Hacker News Reader

Comment by engi_nerd | Hacker News Reader

I am jealous. My mega-large, hyphenated corporation only gives 40 hours. Which I have just had approved (today!) so that I could help care for my newborn son while my wife recovers from caesarian section. Doing this required multiple calls to a third party company that hypenated-corporation has subcontracted their leave and disability claims to, as well as about 30 pages worth of paperwork. I spent about half as much time coordinating all this as the amount of leave that I'll get.

My point is: even if Zuckerberg only takes half the time he gives to everyone else he's still being very generous to himself as compared to what happens in much of corporate America. I am willing to bet that going on leave like this is probably easier at Facebook, as well.

View on HN

Wow. My wife had a section with our first, 2 months early, with some weeks in the NICU afterwards. I had absolutely no inkling that recovery would be so hard for my wife; I'd always heard "too posh to push" and thought she was getting the easy way out! It's a brutal surgery and she struggled to do basic things for weeks. Fortunately I worked for a small firm at the time, directly for the CEO, and whatever our HR policy was didn't matter as I was given essentially free reign to manage my time and work from home as needed. I was able to be largely absent for weeks, going to the office when she had help at home.

You have my heartfelt sympathy. 40hrs is pathetic, insulting, and the process for you to get it is frankly dehumanizing. Fortunately those scumbags will pale into insignificance as you get to know your son.

Thanks for the kind words. We only had 1 week in the NICU (our son arrived 1 month early due to some maternal complications). That week was hard enough. You also have my heartfelt sympathy. Hope your little fighter is doing well now.

Thanks, she's a vivacious and warm hearted three year old now, you'd never know she was a preemie. They catch up pretty fast. Hope your boy does well too.

Your comment touched a nerve: it was a dramatically emotional time, and I just got shivers thinking how I'd have felt having to do a day's paperwork just to get out of the office. I was very lucky.

FYI you can probably take 12 weeks unpaid leave, as guaranteed by FMLA. I'm guessing your employer would exercise the option to pay out vacation time concurrently. To take FMLA requires nothing more than telling your boss you need time off to take care of a newborn (or any other valid reason), so it's not too late. They can make you fill out paperwork but denying the leave if it's valid is illegal. You're guaranteed to have your job when you come back.

(Edit: note to others reading this who work at startups--employers with < 50 employees don't need to follow FMLA)

Oh great, I can stop getting paid just as I have a kid. That sounds wonderful.

Exactly why I am not taking any unpaid leave.

It's called savings. Instead of asking for paid leave, you can ask for a higher salary, and then save that extra money, which pays for your leave.

Nice, if you have enough savings to do it. Please don't forget that not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks. I did, until I bought a house, sold it, and bought another in the course of a year due to escaping from a horrible job.

I'm getting savings built back up again, and I can afford to miss a few paychecks now, but not at the 6 month level I had a couple of years back. I'll get there again.

Guess what. If you want paid family leave as a benefit, you can choose between that and alternative benefits, like having a higher salary, not to mention (for young people that are likely to have a family) being hirable in the first place. It doesn't come for free.

Isn't this a false dichotomy?

And I'm not sure how to parse the whole "not to mention being hirable in the first place" phrase. What exactly are you trying to say?

No. It's not a false dichotomy. The compensation you can negotiate depends on how much work people expect to get out of you. Your price also depends on other people's willingness to take advantage of benefits that you're not interested in.

Young people in general are riskier hires than older people -- they have less of a history, they're more likely to change jobs or move -- having a paid leave policy increases that risk even more and makes it harder for some people to find jobs, especially the kind that involve up-front costs of learning on the job or training, and that have slim margins.

Edit: The flip side is that regulatory enaction of such policies can help protect you from the effects of stupid behavior by other people. For example, the prices of houses, and the wages people negotiate, are in part an artifact of the fact that most people are willing to spend too much of their own money, buying houses they can barely afford and generally living paycheck to paycheck. These people negotiate wages down while pushing prices of goods up, to the detriment of savers. Policies like mandatory retirement savings and parental leave can help insulate people that want to save for retirement and want to take time off when their child is born from these market effects.

All valid points.

> not everyone is fortunate enough to have enough savings to be able to miss three months worth of paychecks.

Then, sorry to be a bearer of bad news, if they could not afford or save up in advance for three months, how in the world are they going to pay for a child for 18 years?

Children in modern western nations are incredibly expensive. Often more expensive than a house. They are not a decision to be made lightly, and you shouldn't get pity for having them since its common knowledge how expensive they are.

Its probably one of the greatest critical failings of our society in modern terms to pressure people so highly to have kids they cannot afford - its not just bad on a macroeconomic level because it makes those parents dependent on the state, and on average results in poverty stricken kids who have had studies prove growing up poor has a direct and negative impact on intellect, but its bad for individuals because it will destroy otherwise healthy relationships if children are too expensive but they gave into short term peer pressure and got long term consequences.

> Children in modern western nations are incredibly expensive.

You hear this all the time, it just doesn't gel with my experience. I'd love to know how the various headlines that say "OMG 250K to raise a child till 18" come to that figure.

Because, really, they don't seem to cost much at all. They eat less (and hopefully for free for at least the first 6 months), their clothes are smaller and cost less (though yes, they do need them more frequently). Depending on where you live (Aus ftw), public schooling can be good and free.

Sure, when they get old they might piss and moan and "Want" various luxuries but that's the key isn't it - needs vs want. And by the age they start "wanting", typically the answer is "get a job".

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140815102328-cost-...

> how in the world are they going to pay for a child for 18 years?

How could you possibly infer that to be a problem via a plain reading or even an uncharitable reading? Having money in the bank account doesn't help your kids as much as having a house in the right neighborhood.

How are they going to pay for a child for 18 years? For many, the answer is "they don't".

For the record I also agree with your last paragraph in full.

As for myself...

With my current resources, I could pay all household expenses for three months without being paid. And yes, I have the resources necessary to support my family. In short, I can afford to have this child. However, I choose not to take unpaid leave because, with a child, I have no way of knowing what unforseen expenses may arise (will he have a chronic condition that requires treatment that my insurance will only partially cover? Will my wife have a harder time than expected healing from her surgery and require me to take more time off from work?) I am trying, in my particular case, to protect that cushion of money and grow it as much as I possibly can.

I also know, far more than most people, just how serious of a decision having children is. Because of medical issues for both me and my wife, we had to have IVF to even conceive, and our first IVF baby died at 21 weeks gestation.

Kids cost money either way. You probably decided having kids would be worth it for you. What is 3 unpaid months - let's say 30000$? That is nothing compared to what you'll pay for your kid over time.

Kids cost a lot spread gradually over time, for the most part.

If your monthly expenses increase by ~$100-$400 a month at first, that's reasonably survivable for the majority of couples, and other increases can be planned for.

If your month income suddenly declines by $10000 a month as in your example, you're probably fucked.

Yes, I am aware of this. I made sure to educate myself on FMLA during my wife's first pregnancy.

I will use some banked compensatory time to make my leave last about six weeks.

Bummer. Move to a state with family leave laws. CA gives 6 weeks of paid leave to everyone:

http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/FAQ_PFL_Benefits.htm

Yes, that is a pragmatic answer to my issue...if I had different life circumstances. And I could -- my little niche of hypenated-corporation would love to send me to California on a permanent basis. Unfortunately, I have no desire to commute 2 hrs to/from Edwards AFB every day.

Good to know though.

Out of curiosity, would this apply if you were say a lead actor in a movie? 6 week multi-million dollar production stall would in my mind be fair ground for not hiring an actor, but I take it that's illegal.

This is getting nitpicky against your very valid point, but I think most actors are 1099 contractors so it doesn't apply

I imagine you have to be right. For the majority of employees a 6 week break is no big deal. But for some specialty industries you just can't hire people that plan on taking a 6 week break in the middle of production.

>Move to a state with family leave laws.

Just move! Great and completely realistic solution to the problem of what to do about paternity leave within my company when a kid is on the way. Brilliant! I wish I'd thought of that.

In a complete aside, I've also moved 4 times since 2011. I am tired of moving. "Just move" is not the most useful advice ever.

Lobby your state representatives to keep up with the other states?

A good idea. Hopefully hyphenated-corporation won't manage to avoid that law like they have several other laws I have been impacted by...

It's state run (part of the unemployment/disability system). The company really has no choice...

I'm not trying to patronize you, but it sounds like you should be looking for a new job!

Edit: Here's a HN thread where I asked "where should we move to?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10103373

Oh God I don't want to move again. If I did it would be 5 times since 2011. I like my job otherwise.

Hyphenated company manages to avoid our state laws on covering infertility treatment by funding its own health plan, thereby taking advantage of a loophole in the state law. I can only believe that such a large company, in the state where it is incorporated, would find ways to put loopholes in any new laws.

I've moved cross country almost every time I've moved and I've moved on average about every 18 months since 2005. Add in the sheer amount of stuff that tends to accumulate when you're married to someone obsessed with physical comforts like furniture, heirlooms, and kitsch and it's pretty much constant mental torture. It becomes extremely bothersome to move over time and constantly job-hopping looks pretty poor on one's resume over time as well. My life is a state where as I'm unpacking, I'm deciding what to unpack because I would have to move it again. Even if you're willing to move constantly though, what will your excuse be to your future employers over the next 30 years with such a peppered employment record? "I don't like the labor laws of any state I move to"? That'll be a pretty short interview.

I've had similar experiences. I've thought, "Oh, I know where to find such-and-such item", and gone to look for it in the garage, only to realize, "That's where I kept that item two houses ago" and have no idea where it is.

"Just move" isn't usually bad advice for a single person, but when you have a family, that's a whole different thing.

Dunno if you've ever taken PFL, but I have twice. It's not all roses. Your first 1-2 weeks (depending on company policy) is unpaid, ie you have to take PTO/vacation. Then PFL pays 55% of your weekly salary, to a maximum of $1,104 -- essentially $52k. They dump it on some ghetto Bank of America debit card that you have to hook up to your bank account thru their 90s-fabulous website somehow...

Except for the 40 hours part, OP's was exactly my experience. BigCo contracts out to some awful 3rd party that can't get their paperwork straight.

I actually got notice that my leave was "approved" (as if they could disapprove?) AFTER I returned to work, that's how bad their process sucks.

Don't even get me started about straightening out the bill for health insurance -- yeah, you have to pay your employer's share while you're on leave! Surprise! (I guess this might vary from company to company).

Better than nothing I guess, but I think I'd rather have lower taxes and just take straight PTO.

FWIW, at Facebook you still have to deal with some ugly B2B system to report your leave. "Matrix e-systems". Apparently the nest of laws that cover leave is complicated enough that you basically have to hire someone to handle compliance. Everyone (male or female) gets 4 months though, which is quite nice and makes it worth navigating through this janky form-filling.

Wrong. You may take 12 weeks without losing your job under federal law. Only one of your weeks would be paid.

Yeah, well fuck 7-Eleven.

Here's my advice: don't work for them. You shouldn't tolerate such bullshit no matter how much they pay. This is your _wife and kid_ you're talking about. You will horribly regret prioritizing the unreasonable demands of your employer over their needs.

Instead of bitching on HN, get off your ass and find a better employer.

I am astounded by the arrogance of you thinking you know his life and situation better than he himself does. And so well that you feel entitled to lecture him in public.

I am astounded that you're astounded. Seems like common sense advice to me: put your family ahead of everything else. That's what I do, anyway. Once "everything else" starts to interfere, I make sure to change my circumstances to make sure that my family gets the attention it so richly deserves.

Did it ever occur to you, that, outside of this issue, I'm actually well compensated, well-treated, I work on a good team of motivated people, and I'm well-respected for what I do?

As I've said earlier, I have more leave to take than this because I have banked overtime that I can draw upon, and I have a fantastic boss who helped me make a plan to take the (paid) leave I need.

All that does not mean that I can't comment on a relevant experience I have that most likely reflects the experiences of many in corporate America.

With everything else set well, why would I disrupt my family again? I already moved in 2014 to escape an employer that was pretty much pure evil and really would have damaged my family and marriage. Don't you think, that having gone through that, I have learned how to protect my family?

In short, your public lecture, as the other commenter pointed out, does seem a bit arrogant to me.

Very surprised by the reactionary thinking I'm seeing about this.

Yes, it's such obvious common-sense advice that you presuming he has never heard it is arrogant. The problem is not the advice; it's you appointing yourself qualified to lecture somebody with little understanding of their situation.

It's advice that I acted upon in 2014, when I realized,as we were about to try for pregnancy #1, that my then-employer was untenable. No promotion potential, mandatory 20+ hours a week of unpaid overtime, lots of deployments (up to 6 months a year away from home), no commonality with engineering done anywhere else...I moved and got the job I have now with hyphenated-corporation. It's big and evil, sure, but my immediate management (up to 2 levels above me) treat me well and respect the work that I've done for them. So I am loyal to them, but not the corporation. It's the corporation that has these policies that I don't like, but my management worked with me to soften the blow as much as possible.

Mistake #2 is being loyal. That's a surefire way to never get anywhere. For me it's a learned skill to be sure. I learned it when I saw that people whom management is afraid to lose are promoted ahead of everybody else. So I make sure my managers know that I re-evaluate my options about once a year. I'm also "well respected" and paid very well, but unless things are going spectacularly well for me, no one is under an impression that I'll stick around. I think it's fair. Those same people would fire my ass if they weren't getting good value out of me, so it follows that I should do the same and expect good value out of them.

I think I know my situation better than you do.

You'll learn in time. :-)

In general I agree with you. Your overall logic is another factor in why I left my last job. But again, you don't know me, or my boss, so you are being rather presumptuous and I don't appreciate it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com