So you were perfectly content with going to work the next day after your son was born?
But the thing is, people are going to have kids regardless of their employer’s policies. See the desire for people to have kids that you mentioned… If we needed to incentivize people to have kids, sure employers would maybe do that (if paid in part by the government). But since we are not at much of a risk of running out of people to run our society, if anything maybe we have too many people. I had a thread about this not too long ago. Therefore, why would companies pay for stuff they don’t get an explicit benefit out of? Part of it’s employee benefits and retention, but when most companies have similar packages there isn’t necessarly a benefit to having richer maternity/paternity benefits…
We get a week of paternity leave that doesn’t count against our PTO.
No, but we have a September 15 deadline and stuff’s gotta get done.
And my company treats me well. Just not 18 days before the worst deadline of the year.
The point is–if we don’t get our stuff done, then our customers will leave, but our bills (payroll, electricity, rent, property taxes) will stay. Eventually, we run out of cash. Then we can work for free (you know, for the benefit of society and all), or we can go to the unemployment line.
And if enough companies do this, then we have Greece. Or Portugal. Or Iceland. Or Italy. Or Spain. Or any of those other socialist countries that are trying to stay afloat right now.
Or Detroit. Or California. We can probably go on and on for a long time.
Sad but true. Companies do focus on explicit and mostly short term benefits only.
I’m not sure how paying people NOT to work is a benefit even in the long run.
@ Greenie, why do you keep referencing paying people NOT to work? I think earlier you had even mentioned this for up to a one year period.
Not sure about the rules in TX, but I know in my state that a mother receives 6 weeks of disability pay (which is less than her normal paycheck), and I believe the FMLA only covers a 12 week period (this does not include comp, only assures that your job will still be there 3 months later).
There’s a difference between INSURANCE, which you (or more likely, your employer) pay for, and a paycheck that your employer continues to pay you, or is paid to you buy the taxpayers. And FMLA doesn’t give you pay at all. It just ensures that you can get your old job back.
Don’t confuse the two. That’s not even an apples and oranges comparison. It’s more like an apples to orangutans comparison.
Where did I get a year? In Sweden, you get 16 months of leave at 80% pay, shared by the employer and the government. The dad apparently gets 2 months of the 16.
I used a week’s vacation after each of my kids were born and did a couple of hours work each day while they were sleeping. It really wasn’t that big of a deal because I get five weeks of vacation that I can’t use anyway, but if I even thought of using a couple of weeks of the unpaid FLA time I would be in trouble. Both my kids were scheduled C-sections, so I was able to manage expectations fairly well. Almost without exception though, when I mentioned to a client that I would be out because my wife was having a baby, the client would congratulate me and then ask if it would affect the timing of their engagement.
In fairness to my employer, they are very fair and flexible for the most part. They’ve allowed me to work remotely for 3-4 weeks at a time on several occassions so my wife and I could spend time with her family in South America and will be doing so again this Christmas.
women are naturally better in other things like sales customer service and anything communications related, so i’m not surprised there are very few women who work in finance in Japan.
There are exceptions of course, but in general, you see more women in client services than men because women are better at speaking, languages, empathy, etc. these skills are underused in a finance environment.
in the topic of motherhood, i think there are always going to be sacrifaces. like professional athletes, very few can return to their status after giving birth, and the women know well in advance and they are willign to make that sacrafice to raise a family.
in other situations where motherhood is not as directly related to the job, i think it’s still affecting your job indirectly because the society is still expecting the mother to be the prime carer for the children, you don’t see as many fathers going to schools picking up the kids as mothers, even if they are both working. or going to teach parent meetings, concerts, school activities, etc.
so in a way, as a woman, i always have to think about how much i am willing to sacrifice being having a child. it’s not “fair” but it’s human nature (until scientists can find a way for men to give birth).
I actually have been thinking that certain parts of finance select for people that have either obsessive-compulsive disorders, or other kinds of sociopathic characteristics.
People often say that the best traders and investors can do what is in their rational self-interest without letting their emotions get in the way. It’s thus not that surprising that they go home and don’t let their emotions affect their personal relationships. It’s then not surprising that friends often find them perhaps a bit selfish and their partners find them distant and not particularly attached to their families.
Mind you, I’m not saying that if you are in finance, you therefore act that way; what I am saying is “if you’re the sort of person who acts that way,” you might end up doing well in finance.
I suspect a large portion of the best traders and investors in the world may actually be mildly autistic.
it certainly takes a specific character to work 18 hours a day to cover 3 different markets and work around the clock…
most people wouldn’t find that exciting or interesting after one day.
i admire people who can do it, but i am not one of them.
Whether they’re better or worse, I’ll tell you how it is. Women are used to set up the sale and men close the business. The decision makers in large financial institutions are still overwhelmingly male, so when you need to get your foot in the door a pretty lady is a great ice breaker. Of course, she has to be smart and savvy or they’d quickly lose interest, but their looks really help women out. However, when it comes time to actually give us money, the decision makers want to talk to another man.
We all have our roles to play.
^Word, STL. Right, wrong, or indifferent, men like to talk to other men.
I don’t mean financial product sales specifically, but just sales in general, like retail, etc.
i think in *most* cases, men prefer female sales, and women also prefer female sales. There is something about female’s tone or patience that is more calming and reassuring.
in finance, though, i agree, it’s pretty much a man’s world.
Or Vancouver either, I saw some complete smoke shows sitting for the test. But they were surrounded by seas of nerdy overachieving and unattractive asians( which is actually the norm for any part of the city, lol).
You’re a chubby dude from backwards country as a chicken coop Texas, I wouldn’t expect the cohort you associate with to be any different from what you described.
Elsewhere society is different.
I certainly agree with this and I think its demonstrated quite clearly on this board as well.
Disagree, two of the biggest rain makers in my division are women and neither actually do the work of soliciting new business and they are both over 35. They are just extremely persistent, know how to manage relationships and close customers.