dedicated to seeing the project through.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
These are important questions because important projects do not care about the sex of a person. They do have to have someone there to lead it. You don't have people in the wings that you just plug in as the lead.
These are important questions that are not allowed to even be discussed (I can now because I'm retired) except perhaps at a bar or other offsite with a very trusted colleague. But the issue is there, and won't go away because the law says it doesn't exist.
So anyhow, remember you lose your job if the project doesn't go out on time. Who do you hire that you have the best possibility of seeing the job through?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So a women who gives birth could potentially have at least 20 weeks off, add in all other time off 22-25 weeks off PAID. PAID to do nothing for half the year. It is as stupid a pensions, being paid for decades after you retire for doing NOTHING.
I doubt Microsoft cares about all the negative affects it will have on the small businesses that can't afford to pay someone to not work half a year.
So since I have a cock, I can go fuck myself if I want to have some time off to spend with my new baby in a way that doesn't cost me all my yearly vacation time? Spoken like an ignorant asshole who doesn't have kids. Good, stay that way.
U mad Bro? Sorry but I'm married and have one kid. The whole way from birth through high school I spent a lot of time with him. Look - I'm not even saying you have to work. I'm not saying that you cant take a year off, or become a stay at home dad. By golly, it's a free country, amirite?
But know this. Taking three months off of a job as often as once a year for a number of years might work for a job at McDonald's, or if you are part of a whole herd of programmers all doing the same thing.
But if you can take that much time off from a critical job even once - you weren't working a critical job. Some of my co-workers weren't real big on doing anything like traveling, staying late, or dealing with highly placed people. I would. Now there were demands on my time and energy that were not on theirs. That's probably why I was paid more than triple what they were paid, and despite being the highest paid person in teh department, they were the ones shitcanned when there were budget problems. . Before you feel too sorry for me, I retired at 55, and they are looking at several more years.
But if you must have that paid time off, by all means do it. My point is that it will have an effect.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Agreed. Though it seems many fools seem to think the answer is to import people from different countries.
This isn't rocket appliances, provide inscentives for couples to stay together and have children. Stress on the 'stay together' part of that.
Simple. I will form a company to hire people for 20 hours a week contract work at Microsoft and my friend will hire the same people for 20 hours a week at the same position at Microsoft. We'll never have to pay benefits and no parental leave....
What helps people have more children is knowing that you have a stable job and stable income which does not require sustained 50+ hour workweeks and where you have a small chance of losing the job. That effectively vanished in the early 1980s and with the instability so did the birth rate.
Combine with the push for every higher education levels and the corresponding delay in having a child......
It's just a benefits dodge that heavily favors employers.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
Yet here in the UK statutory maternity leave where you receive pay at some level is 39 weeks and other countries in the EU are even more generous.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Norway: 70,812.48
Canada - 51,315.89
US - 53,128.54
Of course we only have 59 weeks or parental leave (at 80% salary or 49 weeks at 100%) following the 12 week maternity leave. Oh and it has none of these silly $1000 a week caps. So, if you're a CEO and you have $500,000 a year salary, you'll receive that the whole time you're out.
Though I'll admit, the job offers I get in D.C. (typically about $300K+) or in S.V. ($250K+) or in NYC ($200K+) are considerably more than the $128K base salary I make now. Though I do get overtime and I have side work for an extra $50K. I do pay A LOT more taxes here than I would there. But the standard of living is substantially higher here than over there. I didn't have to spend month interviewing day care nannies to ensure they won't diddle or beat my children. I didn't have to spend months applying to private schools to keep my kids away from the school shootings. I didn't have to put a penny in the bank for my kids college educations. I didn't pay for the lenses in my childrens glasses. I've never paid for a doctor or dentist appointment for my kids. Honestly, I take home a lot more in the end than my American counter parts.
My daughter dreams of going to MIT one day... I'll have to pay something for cost of living, but I won't spend a dime on the school itself. And she's well on track to get there too. If I lived in the U.S., I'd have to plan taking a second mortgage to cover her education even on those high salaries.
My daughter dreams of going to MIT one day
Why? She would have to live in the USA for several years. Who would want that?
How about your u save up some money before squirting a kid out? Why sold an employer pay you for WORK YOU ARE NOT DOING?!
If the employer wants to offer it as a benefit to lure you to work for them, that’s fine. But to obligate them? Fuck that. You do work. You get paid. You don’t work. You no pay. They’re your employer; not your fucking welfare system.
greetings from europe.
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Holy sheep balls Batman.
1) The company doesn't pay the 17+63 weeks. They generally pay about 2 weeks. The government pays the rest.
2) It's amazing how societies that have this kind of empathy at a government level don't have the mass shootings problems. The government sets an example that you mean something to the country and the world from the moment you are born.
3) Packing formula or breast milk like a bagged lunch and coming home exhausted after working a full day to a baby who has a lot of needs is the way you breed serial killers. You are being paid by the government to establish a strong relationship and bond with your child. This makes it so that children aren't passed like a joint to an underpaid worker after 2 weeks.
4) We're all paying for this. When we were born, someone paid our mothers to raise us for two weeks, our tax money is used to pay it forward. This is no different than social security in America. You spend your life paying for old people to live through their retirements when they are no longer the optimal components of the work force. When you get old and retire, the next generations will do it for you knowing they will receive those benefits later. Now we could just pay the babies for a year to take care of themselves... but in all honesty, it's more constructive to pay the mothers and fathers to do it. You should try living in a 1st world country for some time and try to keep an open mind about it. I grew up in second world America and watched my parents lose most of their retirement savings when I was sick as a child and their savings were used to buy one insurance policy after the next. I would watch from a hospital window as the Ronald McDonald house had a daily stream of broken parents coming and going while they watched their babies die.. probably many of them because they could afford the good doctors.
I'm out of that now world now... if a parents here wants to have 40 children and they are willing to spend their lives raising them and caring for them, I am more than happy to help out. Of course, that isn't because I agree with them have 40 kids. It's because I would much rather make sure those kids have at least one parent to care for them than to think of the kids raising each other. I also want to make sure those kids have food on their tables as they shouldn't be punished for their parents crimes.
Norway has had a steadily decreasing population because of these social programs. This is because of many reasons. Among them
- People are raised right from birth by parents who are more focused on their physical and mental health since they don't worry about stupid things like how they'll afford to feed them.
- We don't just invest in the initial birth. We invest all through their lives. My son who just started high school received a loan of $600 from the government. The terms of the loan are "Each year of school attended pays off X% of the loan" or "Payment in full is expected on termination of school". Which means that if you drop out, you have to pay back the portion you haven't earned. $600 isn't much, but he plays American football and he'll be able to buy a $450 set of pads an a few jerseys with that. We invest all through a child's life in their mental health, the physical health and their education and upbringing. We do this as a nation. This makes healthier people... who go to work and love what they do.
- Religion. Religion is typically reserved for people who need hope. Hope is for people who are discontent with the current state of their lives and the world as a whole. Hope is for people who feel they lack the power to control their lives or improve the world around them. What would be the attraction of heaven or fear of hell if what came next didn't really matter since it's more important to live for the planet you're on. If you're a good person and you are surrounded by good people, and you work together as good people do to make sure that everyone in general are pretty good people... well you end up with a societ
"I didn't have to pay for..."
Yes, you did.
You and everyone else paid for it, every day of your lives, regardless of how much you wanted to. Other people without children were forced to pay for your children.
At gunpoint and under threat of prison.
And you're the more free and more advanced one here, right?
You are a slave bound by chains you can't even acknowledge, sniveling and begging your master for more, so dependent on the Nanny State that you would be completely lost without it.
It's disgusting.
"Come on. Just let yourself be raped by the government, baby. The math works out. Think of all the free shit he'll give you."
I don't live in American anymore... thankfully.
But to be fair, in my house I'm the bread winner. I make about 3-4 times as much as my wife does. There are many reasons for that, but the most important is that I've chosen a career path that lets me sell myself. She chose to be a nurse which more or less is a fixed price market.
I calculated about a year ago how much money we have and how much money we would have if she simply stopped working and instead took up a career as a proper house wife... WAIT!!! I didn't say became a proper house wife. I referred to the career path of housewife. This is a path that can be taken by man or woman and if one person in a house were to spend their time clipping coupons, planning meals, structuring schedules, hiring plumbers, mending clothing, balancing the finances, refinancing the mortgage every second year, etc... the amount of money they would save the household, especially if they took pride in their work would be more than they earned after tax in a normal job. Add the additional tax break for the spouse who is working and the money could be a big gain.
The truth is, our house could easily have an additional $10,000 a year disposable income if my wife didn't work as a nurse, but instead took up housewife as a career.
Now if we got more kids... all that yummy money would go bye bye.
Agreed. This is surely a Trade Practices violation.
Dont you have decent universities in Norway ?
And Norway has loads of Muslims too.
Its really got it all !
Look, Microsoft. I detest you as a company. I do since... early 1980s. I haven't forgotten all your predatory anti-competitive shenanigans, from the DR-DOS thing to the (M)OOXML ISO ballot stuffing, passing through all of the "well poisonings" at uncountable interop committees, be it WebDAV, be it Unicode. I haven't forgotten your underhanded FUD campaigns against Free Software, and your open hostility. I don't believe your "we love open source".
I still don't trust you. I'm convinced that your corporate culture is rotten to the marrow.
But... if you want to earn some credibility with me, this is a very good start. Bravo.
> many fools seem to think the answer is to import people from different countries
Didn't you do that about a hundred years ago? "huddled masses" or did I dream that?
And they became americans, presumably like you, Mr "Akamov". A traditional Cherokee name I presume.
Norway will become Muslim country in 5 to 10 years...sorry...
It does not matter whom you hire.
It is called "parental leave" for a reason. Otherwise it would be called "mothers leave" ...
The father can take leave and the mother can.
And because some people in hiring positions are to "anti social" it is exactly the reason why it applies to both parents.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
And what would be that advantage?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
Most certainly not the Bachelor.
So anyhow, remember you lose your job if the project doesn't go out on time. Who do you hire that you have the best possibility of seeing the job through?
Best candidate would be the married man. If he so far could manage his job and his family he probably can cope best with the new challenge.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire the bachelor for a life and death project: you are an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications.
What is wrong with happy families and happy kids?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In a first world country, we believe that a good neighborhood is when you don't need a metal fence or a security guard because we have improved the lives of everyone to a standard that makes them just like us.
Bravo! Exactly!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well,
additional $10,000 a year disposable income if my wife didn't work as a nurse, but instead took up housewife as a career.
the trick to such a decision is first to plan it, so she knows what kind of work ("balancing the finances, refinancing the mortgage every second year"??) is expected and then secondly: pay her for it!
If you pay your wife, she has a job, she has her own money, can decide how to use it and feels respected. Bottom line you most likely still have the $10,000 more income.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If the government pays wages during parental leave, do they also pay a stipend to women (or men) who happen to be out of work when they have a baby? Or to the non-working partner of single earner families? If not, that just seems grossly unfair.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
" If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids. "
It always sounds like a strange reasoning to me. I never understood why people want to "survive as a society". I don't even understand what it really means...
We have already reached a point where we would need two planets to be sustainable, why adding more and more "local" people instead of making existing ones (world wide) more comfortable ?
"Surviving as a society", as I read it, simply means: foreign/migrant people are not as "good" ("suitable") as locally born citizen. And, well, that's shocking to me.
The same people say "we need more natality" and "we need less migrants". The only thing you'll get is more pressure, more wars, more stupidity, more rich/poors disparity, more racism, etc etc.
Strange world indeed...
Importing people is much lower cost than bringing up children. The other country invests all that time and effort into education and healthcare only for the person to leave.
It's not so bad though, because those people tend to keep ties with their original country and help it develop too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> So a women who gives birth could potentially have at least 20 weeks off, add in all other time off 22-25 weeks off PAID. PAID to do nothing for half the year.
Nothing? A newborn requires 7x24x365 attention, breastfeed, diaper change, trying to figure out why the baby cries unstoppably, care during numerous smaller or larger illnesses, a vicious cycle of constiparion and diarrhea, etc. A lot of women become clinically depressed from that burden. If men had to care for newborns they would either kill the baby or kill themselves out of frustration. In fact it is a rather common form of domestic violence where fathers strike or even kill newborns and toddlers on impulse.
> It is as stupid a pensions, being paid for decades after you retire for doing NOTHING.
People are paid pensions so that they don't have to sire 8-9 kids just to make sure at least 3 of them survive to adulthood and will support parents when they become too old and fragile to work. Since pension exists, married couples living in developed countries can stop multiplying at 2-3(-4) kids and avoid overpopulating this world, unlike the coloureds of Africa and Far East Asia and those wild gipsies of Eastern Europe.
Anyhow the idea of pension system started with the state railway of Imperial Prussia (Germany) in the 1860s, which was the most developed, industrialized, diligent, orderly and high culture country in the world at the time.
Thus you are a sociopath in your anger and even uneducated at that, as you don't know world history a bit.
> You are a slave bound by chains you can't even acknowledge, sniveling and begging your master for more, so dependent on the Nanny State that you would be completely lost without it. It's disgusting.
Does it occur to you that scandinavian countries like Norway have a tightly related indigenous population, due to many centuries of isolation up there in the north? They have a king, who is ceremonial father of the nation. They are not a melting pot of shady immigrants or a criminals deposit site, like USA or Australia.
Them scandinavians don't consider society to be a bag of lone wolves, rather the prevailing tought is: don't hurt/kill your neighbour, for who else will help you survive through the long, cold winter if a problem emerges? You are probably even blood-related to the the neighbour or any random resident in town with a common ancestor from 300-500-700 years ago and know of that.
That situation is a bit similar to Japan, where frequent earthquakes and typhoons required people to be close knit and trust each other in the community perfectly, because otherwise they couldn't rebuild everything before the next disaster arrived. Their emperor symbolizes the unity of the nation.
Such people are not afraid of fellow countrymen stealing the gilded decorations off their boat, whenever if ever it arrives (as so commonly claimed in the USA). It's just one large cruise ship for all, some cabins are larger and more extra, some are smaller and basic, but none are forced to sleep in the anchor chain well. In fact the ship sails quite luxuriously, since Norway had the wisdom to reserve a large chunk of her huge undersea oil exploration revenues for many decades and now they own a cosmological size souvereign fund for the benefit of future generations.
he company doesn't pay the 17+63 weeks. They generally pay about 2 weeks. The government pays the rest.
Tech companies in the US offer paid parental leave. It's becoming a broader trend. And my point was, that's not a bad thing.
The spike in autism is very easy to explain.
Yes it is, and the actual medical research points to having kids late in life.
Young Guns
Man, that was a terrible movie. The only thing it had going for it was a lead that teenage girls liked to see.
Consider that an autistic child with ADHD
Two very different conditions. In case you havrn't noticed the change in terminology, "autistic" is the new "mentally retarded". Meanwhile, most ADHD is just young boys failing to act like young girls, a problem intensified by lack of recess periods for the kids to burn their energy off running around.
American was a first world country at one time.
Still is, except in a few cities where there has been only Democratic leadership for 20+ years. Amazing correlation, there.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water."(sic)
Actually, your legal analysis is wrong. Asking ANY candidate about potential children or marriage is a violation of EEO laws (at least in the US). You would be discriminating on the basis of sex and/or parental status. hence the questions about such are illegal for all candidates. The potential savings you seem to expect from hiring the single male with no children (who could actually lie and/or adopt---note in the article, it mentions for both natural birth and adoption as being eligible for the leave).will be offset by the legal costs for defending your actions (may be hard to do and/or the settlements you'll pay to resolve the case before a jury award bankrupts the company.
Which means those jobs will be even less likely to hire women since they cost more. It's already hard enough to get an interview with Microsoft or one of their vendors with a feminine name.
The policy applies to men and women. It is parental leave not maternity leave.
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Of that, there is no doubt. But what are you going to do about that single guy that has no children and doesn't plan to? Or me. After a attempted week, my wife didn't want me at home all day with her and the child.I'm one of those poor souls who is better liked and loved from afar. Now it is true that I got several calls a day with one panic or another. But sitting around the house all day didn't add muuch value on my part. I'm not very good at breast feeding.
I wonder, does the new setup force time off for men? There is no way that I ever could or would take off three weeks. As I noted, so much depends on what the job is. I know our lady engineers wouldn't If not forced, people will use their not demanding that time off as an advantage.
That's an advantage for me, and advantage for single guys, and an advantage for post menopausal women.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off. And what would be that advantage?
Unless a person's job is sitting around doing nothing, that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it. Unless a person is working a job where they simply plug one person into another person's job, you have to spend time training the replacement.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not complaining now, I was compensated very well, and the maxxed out vacation and sick leave checks at retirement made a nice deposit in my TDA.
For as much as people on slashdot bitch and moan about poor financial options, they also go nuts when I try to explain how a large part of that is their fault. Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
Not trying to be cruel or anything, just noting that if you can't work, there is someone willing to do your work.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It does not matter whom you hire.
It is called "parental leave" for a reason. Otherwise it would be called "mothers leave" ...
Am I in discussions with Captain Obvious here?
The father can take leave and the mother can.
And because some people in hiring positions are to "anti social" it is exactly the reason why it applies to both parents.
The existence of such a thing is hardly my point. My point is in professional work, the availability of the employee is kinda important.
Doesn't have a thing to do with being anti-social either. I have a task, and a certain amount of money, and a certain amount of time to do it in.
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months? It isn't a matter of being irreplaceable, it is a matter of wrecking schedules and budgets. Or am I arguing with a McDonald's worker mindset? Where everyone can do all of the different jobs because they are all very simple? That isn't a problem for the people doing those jobs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The link shows sales tax too if you bothered to look.
If you want to delve into that minutia then the US has some of the highest taxes in the world due to most of the services being offloaded to municipalities. Property taxes there are insane in comparison. Because the cities are doing the work it's far more costly than if the state/feds provided it due to overlapping bureaucracies
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project? Most certainly not the Bachelor.
Interesting. My experience has been different.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire the bachelor for a life and death project: you are an idiot.
Perhaps. Not that I am in a hiring position any more, but your concept of the weak unreliable bachelor kinda went out the window some years ago. But hey, you want to brand me an idiot, by all means do. Looks like you've reached the condescension stage. Peace out.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water."(sic)
Actually, your legal analysis is wrong. Asking ANY candidate about potential children or marriage is a violation of EEO laws (at least in the US). You would be discriminating on the basis of sex and/or parental status. hence the questions about such are illegal for all candidates. The potential savings you seem to expect from hiring the single male with no children (who could actually lie and/or adopt---note in the article, it mentions for both natural birth and adoption as being eligible for the leave).will be offset by the legal costs for defending your actions (may be hard to do and/or the settlements you'll pay to resolve the case before a jury award bankrupts the company.
You realize of course, that only makes the situation worse. Which makes the single male or the post menopausal woman the better candidate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Interesting. Thanks for that link.
I looked up the US rate to compare... 48%
https://www.thebalance.com/cur...
If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids.
That, or people could get over their aversion to immigrants.
It always sounds like a strange reasoning to me. I never understood why people want to "survive as a society". I don't even understand what it really means...
All surviving societies are descended from people who wanted to survive as a society, just as all creatures are descended from ancestors that wanted to reproduce. That's what it really means.
If you think your society is good, even though imperfect, you should want it to survive. If you don't think it's good, you should move to someplace good, and mostly leave your old society behind. Simple as that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
By having a child. I thought that was obvious.
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
You give no thought to the bigger picture or possible future implications. What is wrong with happy families and happy kids?
They give people the idea that happiness is a good thing, and that society has a role in facilitating people's pursuit of it. Like that's in the country's foundational documents or something.
You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will. Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Quality of life is a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. That's ok. But to spend hours of your time arguing that it's not a thing that other people should value seems really odd to me.
Family relationships are a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. And that's the point of leave like this. You get time to bond as a family. If you think working is better than doing that, that speaks volumes about your ability to foster and maintain relationships.
And back to retirement, if you're a stranger to your family because you didn't bother to build those relationships, what are you going to do for the rest of your life? Try to make up for those last 35+ years? The retired folks that I know who had a good work-life balance have a much better retirement than those who didn't. Why? Because they have a strong family that they love to hang out with, and their health, including mental health, is much better.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
My daughter dreams of going to MIT one day... I'll have to pay something for cost of living, but I won't spend a dime on the school itself. And she's well on track to get there too. If I lived in the U.S., I'd have to plan taking a second mortgage to cover her education even on those high salaries.
Why wouldn't you have to spend a time on the school itself? Are you assuming she'll have a full scholarship, or does Norway pay for its citizens to attend universities in other countries?
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
WTF??? Please preach more about the blind, stupid, and utterly unrealistic Randian fantasy are you living in. We need the laugh.
An educated healthy populace is a social good both economically and .
An ignorant impoverished underclass only seems a great idea to fake Libertarian fools that understand nothing from history, sociology, economics, or nature.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
I remember fondly the days when I breast fed my son.
Yes, I have a son. No, my wife didn't think that I had to be there every moment. Funny how people seem to have a far right wing "This must be like this! All people must be like this! And if you are not like this, you must conform or be cast out!" thing going on, when the entire concept of the man having to be there 24/7 is most certainly a left leaning thing. Go figure, amirite?
Y'all have a dictatorial idea of what a good father does. We perhaps did a little differently. But his mother and I did not get divorced like over 50 percent of modern loving parents do, so I was around as a full time parent from birth to leaving home at 19. I participated in his schooling, I participated in his sports. Everything. So I suppose it's better to take that 3 month leave and get divorced and see your children part time than to do what I did. You want to make for better parenting experiences, try solving the over 50 percent divorce rate, which affect children and their parents for many years.
I can't remember any time he noted that he missed those first three months because I was only around for 16 hours of the day. I was around for his entire youth rather than the 24 hours a day for 3 months that y'all seem to think are a reason to call child protective services for being a neglectful parent if they don't do it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
Sir, no I'm not. You can't be certain about any hire. But you can play the odds. Your logic is compelling. Since every person on earth was an infant at one time, it does not mean that everyone is an infant. Think before you post silly stuff.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months?
Hiring a part time replacement.
I work as a freelancer in software engineering. I happily do a 3 month project. And no, there are not many domains that require 3 month to get used to, to be productive.
Then again:
You know quite in advance that a parent wants to take a leave. As far as I remember a typical pregnancy is 9 month. If the employer waits till month 9, I agree we would have an issue.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If a father has nothing more to offer than moral support, he's a shit father.
that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it.
He is payed for the parental leave, too.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not complaining now, I was compensated very well, and the maxxed out vacation and sick leave checks at retirement made a nice deposit in my TDA.
And:
a) how many jobs like that did your company provide?
b) how many people at maximum could have done a job like this in your company without impacting YOUR bottom line?
For as much as people on slashdot bitch and moan about poor financial options, they also go nuts when I try to explain how a large part of that is their fault.
And how can it be their fault? Why don't you answer a) and b) above honestly?
There probably was exactly only ONE job in your company like that.
If someone else had taken it: you would have been out of business. Your fault? I don't think so!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Anyone who is or might be a parent..?
Anyone with an ounce of human compassion?
Anyone who dosent want high end tech talent to go overseas in search of better benefits?
Anyone who can see past their own nose in a metaphorical sense.
If by founding documents, you mean the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't so much as a resignation notice to the previous government. The Constitution, which is the founding document of the United States of America, doesn't mention it. In fact the United States of America wouldn't exist for some time after the DoI.
You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Do you have arguments in your head with people? I'm 40 years married, and retired at 55 to be livin the dream, Raised a responsible successfil son. So much for your narrative.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will.
Nah. Only people with mental issues need mental health days. Then they should see a professional.
Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the people my age that didn't retire when I did will be working an extra 22,000 hours.
Work is only horrible and onerous if you want it to be. Too many people have been trained to look at work as something that they should apply themselves to as little as possible. I don't mind working, even though I know that working is not the end game all by itself.
Quality of life is a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to.
I have many hobbies, I ride my motorcycle as often as the weather permits. I am leaving for the shore in a few days, and will be going to Florida for two, maybe three months right after Christmas. Might take an impromptu couple week trip to the Grand Canyon before Thanksgiving. My money that I was paid for my hard work is now funding my lifestyle. My wife who retired at the same time as I did, doesn't have a problem with our quality of life either. That was one of my concerns since she's a good deal younger than me.
But to spend hours of your time arguing that it's not a thing that other people should value seems really odd to me.
I merely point out some of the counterproductive things that people do. And a lot of you get pretty upset by it, to the point of turning me into some sort of strawman that I'm not.
Family relationships are a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. And that's the point of leave like this. You get time to bond as a family.
What is more important. 3 months of an extra 8 yours a day of this bonding, or the greater than 50 percent chance that you are going to get divorced and break up your family? I've been married over 40 years, but tell me is that three months of bonding more important than being a full time father to my son, and a full time husband?
And back to retirement, if you're a stranger to your family because you didn't bother to build those relationships, what are you going to do for the rest of your life? Try to make up for those last 35+ years? The retired folks that I know who had a good work-life balance have a much better retirement than those who didn't. Why? Because they have a strong family that they love to hang out with, and their health, including mental health, is much better.
Flarg. More of the arguments in your head, I would think. When our parents were alive, we visited one or both at least once every week.We lived in the same town I took care of my father the last few years of his life. My son and I get together for road trips and other fun stuff very often, and holidays are a very busy time. Don't think for a moment that a busy career and family are diametrically opposed.
You make bad assumptions, and know a whole lot less than you think you do. But I suspect you are young, and perhaps can learn. If not, then very good luck to you sir.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months? Hiring a part time replacement.
I work as a freelancer in software engineering. I happily do a 3 month project. And no, there are not many domains that require 3 month to get used to, to be productive.
Then again: You know quite in advance that a parent wants to take a leave. As far as I remember a typical pregnancy is 9 month. If the employer waits till month 9, I agree we would have an issue.
So tell me - are you capable of being the lead on say, a hundred million dollar project as a temp?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If a father has nothing more to offer than moral support, he's a shit father.
Whoosh. I asked the moral support question.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it.
He is payed for the parental leave, too.
Yeah, he is. That's my point. He's paid for not working. A person with the same job who is working during that three month period is accomplishing more for the same amount of money.
So point is, if you are paying a person who is working for you for nine months the same as a person who is working for you for 12 months, Who is going to get more done for you? If the person you are paying for nine months can have plug in worker foro that three months, you are paying that person, the plug in, and if you have to train the plug in, that's even more outlay.
Which reminds me, what if the plug in worker then has a child. Do they get three months off as well? It could be a Russian nesting doll of Paternity leave! Just kidding.
But I really think we have beat this subject to death, no?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The lead of a 100million dollar project wont tell you 1 month before birth that he is going on parental leave.
But to ask your question: yes, I would. However would the team(s) accept a 3 month temp? Probably not.
Usually the "lead" has assistance, and there most likely is one who can replace him for such a short period, or you have a second project in the 50 - 200 million range, and that lead and his aides can support your project.
No idea why you are nitpicking ...
If you like to research, I was technical lead, consultant for object technologies, Java and architecture and design at Thyssen Krupp Stahl during 2000 and 2001. As part time. 2 - 3 days a week, sometimes a week free. Reporting only to the CIO/CTO. However I had no HR responsibility, if you find that important. Should be easy for you to find the relevant people there and cross check :D (And no, I don't know if it was a 100million project, but the Oracle and I2 licenses alone costed dozens of millions, the developers where about 25 and the project run for 5 years. There where plenty of external contractors involved, too)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"I didn't have to pay for..."
Yes, you did.
You and everyone else paid for it, every day of your lives, regardless of how much you wanted to. Other people without children were forced to pay for your children.
At gunpoint and under threat of prison.
And you're the more free and more advanced one here, right?
You are a slave bound by chains you can't even acknowledge, sniveling and begging your master for more, so dependent on the Nanny State that you would be completely lost without it.
It's disgusting.
This represents a complete lack of knowledge of even the basic concepts of community and economics.
Quite frankly the philosphy you are ascribing to is the exact world that animals live in, no empathy for anything except for your pack.
I am not a slave and I am most certainly bound by no chains. I choose to believe we are intelligent, rationale beings with the capability to think about more than what's good for me and my own. I choose to believe that my life is better when the people around me and around them are cared for and able to live in relative comfort.
Are you talking about what they are on the day the business decides to hire them? Because if so, that's obviously untrue. People are not (generally) permanently single, nor childless. I didn't have any children when I joined the employer that was employing me at the time I had my first child.
Interestingly, thinking about it, you've got it backwards. If an employer is looking to discriminate against people they think might get children, and they're obliged to offer maternity and paternity leave, and that's the reason, then they should discriminate in favor of older people, and people with at least 2-3 children that are more than 5 years old.
Why? Because neither group is likely have a child any time soon, while that single 25 year old is highly likely to within the next ten years.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Don't forget to knock off the 30% for devaluation if you live in Canada vs the greenback.
Om, nomnomnom...
The numbers were in US$ so that had already been accounted for.
Basically the takeaway is Americans pay 6% more tax and instead of things that make their lives better they get a giant military complex.
Sieg Heil, Microsoft! Today 'Business Partners', tomorrow the world!