
Patagonia's CEO Explains How to Make On-Site Child Care Pay for Itself - mattiemass
http://www.fastcompany.com/3062792/second-shift/patagonias-ceo-explains-how-to-make-onsite-child-care-pay-for-itself
======
protomyth
If your company is going to provide on-site care, their are really good
reasons to make sure its a separate area with its own access doors and strict
instructions on whose allowed into the area. Kid's at people's desks is a
terrible idea, and frankly deprives the child of valuable play learning time
with other children. Webcams should be sufficient for parents.

Some small things to think about:

1) custody disputes are a pain in the butt and you are now part of it

2) going on the theme, who picks up the kid is actually more complicated than
just the employee who drops the kid off (come in early with Mom, but get
picked up by grandparent to be with other kids is not uncommon) - get this
crap in writing

3) get the food correct for the children - you need to feed them - you are now
running a restaurant

4) Lysol - wholesale purchases

5) Make sure you follow all codes and do the required number of fire, tornado,
etc. drills

6) Read the Early Head Start and Head Start staffing guidelines as many places
require you meet those. Also note, those flexible Silicon Valley hours are
going to be amazingly fun with staffing requirements.

7) Security camera setup with DVRs - should go just fine with the webcams

8) Be a nice employer and do the assessment tests for your staff

9) know the facility requirements in detail.

If you spend the time and money on setup, you will have an amazing workplace.
If you half-ass it, you will be sued a lot.

~~~
st3v3r
"Kid's at people's desks is a terrible idea"

I really, really hope those are just terrible stock photos.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Yeah. I stayed home from work a few weeks ago to take care of our six month
old, as her daycare was closed. I told work that I would be OOO, but would
work if possible.

Not possible. Kids require a lot of attention, and a lot of care. Maybe when
she's older, and can entertain herself, but there is zero chance of me getting
work done if I'm also taking care of her, and maybe a 10% chance if other
peoples' kids running around.

~~~
soperj
6 months old, should have had time during naps?

~~~
dougk16
Strictly speaking yes you typically have several hours of "free" time each day
while your child naps. The issue (assuming a creative job like a developer) is
you have no idea how long you have, or how well they'll sleep, so basically
it's very hard to get into the zone with the randomly timed ticking time bomb
sleeping in the next room. :)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Further, if you don't sleep when the child is sleeping, then _when will you
sleep_? The best thing to do when the child is napping, is to nap.

~~~
dougk16
Ha yes I was stupid for a long time (as a stay-at-home/starting-a-company dad)
and actually tried to work during the kids' naps. Napping myself would have
been a much more effective use of my time. Took me a while to realize though.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _a stay-at-home /starting-a-company dad_

I truly cannot comprehend how you can do both. Just doing the stay-at-home dad
thing for a week was taxing.

~~~
dougk16
lol I failed big time! Well at least at the starting-a-company thing. Kids are
great so far though!

------
gjem97
I don't know that the math is right in this piece. In one paragraph they make
mention of "a yearly tax credit of $150,000", then in the next they say "With
a yearly tax deduction of $150,000 and a second deduction of 35% of costs (35%
of $1 million = $350,000), that’s a total of $500,000 in costs recouped, or
50%."

Credits and deductions are not the same thing. A credit is netted against your
tax bill, a deduction reduces the taxable amount of your revenue. A $1
deduction therefore provides a much smaller benefit than a $1 credit.

~~~
philipodonnell
From the article:

>The federal government ... grants a qualified child-care program a yearly tax
credit of $150,000. In addition, the government allows a company to deduct 35%
of its unrecovered costs from its corporate tax bite.

This may just be unfortunate phrasing. The author uses the word "deduct" but
then says its deducted "from its corporate tax bite", not EBITA. As you point
out a reduction in EBIDTA does reduce the tax bill, just not 1:1 like a tax
credit. The phrase isn't clear that its another tax credit or a deduction.

Minus points for a lack of clarity either way...

------
ISL
The article waits until the end to mention that Patagonia's been doing on-site
child care for decades, and before considering tax advantages. I've been
considering agitating for a small trial program at my job just because it'd
make the place more human and welcoming.

Patagonia has been making a concerted effort to raise awareness of on-site
childcare in recent months; this article appears to continue that mission.

From a scrappy start-up perspective, Chouinard claims that having a ready bank
of testers was important for the development of Patagonia's children's
clothing line.

~~~
krisroadruck
Welcoming for parents perhaps. People who don't have, don't want, and don't
like kids would probably find having kids at the office to be distracting and
annoying at a bare minimum. I don't even like offices with a "Dog friendly"
rule. I'm at work to work. I don't want to deal with my coworkers pets and
offspring.

------
clarkevans
We have so many tax benefits for corporations that offer employee services
(health care, child care, retirement savings) -- why should these tax benefits
be tied to employment and not be universal? Why is childcare offered by an
employer to an employee deductible, but, not when the employee purchase it
directly? Why does a 401k have such a higher pre-tax maximum compared to a
personal IRA? Why isn't personally purchased health insurance deductible?

~~~
justinlardinois
Corporate welfare is one hell of a drug.

------
serg_chernata
PR piece or not, USA really is behind the curve when compared to other modern,
forward-thinking countries. There was a great discussion here maybe a year ago
about an american family moving to Switzerland or something along those lines
and reaping insane benefits to their family and financial wellbeing.

~~~
justinator
Yes. The USA makes a killing off poor people. And weapons. Which... also make
a killing.

It's a weird place. I have to get out and travel just to remind myself that
strangers can be friendly to each other.

~~~
jrpt
Neighbors are friendly to each other in the USA. It depends a lot on where you
live, especially whether you're surrounded by homeowners vs urban transient
renters. It's not that renters are necessarily unfriendly, but they aren't as
invested in neighborly relations since everyone is so transient.

~~~
justinlardinois
Probably gonna get downvoted for this, but I want to point out that there's a
lot of coded language here:

"urban" = poor/not white

"transient" = homeless/drifter

"aren't as invested" = don't contribute to society

~~~
chatmasta
Or, you know, any 20-27 year old post grad working in a major city and renting
an apartment.

------
justinator
A good read also would be Let My People Go Surfing[0], which explains a little
bit more of the philosophy of the company and decisions like this, as well as
why they decided to try to run their business in a sustainable way. The
founder of the company really didn't have a goal to dominate the market he was
in, he just wanted to sell some items to fund what he really enjoyed doing.

It would be a good read for this crowd.

[0] [http://www.patagonia.com/let-my-people-go-
surfing.html](http://www.patagonia.com/let-my-people-go-surfing.html)

------
krupan
This really warmed my heart. It's amazing when a company treats its employees
like human beings. It really shouldn't be that amazing. It should be an
everyday thing ho-hum thing. It's really surprising that more companies can't
see the ROI.

------
astazangasta
How about we stop couching all of our goals in terms of how they serve the
corporate bottom line? All this does is make that bottom line the only real
goal. People being able to live comfortable and happy lives is a good even if
it doesn't pay for itself.

------
CodeSheikh
Am I the only one who feel sorry for the guy sitting behind that mother
occupied with her child. Perhaps he might be annoyed? :)

I am all in for an onsite child-care facility as long as it is a standalone
facility. Looking at the pictures, it looks like children are all over this
office. Not being a parent, I can still comprehend the hardships of new
parents who have to juggle between childcare and full time jobs. But having a
baby does not give you a golden ticket to do whatever you want (NYC subway
stroller parents please don't ram in a Humvee size stroller during peak hour).
You have to respect the common shared space such as office space. Some people
are not that fond of cute pudgy babies, not to mention the distraction etc..

I do support an onsite childcare facility and wish more companies will do the
same but they should make sure that kids stay inside such facilities only
where parents can check on them during their breaks.

 _parents please don 't get defensive here. This is just an opinion not an
ignorant insensitive slur towards parents and their young ones_

~~~
onion2k
_You have to respect the common shared space such as office space._

That works both ways. If you believe parents shouldn't bring their children to
the office space because they should respect you and your desire for children
_not_ to be there, then it's only reasonable that you should respect their
desire to have their children with them. Whether you're fond of babies or not
is irrelevant; the important thing is the impact on the business. If having
children around means an overall productivity drop then they're a net loss,
and a dedicated child-care facility is a better option. But if the parents in
the office are more productive with their children close by, to a point that
outweighs the loss of productivity from the non-parents, then children in the
office is a positive. Few workplaces have ever measured that, so there isn't a
simple "it's worse with children around" answer.

Plus, and this is _really_ important, there's a distinct danger that employers
who say they don't want children around the business using that as a way to
limit opportunities for women (albeit subconsciously; few would admit to it).
That's something to guard against.

~~~
CodeSheikh
_That works both ways. If you believe parents shouldn 't bring their children
to the office space because they should respect you and your desire for
children not to be there, then it's only reasonable that you should respect
their desire to have their children with them._

You do know realize that an office space means a space for employees to do
work for someone who is paying them. It is not a space for their children or
parents or grand-parents or cousins or favorite stuff toys.

~~~
codemac
That's a recent historical development, and one could even say it's rooted in
deep gendered thinking in the roles of men and women.

~~~
icebraining
_That 's a recent historical development_

Really? When were office spaces expected to have children around?

~~~
whiddershins
Office spaces are a relatively recent historical development.

------
DanBC
> Not being a parent, I can still comprehend the hardships of new parents

No, you can't. Your next sentence ...

> (NYC subway stroller parents please don't ram in a Humvee size stroller
> during peak hour).

... is a nice demonstration of your selfish, thoughtless, demanding, lack of
understanding.

~~~
CodeSheikh
_selfish, thoughtless, demanding, lack of understanding._

Calm down sir those are some harsh words. Subways are dangerous disgusting
disease-prone place anyway for young infants. Maybe parents should use cabs
often. Cab fares should be included as part of child-care costs which most
parents include in their detailed plan before they decide to raise a child.

~~~
robbiemitchell
> Maybe parents should

> Cab fares should be included ... detailed plan before they decide to raise a
> child.

You simply don't have the necessary perspective here. Come back to this
conversation when you're a NYC parent.

~~~
CodeSheikh
It is funny you talk about perspectives here and yet you assume that I have a
“certain” perspective by you just observing what I said. I believe
perspectives can be learned from observations or experiences. I have observed
enough in NYC by observing the lifestyles of people here and obviously
engaging them into conversations. Your perspective comes from your experience
of being a parent, the hardships and struggles you have faced while living in
NYC.

By "NYC parent" you mean people who actually live here especially in Manhattan
and I am excluding tourists as NYC parents as it is beyond me that why in the
world would anyone want to bring their young kids on a trip to the New York
City! Why did you never think about moving to somewhere peaceful as in New
Jersey to raise a family? A lot of my coworkers moved there the moment they
decided to have kids. I will move there or to some outer borough or outside of
NYC eventually if I decide to have kids of my own one day.

I have seen parents fighting with homeless people on the subways when they try
to interact with their kid. I have seen parents using twin-strollers just for
one kid. Confirmed by my own neighbor, this is actually a “trick” that most
young parents use in NYC. It apparently gives them more room on the walk path
or in the subway and they can use the secondary space for groceries etc.

~~~
robbiemitchell
> perspectives can be learned from observations or experiences

I hear you, but there is no substitute for actually being a parent, with all
the struggles and rewards that come with it.

~~~
CodeSheikh
I am sure the rewards are worth any struggles you face :) If it makes you or
anyone feel any better I always try to give up my seat in the subway to a
parent...

