True. But I do just the opposite. Even though they aren’t allowed to ask me if I am married, I go out of my way to mention off handedly that I am married. I want them to “discriminate” against me if they have the type of culture that expects people to work for 60 hours a week regularly.
I mentioned my newborn in all of my job interviews because I didn't want any surprises on either side of the table. I interviewed at six places and got five offers - two at FANGs, three at unicorns. I don't think there's a culture of discrimination against young fathers at large companies, and I don't think it's necessarily bad if there is at early-stage, high-growth start ups.
Why is it not necessarily bad at "early-stage, high-growth start ups?" Some things we regulate are appropriate to carve out exceptions for based on the size of a company, but why is this one?
Any company worth working for would accept it as a fact of life- most people end up having kids at some point. If the opposite is the case,well, it's better to stay away from them.
Unpopular opinion: why is that necessarily the case? I’m 45 for context.
If the company needs someone that can work 60+ hours a week, with less than market pay, but a promise of equity (or if I were starting something risky with friends) , if I were younger, wanted to build my resume and didn’t have grown folks bills, that would be an opportunity I would jump on. On the other hand, if I really didn’t need the money and wanted to work on something interesting, I might do it. Does that necessarily mean the “company isn’t worth working for” or it’s not the the right company for me?
If I cared about paid paternity leave and the company couldn’t offer it, that also doesn’t mean it’s a bad company - just not the company for me.
On personal note, I’m at a point in my career where I’m being heavily recruited for consultant type jobs that require a lot of travel. I have a son graduating this year. I had to turn those types of jobs down even though they pay more than I make now. Is the job necessarily bad because they require travel?
Not OP, but i dont think they would have an issue getting hired at any good tech company worth working for because of that.
As an anecdote, last year we hired a woman who outright told us she would like to start working next month, but then would immediately need to take 4-6 months off for a paid parental leave, as she was due somewhat soon (i forgot whether we provide 4 or 6 months; i think it is 6, but i dont remember 100%).
She was a good candidate, so of course we hired her, she worked for about a month, and then went away for the parental leave. Then she got back to work after her leave, and everything went on as normal.
We also had candidates before who went on parental leave on their first day of work, so they essentially had paid months off before they even started working.
For the record, it wasn’t some obscure small family-run business, it was at one of the big N companies.
Why is that surprising? At a larger company, one person being missing is not a big deal. At a small company where you are not trying to get as many smart people (tm) as possible, but you have an immediate need, you can’t afford to keep a req open for six months waiting on someone to come back from maternal/paternal leave. Unpaid leave is one thing - you can usually find a contractor to make up the difference.