I don’t know how to respond to the opportunity comment, I’m not sure I understand your point.
EDIT: added a comma
I don’t know how to respond to the opportunity comment, I’m not sure I understand your point.
EDIT: added a comma
To the opportunity comment, I thought it was evident, but maybe a thought experiment will be helpful. Let's pretend your company announces a new policy tomorrow - everyone who eats meat at the cafeteria next week gets Friday off. There are cheers around the office at this announcement because hey, Friday off! Except that you're vegan and don't want anything to do with meat for a variety of reasons. Your coworkers look at you and say, "Hey why aren't you happy about this?" You try to explain to them that you're vegan and so you won't get Friday off and this seems like kind of an unfair policy, but your coworkers just brush off your comments and say, "Well look, it's not like you can't eat meat. You've got the same opportunity as everyone else here - eat the meat and get Friday off, so what's the big deal? Just be a team player and support the rest of us."
Just because an opportunity exists that is technically available to everyone doesn't mean it's actually a fair opportunity or that the outcome of it is equal for everyone.
I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live the extended sick leave would be paid by the government, which would leave the company with funds to find a temporary replacement or increase compensation for people who pick up the slack.
Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave.
Yet that's typically the case in the US. Large companies typically have short-term disability and long-term disability as part of their benefits plans.
Added: From the government side, there is Social Security disability.
I'm not saying that parents should not be given benefits but they should be applied to all employees. Singles are going through depression and would benefit from taking time off to visit their family.
The other part of this discussion that gets left out is state vs. company responsibility. In the US, the state has generally failed when it comes to supporting parents, so people have turned to companies to fill the gap. However, it's not clear to me why companies should be the ones to do that. The state needs children and eventually benefits from them. Companies do not.
You seem pretty hostile to people having children, why is that?
> I would of course not begrudge a coworker for taking time off to deal with cancer, for example, but when you decide you want kids? That's a different story.
And to be clear, most people, when deciding to have children, assume various things - for example, they assume that there is an education system in place to help shoulder some of the childcare burdens. This is part of what people's taxes are going towards - and many parents also privately spend money on additional/alternative day care.
No one could predict such an unprecedented and global catastrophe that makes all of that unavailable.
(This is part of why we all pay for public education)
Overrule companies vacation policy and give all parents extra PTO?
Your metaphor is not at all similar to the real situation parents find themselves in. It's not "oh here, some people who eat meat gets Friday off". It's closer to "because of a situation outside of the company, anybody who ate meat in the last year has to do 2x as many work hours, and no longer has any time off, so in recognition of this, we're going to try and balance this out by giving them certain benefits".
That is the situation parents find themselves in, at least parents of young children.
You seem to be looking at this as a pure benefit to parents. It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem.
... at the cost of employees that are not parents who have to work more.
Don't adjust the schedule. Increase the pay for anyone who works more.