Hacker News Reader

Comment by cprayingmantis | Hacker News Reader

I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.

View on HN

Well right now my wife (who is a stay at home mom) is seven months pregnant and I’m looking for a job. If this was mandated at any of the companies I was applying to I’d be guaranteed to not get hired. I don’t want 12 weeks, and it’s not like this baby is a surprise.

Other than perhaps through social media (one more reason to consider "going dark" while job hunting, I suppose), how would any potential employer know your wife was expecting?

>If this was mandated at any of the companies I was applying to I’d be guaranteed to not get hired.

Why would you disclose your wife's pregnancy?

All potential employers have illegal hiring practices?

In case you don’t know, it’s illegal for them to ask and you have no duty to disclose it. You don’t even need to tell them you are married.

==I’d be guaranteed to not get hired.==

Flat out false. My wife got a new job while 7 months pregnant. When she had the baby, she took 8 weeks off, I start my 4 week paternity leave soon and everyone is happy.

I had a coworker do that and it worked out great. I always avoid talking about my kid other then to acknowledge I have kids.

It is really a stratified world in that regard and I am lucky. My employer (large, non-US based tech company) not only offers paternity leave, but actively encourages it's use.

Sadly, even a lot of workplaces that "offer" this type of benefit have a culture where it hurts your career to use it. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world gets along just fine with universal leave.

You should publicly name both of your employers as that is rare and noteworthy.

Same happened at the first company I worked full time at... Woman came in for her interview, 7 months pregnant, and was hired. She was a great hire for the company, and stayed about as long as I did (6 or 7 years)... We definitely would have been worse off if we were short-sighted enough to not hire her just because of that.

During training I underwent at Bigcorp about how to run an interview, this was one of the things we were explicitly told not to ask about in any way shape or form.

We were located in one of the best school districts in the area - we could mention that fact, but we could not ask if they had kids or were planning to have kids or expected kids. Nothing about kids.

At my current job ( in Germany where parental leave is mandated ) i had collagues write there parental leave application (you have to apply, but your employer is not allowed to deny it) on their first day. They where open about it in the interview and most fathers take 2 months off.

Just think what could be accomplished if software engineers unionized. If all the SREs at amazon went on strike for 6 hours, the world would descent into chaos. I really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.

The other reply to this comment is why software engineers don't unionize. Many think they're better off without a union, but a large number go even further and are adamantly opposed to the existence of unions

they'd prbly be against h1b first.

Sinking the world into chaos might not be palatable to enough people.

If it were, would they be the kind of people you want changing the world?

This sounds similar to the opinion that protesters should protest out of the way and not cause any disruptions.

Then let the record note I subscribe to no such opinion, lest readers over-infer ill will.

Just saw a “why” and thought I’d contribute.

I already pay enough in taxes, the idea of union fees on top of that is revolting

>I really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.

Have you tried talking to such anti-union programmers/engineers?

I've seen both good and bad unions, so I'm fairly neutral on the topic, but some things to ponder over:

In a previous job, I would occasionally stay a little late to work on performance improvements (automating the workflow, improving tools, etc). I usually did it without management's permission - just on my own. They'd hear about it once I was ready to tell them.

Some of my coworkers were against this, for a variety of reasons, including the fear that my work would raise the bar. I strongly suspect that if they were unionized, they'd find a way to make sure I don't do this type of work.

Many SW folks do worry that unionizing will bring their productivity down to the median, and will make it harder for job growth. They don't want to be held back by a union.

(I wasn't even doing this to get ahead of them (I was paid about the median, and some who opposed were a full grade level above me). I just got sick of crappy in-house tools.)

Beyond that, there are the "usual" reasons: Unions can become quite political, and they can use as many dirty tactics/propaganda/misinformation with their own people as the company they work for can/does. Their conformity tactics can get nasty as well. My wife has a union job and the union is considering a strike. Plenty of attempts to silence/shame anti-strike voices from within the union. The paranoia within the union is quite high. Who amongst us is a spy for the employer? Stuff like that.

Unions can really increase the drama at a work place.

Again, I'm listing the negative examples. Not all unions are like this. I suspect, though, that unless the union actively guards against these, this will be the normal evolution of a union.

> I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.

Not just any company; Microsoft, a huge multinational.

If its a positive change, it is warranted. The first year of a child is very important for the connection with his or her parents. [1] Also, the first 3 months are very hectic (our baby is half a year now so I can attest). With paternity leave a father can support both the baby and his/her mother. So it is a win-win for men and women (and, in a way, feminism).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder

Eh, can't really have the latter if a supplier is also a mega-corporation. You don't need to be a household name in order to be a market leader

The end of shareholder primacy can't come soon enough, it's one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century.

Yeah before shareholders people were doing so much better as working for someone else.

Especially if you purposefully ignore the middleground (1930-1980) when shareholders existed but labor also held significant power. Lots of people remember this, it was the post-War boom we continually hear people longing for.

I believe the comment was about the idea of enhancing shareholder value which has been the dominant philosophy since about 1980. Notably, wages have stagnated since 1980 [1].

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Real_GDP,_Real_Wages...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com