Feminist complains about women getting workplace entitlements

[barbos]

What if woman takes $20k, freeze eggs and then gives birth anyway?

 

[Metaphor]

I think you know perfectly well what it means; I don't think you're stupid enough to not see the difference between someone coming up with an idea on their own, and being pressured into it from above.

No-one comes up with an idea on their own then, because there are always influences.

That pressure isn't supposed to transgress into people's personal lives.

If you mean employers have no legitimate interest in dictating what their employees should be doing in their personal lives, I agree. But if you mean employers have no legitimate interest in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence, I don't agree. It's a brute fact.

Then you must not get around much.

I know three women who took it, and none of them took it broken up. Not that it's relevant anyway; taking it in chunks introduces different problems of continuity.

You're entertaining a fantasy in which I said there's no price. All I'm saying is that said price doesn't have to be a nightmare if companies do the right thing; and that it is worth paying.

We obviously differ on whether it is right to be sexist, heterosexist, and ageist, to accommodate those wishing to take parental leave.

If that's really your concern, why not introduce a system where a company pays parental leave only if their size/profits top a certain line, with the rest caught by the government? Everybody wins.

Frankly, yes it is a concern. I don't think the employee of Sally Housecoat deserves leave any less than the employee of a multinational with a gold-plated parental leave policy. But the government should pay for all of it. Welfare is not the job of a corporation.

That's ridiculous.

It would make everyone better off. There are three groups of people who pay a corporate tax: it's either customers (who pay higher prices than they would have if there were no tax), or employees (who could be better remunerated if the corporation gets to keep more profits), or shareholders (who pay taxes twice: once when the money was in the corporation, and again when it is paid out as a dividend, on their personal tax returns).

You may not have any sympathy for the latter, but shares form a large part of most people's retirement savings (at least in Australia they do). Any taxes that a customer has to pay (in the forms of higher prices) is in general going to be regressive. And it isn't clear to me why employees should be paying the price, either.

If corporate taxes were abolished, corporations could keep more profits. Then either they could lower prices, or increase employee remuneration, or pay higher dividends to shareholders. Higher dividends to shareholders means those shareholders will pay more tax.

Now as it happens it might not be justified to get rid of all taxes on corporations. Corporations exist at the government's pleasure, and they have limited liability at the government's pleasure, and this seems to me an infrastructure that will cost the government money, so the government ought to be able to recoup its losses. But taxes on production are not a good idea.

Wow, really? Giving people who need to take care of their children the time off to do that is giving them 'special treatment'?

Yes, it is. I don't think I could have said it more plainly, actually. Of course it's giving them special treatment. By definition it's special treatment.

Is it special treatment to give the sick days off from work too?

Clearly not. Everyone gets sick and everyone gets allocated the same number of sick days each year.

What kind of Victorian capitalist nightmare would you like to live in?

You mean, one where I don't want to see people discriminated against by parental status? You advocate discrimination wholesale: you want (new) parents to have special treatment, and the devil with the rest of us.

- - - Updated - - -

What if woman takes $20k, freeze eggs and then gives birth anyway?

In terms of the policy described in the OP, I'm guessing nothing is to stop her. You are not required to sign a clause saying you won't do it.

 

[dystopian]

No-one comes up with an idea on their own then, because there are always influences.

Influence and pressure are two very different things.

If you mean employers have no legitimate interest in dictating what their employees should be doing in their personal lives, I agree. But if you mean employers have no legitimate interest in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence, I don't agree. It's a brute fact.

These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other on this issue.

Besides, so what if an employer has a 'legitimate interest' in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence? They'd have a legitimate interest in having unpaid slave labor too, but we sure as hell won't let them.

I know three women who took it, and none of them took it broken up.

Like I said, you must not get out much.

We obviously differ on whether it is right to be sexist, heterosexist, and ageist, to accommodate those wishing to take parental leave.

Of course , thinking that women have a right to parental leave makes me sexist (note that I've actually also said fathers should have the same right), heterosexist (even though I'd be in favor of giving leave to gay couples adopting infants as well), not to mention biased against old people (or child laborers, I guess... who knows what the hell you're trying to say at this point)

Frankly, yes it is a concern. I don't think the employee of Sally Housecoat deserves leave any less than the employee of a multinational with a gold-plated parental leave policy. But the government should pay for all of it. Welfare is not the job of a corporation.

It is when said corporation makes obscene amounts of money off the employees it thinks it doesn't have a responsibility toward.

If corporate taxes were abolished, corporations could keep more profits. Then either they could lower prices, or increase employee remuneration, or pay higher dividends to shareholders.

Right, because of course corporations are going to lower prices or increase worker salaries... that's what corporations do all the time, here on bizarro-earth!

Higher dividends to shareholders means those shareholders will pay more tax.

Right, because the kind of people who are rich enough to own enough shares for higher dividends to make a difference are also the kind of people who don't have a proven trackrecord of hiring armies of lawyers and accountants to figure out loopholes so they don't have to pay the taxes they'd otherwise owe. Yep, here on bizarro-world, the first thing out of a rich man's mouth when he pays his taxes is 'please sir, is there any way I can pay some more?'

Yes, it is. I don't think I could have said it more plainly, actually. Of course it's giving them special treatment. By definition it's special treatment.

"How dare they force us to give them special treatment?! We should just force women to keep working right until that baby pops out! And then ignore said baby so they can keep working! Work work work. Ooh, better yet, how about we find some way to convince them not to have babies at all! Yeah! I mean, fuck women right? I mean, no that sounded wrong. I meant of course, those horrible people, forcing us to give them special treatment! Down with women!"

Clearly not. Everyone gets sick and everyone gets allocated the same number of sick days each year.

So, someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... biological cause... is allowed to...
But someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... female biological cause... is not?

You mean, one where I don't want to see people discriminated against by parental status?

Giving leave to new parents so they can take care of their infant child does NOT discriminate against people who don't have kids. Are you like, a crazy person?

You advocate discrimination wholesale: you want (new) parents to have special treatment, and the devil with the rest of us.

No, I just want you to develop a little thing the rest of us call empathy. Also sanity. Sanity would be nice.

 

[Metaphor]

Influence and pressure are two very different things.

At work, I'm pressured to show up. When I don't, eyebrows get raised. Is it wrong for work to pressure me to show up?

These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other on this issue.

Of course they're not.

Besides, so what if an employer has a 'legitimate interest' in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence? They'd have a legitimate interest in having unpaid slave labor too, but we sure as hell won't let them.

Um, no. You see, paying people to work, versus enslaving them, are two different things. One is legitimate, and the other is not.

Like I said, you must not get out much.

You certainly assert a lot of things without evidence, and then make childish ad hominems when challenged. Whatever.

Of course , thinking that women have a right to parental leave makes me sexist (note that I've actually also said fathers should have the same right), heterosexist (even though I'd be in favor of giving leave to gay couples adopting infants as well), not to mention biased against old people (or child laborers, I guess... who knows what the hell you're trying to say at this point)

I specifically meant the egg-freezing policy as being sexist, heterosexist, and ageist. Parental leave merely discriminates against those who are older and have already had children, and those who choose to remain child-free.

Right, because of course corporations are going to lower prices or increase worker salaries

Not out of the goodness of their hearts, no. No corporation has ever done anything out of the goodness of its heart. It would be market pressure.

Right, because the kind of people who are rich enough to own enough shares for higher dividends to make a difference

Do you mean every Australian with superannuation? Which is every Australian who has worked at any time since 1993, mind.

are also the kind of people who don't have a proven trackrecord of hiring armies of lawyers and accountants to figure out loopholes so they don't have to pay the taxes they'd otherwise owe. Yep, here on bizarro-world, the first thing out of a rich man's mouth when he pays his taxes is 'please sir, is there any way I can pay some more?'

It's funny -- you predict that individuals will get away with not paying any taxes on their dividends, and yet you've admitted corporations already don't pay much tax at all, despite the nominal tax rate.

"How dare they force us to give them special treatment?! We should just force women to keep working right until that baby pops out!

Yeah, you don't know what the word 'force' means, do you?

And then ignore said baby so they can keep working! Work work work. Ooh, better yet, how about we find some way to convince them not to have babies at all! Yeah! I mean, fuck women right? I mean, no that sounded wrong. I meant of course, those horrible people, forcing us to give them special treatment! Down with women!"

I'll let this speak for itself.

So, someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... biological cause... is allowed to...
But someone forced to take time off from work due to some sort of... female biological cause... is not?

Oh, I see. So, pregnancy is analogous to an involuntary sickness?

When people get sick -- seriously sick -- they don't get treated half as well as paid parental leave treats new parents. When your sick leave runs out -- and it's a lot less leave than parental leave -- it's out.

Giving leave to new parents so they can take care of their infant child does NOT discriminate against people who don't have kids. Are you like, a crazy person?

Um, no. How does it do anything but that?

No, I just want you to develop a little thing the rest of us call empathy. Also sanity. Sanity would be nice.

Yeah, you can give the ad hominems a rest, mate.

 

[Toni]

No-one comes up with an idea on their own then, because there are always influences.

Those influences start in infancy. Employers already wield considerable influence over how people conduct their personal lives.

That pressure isn't supposed to transgress into people's personal lives.

If you mean employers have no legitimate interest in dictating what their employees should be doing in their personal lives, I agree. But if you mean employers have no legitimate interest in having full time workers who do not take leaves of absence, I don't agree. It's a brute fact.

Actually, I believe there are plenty of studies which indicate that employers as well as employees are much better off if employees take time off for vacations, etc. In fact, in some areas, it is considered pretty important to take more than a couple or more weeks of vacation. One example is the sabbatical in academics.

Then you must not get around much.

I know three women who took it, and none of them took it broken up. Not that it's relevant anyway; taking it in chunks introduces different problems of continuity.

I know parents of BOTH genders who have taken parental leave in chunks, including leaving work a bit early or coming in a bit later over the course of months, etc. My immediate supervisor is doing that now because he and his partner recently adopted. Each is adapting his schedule in order to meet the needs of their child.

Further, I also know people who have taken family leave (FMLA in the US) in various forms to accommodate the need to care for sick children, sick partners and sick parents. Some have taken leave in a block: helping a child recover from surgery. I also took a few days a couple of times after my husband's surgery for cancer. One took his FMLA as a chunk, after his wife's cancer surgery and as an ongoing arrangement so that he could come in later until other caregivers could arrive to help his wife and very young children during her chemo. This went on for months. Yes, we had one co-worker who bitched about it but that's because she's a pretty nasty bitch and psychotic as well. The reality: It was fine. He was a good worker and very productive. Starting an hour late was ok.

Currently, I have two co-workers with adapted schedules to meet their own medical needs. When I was recovering from my own surgery, I had medical leave for a couple of weeks and then a shortened schedule for a few more, gradually increasing my time back at work in a way that did not impede my recovery and still allowed me to continue my job with minimal disruption to my employer. Other co-workers have done this as well.

My sister took FMLA in small chunks (an hour or two a day as necessary) to help care for our mother whose health was rapidly declining. I took leave for a few weeks after our mother's surgery..

And so on...

So, unless you are a single, childless orphan with no siblings, there is a good chance you might need some kind of leave to help take care of a family member.

You're entertaining a fantasy in which I said there's no price. All I'm saying is that said price doesn't have to be a nightmare if companies do the right thing; and that it is worth paying.

We obviously differ on whether it is right to be sexist, heterosexist, and ageist, to accommodate those wishing to take parental leave.

Really? So, people should not get medical leave to recover from medical events like heart attacks or serious illness? News flash: giving birth requires some period to recover physically.

Plus see the above.

It would make everyone better off. There are three groups of people who pay a corporate tax: it's either customers (who pay higher prices than they would have if there were no tax), or employees (who could be better remunerated if the corporation gets to keep more profits), or shareholders (who pay taxes twice: once when the money was in the corporation, and again when it is paid out as a dividend, on their personal tax returns).

You may not have any sympathy for the latter, but shares form a large part of most people's retirement savings (at least in Australia they do). Any taxes that a customer has to pay (in the forms of higher prices) is in general going to be regressive. And it isn't clear to me why employees should be paying the price, either.

If corporate taxes were abolished, corporations could keep more profits. Then either they could lower prices, or increase employee remuneration, or pay higher dividends to shareholders. Higher dividends to shareholders means those shareholders will pay more tax.

Cough, cough: Walmart enjoys enormous profits and treats most of its employees like shit. So do any number of other large corporations in the U.S.

Wow, really? Giving people who need to take care of their children the time off to do that is giving them 'special treatment'?

Yes, it is. I don't think I could have said it more plainly, actually. Of course it's giving them special treatment. By definition it's special treatment.

It's not special treatment if it's offered to any employee anymore than medical leave is special treatment for those who become ill and need time off to recover.

Is it special treatment to give the sick days off from work too?

Clearly not. Everyone gets sick and everyone gets allocated the same number of sick days each year.

Well, no: not everyone gets sick. I know people who have NEVER taken a sick day, including some who should have (thanks for that flu, btw). At my job, vacation and sick days allotted depend on position and number of years worked as well as whether you are full time vs part time.

[

 

[arkirk]

I am horrified by maternity leave policies, although not for the reasons you seem to. They should apply to both parents, not just one, so that we don't reinforce the cultural stereotype of woman being the only caregivers.

I agree that if you're going to give people money to breed, the very least you can do is not discriminate by sex.

Exactly why you should give money to people to breed, or people who have recently bred, I'm sure I don't know. People have bred without cash incentives for at least 100,000 years, and they're breeding too fucking much.

They could ice down the sperm too if they wanted to. I agree with dystopian on this one. There is more to pregnancy than merely having an egg in cold storage. If women want to have healthy children they should have them in the prime of their child bearing years, the years when they are best suited for having children. Their leave should be when it is best for them, not the fucking company.

Truly talented employees increase in knowledge and value from the middle of their career forward. I think it would be a mistake to make a woman get out of the business just when she hits her stride and a full skill set. That is not in the twenties. If the truth be told, our system does not serve working people well (whether they are talented or not). Many women joined the workforce because their husband's salary would not support their home.

We are a society that pretends to honor the family and home life, but in reality we are a society infected with mortgages and rents of all types that require too much income. This makes employment for women in many cases mandatory if they do not want to appear on the welfare roles. Freezing eggs is not the answer. They should have more generous forms of leave for women to raise their children, not just have them.

 

[Metaphor]

Actually, I believe there are plenty of studies which indicate that employers as well as employees are much better off if employees take time off for vacations, etc. In fact, in some areas, it is considered pretty important to take more than a couple or more weeks of vacation. One example is the sabbatical in academics.

I am not talking about accrued annual leave. You get annual leave whether you have children or not, although annual leave is nowhere near as much as some gold-plated parental leave.

Also, annual leave accrues according to how long you've worked somewhere. Parental leave does not 'accrue'; if you don't have children, you don't get it. If you have five children, you get it five times.

Annual leave is paid for by the employee taking it throughout the year. Parental leave is paid for by all other employees not taking parental leave. There's a real difference.

Further, I also know people who have taken family leave (FMLA in the US) in various forms to accommodate the need to care for sick children, sick partners and sick parents.

I too have taken leave to care for a sick parent, but it came out of my sick leave, and it wasn't 16 weeks of paid leave.

Really? So, people should not get medical leave to recover from medical events like heart attacks or serious illness? News flash: giving birth requires some period to recover physically.

But you're not proposing people take parental leave as accrued sick leave. You're saying they should get extra leave, paid for by everyone else.

Cough, cough: Walmart enjoys enormous profits and treats most of its employees like shit. So do any number of other large corporations in the U.S

.

Right.....so? What was your point?

It's not special treatment if it's offered to any employee anymore than medical leave is special treatment for those who become ill and need time off to recover.

Medical leave is accrued as you work for an organisation, like annual leave. How much parental leave you get is not; it doesn't bear any relation to how long you've worked, but rather when and how often you have a fertility event.

Well, no: not everyone gets sick. I know people who have NEVER taken a sick day, including some who should have (thanks for that flu, btw). At my job, vacation and sick days allotted depend on position and number of years worked as well as whether you are full time vs part time.

So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.

 

[laughing dog]

But you're not proposing people take parental leave as accrued sick leave. You're saying they should get extra leave, paid for by everyone else.

Repeating the meme of "paid for by everyone else" is not helpful. People on leave are either replaced by temps or they are not. If they are replaced by temps, the temps are simply doing work for compensation - there is no extra unpaid work onus on them. Yes, the employer ponies up the compensation, but clearly the employer considers that an investment with a future payoff - it is not some sort of unexpected pure cost. If the person on leave is not replaced, it is possible that that person's work is simply foregone - again a form of investment by the employer.

 

[credoconsolans]

So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.

Do you think all pregnancies are planned?

 

[doubtingt]

This offered benefit is not an entitlement but compensation - these women are WORKING to get it.

It certainly does count as non-cash remuneration -- the companies in question were not mandated to provide it.

It's just an unfair one that discriminates against most of their employees.

They are not getting anything. They are giving up being a parent at their preferred time in order to benefit the company. The company is merely paying the cost of the procedure that allows the women to do this favor for the company.
It is no different than when an employee attends a conference to sell the employers wares and benefit the company. The employer pays for the cost of this benefit to themselves.

If these women were getting a $20k cash bonus for not having kids, even if they didn't freeze their eggs, then you'd have a point. But you don't.

 

[Toni]

I am not talking about accrued annual leave. You get annual leave whether you have children or not, although annual leave is nowhere near as much as some gold-plated parental leave.

Also, annual leave accrues according to how long you've worked somewhere. Parental leave does not 'accrue'; if you don't have children, you don't get it. If you have five children, you get it five times.

Annual leave is paid for by the employee taking it throughout the year. Parental leave is paid for by all other employees not taking parental leave. There's a real difference.

Further, I also know people who have taken family leave (FMLA in the US) in various forms to accommodate the need to care for sick children, sick partners and sick parents.

I too have taken leave to care for a sick parent, but it came out of my sick leave, and it wasn't 16 weeks of paid leave.

Really? So, people should not get medical leave to recover from medical events like heart attacks or serious illness? News flash: giving birth requires some period to recover physically.

But you're not proposing people take parental leave as accrued sick leave. You're saying they should get extra leave, paid for by everyone else.

Cough, cough: Walmart enjoys enormous profits and treats most of its employees like shit. So do any number of other large corporations in the U.S

.

Right.....so? What was your point?

It's not special treatment if it's offered to any employee anymore than medical leave is special treatment for those who become ill and need time off to recover.

Medical leave is accrued as you work for an organisation, like annual leave. How much parental leave you get is not; it doesn't bear any relation to how long you've worked, but rather when and how often you have a fertility event.

Well, no: not everyone gets sick. I know people who have NEVER taken a sick day, including some who should have (thanks for that flu, btw). At my job, vacation and sick days allotted depend on position and number of years worked as well as whether you are full time vs part time.

So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.

No time to parse out individual points but:

1. FMLA may or may not be paid. It is just a guarantee that an employee will be able to return to work after caring for a loved one.

2. You recognize that it is good to be able to care for sick parents: you've done it. Why not to care for a blew child who requires care around the clock?

3. In the US, paid maternity leave is not mandatory. At my employer, one is expected to use sick leave before tapping into the paid leave.

4. Re: using sick leave to care for kids/family. Yes. However, it is not uncommon if the family member has a serious illness to run out of sick and/or vacation days. That's why you need FMLA which typically is not paid.

5. Re: unfairness of leave for voluntary medical reasons: two different co-workers injured themselves while engaging in no work recreational activities. The injuries were after they had previously injured themselves doing the exact same thing before. Each received a longer medical leave than is given as parental leave.

6. When on parental leave, you are working your tail off caring for a child. It's not vacation.

 

[Metaphor]

So, basically the defense is that bearing children is analogous to involuntary sickness.

Do you think all pregnancies are planned?

No.

 

[Metaphor]

6. When on parental leave, you are working your tail off caring for a child. It's not vacation.

I didn't claim it was a vacation, but you're being paid while doing nothing productive for your employer.

Imagine there was 'marathon training leave'. Let's say it was 6 weeks of paid leave if you were registered in a semi-professional level running marathon. No-one would argue that training for a marathon is doing nothing, but someone who is training for a marathon is not engaged in productive work for their employer. Do you think the people who did not take the marathon training leave (because they're not in a marathon) might legitimately be upset about this kind of leave?

 

[Metaphor]

They are not getting anything. They are giving up being a parent at their preferred time in order to benefit the company.

Except they're doing no such thing. The company does not ask them to sign a contract saying they will not become parents for the next x years.

The company is merely paying the cost of the procedure that allows the women to do this favor for the company.

It is no different than when an employee attends a conference to sell the employers wares and benefit the company. The employer pays for the cost of this benefit to themselves.

If these women were getting a $20k cash bonus for not having kids, even if they didn't freeze their eggs, then you'd have a point. But you don't.

I pointed out that the policy was sexist, giving women compensation that men do not receive. As has been pointed out by others, it also sends the message that they don't actively care if men have children (which makes sense, as women still choose to be the primary carer in the vast majority of cases).

 

[Shadowy Man]

\The truth is that it doesn't affect a man's performance in the same way. This is a cultural and societal gender role that hasn't shifted yet... if it ever does. Women are still the primary caregivers for children. When both parents work, it still ends up being the female that puts the children's needs before the needs of her career, while the man puts the needs of the career first. If the child is sick, it nearly always ends up being the mother who stays home. If there's a project that needs to be completed, and a kid that needs to be picked up, the mother will usually end up choosing the child where the father will choose the project. Perhaps some day that will change, but right now that's how it is.

That may be generally true, but it is not specifically true. So, it's not the company's place to decide the particular roles in their employees' marriages, but by not offering it to the male employees they are not allowing for the possible, but probably rare as you point out, case of a heavily involved father, whose work performance will be affected by having a child at home.

 

[Toni]

6. When on parental leave, you are working your tail off caring for a child. It's not vacation.

I didn't claim it was a vacation, but you're being paid while doing nothing productive for your employer.

Imagine there was 'marathon training leave'. Let's say it was 6 weeks of paid leave if you were registered in a semi-professional level running marathon. No-one would argue that training for a marathon is doing nothing, but someone who is training for a marathon is not engaged in productive work for their employer. Do you think the people who did not take the marathon training leave (because they're not in a marathon) might legitimately be upset about this kind of leave?

No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .

Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.

My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't claim it was a vacation, but you're being paid while doing nothing productive for your employer.

Imagine there was 'marathon training leave'. Let's say it was 6 weeks of paid leave if you were registered in a semi-professional level running marathon. No-one would argue that training for a marathon is doing nothing, but someone who is training for a marathon is not engaged in productive work for their employer. Do you think the people who did not take the marathon training leave (because they're not in a marathon) might legitimately be upset about this kind of leave?

No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .

Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.

My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?

Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.

Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).

Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Metaphor, have you considered that employers who offer benefits/incentives such as maternity/paternity leave do CARE about the morale of their employees? And I contend that it is a productive move on their part to insure that their "ship is manned by a happy crew". Some of us here have raised children from infancy and up. The thought of having to leave an infant in a child care facility is one which carries burdens and worries.

To also note that companies where employees have direct contacts with customers, those who fail to address the well being of their employees will end up festering a non customer oriented climate. Do you as a customer prefer to be greeted by a cheerful employee or someone who appears to be "carrying the weight of the world"? I will tell you (and again as someone who speaks from the experience of having cared for 3 children as they were infants) that there is no way my mind would have been focused on whichever work assignment while my infant son or daughter would have to be left in a child care facility.

Further, how maternity/paternity leave contributes to enhancing the morale of employees who are new parents :

It relieves them from the burden of assuming the high cost of child care for an infant. Mind you that most new parents are going to be very selective as to which child care they will contract or hire when it comes to specifically an infant. Meaning not having to "cut corners" based on cost. Again, some of us who have cared for our infant daughter(s) or son(s) are well aware that infants represent the most high dependency and vulnerable stage of childhood development. We are fully aware that we have to seek the best and safest available care if we have no choice but rely on child care services.

When those new parents return to work, they will be grateful that they were given the opportunity to avoid all the burdens listed above. Let alone the extremely important part of bonding between parent and infant.

Some companies even offer child care services on work location for their employees. From infants to toddlers and children still too young to meet the requirements from pre K and K. Now, ask yourself why those companies have set up such system which certainly relieves their employees from the burdens and worries I have listed above. Hint : most probably because they do not dismiss ergonomics.

 

[Toni]

No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .

Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.

My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?

Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.

Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).

Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.

You seem under the misapprehension that were my employer to decide not to fund some of the benefits it currently funds, it would instead direct a proportional amount to increase my wages. That would not happen. They are not taking any money out of my pocket by providing benefits and services I either will never need or choose to use. Instead, they are helping to create a workplace which attracts intelligent, competent, well educated and well trained, hardworking individuals who are my coworkers which further enhances my work environment.

I've worked for some pretty lousy employers in my day. Employers who offer little beyond a wage get only the contracted labor from their employees. The employees get the added stress and aggravation of working for someone who cares only for profits and views them as disposable. Such a work environment is horrible. Those who are not totally beaten down by it escape at their earliest possible opportunity.

I appreciate that my employer is willing to invest some resources into creating and maintaining a work environment that is pleasant, safe, fosters an atmosphere of trust, team work and shared mission. My co-workers are much more pleasant and easy to deal with. I am less stressed and worn out than at some of the shit holes I've worked at before--and some of the not shit holes but very: let's give the workers the bare minimum so we can pay the max to the CEO and shareholders. People leave those places as soon as they can, if they can. Where I work? People stay. I am near the bottom of the seniority ranks in my work unit and I've been there for more than 10 years.

My employer enjoys loyal employees and a much lower cost in recruiting, hiring and training associated with high turnovers. Our customers/clients/patients benefit from the experience, sense of shared mission and purpose, team work and collaboration as well as the fact that we all are happy to be doing our jobs and do not begrudge our employer our time and efforts.

Now, I'm off to get some much needed rest. I think I will start investigating how to begin training for a marathon. Never mind my age, height, weight, or the fact that soon all roadways and pathways will be buried under ice and snow: I see no reason not to start to train for a marathon. After all, training for a marathon is not the same thing as actually winning one. Or running in one...

 

[Togo]

No, why would I be upset? I could always decide to train for a marathon. .

Employers do get benefits from granting generous leaves to employees. They are able to use their benefits package as a recruiting tool so that they can choose among the best employees. They get employees who feel valued and in return are more likely to be loyal to their employer: why look around if you are happy where you are? The employers also have the benefit of employees who are better rested, less stressed and less distracted.

My employer offers a number of benefits I will never use. So what? Why should I resent their availability for those who want or need them?

Because you're paying for them, and training for a marathon is a personal indulgence. If that's what you want to do, do not ask your fellow workers to pay the price for you. And no, you can't always 'train for a marathon'. The entire point of my example was that training for a marathon does not suit everyone and is indeed something that some people cannot do or are grossly unsuitable for.

Paid leave is not free. Someone is paying the price. When leave is selective (that is, not everyone takes it, like sick leave/parental leave), the price is paid by the people that don't take the leave. Indeed, in time-critical industries, when an employee has a sick day, other employees simply have to pick up the slack without compensation. (And if it's with compensation, the employer has to pay).

Since my training for a marathon example didn't gel, how about 'sex tourism' leave? The company pays for up to 6 weeks of leave if you take a holiday as a sex tourist, visiting emerging economies for cheap sex. Would you feel resentment at such leave being granted? After all, you can take it if you want to.

No, I don't think so. I don't approve of sex tourism, but if the trip was sold as beneficial in some way, I don't see the problem. I think 6 weeks is too long, mind.

Then again, my company already pays for people to take leave to language courses, train for marathons, play cricket against other companies, attend marketing events to promote themselves, publish magazine articles and so on. This means less money for me, since I don't do any of these activities, but the workplace environment is the better for it, and if there was a sudden need for me to do something, I know the request would be taken seriously.

At the more extreme end, some companies require people to spend a certain % of their work time on their own personal projects. It helps creativity.