Facebook Expands Parental Leave Policy For All Employees Globally (mashable.com) 130
Reuters reports that Mark Zuckerberg's not the only Facebook employee who will enjoy a nice chunk of time off to spend with a new baby; the company is expanding its parental leave policy (and posting on Facebook about it). The benefit includes up to four months of paid leave, to all full-time employees, including those outside the U.S., regardless of sex, within a new child's first year. That means that new parents of either sex will be allowed to take a longer absence; previously, non-U.S. employees who were not primary caregivers were granted four weeks of leave. From the Reuters story: [Facebook HR head Lori Matloff] Goler said the new policy will primarily help new fathers and employees in same-sex relationships outside the United States, noting that it will not change maternity leave already available to employees worldwide. ... Technology companies in Silicon Valley have been rushing to extend parental leave allowances and other benefits to help recruit and retain employees. Many high-tech workers, however, do not take advantage of such benefits for fear of falling behind at work or missing out on promotions.
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)
Quite the other way around, most of Europe has extensive parental leave provisions by law. In a nutshell, for most of Europe, Zuck can take his 4 months and stick 'em.
Re: (Score:1)
Table of European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I am from Estonia. We have 20 + 62 weeks (1.5 years) of paternal leave, fully paid by the state to the equivalent of your income before the birth of the child. There are some discussions about the fairness of this systems - why should parents with higher income be paid more for getting a child? However, nobody questions the system itself - long parental leaves are good for the soc
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the other way around, most of Europe has extensive parental leave provisions by law. In a nutshell, for most of Europe, Zuck can take his 4 months and stick 'em.
Ditto for Canada's Quebec province.
Re: (Score:1)
Unpaid leave is no leave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not working, so why should your employer pay you?
Now you're making it as if in Europe governments force companies to pay you while you are on a paternity leave. You get paid by health or social insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)
which causes those insurances to go up in cost for everyone, even those not having kids.
Exactly, but there is consensus in most of the societies that kids are a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's known as being pro-life, unlike some Americans, who think "pro-life" means terrorist attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics and shooting cops.
Re: (Score:2)
my costs should not rise based on the decisions of others. Risk share all you want between others having kids, im not, so keep me out of it
Re: (Score:1)
Good that you are not working in germany, so the chance that I run into you anti social anti human asshole is basically zero
Re: (Score:2)
how very friendly of you....
Re: (Score:2)
So I point out that you are an anti social asshole, and you feel insulted?
Did I hit a nerve?
Re: (Score:3)
So when the police said that the shooter mentioned "baby parts" it was because he was at the local bank trying to withdraw baby parts?
And the propane tanks he carried into the Planned Parenthood were going to be used for his camp stove?
Jesus, man. Will you really twist yourself into a pretzel rationalizing terrorism just because you share
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, why does he choose to debate the motive of a terrorist? Is he as charitable when it comes to terrorism committed by radical muslims?
You know the answer already.
Re: (Score:2)
PP states that no one hurt was an employee or patient.
media reports say that an issue took place next door or across the street before he barricaded himself inside.
Not sure why you are bringing in things that have nothing to do with the case at hand. I only like to discuss single issues at a time, not get all muddied by trying to link 40 different events that have no relation to each other. When an incident happens it should be discussed as
Re: Bias? (Score:2)
Since all social programs like social security are pay as you go, who do you think is going to be working and funding Social Security and Medicare when you stop working?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you think there will be social security when we retire? (im under 30) doubt it
Social Security trust fund is solvent till ~2035 given current input percentages and projected workforce makeup .
What's likely is that GOP and corporate-licking Dems will both agree to fuck you over in the meanwhile and do something shitty like raise retirement age, or twist verbiage to deny COLA despite constant hikes in non-core inflation rate (why would energy - read gas - and healthcare costs not be "core inflation"?).
So you may be right, you may not have a meaningful Social Security when you retire. B
Re: (Score:2)
my costs should not rise based on the decisions of others
Tough, and PS, welcome to sharing a planet with other humans. If you ever interact with another human ever, even indirectly[*] then your costs are going to be affected by decisions other people make. That is completely unavoidable.
[*] I mean REALLY indirectly. If someone comes and cuts down the trees near your cave for firewood, your costs have gone up as you're going to have to travel further to make wood. I say cave because it would be quite hard to
Re: (Score:1)
Having any insurance at all is paying for the decisions of others. Or being paid by others for your decisions.
Leaving work: CH example (Score:2)
which causes those insurances to go up in cost for everyone, even those not having kids.
In some countries - like Switzerland - the same social insurance is paying other reasons to leave work:
- military duty (it's one of the last country to have compulsory military service - young men are forced by law to leave work ~1 month each year during ~10 years. insurance covers the salary during this time)
- alternatives to military duty
- some other public service (e.g.: some trainings from the national sport organisation)
In that perspective, raising kids is seen by the current law as one of the differen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and of course, part-time and/or contract staff, such as janitors, kitchen helpers, etc, can suck the Zuck as well.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't the policy before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like Zuck made a mistake talking about his own leave, and caused some complaints in the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Zuck made a mistake talking about his own leave, and caused some complaints in the company.
His own 2 months of leave when his US based employees already got 4 ?
No. I think that FB got good publicity from this and decided that more of a good thing is, in fact, a good thing.
News for Facebook employees (Score:2)
Why would non-Facebook employees be interested in this at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Because -- given the tech talent crunch -- tech companies are competing for talent. One way they do that is by providing more aggressive benefits. This means that as large name-brand companies change their benefits (such as parental leave) for the better, other companies are likely to follow.
And I speak here as someone who works at Netflix, which went public with "do what makes sense for you and we'll cover you for a year after your child's birth or adoption" a few months ago.
In short: Facebook doing it w
Re: (Score:2)
Because -- given the tech talent crunch -- tech companies are competing for talent. One way they do that is by providing more aggressive benefits. This means that as large name-brand companies change their benefits (such as parental leave) for the better, other companies are likely to follow.
It's all public relations bullshit.
If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. Or, it means someone else is will have to work harder (with no extra pay) to make up for your absence
Re: (Score:3)
That's why God made temporary workers. If the absence of one employee means "someone else will have to work harder", then companies need to examine their staffing strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. In a long-running project people who know the project inside out can be absent for four months and be very valuable directly when they come back.
What you talk about is the bus factor. In a decently managed project nobody should be irreplaceable.
An that is very different from the impact of loosing employees when they get parents. No company should be willing (or can afford) the opportunity to keep good people working on the companies project (as opposed to: people starting looking for a better job
Re: (Score:3)
If you can take several months off, it just means the company doesn't really need you. ...
Yes, but your comment is just plain wrong-headed, frankly. Small companies really, really need their employees. Departure of a key employee can sink a small company.
A large company like facebook has people leaving ALL the time. People retire, quit, move, change jobs, get sick, die and so on continuously. Any company over about 10 people is going to have to deal with departing and absent employees on a regular basis. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sign of Corporate America actually acknowledging their employees as human beings and not just "human resource cogs" in their money-making machine. It takes the same time and energy to raise a child whether you're a CxO or one of the 99%. A maternity leave policy that doesn't discriminate on this point is a Good Thing.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to have a lot of pent-up aggression. If you stabbed a knife into your throat, you'll let out all that aggression, and you'll feel much, much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't really like "Corporate America". Facebook can afford to give expensive benefits to employees because Facebook's business is hugely profitable and growing fast. Most companies have neither Facebook's growth nor Facebook's profit potential. If you expect other companies to be like Facebook, you will be disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you expect other companies to be like Facebook, you will be disappointed.
Most companies in developed countries already give benefits similar to or exceeding what Facebook has just announced. It's only uncommon in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a nice change hearing something like this from the US, especially after that whole thing with Marissa Mayer. She did new parents no favours whatsoever. Americans generally have a shit deal when it comes to things like this, and it's a little funny saying that this is a global company policy for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would non-Facebook employees be interested in this at all?
I have a friend who works at another silicon valley startup (same VC partners as Facebook) who recently adopted Netflx's unlimited vacation, and they may also be interested in doing the 4-month prenatal leave as well.
Facebook could be a high-profile benefits leader here. As much as I don't like FB, I respect this move. At least Zuck is fair and consistent on this, unlike Meyer.
Less than the legal minimum (Score:2)
This is less than the legal minimum in some countries. So some foreign Facebook employers already get more.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for ease of reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2... [huffingtonpost.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
The insane part is that you think working that late is okay. I'd say you need a union to better negotiate your time, but you're probably a libertarian anti-union nutjob who will simultaneously defend your free-market right to work as damn much as you please while bemoaning the people who say "enough is enough, work-life balance matters more to me than finishing this tonight" and leave at a reasonable time. Hell, if half your company does it, then obviously management is okay with people leaving that early
Re: (Score:2)
actually, your a dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Your company ought to have a senior, experience employee that can move over and be productive on your team for four months. There are people who love to jump around and "save the day" on each project, and are actually good at it. At the end of the period, he or she can move on to the next group who just lost someone else.
If your company doesn't do that, then yes, you should start looking for a job. But you should do so because you work for a horrible company, not because your company offers this specific
Re: (Score:2)
They already get vacation time off while single people aren't allowed to take time off.
Solution - the single people should pretend to be in 'gay marriages' w/ other single people for employment purposes, while living normal single lives. That way, they can claim time off for anything, such as pretend adoptions.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
these people that don't want to work.
In Canada, we get a whole year off after a child is born. The majority of this time can be split between the mother and father. For my first child, I didn't take any time. But for my second, I took 5 months.
I can assure you that this 5 month period was more difficult than "working". Anyone who thinks that people who are staying at home to parent babies and/or toddlers is not "working" hasn't truly experienced it. Perhaps they don't have kids, perhaps their spouse/partner does all/most of the work, o
What about other life goals? (Score:3)
Allowing employees to take a big block off to get started on what may be the biggest achievement of their life is great, but what about for people whose aspiration is something other than being a parent? Even a guaranteed job after an unpaid sabbatical is a rare benefit. A generic "life goal" leave is, I would think, even cheaper to offer since the leave can be planned in advance to avoid crunch times (not that parents can't plan, but it's a rare one that seems to).
Re: (Score:2)
Drilling down into those numbers might be more useful.
Yeah, the world has 7.3 billion people, but most of them ain't uniformly spread. While China, Japan and India have a huge population density, other countries like Russia have a very low population density, and are struggling to have replacement rates. So people in the countries like Russia, US, Canada or even parts of Europe breeding is a good thing. It's bad if you're talking about Shanghai, Tokyo, Mumbai or Seoul.
But I agree w/ your final point
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has high population density, but notoriously does *not* meet replacement rate, especially since Japan doesn't have high birthrate immigrants to drive the ratio up.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us consider it borderline unethical to raise that population any further, until such time as we can deal with the number we have without destroying the joint.
If two people have two children then it is not increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is obviously not an unpayed sabbatical but a oayed leave.
In Europe the pay comes from the social insurances and/or the state.
Re: (Score:2)
I used the unpaid example to draw a sharper contrast. A large block of time off is generally unavailable under any terms, except at companies like FB (or apparently everywhere in Europe) that explicitly call out child-rearing.
Since you seem to know of the system: If European democracies have a state system for paying for the leave, did the debate include proposals to allow payments for other avocations?
Re: (Score:2)
I used the unpaid example to draw a sharper contrast. A large block of time off is generally unavailable under any terms, except at companies like FB (or apparently everywhere in Europe) that explicitly call out child-rearing.
Since you seem to know of the system: If European democracies have a state system for paying for the leave, did the debate include proposals to allow payments for other avocations?
Europe is a big place and it probably varies to jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I'd say generally no. I know that here in Norway there are a few other exceptions where the government may step in and pay like if you're giving care to someone seriously ill because you're a de facto replacement for public healthcare but for personal projects you are on your own. It has been suggested though that those who want to be slackers can be employed for a relatively short while, then go on unemployment benefits while
Re: (Score:2)
Sabbaticsls, payed or unpaied are a matter of contract between employer and employee.
Parental leave is regulated by law. Most countries in the EU and surroundings have laws regarding that. Depending on country the payment is split between employer and the state/wellfare. I believe in germany it is 100% payed by the state.
Re: (Score:1)
Allowing employees to take a big block off to get started on what may be the biggest achievement of their life is great, but what about for people whose aspiration is something other than being a parent?
Depends, do you expect younger people to take care of stuff when you get old?
If you do then perhaps it isn't entirely a bad idea that you have to spend some extra time working so that those who do decide to get children gets to raise them to not be horrible persons?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me turn that around: Should child rearing be restricted to those who can demonstrate that they won't raise them to be horrible? I know plenty of complete jerks who had a parent stay at home.
In any case, if this leave is special because it appeals to a higher purpose, then there are many other higher purposes that I can think of that are equally deserving of paid leave. An engineer could take time off to educate underserved populations, or to apply their skills to solve basic problems in developing areas
Re: (Score:2)
Because the economy and society will collapse without people having children?
Military (Score:2)
Reminds me of my time in the military. I'd been in 5 years and my housing was a barracks ( dormitory ) with shared bathroom. Someone just coming in with a spouse, kids or not, got a 2 or 3 bedroom house. My meals allowance was the ability to eat in a dining hall. Not on the base at mealtime? Sucks to be you, buy your own meal. Those with families got cash instead to eat what they wanted , when they wanted.
Like family leave with no comparable benefit for those who don't produce children, it's being comp
Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome to the 21st-fucking-century.
UK Statutory Maternity / Paternity Pay:
https://www.gov.uk/paternity-p... [www.gov.uk]
Gives up to 52 weeks paid leave for one/either/both parents (shared among them), including in case of stillborn, including for adoption, legally allowing you to build up holiday, get rises and return to work while it goes on.
Sure, it won't necessarily be at full-pay-rates but this is the fucking bare, legal, statutory MINIMUM that you're required to give by even being an employer in the UK
So let's not shout about how great Facebook are for letting you spend more than a fucking month with your newborn child.
The US really need to get out more and look at what other countries consider normal and/or moral.
Re: (Score:3)
Direct copy from wikipedia. Kinda calls out your whole 1/2 the pay bullshit argument.
From the 1930s up until 1980, the average American income (after taxes and inflation) tripled,[12] which translated into higher living standards for the American population.[13][14][15][16][17][18][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Between 1949 and 1969, real median family income grew by 99.3%.[32] From 1946 to 1978, the standard of living for the average family more than doubled.[33]
Average family in
Re: (Score:2)
From the Government source you linked to:
This a pittance, especially for those of us who live in London. We couldn't afford to live off this if I wanted to take off more than the two weeks that I'd get at full pay. This whole 52 weeks paid leave is BS as far as I can tell, but made some good publicity for the last government.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a solution to that. At least two solutions, actually. Personally, I'd go for the thermonuclear revocation of the last millennium of planning consents, but some people might consider London to have some features worth not being a smoking hole in the ground.
High-tech workers not taking parental leave? (Score:1)
Many high-tech workers, however, do not take advantage of such benefits for fear of falling behind at work or missing out on promotions.
The final item in the summary and from TFA caught my attention. Reuters was absent of details on a study proving this statement. The best thing I could find was a a Harvard Business Review article here:
https://hbr.org/2015/11/3-ways-tech-companies-are-offering-parental-leave
Linking to a study here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [wiley.com]
With highly questionable methods - age, gender, socio-economic background, etc. etc. bias anybody?
Volunteers (N = 371, 131 men) participated in exchange for partial fulfillment of their Introductory Psychology research requirement. Of these, 50% were White, 30% were Asian, 4% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 10% reported another ethnic identity. The design of the experiment was a 2 (target race: Black, White) × 4 (family leave condition: childcare, parental care, two controls) × 2 (participant gender) between-participants factorial. We used two control targets; one who asked a HR officer for more hours (rather than time off), and one who merely inquired about his employee benefits. We included the latter control condition because it was possible that asking for more hours would be viewed as particularly masculine (e.g., ambitious). However, preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between the two control groups; they were therefore collapsed.
If anybody can find other research surrounding this topic - I'd love t
In Germany you have 14 months by law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, just have a kid every year and live on the dole.
There is this little, teensy side effect of actually having the kids and having to take care of them... I take it you are not a parent. After having a few, you might understand that the first year is likely not the most difficult - especially with multiple kids.