

Microsoft Expands Its Parental Leave, Bolsters Paid Time Off And 401k Matching - someear
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/05/microsoft-expands-its-parental-leave-bolsters-paid-time-off-and-401k-matching/

======
soperj
This is so extremely weird for me. I'm currently on parental leave in Canada,
for the next 17 weeks, paid. You get 50 weeks of leave here to split between
mom & dad. It seems so ridiculous these articles saying that it'll be hard for
the company to deal with the loss of the employee for that long. Hire someone
for a 1 year term... done. There's really no excuse when so many other
countries have been doing it for so long.

~~~
mikekchar
Now, I'm very much in favour of parental leave, especially something that
allows paternal leave as wells as maternal leave. I think it has huge societal
upside.

Having said that, it is naive to think this isn't a fairly large burden on a
company -- especially for a software company. First, assume that the company
is paying the benefit -- say 50% of salary. That's an expense. Then you have
to hire a contractor for a year. The rule of thumb is that a contractor costs
double. So you have the same overhead cost (same number of desks), but you are
paying 250% of the salary (plus applicable taxes). Then consider the domain
knowledge that the worker on leave has. How long will it take for the
contractor to get up to speed? So you have a loss of productivity. And the
hiring process itself isn't cheap. In the end with all of the costs, you will
probably be paying up to 3 times the original salary for the person on leave.

I leave this for the end because I know it is a potential sore point with many
people given typical gender based roles. Without wanting to get into that
discussion, there is always the chance that the person who goes on parental
leave (whoever it might be) will decide not to return to their former career.
A year of child care is a long time and many people (for many good reasons,
IMHO) decide that this should be their new career. So a company, having paid
nearly 3 times the employees salary in costs and lost productivity, may end up
simply losing that employee anyway.

It is hard for the company to deal with -- especially small companies that
don't have a lot of excess money/time to afford the expense. Again, I'm not
saying it shouldn't be the norm, but closing your eyes to the very real
hardships of the company in this case will not help it expand.

~~~
ux-app
> "It is hard for the company to deal with"

Shouldn't this be considered the cost of doing business? Here in Australia we
have mandatory employer retirement contributions of 9.5%. I'm sure small
business would love not having to pay this, but that is the cost of
employment.

~~~
mikekchar
A burden is a burden, whether expected or not. The OP was opining that there
was no burden because you can just hire a contractor for a year.

Also, unlike pension contributions (here Japan we have to pay 7% pension _and_
7% health insurance!), parental leave costs are not applicable to all
employees; just ones that are going to have babies. So if you have 10
employees and one of them goes on parental leave, suddenly your costs have
gone up 20%. As much as this is "the cost of doing business", it's pretty hard
to plan for that when you don't know the procreational schedule of your
employees. Do you keep a float of capital "just in case"? Heaven help you if 2
people go on parental leave at the same time! How many start ups are going to
budget for babies rather than spend that money trying to expand growth? I'm
not saying it's impossible, but it is far from easy.

Even worse, in countries where there is no paternal leave, this means it is a
cost/risk that applies only to young women employees. I hope it goes without
saying that this creates a terribly uneven playing field for women in
industry.

Like I said, I'm a staunch advocate of parental leave, but I don't think it is
an easy situation for anyone.

~~~
ux-app
You're absolutely correct that this is not a simple situation to solve.
Unfortunately the US goes into collective anaphylactic shock when words like
socialized <insert anything here> is mentioned.

Ideally the state pays for this through taxation or via levy against large
corporations. This way everyone has access, even those not fortunate enough to
work at Microsoft.

------
bkjelden
This matches the 401k match that Google has had for some time now.

I would _love_ to see this become a standard benefit in the tech industry.
Given that many tech workers are young, and young tech workers usually have
high salaries for their age (relative to other professions), 401k money is
very, very valuable.

~~~
hartard
Google matches the greater of something like 100% of $3000 - or - 50% of the
max employee contribution.

A 100% match from Microsoft would mean an annual 2015 contribution of $36,000
($18,000 employee + $18,000 employer match) versus $27,000 maximum ($18,000
employee + $9,000 employer match) from Google. That's a $9000 difference.

EDIT: Looks like the article is incorrect. Correct numbers are 50%, as stated
in parent comment.

~~~
FatalErrorr
You're wrong. MS does 50%.

~~~
rconti
Nobody knows. Microsoft's own release makes no sense. You (and your employer,
combined) cannot contribute more than $18,000 tax-free per year. It's either
100% match of $9,000 on your $9,000 to make $18,000, or it's 50% match of your
$12,000 to make $18,000. It can't be both things that the press release says
it is.

My best guess is that they meant to say they now match 100%, but we won't know
for sure until they correct the press release.

~~~
rhc2104
Actually, employer contributions do not count towards the $18k maximum per
year in contributions. This is the specific advantage of having a 401k match
in the first place, as it allows employees to have more tax deferred savings
than otherwise possible.

Source: [http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/employer-match-
co...](http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/employer-match-counts-
toward-401k-limit.aspx) (Technically, with employer match, it can go up to
$53k)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Can also go up to $53K with after tax employee contributions, which can be
rolled out into a Roth IRA upon separation from the employer.

------
russnewcomer
Really interesting to compare this with another (current) front page article,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012312](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012312)

As someone who is employed by a company of <10 and had to take 1 of 2 weeks
vacation for the my kid's birth, I wish I had this kind of benefit, but then
if I did, I'd have to deal with all of the negative parts of working for a big
company. It's a trade-off, and here in the hinterlands where there isn't VC
funding to be had for every app idea or billions behind the company already,
we end up with what we can. I'm happier in my small company 8-5 with almost no
extra time than I would be working for a big company 7-7 with regular demands
for time put in outside of the office.

------
littletimmy
Good move, but I fear this will lead to inequality being further entrenched
into the workforce. It appears as if the very skilled workers like the ones at
Microsoft, Netflix etc are going to have great lives, and the lesser workers
(who may not have such great jobs) will have shittier lives.

That's why the state stepping in is important, this needs to be the norm at a
federal level. Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids
and raising healthier/smarter children, and the poor raising a class of slaves
(low child IQ is connected to less parental involvement in early years) to
serve the rich. That's not the American dream.

~~~
jamestnz
> Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids

An interesting reversal of history, in a sense. For example Victorian England,
where the rich were the ones with the means to "outsource" the raising of
their kids, and often did so.

Children of the posher classes would often have a more intimate and parent-
like relationship with their "nanny" (or "nurse" or another member of the
household staff), than with their own parents. The childrens' lives and daily
timetables were managed entirely by the staff, and they were wheeled into the
company of the parents for various daily occasions such as meal-times (and a
pat on the head before bed). Aside from this, they spent their time relegated
to the nursery, or in classes, or on outings with the staff.

Nowadays, on the other hand, spending lots of time with the children is
something that might be considered a luxury reserved for the financially
secure (who aren't spending all their time taking busses to three jobs).

~~~
gamegoblin
I suspect that any parental-like relationship (such as that between a nanny
and child) is more beneficial for the child's development than say, being home
alone or in a substandard daycare with disinterested and high-turnover
employees.

------
bargl
Wow, and I was excited about 4 weeks of paternity leave at my company. Which
I'm still excited about by the way, Microsoft just seems like they are going
above and beyond.

I know some places let people take longer off, and Netflix essentially lets
you take a year off. This amount of leave is insane to me. Even a month seems
like so much I won't know how to use it. I mean after 2 weeks I was ready to
go back to work, but the option to go work 2-4 days a week and then spend the
rest of the time at home would be awesome.

Last place I had to take vacation and my wife does not get Maternity leave at
all.... That on the other hand is terrible.

~~~
brational
The problem is that most Americans are shocked by this. Almost all of Europe
has 6-12 months? Canada has 12? So we act like it's crazy generous thing to
have so much paternity leave. Good for MS & netflix. The sooner we have a wave
of big tech following the trend the better.

I (working in the US) have a handful of friends that work in Germany and UK.
The only "bad" thing about US employment is vacation and parental leave. As a
male I don't see a need for 12 months but the fact that my wife get shit here
(8 weeks of "sick leave" for having a child) is enough to constantly keep my
ears open for opportunities in other countries.

We need to stop being surprised and should be saying "about time".

~~~
toomuchtodo
> We need to stop being surprised and should be saying "about time".

Hear hear.

~~~
markdown
Hear?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Upvoted. I cannot grammar today. Thanks.

~~~
bbcbasic
Hear, hear

Is apparently the correct gramelling.

------
marasgp
[https://sweden.se/quickfact/parental-leave/#shortfact-
parent...](https://sweden.se/quickfact/parental-leave/#shortfact-parental-
leave)

~~~
refurb
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden)

~~~
floopidydoopidy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-
born_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index)

------
kelukelugames
Here's the source:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2015/08/05/the-employee-
exp...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2015/08/05/the-employee-experience-
at-microsoft-aligning-benefits-to-our-culture/)

------
the_bear
I've always viewed benefits like this as a way for the company to incentivize
and/or reward certain behavior from employees. Offering a 401(k) match is a
way to encourage employees to save for retirement.

By that logic, offering parental benefits is a way to encourage people to have
babies. That's always seemed a bit weird to me because it seems inappropriate
for a company to be involved in something so personal. It seems reasonable for
the government to say, "we want more people to have kids for the greater good"
but it seems strange for companies to take it upon themselves to do that.

I'm not saying new parents shouldn't be able to take time off, but it seems
like people who choose not to have kids should receive similar benefits. Maybe
companies should offer sabbaticals to everyone, and if some people choose to
use that to take time off after having kids, then that's fine. But if someone
isn't interested in having kids and instead wants to spend three months
pursuing a hobby, that seems equally valid to me.

Thoughts?

~~~
vbit
You're not a parent, are you? ;)

\- I seriously doubt this leave will have any bearing whatsoever on whether an
employee decides to have kids. It is such a major, life changing and personal
decision it is taken irrespective of incentives. Only serious constraints (no
money) might negatively impact that decision. As a new parent, I was very
happy to get leave from my company but I would have had kids regardless. Also
I never heard of anyone having kids so they could get the 12 weeks or whatever
or leave :)

\- Another way to look at this is you have people that are having kids and
people that are not. What can the company do to keep the former happily
employed/interested in joining your company?

~~~
the_bear
Absolutely, I don't think that parental leave will impact someone's decision
to have kids. However, giving a benefit to people who have kids without giving
that same benefit to people without kids is not that different from the
company saying that they want their employees to have kids. It won't actually
change behavior, but it still stands out to me as a pretty opinionated stance
from the employer about what behavior they want from their employees.

Parental leave is a good way to keep people with kids happy. Why shouldn't we
also keep people without kids happy? Everyone deserves time to pursue passions
outside of work. Some people are passionate about their families. Other people
are passionate about other things. I think employers shouldn't have an opinion
on which is more valid, and they should support both.

~~~
vbit
An employer may offer free sushi and beer on Fridays. Does it mean they
encourage fish and alcohol consumption? What about employees who don't consume
either due to health or religious reasons, or just plain preference? Do they
now deserve make-up compensation?

As a parent I never come in late and stay for dinner. This means the dinner
service is an employer cost that I get no benefit from. Clearly the single
people are the primary reason for this unnecessary cost to the company. I also
don't drink soda and I'm not sure why my employer encourages this behavior by
spending so much money on free soda everywhere. Lets nix that too!

Maybe you see what I'm getting at. The employer is just trying to accommodate
and please people with various life choices for good retention and hiring
rates. There's no reason that they absolutely shouldn't offer something to
kid-free people only, it's just that they don't currently, probably because
they don't think it will help much.

~~~
aianus
You're talking about things that cost almost nothing compared an entire year's
free salary.

------
toomuchtodo
Between this and Netflix, I'm excited to see how quickly others in the
industry respond to match.

~~~
ljk
How likely is Amazon going to follow this trend?

~~~
rifung
I'd bet my money against Amazon following. Amazon already lags behind the rest
of the industry in terms of benefits. Employee happiness isn't really one of
their values. "Frugality" on the other hand, is.

Just an opinion of a former Amazonian though.

------
motti_s
I'm not sure why people find the 401k changes confusing, here is how it works:

The employee defers up to 18K (IRS limit), MSFT matches 50% of it, which is up
to 9K.

Previously they contributed 50% of the first 6% the employee deferred = a
maximum of 3% of the salary. So for anyone who makes less than 300K (9K /
0.03), this means a higher match from MSFT.

------
suprgeek
This is a really good move on Microsoft's part & affects about 60,000 people -
so not an insignificant number.

What is sad and pathetic is that in the US people are actually shocked by how
good this is!! Everyone is programmed to go into "Oh but this will be a huge
burden on the company" mode.

What about the fact that currently the US has some of the shittiest laws on
the books when it comes to Time-off for new parents?

What about the burden on society when New Moms are forced into their workplace
way too soon because of the crappy support from the govt.? So companies do not
have to bear this burden but the new moms & babies can bear the hardship
easily?

Free enterprise does not mean a license to shirk some of the most basic
responsibilities. We should be pushing our elected peeps to take stornger
action on this

------
mzs
You have to be careful about this. At a previous employer I got a bunch of
comp time for my new kid, but when I got back I had these sort of sucker tasks
for me to do and I felt this odd kind of resentment towards me from some. So I
started looking for a different job cause I felt no matter what I did I could
never go back to how it had been. I was pretty depressed about it, it was
really subtle, and I think some of my coworkers must have felt I went off the
deep end there.

------
outside1234
Do you think its fair for someone who is childless to ask in response to this
about a leave program for people like me who don't have kids?

~~~
mrrrgn
I'm a child free person as well. I would really love to see tech companies
offer short sabbatical periods. Knowing the people in the tech community, that
time would almost certainly be put to good use: learning new skills, and
finishing up backlogged personal projects.

Sabbatical could be a benefit that kicks in after several years, and any
parental leave before that time would just be subtracted.

------
seattle_spring
I wonder if Facebook will step up their 401k matching to meet or exceed this,
particularly for their Seattle employees. I would ask the same for Amazon, but
I seriously doubt anything will move their benefits needle much.

------
sandworm101
Benefits are all well and good, I'd just prefer the large tech employers work
to employ more people rather than provide more to those that already have
jobs. When these people are out on mat leave are they to be replaced by perma-
temps on zero-hour contracts?

There is also something to be said for pay over benefits. Pay is of equal
value to all employees. Benefits like leave and 401ks are only valuable to
some and can, if dominant over pay, lead to employers having undue influence
over the lives of employees.

~~~
ghaff
>Pay is of equal value to all employees. Benefits like leave and 401ks are
only valuable to some

Well, no. In general, pay and leave are not 1:1 exchangeable if, indeed,
they're exchangeable at all. At most companies, an employee can't just say
"I'll trade 2 weeks pay for 2 weeks vacation." And, indeed, at some level an
employee has to be worth more per day than they are actually paid.

(I'm talking leave generically here. I've no interest in getting into a debate
over parental leave specifically which of course applies under certain
specific situations.)

As for 401-K contributions, this gets into tax law and the fact that employer
contributions (subject to various limits) are deductible in the US. In
general, a lot of decisions related to benefits are very much driven by cost
to employer (after taxes) and perceived benefit to typical employee (after
taxes).

