Some of my colleagues bring kids to work whenever we have OT on Saturdays. It’s fine to have 2-3 kids around but when it comes to 10-12 kids, it’s noisy…The kids love playing with office items like stickers, envelops, pencils, etc… so we always leave them in a big meeting room with a lot of stationaries. As long as they don’t run around, it’s ok…
Maybe the kid has more of his mother’s gene. Some nice guys end up with bad girls because they are too nice. …
Our receptionist returned from maternity leave and requested to work from home. That was a big WTF moment? What good does a receptionist working from home do for us?
I’ve been a critic of maternity/paternity leave. But now that I am expected twins (first time dad), I can definitely see the value in a generous maternity/paternity leave policy. Unfortunately, I think it is often abused. We have had several women take maternity leave with the intention of returning to work, only to change their mind at the end of their leave. Meanwhile, we had to train a temp who we probably won’t retain, leaving us the burden of training another permanent employee.
The US really is in the stone age on this stuff. I guess women are just a liability and attracting top female talent isn’t a priority. No wonder the gender gap is so big down there. So much underutilized talent.
This is a positive progressive attitude. My wife is a professional and I hope she experiences attitudes more in line with yours than Greenie, who seems to believe everyone is a liability. I agree on the paternity leave piece. I took all six weeks of my vacation and six additional weeks unpaid when my son was born. I was really lucky to have the ability to do so and it made a big difference for me and my wife. I can’t imagine the folks that are back in a week. How do they manage?
Women are less likely to work more than 40 hours a week; take less risky (and therefore lower paying) jobs; leave to have kids and have less work experience than their male counterparts when they return; and often look for other, less demanding, jobs if/when they do return to the workforce after having a kid.
For single women with no kids, women make 92% of what men do in the same jobs. Still a wage gap, but it’s not nearly as bad as some make it out to be, and there are obvious reasons for it. One source.
Compare this to my buddy that lives in Austria and he gets over a year of paternity leave. WTF kind of sense does that make?
^ Such leaves are generally paid out of employment insurance schemes (state paid). He being on leave means an unemployed guy gets to temp, so the net effect on a country’s finances is small, dad/mom gets to stay home and the company is not materially disadvantaged. Its just Americans that can’t grasp this in the developed world.
If my wife has a kid, there is a 50% chance she will drop out of the work force. However there is a much smaller chance (maybe 2%) that I will drop out of the workforce. All else equal, this justifies the wage gap. Both of us are highly educated and our respective companies will have to take a considerable expense to find replacements. If you were making a market on the present value of work contributions, you would be a fool to assign equal odds to the male and female employee, particularly in high paying jobs where one spouse can afford to drop out of the labor force. While I do not think that we should arbitrarily discriminate in the work place on the basis of gender, this is just the way things are.
The cause of this condition is largely irrelevant to employers, who must just pay for the value of the employee. The wage gap is unfortunate, but it is largely justified.
^ Despite my support of maternity leave, I do agree with this.
Looking at it from a professional development standpoint, it’s a horrible policy for my buddy. Being out of the workforce for a year (and it turned into over two years when they had their second baby before his first paternity leave was up) isn’t good for any worker. The guys that were his peers have likely advanced, or at least gained valuable experience that will pay dividends in the future. All else equal, my buddy doesn’t deserve the same wage as someone else in a similar role that’s been their two extra years.
Now, if that time off is worth is to him, then that’s great. But that doesn’t mean he deserves the same pay as someone that didn’t take a two year break.
Which means paid by taxes, either on the employee or employer. No such thing as a free lunch.
I too agree with ohai, but I’d also add on the fact that people are going to have kids regardless. With our current demographic profile in the US, I don’t think we need to incentivize having kids by offering rich maternity benefits. People want to have kids, let them have kids and figure out the cost on their own, IMO. Don’t socialize the cost of it.
I have 2 sons. Given the choice to stay home with them with pay for the next 4 months or come in here, I know what I’m picking. I lost my job 6 weeks after my wife had our youngest, and I spent about 3 months as the primary caretaker for a 3 year old and an infant. The only good thing about going back to work was that I felt like I was actually contributing.
We already socialize the cost of people’s children via public school. We need to have a middle ground it can’t be pay your own way 100% of the time.
You didn’t read my full post. There is very little net impact on employment insurance premiums from maternity leaves. Its not really subsidised at all. The mat leave provides an opening for someone else already unemployed. Its a net game. As a government, I’d rather have smart people off having kids than a guy sitting unemployed and creating the need to bring in immigrants to support population levels.
Is it your experience that temps are hired to fill in for people on leave? The norm in my offices has been that everyone else just works some amount harder.
Same experience asTTM, everybody either has a significant increase in workload or we hire some useless temp/intern and have an increase in workload anyway.
That’s because leaves are so short in the US, no time for a temp. Here there is almost always a temp or contractor brought in as leaves are a year. The company then also has a temp they’ve tried out for awhile and can bring in cheap if they like them after the leave, lowering recruitment costs.
+3. Same here, especially in the research roles and even in our UK offices. There is simply too high of a learning curve to bring somebody on for a limited time, even a year is a limited time. Everybody else just pulls the extra weight or the work just doesn’t get done. Usually some half way point. Sometimes they’ll pull somebody from a different group if they absolutely need another body.
In theory, geo it should be a close to net zero cost, but I’m unsure it is in actuality.
Yes - in theory - socialism works very well.
I’m not saying the cost is zero, its just not a big cost. Does anyone think the productivity at work is going to be high for a new mother with a three month old at home anyway?