[rabeener]

Yeah sure, all for rewarding employees who end up doing more work as a result but we need to separate the two issues. The parent flexibility was introduced almost overnight as a way to respond to systemic changes to childcare and schooling. There hasn’t been a lot of time to get things right but the need for this flexibility was clear immediately. So yes, let’s keep figuring out how to take care of all employees during this time but let’s stop framing it as a parent vs. non-parent issue. This is just one class of employees, parents, who needed immediate relief and some companies stepping up and providing that relief. Instead of complaining about a new benefit for parents, work with management to find a way to help all employees in a way that feels equitable to all. We’re all still just trying to figure out how to keep moving forward in a world that changed suddenly.

I don’t know how to respond to the opportunity comment, I’m not sure I understand your point.

EDIT: added a comma

[mdorazio]

I feel like your comment is another sidestep. Here's an example of what an equitable solution looks like that doesn't specifically favor one group: "Team, we realize how difficult the pandemic has made home life for many people, so we're implementing a new policy until care situations return to somewhat normal. Weekly hours have been reduced to 35 across the board and everyone gets every other Friday off on an A/B schedule."

To the opportunity comment, I thought it was evident, but maybe a thought experiment will be helpful. Let's pretend your company announces a new policy tomorrow - everyone who eats meat at the cafeteria next week gets Friday off. There are cheers around the office at this announcement because hey, Friday off! Except that you're vegan and don't want anything to do with meat for a variety of reasons. Your coworkers look at you and say, "Hey why aren't you happy about this?" You try to explain to them that you're vegan and so you won't get Friday off and this seems like kind of an unfair policy, but your coworkers just brush off your comments and say, "Well look, it's not like you can't eat meat. You've got the same opportunity as everyone else here - eat the meat and get Friday off, so what's the big deal? Just be a team player and support the rest of us."

Just because an opportunity exists that is technically available to everyone doesn't mean it's actually a fair opportunity or that the outcome of it is equal for everyone.

[rabeener]

Thanks for creating the thought experiment. Let’s keep using that as an example. This is not a case where companies decided to create a benefit arbitrarily or to make employment at the company more attractive to workers. This was the world responding to an unexpected disruption to almost every area of life. As part of that, parents had an immediate need that could not wait to be met- caring for their children. This, in my mental model, is closer to someone taking leave to deal with a physical or mental health issue vs. someone taking time off voluntarily. If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off? I suspect that over time you might have a conversation with your manager about the increased workload but would not look at your colleague as deriving additional benefit. It can still be argued that it’s not equitable that someone who lost a limb gets to take so much paid time away from the office but I think we can all agree that this isn’t the point of the benefit. I have the same view of this time off extended to parents right now.

[balfirevic]

> If your colleague were to take time off to deal with a severe physical or mental health issue, would you have the same complaints about not getting an immediate increase in compensation for picking up some extra work or also not being able to take time off?

I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live the extended sick leave would be paid by the government, which would leave the company with funds to find a temporary replacement or increase compensation for people who pick up the slack.

Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave.

[rabeener]

I’ve said this in a couple of comments but reiterating here, we’re talking about a new event that caused a failure of systems. There are no government systems or subsidies to help working parents who suddenly have no public or private school and who need to balance work with the very sudden needs of providing around the clock childcare. Longer term, yes, it will be great if there is more support similar to medical care leave but an immediate solution was needed and companies did the right thing by offering flexibility to their employees. The medical leave model was put forth because it captures the essence of a required reduction of work (which is what parents are experiencing) compared to a discretionary decision like giving vegans Fridays off. It’s not time yet to take a long view of how equitable this is, we have no idea how long parents will need this flexibility for. If this lasts a year, I don’t think we should look to the government to step in. If this lasts several years, yes, we need to come up with a model that works long term and that will likely require some sort of government action.

[ghaff]

>Indeed, I think it would be a terrible and absurd system if the company had to continue paying the person on extended sick leave.

Yet that's typically the case in the US. Large companies typically have short-term disability and long-term disability as part of their benefits plans.

Added: From the government side, there is Social Security disability.

[gandutraveler]

This wasn't a new event that affected only parents. Bit the companies rushed to provide benefits to parents because that helps them in their talent branding and being politically correct Decision makers are also most likely parents and have a blind spots to think about not parents.

I'm not saying that parents should not be given benefits but they should be applied to all employees. Singles are going through depression and would benefit from taking time off to visit their family.

[mdorazio]

Your thinking falls apart when you consider that children are a choice. And often a selfish one at that. You are not afflicted with children, you make an active decision to have them and everything that comes along with that. I would of course not begrudge a coworker for taking time off to deal with cancer, for example, but when you decide you want kids? That's a different story.

The other part of this discussion that gets left out is state vs. company responsibility. In the US, the state has generally failed when it comes to supporting parents, so people have turned to companies to fill the gap. However, it's not clear to me why companies should be the ones to do that. The state needs children and eventually benefits from them. Companies do not.

[rabeener]

I disagree that my thinking falls apart. Maybe my message is not coming across clearly so I’ll try and restart it: We are not talking about a benefit that is systemic and a typical part of our workforce. We are talking about a reaction by companies to help their employees during an unprecedented failure of normal institutions during a moment of global crisis. To extrapolate that into an argument of choices around kids, equity of benefits, or the the role of government vs. private responsibility. We’re taking about something that started 6 months ago and has still not returned to normal, if it ever will. This will require a fundamental rethink of how we work, yes, but in the interim, parents needed help, companies stepped up and complaining about any of that seems selfish and missing the point.

[mdorazio]

I understand your message, but you keep framing it as a temporary issue and response when that doesn't matter - it's a preferential response, which is the whole issue. Rather than providing actually-equal time flexibility and time off to all employees in response to WFH challenges, companies provided those to only one class of employees.

[edanm]

> Your thinking falls apart when you consider that children are a choice. And often a selfish one at that.

You seem pretty hostile to people having children, why is that?

> I would of course not begrudge a coworker for taking time off to deal with cancer, for example, but when you decide you want kids? That's a different story.

And to be clear, most people, when deciding to have children, assume various things - for example, they assume that there is an education system in place to help shoulder some of the childcare burdens. This is part of what people's taxes are going towards - and many parents also privately spend money on additional/alternative day care.

No one could predict such an unprecedented and global catastrophe that makes all of that unavailable.

[ip26]

It may be a choice but without a younger generation growing up behind you, the whole house of cards - your life included - all comes down pretty quick. We all benefit from children.

(This is part of why we all pay for public education)

[mdorazio]

I respect that opinion, but personally disagree with it pretty strongly. 1) The earth does not need more humans on it, it needs fewer. 2) It should be the responsibility of the state to cater to the needs of parents, not the responsibility of private corporations. I am perfectly happy to pay tax dollars toward public education, childcare, maternity-related disability, etc. I am not ok with picking up the slack at work without additional compensation for people who choose to have kids. You might argue that these are equivalent in net result, but I would say that paying into a pool for the public good is quite a bit different than directly being asked to shoulder more burden for free.

[tilolebo]

Curious how the state should solve the current situation?

Overrule companies vacation policy and give all parents extra PTO?

[em-bee]

to make the meat eater example work, shops are closed so meat eaters need friday off to hunt for food.

[edanm]

I'm not sure who you are arguing with regarding the whole "opportunity" thing, did anyone even mention that as something that affects this situation? That everyone technically has the opportunity to have kids?

Your metaphor is not at all similar to the real situation parents find themselves in. It's not "oh here, some people who eat meat gets Friday off". It's closer to "because of a situation outside of the company, anybody who ate meat in the last year has to do 2x as many work hours, and no longer has any time off, so in recognition of this, we're going to try and balance this out by giving them certain benefits".

That is the situation parents find themselves in, at least parents of young children.

You seem to be looking at this as a pure benefit to parents. It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem.

[luckylion]

> It's not - it's a global catastrophe that has caused a massive problem for parents, and companies that are trying to at least somewhat mitigate that massive problem.

... at the cost of employees that are not parents who have to work more.

[spicyusername]

If project timelines aren't adjusted for the available resources and the tight timelines are putting pressure on those who are available, that is not the fault of the parents taking time off, it's the fault of bad project management.

[luckylion]

If you give people who's last name starts with A a tax rebate, everybody else has to pay more taxes to fund the same things. If you cut the expenses appropriately, you can make sure they don't have to pay more, but they'll get less for what they pay. Either way, it's unfair.

Don't adjust the schedule. Increase the pay for anyone who works more.