Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaur | Hacker News Reader

Yet again, people who have family responsibilities through no fault of their own (e.g., taking care of a sick parent or sibling) are ignored while companies fawn over people who (largely) choose to pop out more mouths to feed. I'm not saying parental leave is bad, but it's entirely eclipsed the other reasons why someone might need to take time off work to help family.

Saying "I want 20 weeks paid leave and $35,000 to provide hospice care for my brother" would probably result in derision and maybe a pink slip at many companies, even ones that have generous parental leave.

View on HN

> people who (largely) choose to pop out more mouths to feed.

I don't disagree with your larger point, but this statement is just incorrect as a matter of economics. Your average American child born today is going to contribute a net surplus to the economy over his or her lifetime. There may come a time when robots do all the work, and human labor costs more to raise and sustain than it adds in dollar-denominated output. We are a long way from that (and we may never get there, depending on what happens in the future with AI).

> people who have family responsibilities through no fault of their own ... are ignored while companies fawn over people who (largely) choose to pop out more mouths to feed.

This is really a regrettable choice of words. There is no "fault" involved in becoming a parent. The point you are trying to get across could have been communicated so much more convincingly if you had checked your attitude. "This is a great first step, but many of us have responsibilities to other family members, also -- sick or disabled parents or siblings, for instance. It would be terrific to see benefits that support those needs as well."

EDIT: It has been (correctly) pointed out that my translation was lossy; I dropped the fact that no one chooses to have a sick sibling, and thus it might be even worthier of compensation / support than parenthood. That was unintentional, and I regret it. I still think there's a less caustic, more productive way to make that point.

Pretty sure part of the point they were conveying was the irritation with society willing to do things for 'think of the children' but not willing to extend those same things to those in basically the same situation but who are not children.

So no, it could not be made by choosing words that would not offend your delicate sensibilities.

A key point that I was making (and a point which your rewriting of my comment completely erases) is that parenthood can be planned ahead for (or avoided) to a much greater degree than other situations that require family leave. I could have made some anodyne choice of words that obscures this fact, but I didn't because I wanted to make the point that if we are giving people support for voluntarily taking on extra family burdens, then it's absolutely inexcusable that we don't extend the same support to people who have had similar burdens thrust upon them involuntarily.

When setting parental leave policy at my company, I suggested making it available for any FMLA(1) suitable absence. This seems to be the most fair way to go about it.

(1) FMLA = Family and Medical Leave Act, a US law requiring employers to offer unpaid leave and hold jobs open for employees who have to be out for an extended period for medical reasons or to care for a family member.

> Saying "I want 20 weeks paid leave and $35,000 to provide hospice care for my brother" would probably result in derision and maybe a pink slip at many companies, even ones that have generous parental leave.

Well, that's bad! But I'm not sure why the solution should be to discontinue offering parental leave.

> I'm not sure why the solution should be to discontinue offering parental leave.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm suggesting that solution. In fact, I explicitly said "I'm not saying parental leave is bad".

Well, what solution would you suggest?

Policies that encompass parental leave as well as more general family leave situations, obviously.

Are you familiar with the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...

I am not saying it will satisfy all your concerns. It is just my experience (having worked in an HR department a while back) that most people are not familiar with what is in there. It doesn't provide mandatory pay, but it does provide a lot of protections other than that. I also find a common reaction to it is to assert that it should do more, but when faced with the question of what to do when people start deliberately gaming it, the objections become a bit more muted. (Yes, in some sense it sucks that there's a condition on how long you've been employed before it kicks in, but it's quite unclear what the alternative is that would work in the real world.)

Might have something to do with the way you express it: « [..] choose to pop out more mouths to feed. »

Cool, then we agree: extended parental leave is good.

In terms of policy, anyone can provide hospice care with a similar outcome, but that's not true of parenting.

Exactly. Parenting has significant impact on a child's development that cannot be replaced by nannying or daycare. The same can't be said for other types of care.

As a parent and also someone with family members in hospice care, the problem is that the good quality care is prohibitively expensive for many, many people. People don't want to take time off to care for their loved ones just because, but because they can provide much, much better care at a lower cost.

Prohibitive medical and care costs are policy issues, that can be solved by many different methods, not necessarily requiring the same approach as parental leave.

The difference is that children start dependent on others hand and foot.

Adults have savings, insurance, sick leave, government unemployment benefits, government disability benefits, etc. Or at least they can. There's a lot more grey area on what's necessary.

In general, different sorts of laws cover care of a relative. Besides, it would be the same sort of leave as if your child is sick.

In this case, it is more of a health issue (for women). They just gave birth. To a new human. It hurt, and people die from it. And afterwards, the infant has special needs for a while. This truly isn't the same as taking care of an elderly parent or a sibling.

People with kids are less likely to leave your company. So a company making it financially easier to become more tied down and less likely to leave is just good business sense.

I really wish more SV companies felt this way, instead of just hiring the cheapest fresh grads they can find.

Why would you assume that? In Canada and most of Europe the same system pays for both these types of care. Neither have any real negative affects on companies because:

1. All ee's have the same payroll tax rate, regardless.

2. All companies are subject to the same limitations of the leaves.

Parental care is more popular because it affects more people overall, but compassionate care will likely grow as boomers age.

(I have no idea how this comment struck such a nerve... all it does is point out that compassionate care leaves are also the norm for the first world. It seems some people are really wedded to their ideology, even here.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com