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.
I am surprised no one makes the argument that even if the government cover the salary costs there's still missing money in the form of the employer's work added value to the company (his output is worth more than his salary).
If the rebate were offered, without a legal requirement, most or all companies would probably provide the benefit, since it's basically free for them and they'd lose candidate recruits to their competitors otherwise.
It means that folks won't lose their job when the doctor orders bed rest in the last month. It gives time for proper care of children. And so on. You might be helping pay for someone else's benefits, but if you ever need them, you are paying for your own as well.
Heck, I'm childless by choice (and female on top of this) and I completely approve of such things - for both mothers and fathers. I'm fine with parents getting more sick leave for their children. After all, they have more responsibility than I do. Children with proper support are more likely to grow up to be good adults. I will probably need these adults as I age.
And it isn't like this sort of cost is limited to such things as parental leave. If you pay for your hospital bill, you are helping pay for folks that do not. Shop retail? You are paying for theft, charity work they do, and whatever benefits they give their employees. Pay taxes? You are helping pay for roads you don't use, wars you don't agree with, politician benefits and pay, and a slew of other things.
I'll add that sometimes the placement of price makes all the difference. For example, when taxes are included in the price on the shelf, there is no more pain at the register. Most places have electronic receipts that can tell you how much tax you've paid, so the cost isn't hidden. Taxpayer-funded health care means you can better budget for everyday life's ups and downs, especially the health things that are out of one's control. It matters where the price and cost actually are.
I don't think it's "simply" a disability insurance policy. Pregnancy can be planned. If someone were to buy an insurance policy before they conceived, pay $100/month for a year or so, then get 60% of their salary for 3 months (much more than they paid in probably), they'd just cancel the policy afterward. The insurance company would lose money on this every time.
Some quick googling suggests that there are disability insurance companies that will cover maternity leave, but they must be making a profit on it somehow or they wouldn't offer it. Besides which, I don't think there's any way paternity leave could be considered a disability, so it's no help there.
If this were rolled into social security, the cost could be more spread out. Since it's beneficial for us to have a growing population, I think it's in all our interest to support children being born, even if we don't want to have them ourselves.
It makes more sense to have benefits to employees focused on the employee side. It also makes it more fair (and more cost effective) if all benefits are equal for all; at least up to basic minimums that everyone should have for society to function well.
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.
It's 90% for the first six weeks and is taxable, for maternity leave only, then some low amount of a few hundred a month for the rest. There's a separate entitlement for unpaid parental leave. Many employers pay higher and for longer than statutory amounts.
The figure you have in mind there is the percentage of the employee's salary that they are legally guaranteed as maternity pay. The percentage the grandparent/parent comment is talking about is the percentage of the employer's total outlay on maternity pay that they can then claim back from the government (which turns out to be either 92% or 103% of the statutory minimum payment).
In Norway the government will pay you 100% for 49 weeks or 80% for 59 weeks with a cutoff at $66k. (Slightly above national average).
Most/all tech employers will cover the remaining part of your salary.
No, you’re wrong. The policies differ between various places, and it’s not always 90% of last pay, but almost always it is government or social security who foots the bill, not the employer.
In Germany companies get reimbursed100% 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth, which is motherhood protection leave during which mothers are not allowed to work with regular pay (part of which comes from health insurance, the rest from the employer)
Parental leave is unpaid but you cannot fire someone for or during taking it.
While on parenteral leave (Elternzeit) above the mandated minimum (Mutterschutz) you don't even get paid by your employer but you get 66% of your last pay up to a maximum amount from social securities.
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.
Exactly they absolutely were advertising it in a semi truthful way. It was totally announced as a company wide policy.....but like a lot of things they really were only talking about the valley.
When a layoff happened years later I got less because "that only applies to CA employees" despite repeated announcements with no qualifications.
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.
During training I underwent at Bigcorp about how to run an interview, this was one of the things we were explicitly told not to ask about in any way shape or form.
We were located in one of the best school districts in the area - we could mention that fact, but we could not ask if they had kids or were planning to have kids or expected kids. Nothing about kids.
Other than perhaps through social media (one more reason to consider "going dark" while job hunting, I suppose), how would any potential employer know your wife was expecting?
Flat out false. My wife got a new job while 7 months pregnant. When she had the baby, she took 8 weeks off, I start my 4 week paternity leave soon and everyone is happy.
Same happened at the first company I worked full time at... Woman came in for her interview, 7 months pregnant, and was hired. She was a great hire for the company, and stayed about as long as I did (6 or 7 years)... We definitely would have been worse off if we were short-sighted enough to not hire her just because of that.
It is really a stratified world in that regard and I am lucky. My employer (large, non-US based tech company) not only offers paternity leave, but actively encourages it's use.
Sadly, even a lot of workplaces that "offer" this type of benefit have a culture where it hurts your career to use it. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world gets along just fine with universal leave.
At my current job ( in Germany where parental leave is mandated ) i had collagues write there parental leave application (you have to apply, but your employer is not allowed to deny it) on their first day.
They where open about it in the interview and most fathers take 2 months off.
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 really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.
Have you tried talking to such anti-union programmers/engineers?
I've seen both good and bad unions, so I'm fairly neutral on the topic, but some things to ponder over:
In a previous job, I would occasionally stay a little late to work on performance improvements (automating the workflow, improving tools, etc). I usually did it without management's permission - just on my own. They'd hear about it once I was ready to tell them.
Some of my coworkers were against this, for a variety of reasons, including the fear that my work would raise the bar. I strongly suspect that if they were unionized, they'd find a way to make sure I don't do this type of work.
Many SW folks do worry that unionizing will bring their productivity down to the median, and will make it harder for job growth. They don't want to be held back by a union.
(I wasn't even doing this to get ahead of them (I was paid about the median, and some who opposed were a full grade level above me). I just got sick of crappy in-house tools.)
Beyond that, there are the "usual" reasons: Unions can become quite political, and they can use as many dirty tactics/propaganda/misinformation with their own people as the company they work for can/does. Their conformity tactics can get nasty as well. My wife has a union job and the union is considering a strike. Plenty of attempts to silence/shame anti-strike voices from within the union. The paranoia within the union is quite high. Who amongst us is a spy for the employer? Stuff like that.
Unions can really increase the drama at a work place.
Again, I'm listing the negative examples. Not all unions are like this. I suspect, though, that unless the union actively guards against these, this will be the normal evolution of a union.
The other reply to this comment is why software engineers don't unionize. Many think they're better off without a union, but a large number go even further and are adamantly opposed to the existence of unions
> 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).
Especially if you purposefully ignore the middleground (1930-1980) when shareholders existed but labor also held significant power. Lots of people remember this, it was the post-War boom we continually hear people longing for.
I believe the comment was about the idea of enhancing shareholder value which has been the dominant philosophy since about 1980. Notably, wages have stagnated since 1980 [1].
Right, so now the cost of maintaining the office space of a US worker has increased and that goes into something called “fully-burdened FTE cost”, which is basically the whole cost of putting an employee on he payroll in the US. The more you raise that cost, the more likely you are to use offshore labor, even if the salaries are the same.
Utilities, insurance, and taxes are three other costs in the fully burdened rate. Salary is only one piece.
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.
This is why you need parental leave to not just be possible for both parents but actually used by both parents. If it’s actually called maternity leave rather than parental leave that’s a warning sign.
That's why parental leave should apply to both parents/all genders. I believe one of the Nordic countries has a law on the books that gives a fixed period of time per child and parents can split it between parents as they wish.
Sweden has 480 days to share (part of that is with lower pay), but 90 days for each parent cannot be transferred so the minimum for dads is effectively 3 months per child. This has had great effect. If you are going to leave work for 3 months you can just as well do 6 or 12 with little difference to the employer.
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".
How do renegotiate prices when Microsoft is not your only customer? Just increase the prices on Microsoft or on all your customers to pay for these benefits?
I have a friend who provides private security. Gov't and a few progressive clients have benefits and wage guarantees. He spins off a LLC to handle those contractual benefits. It's a bit of a headache for paperwork but stupider to leave the money on the table.
Entirely up to each business. You could spread the increase in costs out to all clients and hope that the increase on those that stay makes up for the decrease from those that leave. You could charge it all to MS who is likely your biggest customer. Or any combination in between. It's a calculation that each company would have to make for itself.
Large customers often demand bulk discounts seperate from the standard pricing plan. Usually it is lower but demanding extra standards can cause it to be higher if say tighter tolerances are demanded.
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.
Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental. Even with cuts it can be hailed as a success because of survivorship bias.
You should ask for studies to support an idea rather than assume the idea is good because nobody cites studies contradicting it. Most people know in the back of their mind you can't just raise minimum wage to $100/hour and make everyone rich. It's just a matter of degree. There will be some marginal cost of raising the price of labor. Whether it is shorter hours, fewer employees, or one less company that was otherwise on the bubble.
Reminds me of one counterintuitive historical point about labor - free workers are more productive than slaves despite overseers and long hours. The industrial revolution failed to take off in slave states early on despite the clear apparent advantage of unpaid factory workers. The two conditions are in no way equivalent of course but the point is incentives also matter and "worthless expenses" may be pivotal to success.
There may in fact be some indirect benefits resulting from this change including less distracted workers, lower turnover rate as talent feels less pushed into a "mommy" track or to seek more flexible workplaces, and increased desirability as a workplace to reduce recruiting costs and increase the magnitude of available talent.
One of Henry Ford's principles of paying his workers well wasn't just so they would tolerate his control freak nature but to gather the best talent. Relatedly petty annoyances of dress code and schedule were part of what caused the traitorous eight to depart for Silicon Valley.
While it may not pay off fully on the balance sheets it isn't a complete loss either. Potentially it could pay off long term.
> Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental.
It's not fundamental. If you actually look at what happens in the real world more regulation does not lead to less labor, more often than not it's just the opposite, where regulation drives economic growth.
McDonalds is a great example of this. Minimum wage is headed to $15/hr and they've replaced 80% of the front counter staff with self-order kiosks. Grocery stores can have one person running 4+ self-checkout counters at teh grocery store, and the "gig economy" is just companies skirting minimum wage and benefits via contractors. It's like my childhood paper route for 50 cents an hour all over again...
> McDonald's is planning to replace all the cashiers in their restaurants with robots by the end of 2020
>WHAT'S TRUE
>McDonald's announced plans to install self-order kiosks in eight or nine thousand stores in the next few years.
>WHAT'S FALSE
>McDonald's is not replacing cashiers with "robots," the chain is not eliminating all cashiers, self-serve kiosks are not a response to a proposed higher minimum wage.
> Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental.
This is exactly correct. The laws of economics dictate that if you don't cut labor costs, your competitors will, and you will be out-competed on price.
No less "wrong" than Nike moving its shoe factories out of the USA and into China, Vietnam, or anywhere else that doesn't have OSHA, EPA, minimum wage, labor unions, ACA, etc.
---
I've read on HN about Facebook doing similar things. They brag up and down about the amazing benefits they give employees, while at the same time moving headcount to contractors who don't get to eat the free food ... literally.
[edit] found the article:
Facebook's underclass: staffers enjoy perks, contractors barely get by
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.
I work at Microsoft (full time employee). We are offered some time for life events, including moving, death of a family member, etc. Also, a part of the benefits package (in Germany) is a company that helps source elder Care. Iirc it's partially funded, too (but don't quote me on that).
When you're negotiating your job, ask the recruiter about the HR concept. Some companies, like MS, really try to take care of employees and gear packages for the long term. Others focus on lifestyle, or on cash compensation... The benefits package is one of the more important ways a company should align with your needs.
> why doesn't this apply to parents? Becoming a parent is no more unforeseen than ageing.
I don't disagree. All of these 'benefits' are just compensation for labor in another form. When considering a salary for a position, you have to factor in all these non-cash benefits for your labor. I would prefer a simpler transaction: give me a high cash amount for hours actually worked with the flexibility to take whatever unpaid time I need, within reason.
Or cater to young families and people they are tying to woo. It another big fuck you to older employees that have to care for their ageing parents, would be a good excuse to fire them.
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 hn@ycombinator.com 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.
Progress by any means necessary. It would be absolutely phenomenal if legislation fixed this for everyone today, but until that time, there are a lot of people who will benefit from this who otherwise wouldn't.
"Some will abuse this." LOL, yeah I'm gonna deal with 9 months of pregnancy, and then several months of recovery, and then raise a kid for 18+ years just so I can get that sweet, sweet leave.
Do people not realize that leave benefits are necessary if you wish to attract high skill workers?
Many US employees are literally living paycheck to paycheck. Not being given paid leave would mean not taking leave at all as they cannot afford to miss a paycheck.
Yes many working Americans are "unable to save money for planned vacations and life events." Stagnant wages vs living costs mean many Americans working full time jobs (sometimes a full time job and a part time job) are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to save.
These benefits must necessarily cause at least one, but often more than one of:
- increase in product price
- decrease in product quality
- decrease in liquid compensation
- decrease in profit margins
For those that argue along the lines of "profit margins ought to be reduced" should also take into account that the profit margins are already often set as low as possible by the nature of market competition, so there's often not a lot to work with. Most companies globally don't get the luxury of holding everything constant but cutting costs of goods sold like we do in software because most companies don't catastrophically overspend in costs of goods sold like we do.
I think there is also a psychological effect. Knowing you're getting paid while vacationing is a lot more comforting than thinking about all the hours of pay you're not getting. I think this would fall under a similar effect to how JC Penney removing their sales pricing and just pricing their clothing accurately caused a decrease in sales because people didn't get that feeling of victory that they're making a strategic purchase.
.png){kind=link}
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.