Isn't it more selfish to expect preferential treatment, privileges and time off just for having kids?
> Kids are the ones who will be working when these people retire (whether by then they have children of not).
Yes and won't the retired child-free people be paying for the work these kids provide? Or are you saying these kids should work for free to provide for the retired child-free people?
> Society depends on new generations and so I don’t see a problem if parents get a small advantage.
Well then you are free to give most of your paycheck to them. But why insist or force others to sacrifice?
I am not fat, so fuck anyone that needs health help or insulin for diabetes.
I don't smoke, so fuck anyone that needs lung cancer treatment.
I don't drink so fuck anyone that comes to ER with alcohol poisoning.
I work out, so fuck anyone with back/wrist/whatever problem from being sedentary.
I have friends and go out, so fuck anyone with depression/anxiety.
I have a car, so fuck anyone that takes a bus/metro.
I have two working legs, so fuck any ramp for wheelchair users.
I have enough money so fuck all the old people (and younger ones getting there) on social security.
Fuck, I am strong and crazy enough, so fuck anyone that thinks they should be able to walk at night and not be beaten up/robbed. Fuck them right? How much do you even lift bro?
Being selfish is the number one problem in the world today, the lack of empathy, understanding of others situations, is bringing this world to a dark dark place, and unless we (or most of HN readers) understand that and be in a privilege position to try and change that, we will see everyone going even more into a dark path,
So you don't have a car. Should you pay for other people's car maintenance? Should you pay for other people's gasoline and the gas tax? You do know that the gas tax pays for the roads right? If you don't have a car or drive, you don't pay to build or maintain the roads. Car owners pay for it via the gas tax.
I don't have a kid, but I have to pay for your kid? Is that the logic? How about people pay for their own kids, cars, homes, etc? Fair?
> I'm not old. Get rid of social security.
People pay for their own social security. You don't pay for my social security, I don't pay for yours.
Why do you have to give up your social life because someone on your team has kids? Can't the business adjust its productivity expectations to account for a once in a century pandemic? And kids are optional for any given individual, but in the aggregate if no one has children society will collapse.
So the problem is the boss and/or the company, because they are the ones assigning the extra work, right? Just want to make sure we assign the blame appropriately.
It’s too bad society couldn’t be more realistic, and sacrifice some productivity instead of just pushing the work around. Central banks printed trillions of dollars in a matter of weeks (incinerating some currency value) to keep the economy alive, this is no different. We’re still collectively optimizing for the wrong metrics.
Because not all people who have children have a harder situation.
What about people taking care of parents with Alzheimer's? Do they not deserve the leave? I assure you that a parent with Alzheimer's is WAY harder than a child. In addition, the child will eventually get easier; Alzheimer's just gets worse.
The problem is "too little leave for everybody" not "extra leave for parents".
The solution is to set the leave amounts at a fixed amount that accommodates almost everybody. If parents have to burn that to take care of children, so be it. They made that choice.
I'm a working parent but I understand the frustration. People see from their own point of view. What non parents see is that I am no longer pulling the same weight I pulled last year. Someone has to pick up the slack or the schedule has to slip. Both of these are frustrating to the hard driving employee who is bound to notice that I'm not doing as much as I used to.
I don't have a great solution. This is hard on everyone but in completely different ways. I'd be happy to compensate for my lower output with a pay cut to be given to those who are pulling the load for me. It would take away some guilt at not putting out what I'm used to. But I would need that pay cut to come with an understanding that it's an exchange for less responsibility.
However, it still demonstrates an unsurprising failure to properly empathize with childfree people.
Implicit in this solution is the assumption that childfree people need to justify their value for equal access to personal time off to people with entirely different (and more orthodox) personal values.
The best solution would be to give everyone the option to take extra time off with partial pay redistributed to active team members.
Childfree people aren't a hegemony with the same values and problem as people with children. They have more diverse values, or lack of values, and more diverse problems intensified by a pandemic which shouldn't need to be justified to coworkers with different personal priorities.
Have you considered, for example, the daily impact of a pandemic on people who derived meaning in life from time with friends and activities they can no longer see and enjoy? You might not think these are important as children (and if those people had children they might agree). But the fact is that they don't have children and these are the most meaningful things in their life. For them, their children may as well have died in the pandemic.
You won't hear them express this because it's terribly unorthodox. But it's true. Equal access to equal benefits matters.
Some of the people in the article do strike me as just resentful whiners, but some of them have quite reasonable points that the company isn't working as hard to take care of their needs. Being at home taking care of your kids in virtual school isn't a vacation - but neither is being at home alone, unable to go hang out with a single friend or family member.
I tend to agree. The it's all about me attitude has become so ingrained in western society that the greater-good is utterly discounted.
The most prominent covid related example of this is mask wearing. An unreasonably high number of people have decided that wearing a mask as a societal benefit isn't as important as their slight inconvenience.
This "it's all about me attitude" is definitely present in western society but I disagree that it is "so ingrained ... That the greater good is utterly discounted"
It seems, based on observing reality, that the greater good is far more ingrained. That's why things like public schools, post offices, animal rescues, ambulances, and fire departments are so common and tend to function relatively well.
I see some validity to the argument that "it's all about me" is perhaps gaining ground on "greater-good" but it seems clear that "greater-good" is still the majority.
They aren't resentful of someone else for having it better. They're resentful that people who consider children the most meaningful thing in their own lives evidently "selfishly ignored* the impact of the pandemic on the lives of people who had no choice but to put meaning in things other than children. Most of which was stripped away months ago and may not be back for a long time, by the way.
We're all in this together. Failure to sympathize with childfree people is a problem. Resentment for that failing is not.
It's certainly selfish of them to be resentful but humans are selfish to some degree by nature. I do see why childless people are resentful. [note: I'm the parent of a small kid]
This same problem exists with every preferential policy (group policies, welfare, etc.) -- if society doesn't agree on the difficulties encountered by X group (or worse, sees people cheating the system in some way [1]), resentment triggers AND work productivity drops. See also problems with communism.
> would not be scoring employees on job performance for the first half of 2020 because there was “so much change in our lives and our work.”
This gets.. a bit problematic, as it is reducing the incentive for the people who did put a lot in. While the article notes everyone gets a higher bonus, it's unclear if this can result in promotions not happening for people who worked more hours during H1 -- that would trigger lots of resentment if it's the case. A more middle-ground approach might be setting a floor to ensure no one gets fired over weak productivity during covid, but still nonetheless rewarding those who put in more work time.
There's also a deeper question of whether it is the state's responsibility to cover parental leave or individual companies. Most other parents with this predicament had to rely on the state (take unpaid leave - and collect UI)
[1] Anecdotally, I have known people taking long paternity leave to use the time as much for childcare as to figure out their next start-up.
It’s selfish of them to be resentful. Kids are the ones who will be working when these people retire (whether by then they have children of not).
Society depends on new generations and so I don’t see a problem if parents get a small advantage.