I'm not trying to move goalposts. My point is that parents get a special privilege that people with similarly charitable obligations wouldn't. If I wanted to do something undeniably good for society that is NOT rearing children, my employer wouldn't let me off the hook without a pay cut.
Funny how we all seem to have just implicitly accepted that any people having any number of children under any circumstances is “undeniably good for society.”
Funny, how those that don't have children most likely do expect to have their pensions paid for by the children of the people that do have children.
No, we do not expect to have pensions.
Maybe instead of focusing on parents getting some flexibility that you don't you should drop that completely and only make the argument that everyone (parents included) should be given leeway by employers to have flexibility when it comes to contributing to the public versus a private organization.
That's exactly the argument I have made, but perhaps it was under a different branch. I get a bit confused by the flow of conversation on HN.
What if you joined the national guard I’m pretty sure they would. Why don’t you try it and see
Making accommodation rules is hard. There's a lot more parents than there are firefighters. Maybe it makes sense to have a one off rule for parents.
I've worked for several companies that offered paid time off for volunteering. (With plenty of conditions and limits, of course.)