One thing I didn't know that I learned recently - in countries where paid parental leave is mandated by law, the government reimburses companies for most of the cost of the employee's salary while they're on leave. At least, this is what I was told about the UK (I think it was like 90% of the cost that the gov't reimbursed).
That makes a huge difference. Of course every company would be offering it if the cost to them were minimal. If we want to this to happen in the US, it needs to happen at the voting booth to approve a program like that. Unfortunately it would most likely have to go on a state-by-state level.
But, I think this should be brought up every time someone complains about how US companies are so barbaric that they don't offer this paid leave. Well, duh, of course they don't because it would be an enormous cost to them that it's not elsewhere in the world.
This sounded unlikely to me (I'm from the UK), but https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments confirms that UK employers can recover 92% of statutory maternity/paternity pay that they pay to employees, or 103% if they are a sufficiently small employer.
Note that this is only for the statutory minimum -- many employers offer better-than-statutory as part of their benefits package.
But I disagree with you that the major reason why every company offers at least the statutory minimum is because they're getting a rebate. I think it is simply because it is a legal requirement. The rebate is just the government as a policy choice shifting the cost of it around a bit.
Lol, 90% reimbursed by the government? No it's definitely not in the UK, not in Austria, not in Germany and any other European country I know. It's quite simple, the government introduces a law of minimum leave and all companies in the country either oblidge or have to leave. Not being able to serve a rich market like Europe is not an option, so that's really incentive enough for them to follow the rules.
I worked for a company based out of the valley. One year they announced their awesome new paid parental leave policy. My wife and I were expecting and I was excited.
I submitted for paid parental leave..... denied, unpaid leave only.
The paid parental leave was only available to employees in California... because that is the only place they were required to do so.
The lesson was that many companies will only do it if they are forced.
I think your company may have been advertising a "benefit" in a disingenuous manner. In CA we pay into a state disability fund (SDI), from which you can draw for maternity/paternity leave, sort of like unemployment insurance. You can only draw on the SDI if you pay into it, and it's unavailable to you if your employer pays some maximum portion of your salary (for example, I was ineligible because I was paid during my leave). It sounds like they were trying to pull a fast one on CA residents and hoping nobody was paying attention.
I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.
Well right now my wife (who is a stay at home mom) is seven months pregnant and I’m looking for a job. If this was mandated at any of the companies I was applying to I’d be guaranteed to not get hired. I don’t want 12 weeks, and it’s not like this baby is a surprise.
Just think what could be accomplished if software engineers unionized. If all the SREs at amazon went on strike for 6 hours, the world would descent into chaos. I really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.
> I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.
Not just any company; Microsoft, a huge multinational.
If its a positive change, it is warranted. The first year of a child is very important for the connection with his or her parents. [1] Also, the first 3 months are very hectic (our baby is half a year now so I can attest). With paternity leave a father can support both the baby and his/her mother. So it is a win-win for men and women (and, in a way, feminism).
Indian government passed a new law which provision for 6 month paid maternity leave. Sounds very progressive. But 2 things: 90% of women work in unorganized sector so no effect on them. Employers have started showing reluctance in hiring them and about 12 million women could lose jobs due to this new law.
Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs. If this doesn't apply to part time workers, some suppliers are likely to cut full time positions into part time positions.
This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees.
Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'
Conversely, this is an invitation to renegotiate prices. If a client is going to require you to do something expensive, you calculate how much that's going to cost you, and pass that cost along to your customer. You can even tell them that's exactly what you're doing and what the numbers look like, and if your customer isn't terrible they'll appreciate the transparency.
Frankly, that's a potential PR win for MSFT, as well: "we're requiring our suppliers to do this, and it's increasing our costs by $X; we're putting our money where our mouth is & invite you to do the same".
The fact that a given solution won't or can't solve all problems shouldn't prevent us from enacting it. Consequential problems can and should be addressed if and when they arise. We shouldn't let fear get in the way of doing the right thing.
And in a distant land, someone is advocating change to increase productivity and wage growth, and to have more full time employees. Then someone will respond with a comment with "Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs by slashing benefits like paid parental leave".
Thinking this way is falling for the "default effect" (sorry, I don't know the proper name).
Of course enacting this will have effects. That alone is not a problem.
Don't assume a default (i.e. the status quo). Examine both options, look at the pros and cons of each, and pick one. Don't frame it as "If we go this route, this is what will change." That's automatically making the status quo as the reference point. There's no good reason it should be one.
"This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees."
Why should I care about that more?
"Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'"
Then we need to punish that company extremely harshly, as much as we can.
I am struggled with caring for a parent in the past and its far more burdensome( mentally and physically) than having a baby( which i also experienced).
Why can't everyone get equal paid time for 'life events' instead of just for having a baby.
Nope. They keyword in this was 'U.S.-based' suppliers so they are only doing this in a place where for the most part this is already practiced or where they have very few suppliers in the first place. As you hinted probably most of their supplies are coming from China.
This needs to be transitive or it won’t work. It’s trivial to set up a front which complies and subcontract everything to the old (but perhaps renamed) company that does not.
Your comments are still not meeting the guidelines, so we've banned this account. We'll be happy to unban you if you email [email protected] and commit to using the site as intended.
Whereas you used a phrase typically reserved for government regulation, this here is your free market at work. The "money provided for fulfilling the requirements" part is Microsoft writing a check to pay the invoice. It is up to you, the business person, to decide to eat the cost or pass it along to someone else.
You act like Wal Mart hasn't been mandating all sorts of things, in the other direction, for 50 years. The only thing new about this is which way the compass is pointing.
This is great, but it still is incredibly sad that only certain people get this benefit, instead of it being something given to everyone in the country like in most of the civilized world.
[+] [-] imgabe|7 years ago|reply
That makes a huge difference. Of course every company would be offering it if the cost to them were minimal. If we want to this to happen in the US, it needs to happen at the voting booth to approve a program like that. Unfortunately it would most likely have to go on a state-by-state level.
But, I think this should be brought up every time someone complains about how US companies are so barbaric that they don't offer this paid leave. Well, duh, of course they don't because it would be an enormous cost to them that it's not elsewhere in the world.
[+] [-] pm215|7 years ago|reply
Note that this is only for the statutory minimum -- many employers offer better-than-statutory as part of their benefits package.
But I disagree with you that the major reason why every company offers at least the statutory minimum is because they're getting a rebate. I think it is simply because it is a legal requirement. The rebate is just the government as a policy choice shifting the cost of it around a bit.
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|7 years ago|reply
That means that employers ultimately pay at least half of the costs.
[+] [-] rajacombinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gowld|7 years ago|reply
1) Can you keep your job after you go on leave? Yes, for 12 weeks, protected by FMLA (at least in theory)
2) Factoring in the cost of that insurance policy, are you satisfied with your income level?
[+] [-] dustinmoris|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
I worked for a company based out of the valley. One year they announced their awesome new paid parental leave policy. My wife and I were expecting and I was excited.
I submitted for paid parental leave..... denied, unpaid leave only.
The paid parental leave was only available to employees in California... because that is the only place they were required to do so.
The lesson was that many companies will only do it if they are forced.
[+] [-] thenewwazoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnutjam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cprayingmantis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wincy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluntfang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fnoord|7 years ago|reply
Not just any company; Microsoft, a huge multinational.
If its a positive change, it is warranted. The first year of a child is very important for the connection with his or her parents. [1] Also, the first 3 months are very hectic (our baby is half a year now so I can attest). With paternity leave a father can support both the baby and his/her mother. So it is a win-win for men and women (and, in a way, feminism).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crunchlibrarian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MR4D|7 years ago|reply
When they outsource something to India because labor in the US is "too expensive", I'm going to give them hell for it.
For what it's worth, I'm not against the policy, but the second-order effects are going to suck for some.
[+] [-] cududa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jitix|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potlee|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geodel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxftw|7 years ago|reply
This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees.
Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'
[+] [-] Arubis|7 years ago|reply
Frankly, that's a potential PR win for MSFT, as well: "we're requiring our suppliers to do this, and it's increasing our costs by $X; we're putting our money where our mouth is & invite you to do the same".
[+] [-] staticautomatic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BeetleB|7 years ago|reply
Thinking this way is falling for the "default effect" (sorry, I don't know the proper name).
Of course enacting this will have effects. That alone is not a problem.
Don't assume a default (i.e. the status quo). Examine both options, look at the pros and cons of each, and pick one. Don't frame it as "If we go this route, this is what will change." That's automatically making the status quo as the reference point. There's no good reason it should be one.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] s73v3r_|7 years ago|reply
Why should I care about that more?
"Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'"
Then we need to punish that company extremely harshly, as much as we can.
[+] [-] bovermyer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominotw|7 years ago|reply
Why can't everyone get equal paid time for 'life events' instead of just for having a baby.
[+] [-] ikeboy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freeone3000|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] humantiy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s0rce|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cosinetau|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] h4b4n3r0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yspeak|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|7 years ago|reply
Whereas you used a phrase typically reserved for government regulation, this here is your free market at work. The "money provided for fulfilling the requirements" part is Microsoft writing a check to pay the invoice. It is up to you, the business person, to decide to eat the cost or pass it along to someone else.
[+] [-] mr_overalls|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerohp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|7 years ago|reply
Everything (including a wage or salary) was a "fad benefit" at one time or another. We can do better than medieval serfdom.
[+] [-] crunchlibrarian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s73v3r_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jl2718|7 years ago|reply
Why does anybody need paid leave? Are we unable to save money for planned vacations and life events?