[scarface74]

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.

[lrem]

Hehe.

I've been going around telling how my wife is nine months pregnant, asking how the paternity benefits are.

[cosmodisk]

Any success getting a job after mentioning it?

[a1pulley]

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.

[sidlls]

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?

[cosmodisk]

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.

[scarface74]

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?

[cosmodisk]

It may not be popular,but it's an opinion nonetheless. I don't disagree with working extra hours on stuff per se, especially if one is passionate about it. However,this is often abused.What is one man's passion,is other man's nightmare. These things are also very hard to balance from the management point of view. Also,60 hours a week of pure work is a lot and unless it's your own business,I would neither want anyone to do this in my own team nor myself. I'm a fan of "work smarter" not "work harder,aka longer hours". Even if you are out of school, there are many ways to shine and develop portfolio without grinding long hours. The company that is not worth working for isn't the one that allows people,who have a lot of time and motivation to do extra hours, to work longer,but one that finds it's not normal to become pregnant or go on paternity leave. Aa for paid paternity:I imagine you are commenting from the US perspective,while I do it from the European,so this needs to be taken into consideration,as on tbis side of the pond is not an option not to get it, it's more about what company can offer on top of statutory pay. As for consulting, I'm in a very similar situation,only my daughter is much younger, that's why I'm having a job that pays substantially less compared to what I'd get in consulting. And no, the requirement to travel doesn't make the job bad,even though business travel is a tiring experience,but,as you said,it could be a perfect fit to a lot of people.

[filoleg]

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.

[scarface74]

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.

[ycombinete]

That makes sense really, I’m sure smaller businesses have a harder time with people not working for long periods

[lrem]

Got an offer from every single one of them. Chose the one least surprised by this (Google).