[tptacek]

6 paid weeks parental leave for secondary caregivers puts them in the top tier of "major" companies, as does 16 weeks paid for primary caregivers; that's more than Google offered a few years ago.

It's a bit disingenuous to zero in on the unpaid leave policy; what they're saying is, if you need more than 6 weeks, they'll try to work something out with you, and it'll probably be fine. They're being explicit about something most companies are opaque about.

[dejv]

As a father of 11 month old, I can't imagine how people can live with just 6 or even 16 weeks of maternity leave. Even after almost one year it feels like care is (at least) full time job, which would be quite hard to outsource.

In my EU country you will get up to three years of paid maternity leave per child, so I guess I am just spoiled.

[raz32dust]

3 years sounds extreme. How is a person supposed to run a business with that kind of law? More than 6 months paid leave is too long from a business perspective. The government can tax and guarantee income, but I am not for paid parental leave > 6 months paid by businesses.

[fastbeef]

It's not paid for by businesses, it's paid by the government. It's pays out up to 80% of your income up to a limit and some companies chose to fill in the final gap as well.

[tptacek]

It is paid for by businesses as well, in that every person who takes that leave potentially creates another headcount requirement to fill the gap.

Something between the European standard expectation of a year's leave and the American top-end norm of 12/6 primary/secondary is probably the right answer here.

But this is all a tangent. It is totally unreasonable to criticize Basecamp for policies that are on the high side of normal in the market they operate in.

Really, what's happening is that Basecamp has been forthright about something most companies are deliberately opaque about, and people on message boards are beating them up for it. If their policies were bad, I wouldn't care, but their policies on parental leave are in fact quite good for this market, so this is some bullshit.

[fastbeef]

Just to be clear, this isn't some experimental new thing that the Nordic countries are trying, this has been in place for well over 40 years - It. Works.

Does it create a suboptimal situation at the workplace. Sure, sometimes. However, since the management probably have taken long parental leaves themselves they are very understanding and willing to accommodate the next generation of parents.

In short - troublesome in the short run for certain companies, very beneficial for society as a whole in the long run.

[cpach]

”very beneficial for society as a whole in the long run”

Exactly. Low fertility rates is something that most rich countries struggle with, so to me it does seem like a good idea to invest in good childcare policies.

[tptacek]

Family leave policy isn't the only difference between the Nordic tech employment market and the US's.

[phamilton]

You still have a headcount issue. You need to hire someone to fill in, but can't hire them full time without a full additional job available. Temporary employees result in a lot of wasted job training and investment.

[run4yourlives2]

You don't force businesses to pay directly, you set up a government benefit (payroll tax) that is then used to fund things like mat/pat leaves.

Here in Canada, we get a year that can be divided in different ways. Almost everyone takes it when they have kids, so it's the norm. We pay for it (60% salary to a hard max IIRC) through "Employment Insurance" which is basically a jointly funded payroll tax. Employers can choose to top up if they want. Some do.

Honestly, I can't imagine any other way of getting through that first yet without this set up.

[sarnowski]

In Germany, you can take several years parental leave in which you are protected against being fired. But you only get paid up to 14 months and only up to 60% or ~2000$/month after tax. This gets completely paid by your health insurance (which you have to have) and your enployer doesn't have to pay anything.

[korzun]

> 3 years sounds extreme. How is a person supposed to run a business with that kind of law?

Easy, just take a look at companies in EU outside of Germany. The three years of paid maternity leave is slowly turning into lifetime unemployment for a lot of people. Then we act surprised when the companies are scared of hiring full time and decide to leave and take most of the jobs away with them.

[s73ver]

Business isn't the only thing in the world.

[SwellJoe]

That kind of law would guarantee only quite large business can survive, which is counter-productive if one wants to empower individuals.

I'm pretty much always on the side of workers in any discussion of labor vs. employers...but, there's also small business to consider. I think there's some kind of happy medium to be found, where workers are treated well and small businesses can survive long enough to become somewhat bigger businesses. In the US this is codified into law; rules and regulations that apply to large companies may not apply to smaller mom-and-pop shops.

My company couldn't afford to give an employee more than a few months paid time off; we're a four-person company, and we'd literally run out of money if a quarter of our work wasn't being done for months. On the other hand, if we had a hundred employees, we'd barely notice if one or two people were out for a while.

[mtberatwork]

> That kind of law would guarantee only quite large business can survive, which is counter-productive if one wants to empower individuals.

As others have pointed out, maternity/paternity leave in other Western countries are heavily subsidized through government assistance programs. The costs are not completely shouldered by the business.

[tptacek]

Many of those countries also increasingly have a two-caste system of fully-fledged full-time employees and "temp" workers of various types. If you want Salaryman culture, like they have in Japan, you can set pretty arbitrarily high expectations about leave and job security.

[SwellJoe]

So, why are the same folks trash-talking Basecamp for not offering more paid leave, since the US has no such subsidies? Aren't they based in the US?

I'm not opposed to such subsidies being implemented in the US.

[tptacek]

My sister is a public interest lawyer in Chicago who will get a few short weeks of leave --- not 6 --- and then be expected back in court advocating for her clients. It is really difficult for me to connect with fathers who claim that 6 weeks of paternal leave is too onerous.

As a parent to two teenagers, both of whom were born in the early years of startups, I feel your pain --- having children is hard. But if we're going to lose our collective shit about this, can we start by getting mothers in blue-collar jobs 6 weeks of paid leave before we start worrying about six-figure fathers needing more than 6 weeks off?

[dejv]

I guess my wording was wrong, there was no worrying about fathers at all.

I just can't wrap my head about how all the people are doing it. You can't just leave that small kid somewhere, is there some way of taking unpaid leave or are people just quit the job? I don't know.

[tptacek]

My experience of parenting has been that every aspect of it is like that. I was amazed the first night that we'd kept the boy alive at all. He's going to UIUC in a few months. I can't believe that happened either. Everything is crazy hard, and we're playing on SUPER EXTREME EASY MODE.

[sotojuan]

In low income households, particularly immigrant ones, the grandma or aunt becomes a fulltime nanny when the grandchildren are born. I don't know what people who don't have this kind of help do.

[balls187]

> I just can't wrap my head about how all the people are doing it. You can't just leave that small kid somewhere, is there some way of taking unpaid leave or are people just quit the job? I don't know.

People figure out a way to struggle and survive. It's in inherent to us as a species.

Some people have family help. Others have older children. Others can support on a single income. Others have paid help. Others bring their kids to work with them. Others work from home.

You just figure it out as you go.

[cpach]

I’m guessing that women quitting their job in order to take care of their kids is probably quite common in the US. I also think that nannies are more common there.

[dragonwriter]

> But if we're going to lose our collective shit about this, can we start by getting mothers in blue-collar jobs 6 weeks of paid leave before we start worrying about six-figure fathers needing more than 6 weeks off?

Some of us don't live in barbarous backwaters like Illinois, but instead in places that, if not actually civilized like the rest of the developed world, are actually aware of and occasionally making efforts toward civilization (e.g., California) and already have gotten most working mothers up to four months of pregnancy disability (typically, without complications, 4 weeks prior and 6 weeks after delivery for vaginal delivery, 8 weeks after for C-section, but longer is permitted with medical necessity) plus 12 weeks of bonding time, all job protected, with potentially all of the former paid as for other disability and up to six weeks of paid family leave that can be used for the latter.

So, can we keep talking, now?

[tptacek]

Which states have those policies?

[dragonwriter]

I'm pretty sure identified the specific state that has the policies I described, though there are some other states with similar or better paid family leave provisions and/or longer allowances for job protected leave for either pregnancy disability specifically, or general disability that includes pregnancy.

[jorvi]

By that train of logic we should be fighting for at least equal paternity leave for the average dad before there can be any discussion about more maternity leave..

[tptacek]

There is no logic to that whatsoever. But since Basecamp doesn't make that distinction --- it has "primary" and "secondary" "caregiver" --- I don't think we need to argue this point.

[ezyjules]

It is illegal (discriminatory) to have any policy based on gender. As such, you cannot have a maternity or paternity policy. Thus primary - the parent of the two who will leave their role temporarily as the main caregiver whilst the other partner continues to work OR secondary - the other.

Note though that a health insurance policy in the US will cover maybe 60% of 8 weeks of salary for the birth mother under a disability benefit claim (no joke). If a father becomes the primary caregiver, then the company is paying 100% of that time off, without support. So offering equal carries a cost and guarantees that all your employees, male or female, if they are having a kid will take that time and incur that cost, rather than a % gender of your workforce. All things you need to factor in and cost into a business, especially a small one.

[dragonwriter]

> It is illegal (discriminatory) to have any policy based on gender.

No, it's not. Obviously, it's discriminatory to have a policy that differentiates on any axis, but not all policies (whether public or employer) that differentiate based on gender (or sex, which may be more to the point here, if we define "mother" as "parent giving birth" and not "parent of the feminine gender"; the two often go together but are not equivalent) are illegal.

[ezyjules]

The difference in Europe is that the UK, Swedish or German government subsidies a great deal of that one year. In the US, the company pays for it all, and on top of it perhaps around $2,000 a month for a family health insurance policy for that employee so they can get the birth and emergency care paid for. Again, this is mostly free outside the US. You're hitting up on some societal grade rather than company policy issues. I feel you though, being from the UK and living in the US, it is just insanity. So little care for mothers and parents.

[phamilton]

This isn't really true either. In California, for example, 6 weeks of partially paid leave for a secondary caregiver are provided by state disability insurance. It's a state by state issue.

[TomK32]

Dad of a 23 months old here, also europe. Let me tell you, even 11 months is far too short. Next thing for you kid is learn about the world around it and how to talk/interact. Just a day carer, even just one parent isn't enough, both parents are vital to give the kid the best start possible.

I'm in a great position to work part time and nowadays we both do. The work gets done and our child gets love and care. Those two days we put her to a day care place, she loves being there. Everyone's happy :)

[sotojuan]

Whenever I am ready to have children, I'm going remote. It's far from a perfect solution, but at least I'm close to my children.

[kcorbitt]

Speaking from experience: try this for a few months before you commit to it! I worked from home for 2 years, but 6 months after my son was born I chose to switch to a job with an office. It was impossible to get anything done at home with the constant interruptions (even though I wasn't the primary caregiver). My work and family lives are both loads better now that I have proper separation between the two.

[was_boring]

I have the opposite experience: I have 2 kids (one 2 years old, and another 3 months old) and I work from home and remote 100% of the time. I _still_ get more done at home than I ever did in an office, even with 2 little ones who are taken care of by my wife when I'm working.

[jlark777]

Long story short, I first worked flex part-time (handing off time with my then spouse) when my kid was very young, then switched to being in an office when my kid started school and I was a single parent.

I went remote when my kid was in middle/high school because my kid needed me and it was good for me to be around. You can tell a 14 year old to shut up if you're on a conference call...most of the time. Also, I could take a few minutes in morning to get the kid to school (we lived close by to the school) or take a late lunch so my kid could go to after-school practices, classes, etc.

When a kid is in elementary school, it's vastly easier to work in an office. Elementary school is when life will be the most predictable with a kid. When a kid is in middle/high school, that's when you need to be present. For all the reasons you're thinking of. Teenagers are jerks.

All in all, I did pretty well. Kid is at a highly selective college these days.

[sotojuan]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm about ten years away from having kids (if I had full control over my future!), so I have a lot to learn. I'd just rather be close to my children than a long subway/car ride away.

[nfriedly]

As a remote-working father of a 2-year-old, I agree with you. It's not perfect, but it's definitely better than being gone for 8+ hours per day.

[balls187]

Good luck with that...

Yesterday I was working the afternoon at home, my son barges into my office and takes over my laptop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wkx4mMfFE

[cloakandswagger]

I think even 3 years is a little problematic. What are you supposed to do, take care of your child until they're 3 years old and then just go back to work?

Every company should be legally obligated to provide 18 years of paid leave for each child a worker has. Anything less is signaling that they value money over the personal and family life of their employees, and it's ridiculous that I still haven't found a country or business that offers this.

[bbcbasic]

why not set up your own business that offers this? Blaze the way.