A Step Forward in Parental Leave at Etsy
blog.etsy.com
blog.etsy.com
Etsy defends the right to maternal leave, Apple defends the right to privacy and so on, but at the same time, it is the relation between corporate power and political power that has made the US move forward so little in social rights.
Free health, education, maternal leave, striking... This should be rights, not company privileges. Congrats to Etsy employees, and condolences to everyone else.
Actually it's gender neutral. So I hope a lot of dads at Etsy also take the opportunity (as it's fully paid you'd be nuts not to take it).
I should add that parental leave can only work when it is mandatory, for both parents.
American companies do this a lot: you have the option to take unlimited vacation, the option to take parental leave... but peer pressure, social pressure push people not to take them (at least to the full extent they are entitled), as it is seen as letting the team down, or letting the company down, or not being compromised enough etc. In the case of parental leave, society pushes mothers to take it, rather than fathers.
Therefore, mandatory equal leave for both parents is the only way to make a difference... Unfortunately not even Europe is there yet (or most countries in it).
1. That it's fully paid alleviates the money discussion (between parents).
2. That it's a company policy means Etsy's management has fully embraced it (I assume). When government mandated, a manager can always mutter and mumble about it enough to give the parent feelings of guilt or at least uneasiness.
3. That it's not unlimited would at least make me more comfortable to take the whole 26 weeks. They had five weeks before, they could have chosen 10 or 18 weeks, nobody was really wringing their arm to decide on 26 weeks.
Why is that sad? It's precisely how it should work. Corporations have the power, money, organization and man-power to push a progressive agenda. It's just a collection of people afterall, not some nebulous, evil entity.
Take my country, Brazil, for instance. Regardless of the current corruption scandal going on, it has a very protective labor laws because it presumes the Corporation will screw their employees if they can, which historically is what happened.
Since the 50s local companies are required to pay a 13th wage, to help with annual expenses (yearly taxes, insurances and of course the holiday gifts); give paid 30-day vacation; 4 months of maternity leave (2 weeks for dads); commute reimbursement, if you take public transport; and meal/lunch allowances, since the employee has to eat during their 8 hour day. That's all mandatory. Medical insurance is expected in most jobs, though it is not mandated. This is a major safety network for the (employed) poor.
Now, I've been both employee and employer and I think, overall, this is a good thing. Yes, the Corporation's expenses with staff are very high, but everyone has to do it, so it's not like it impedes local competition. If it was optional then startups and enlightened companies would probably provide this, but most "regular" companies wouldn't.
I've tried to understand this stark difference to e.g. most of europe as a non-US citizen and this is the best explanation I've come with. Please, correct me if I'm wrong or misguided - I'm trying to figure this out myself.
In the US tradition, the government takes a hands off approach and lets private entities figure it out in the courthouses what is actually an accepted convention and what is not. Unfortunately this means there is one less player with a huge leverage defending the good life of an individual.
When the US was created 'strong government' was considered adverserial for the checks and balances they tried to put in place - and it also probably reeked of monarchy and tyranny. I think the reason lot of US conventions seem strange is that they are constructed from this aversion to big government.
With the rise of the military-industrial complex and the state intelligence and security forces US has, it appears at least to me that the influence of the government in the US system is larger than originally intended, and not necessarily in ways that benefits the private citizen. That's why it now appears odd that while US is this economic and military juggernaut the lives of it's private citizens are surprisingly fragile and ill defended.
As an individual who is not likely to ever have children however, I would feel rather jealous of my co-workers who got to take advantage of this benefit. Some sort of clause like: "... when they become a parent ... or when they work for the company for five years without becoming a parent." would help me feel included.
I really don't mean to diminish this awesome perk, it is obviously much more inclusive than the status-quo and I commend Etsy for implementing it!
How can such policies ever be implemented in a 'fair' way when 'fair' can be 'anything I feel' ?
Why do you believe this should be different for the childless person?
They don't slack off, they produced a tax payer that will likely secure your future pension (depends on your country and social security structure ofc). This is not a vacation.
Even comparing that seems rather laughable, honestly. We're talking about common decency here - offsprings need one person to look after them and at least for a while it should be one of the parents. Trying to game the system is .. disturbing, really.
The real problem is that Etsy makes the news with their policy, not random childless persons trying to fly around the world for a while.
Employment is an exchange of labor for money, you are trading your knowledge, time and experience to preform work for a company in exchange for money.
it is not a family, the company has no obligation to "look out for your" or your actual family
if you are not preforming work, you should not be paid. Period, it is as simple as that
You "making a new tax payer" or what ever is not relevant to the topic if employment
Further I do not expect anyone other than myself to secure my retirement. I will likely not retire, I have no plans to. I plan on working in some form until I die.
Let me state first that I'll be the first to understand that people opt to have no kids - I myself was certain that I'd never have kids, never want kids until I reached 30+ and I still see the trade-offs, the benefits.
Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view. If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave. People having kids isn't a fad or some new fashion, it's basic (human) nature. You wouldn't be able to make your case without people opting to carry that burden (it's also hugely rewarding, but we're discussing time off here and that's explicitly to help parents to manage this .. interesting times).
In short, your argument seems rather egocentric and the whole thread is reading like a min-maxing discussion on a RPG online board. But then again, you also claim that taxes are theft and I don't think there's enough (or any?) common ground to argue here. Your expressed opinions are about as anti-social as anything I've ever read on this board and I honestly cannot imagine under which circumstances people could come up with values like these.
Likely, I am a Geo-Libertarian Agorist that believes in a society free from Statism and Coercion by Government
>While you seem to like to live for yourself, I live in a society. Moreover, I live in a social country (and more important: A social culture) in which the line isn't as clear as you'd like it to be.
I believe in voluntary society, and not forces socialization. Which is what a "social country" is, especially a democracy where under ideal conditions 50.1% of the population impose their will on the 49.9%.
>Your definition of employment seems rather limited from my personal point of view.
I use logic, and reason to define employment, not emotion. Most people are driven by their emotion not by logic.
>If you hire someone, train someone, potentially socialize with someone, you have a contract with a person not a wage slave.
you have a contract for them to proved the labor you need in your business.
Pay, benefits, etc are all designed to attract the best talent to give the business the best value for their labor dollar. As such it seems illogical to me to attract people that desire to get paid to do no labor. Etsy and all of the other companies that have been pressured into offering this policy by the pubic are betting on very few people actually making use of said benefit, and the ones that do not actually taking the full 26 weeks, I can not image a company surviving several employees all at once deciding to take 50% of the year off, paid.
This is one of the High PR Value, but in reality will likely be low cost HR benefits to attract people, likely offer them lower base salary so they get the "feel good" benefit of 26 week maternity leave they will likely never use.
Further it could limit their talent pool as people like me would not be likely to to accept employment unless there are other benefits that would be applicable to non-child employees. Offering 26 weeks of leave for having a child is meaningless to me, and will not entice me to join Etsy as an employee, and unless there is something to counter balance it will actively deter my willingness to work for them
>In short, your argument seems rather egocentric
Employment is egocentric, no one works for the "good of humanity" every one works to support themselves. People may find other reasons and motivations with in the employment, but very few would continue working for their employer under a "I won the lottery" situation.
People accrue time off, that time off can be used for anything, Illness, or just because you are having a bad day.
>take extended leave
Most companies do not offer "extended paid leave" for illness either, that would be covered under your healh insurance, unemployment, or some other supplemental insurance policy (aka AFLAC). FMLA requires a company give you unpaid extended leave for illness, not paid.
One would hope that in a modern society, most people choose to have children, although it is true that sometimes becoming a parent can happen outside the realm of choice. Even then, though, the comparison falls down, as extended leave due to sickness is usually covered by disability insurance rather than by employers. Company policies cannot possibly cover every life circumstance but one hopes that over time companies who value their employees offer (fair) policies that make work a little more compatible with the common circumstances of life that tend to be out of the control of employees.
Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. Choosing to have a dog (or not) and choosing to have a child (or not) are life choices about time and money investments in taking care of another being, and in the right circumstances they are choices! I imagine a company with a puppy leave policy (however absurd on the surface) would cause jealousy in coworkers who choose to have children, instead. And, rightfully so!
One can not "pause" parentship, it is true. But one can and should choose parentship in most circumstances, and one should not expect an employer to provide special relief from all its obligations, financial/time/otherwise. Employers should instead provide adequate comp and leave to all its employees, regardless of their life choices.
It is ultimately about fairness and a rule that says employees deserve what they earn and don't get unreasonably special treatment for choices that are, frankly, none of the company's business.
The Motley Fool has a "pet-ternity" leave policy. I believe it's a week or two when you get a new pet.
Children is not a puppy.
And some companies have dog friendly policy. There is also a leave for weddings, funerals, menstruation... It is another perk offered by company to its employees. I dont play ping-pong or dring free soda, should I be offended if company does offer that?
Not having children is arbitrary choice. One has to suppress natural instincts and put lot of effort into contraception.
Etsy is on free market, and it does its best to atract employees. Some choose parental leave, because it means they will not have to quit their jobs in few years. Some others will choose different company with more money.
Plus this is great way to increase diversity and attract more women. People do not care about bullshit like microagressions, but parental leave is a strong factor.
And finally 6 months parental paid leave might sounds extraordinary, but it is not unusual in other countries. Even Czech Republic has 28 weeks paid and 3 years unpaid leave.
Bob may not have children, but does have an elderly parent with dementia that he cares for, and that means he sometimes needs time off with little notice.
Or Bob breaks an arm and wants to know he's not going to lose his job. Or worse his arm is amputated, and he wants to onow his company is goingto make an effort with reasonable adjustments.
They're also not really equivalent, they're not elective, child rearing is. I get that propagation of the species is a common life activity and it's reasonable for it to have special benefits. The U.S. should have a paid family leave law for it. Still, it would be nice to have something for life's other pursuits.
You might want to ask disabled people[1] about their experiences of being discriminated against despite the presence of these laws.
[1] or people with caring responsibilities, or people who need sick leave, or etc.
There's a difference between "we follow the letter of the law, doing the bare minimum we can get away with" and "we follow the spirit of the law, going above and beyond what we're required to do".
We call it a "sabbatical", and it is five weeks of paid leave, meant to be used all at once after 4 years at the company, or used early by parents when they have children.
The Etsy policy of 26 weeks is certainly generous but honestly quite difficult for a small startup to offer. A big company like Etsy has a much smaller probability that several people on leave at the same time means an "entire department" is no longer staffed, whereas that would be a real possibility on our small team. We want to be fair to parents and non-parents alike, but we have to keep the lights on!
Children are a known hardship, but you don't really see it because it happens at your co-worker's homes and it's deemed unprofessional to talk about it at the office. Also, it sometimes appears to be rewarding. Trust me, we're not cheating the system, you shouldn't be jealous. Every other country in the world has this "perk" baked into their laws of government. But because the US is so pro-corporation only something that is necessary to treat workers with respect gets lumped into the "perk" category with your free fitbit and monthly massages.
A handicapped parking spot is an accommodation to help compensate for a disability. It is not comparable to having a child.
> What about co-workers who are addicted to cigarettes and get to take smoke breaks?
You don't have to smoke to take breaks. Companies don't offer exclusive breaks for smokers anymore.
As a contrast, in Canada maternity/parental leave is baked in to every job. See http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/maternity_parental.page#... It's not perfect (there's a cap on how much money it will pay), but it's universal. There's 35 weeks, and it can be divided between mother and father however the family sees fit.
I am shocked that there isn't a nationwide policy for this in the US :-(
Generally here the mother gets 18 weeks, the father 5 and there's a further 32 weeks to share between the two as the parents see fit. There's similar benefits for adoption and I don't remember the rules for LGBT couples but there are some.
There's also an alternate schedule that trades less weeks for a larger fraction of the pre-leave salary.
I wish I had worked here when my little ones were born. My employer at the time (a multi-national software company in the bay area) offered leave in CA but those living elsewhere got nothing besides FMLA (meaning only women and only six paid weeks, along with burning all vacation time). Being the dad I got nothing.
A Step forward in Parental Leave, a Step backwards for equality... Equality is treating everyone the same.. Giving one group 26 weeks paid leave for their life choice (having kids) while not giving the same 26 weeks paid leave to their childless employees is unequal treatment...
I have never understood why I, a person that has chosen not to have children, should have to work harder, longer, for the same money has people that choose to have children
A business hires you do to a job, if your life choices interfere with your ability to do your job you should not be rewarded with time off.
>For the same reason some of your taxes go to schools and, at least here in Germany, pay for child benefits.
I believe taxation is theft, and parents should pay for their children to go to school.
Business and others may volunteer their money to non-profits, and other endeavors that also have to goal of educating children but that support should be fully voluntary not done by government force/violence.
Taxation is the involuntary taking of a persons property, money or labor by government
simply adding "by government" does not magically transform it into something other than theft...
Allow me to quote one of my favorite political philosophers
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful." --Lysander Spooner
Further to believe that Statism, Violence Statism via involuntary taxation at that, is the only way to have a organized and functional society is just ignorant
I am sure you believe Libertarianism is Dangerous
What else should tax money be used for then? Why is the US thinking that way?
Where do you draw the line? Why should the government no care for me in my 20's or 30's or 40's
Should I get free food, free shelter, free TV's, Free iPhones?
I do not believe the government should provide anything to anyone. Nor do I believe I should be taxed simply because I am alive.
>Why is the US thinking that way?
A Culture of Rugged Individualism, combines with rightful distrust of the government
Statism has killed more people than any other form of government ever devised by humans. While causing untold suffering.
If the government should not provide anything, why should there be a government? You get taxed because the government provides something for you and the provided services need to get paid. I doubt you want to live in total anarchy without police, firemen or a working sewerage for example.
Why indeed...
>You get taxed because the government provides something for you and the provided services need to get paid.
To the extent I want or need those services I will be happy to pay for them individually like I do anything else. If the services government provides me are desired than I should be free to choose to pay for them and if I do not then I would not be able to take advantage of said services.
>I doubt you want to live in total anarchy without police, firemen or a working sewerage for example.
My Fire dept is all Volunteer funded by donations from the community, it gets very little to no tax money. I believe taxes may have paid for the fire truck, but that money could have been raised with out taxes.
I have a septic tank, no government sewer service, but even if I did every city near me has private run water and sewer services that are paid for by the people connected to them not by tax dollars
Police is the only service on your list that is actually paid for by tax dollars, that makes up about .000000000000000000000000000001% of my tax bill, if the police want to send me a bill for their service I will be happy to pay it directly and not have the rest of the government burden.
The population problem is a result of some people having too many children. As child mortality decreases we will most likely see a decrease in very large families as well.
Rich countries which offer "free" (payed with taxes) social cares like Germany suffer from too many old people and too few children. So you have to offer more benefits for young families to get more children.
If you develop a social security net in poorer countries maybe families will start to get fewer children, because the state will care for you with no exception.
A Business is an amoral human construct to be a vehicle for profit making for its owners.
That is very insightful, you have convinced me to completely change my entire world view...
>Businesses hire humans, not robots.
1. Some of those humans have children, some do not, as I believe I stated in my post
2. For now they hire humans...
As to the bullshit notation that if you do not take 26 weeks off to "nurture" your child they will grow up to be unbalanced individuals, I would like you to cite some research that shows that? I have a feeling most of the people reading this right now grew up with both parents workings full time during their infancy, I know I did. Are we all unbalanced because our parents did not take 26 weeks off after we were born?