[ramraj07]

I do not agree with this. Even side hustles have been adversely affected by the pandemic. Quite nearly everything in our lives has been. Parents deserve all the concessions that can be afforded, but people without kids should also be afforded the same. Having children is a personal choice in the end, it's a right, but nothing special in anyway. People should not be penalized for not making that choice, just like they should not be rewarded either.

[bitexploder]

Society ultimately needs children to function. At some point it can’t always be a zero sum game where everyone thinks it’s totally fair. People with kids pay less taxes. There is an implicit understanding that children are a burden we bear as a society. I have a hard time being upset with concessions parents need right now when this is ultimately the federal governments fault. They let this fester into what it has become and we are all eating the shit sandwich that followed. 4% of the worlds population and something like 22% of the Corona Virus cases. I would encourage you and all the other single people, purposefully childless, etc to have more empathy. Most parents in competitive fields work insanely hard to keep their kids as their problem and no one else’s, even though children are a requirement for society to function as it is structured now. Parents didn’t choose this pandemic, it’s not something you can plan for. Struggling parents can use a little help, this is an immensely stressful situation. It isn’t fair to everyone and society as a whole has to bear the cost in different ways. It’s not like most parents with previously solid work records in deep work jobs are any happier than non-parents. It’s not some reward they are suddenly getting. Their life is categorically worse even if they get some minor concessions at work.

[ramraj07]

I plan to have kids as well. I'm just not convinced that parents in well to do tech companies need handouts to do this. No one is having kids in lieu of their obligation to society, people have kids because they want to. The governments where majority of people are actively choosing not to have kids are trying to incentivize the population to do so; it's not clear to me why private employers should be doing it. Further, these incentives should be declared with significant notice to make sure people can make life choices accordingly.

You can tell that no one prepares for the pandemic, and that's true. But the point is that this applies to everyone, not just those with kids. What if I have an ailing parent or a sibling? What if I run an orphanage on the side? Just give the same benefits to everyone instead of cherry picking people who make life decisions that are of no consequence to their day job. If you think that's too much to provide to everyone, then I will argue that it's too much to provide for just parents.

[kelnos]

> What if I have an ailing parent or a sibling?

If the obligation to care for them (during work hours) has increased due to COVID, then you absolutely should get more work flexibility to take care of that. Because that's something you must do for their health and well-being, not something that you just feel like doing because you want to.

> What if I run an orphanage on the side?

Presumably you ran that orphanage outside of work hours pre-COVID, and can continue to do the same now. This is kinda a silly hypothetical though... I wasn't aware that orphanage-as-side-hustle was such a popular thing for non-parent tech employees.

[ericd]

I didn’t realize that so many people on HN ran orphanages on the side, this is the second or third mention of hypothetical orphanages.

You might want to suspend judgement of parents until you’ve tried your hand at it.

[meowtimemania]

They made no judgement of parents. They spoke of widening benefits to apply to everyone not just those with kids.

[turingbombe]

> What if I have an ailing parent or a sibling?

I believe this is addressed in the article, and in many of the policies, where they describe the individual receiving these benefits as a `caregiver` not `parent`. What I find interesting is that the conversation seems to be geared solely around parents while others that take care of family in need are not brought into it.

[kelnos]

> Even side hustles have been adversely affected by the pandemic.

Were you working on your side hustle during normal work hours before the pandemic? No? So is the pandemic stopping you from working on your side hustle after work hours now? No? I didn't think so.

> Parents deserve all the concessions that can be afforded, but people without kids should also be afforded the same.

I think you're looking at this in the wrong way, as if employers are giving parents some sort of special gift by being flexible around child care responsibilities. Child care has to get done, period. It's not opt-out. Your side hustle can wait until after work hours... as it always has.

> Having children is a personal choice in the end, but nothing special in anyway. People should not be penalized for not making that choice, just like they should not be rewarded either.

Ah, here's that tired argument again. Yes, it is a personal choice. But are we really going to penalize children because their parents, when deciding to have kids, failed to take into account the possibility of global pandemic making child care interfere with their work responsibilities? Parents aren't getting "rewarded" for having kids here; they're simply getting time to do that which they must do. Child care is unique among non-work obligations in that it's not something you can reschedule, put off, or decide not to do. There's no "reward" here.

I still don't understand how you think non-parents like us are being "penalized", though. My work day during COVID is, scope-wise, exactly the same as it was pre-COVID. I get out of bed, work for 8-10 hours, and then stop and do whatever I want. I was already working from home most of the time pre-COVID, but as a bonus, people who went to an office every day now get their commute time back! If anything, non-parents are getting a reward during COVID that parents don't get, because their former commute time is now filled with... you guessed it... more child care.

[IMTDb]

Picture this : My side hustle requires me to be available to perform it at 6PM on wednesdays. So outside of my normal work hours.

This was always OK before the pandemic. Everyone stopped working at 5, and I got to get ready for my hobby at 6. All good.

Now, parents need to be available for their children at 5. So they have to leave at 4. Someone has to stay until 6 to "make it up". It's a priority that we allow them to be available for their children. So I will have to let go of my hobby, so they can be with their children.

They might even justify it by saying "I will come early on thursdays to compensate, and you can start later". The thing is that I don't care about starting later on thrusdays. I want to be free at 6 on wednesdays.

And because my calendar does not include the magic "children" word, I automatically get the lowest priority when discussing schedules. Holidays during thanksgiving ? No sir, you don't have children, you would probably be sad and alone anyway! Those nice summer days ? Well, Henry wants to take his gasp children hiking during summer break, you can have a week in november, while his son is at school! And so on...

The children word is systematically used as an argument to justify some kind of priority for parents when defining schedules over those who don't have any children. And COVID made that really visible because people with children suddenly had even more constraint than those without - and you can guess who had to be even more flexible. And because non-parents are systematically being shown that they matter less, this creates resentment.

[le-dvd]

We talk about children here, you just cannot simply decide to put them aside for a while. What hobby is more important to justify that you need to do it at a specific time ? You just invented this constraint to try to prove a point, but it really sounds like you just want to rant. Do you have children ? It's already exhausting to take care of them in normal times, but I can guarantee that when you don't know when they can go back to children care or school, and you have to work on top of that, it becomes really difficult. If you had to take care of one of your relatives, I would not think twice about trying to be more flexible for you to do so.

[IMTDb]

You just proved my point. You are placing yourself in a situation where you get to be the judge of my schedule. If that situation happened, we would not be two equally leveled adults trying to find a solution that is balanced for everyone - like doing one week for each person. We would be two adults entering a power play where you immediately use the child card and I would have to find a better excuse to justify having as much right to organise my schedule as you have. And you would probably immediately start gauging if my reasons are "good enough". If "my reasons" are more important than "your child". There is no way to ever compete. Because your child is your number 1 priority, it should almost be mine too - or at least it should definitely be higher on my prio list than any activity I plan on doing in my free time. Because if it doesn't, I must be a selfish bas

There are unfortunate life circumstance that falls upon you. These do exist and I would also definitely be more flexible to help someone undergoing them. Your child is not an unfortunate life circumstance. He is the consequence of a choice you made. Just like my schedule is the consequences of choices that I made. There is no reason to consider that your choices matter more than mine.

[betterunix2]

What makes you think someone "chose" the circumstances they face right now? When people decide to have kids they usually make the rational and justifiable assumption that childcare is available during their working hours and that they will be able to have a workspace that is separate from their child's play space.

The only relevant "choice" here is the choice that companies made to close their offices and require employees to work from home. For people with children in their homes that is going to mean they are less productive, even if there is a babysitter available. If your company told you that you are required to do your work while riding on a roller coaster, where you would likely be much less productive, you would be right to ask the company for to reduce your expectations until you are allowed to return to your office. Since parents are being required to work from an environment where their productivity will be lowered, it is reasonable and everyone should expect that their expectations will be adjusted downward to reflect that. If your home environment does not significantly reduce your productivity then there is no reason to think your own expectations should be adjusted downward.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Caring for children is more important than a side hustle. If you would take advantage of compant-given childcare time to carry out a side-hustle when you don't have children is something I would judge you for. You can like it or not, but I would.

You would be exploiting a system put in place to help families survive a pandemic for your own personal gain.

[IMTDb]

At not point am I trying to exploit any system for my side hobby. I am no trying to leave sooner than I was before covid, or have more free time. My colleague, on the other hand, is doing exactly that. He wants to leave sooner - reportedly to care for his child (I believe him). And because he wants to leave sooner, I actually have to leave later. And the fact that it is suddenly forced upon me to change my schedule because he wants me to, is the root of the problem.

[ericns]

I thought that's why the childless were obligated to school taxes and inflated health insurance premiums?

The child rearing consume what the childless have earned under the "do what's best for everyone" motif of social programs. Who's getting the best? Do the childless get to participate in this best?

[le-dvd]

There are things called empathy and humanity. Yes children should be the top priority, not only mine but everyone's. I don't ask you to compensate my hours because I have a child, I ask to try to find the best solutions to an exceptional problem, by being adults and open to discussion. The fact that you think there would be a power play is because YOU consider it to be a matter of power. It's not about power, it's not about the fact that what you have to do is more important or not. It's children (or family, or humans, or living animals), nothing is more important. We don't talk about free time here, we talk about being there for people that completely depend on us. And of course it's exceptional, situation would probably smoothen out after a few days or weeks, where we could find solutions that better suit everyone.

[durwood]

your WOW raid can wait, my dude

[Cd00d]

You should research the meanings of equality and equity. Equity is not a penalization for those with better circumstances, it is simply support for those that lack it.

[zo1]

It's special in that it is a fundamental part of our society. It moves society forward, it brings forth new generations and brings meaning to our existence. How about we turn it around and say that people that choose not to procreate be penalized?

You argument doesn't work in that it can just as easily be applied the other way if we assume having kids is the default state. We could further argue that not having kids is an advantage, hence why should parents be penalized for not having made the same choice as those that didn't.

[jb775]

In exchange for a strict policy that makes sure employee output is equivalent across the board, would you agree to sign away all future societal benefits paid for by the younger generations? (when you are old) If you aren't willing to do that, aren't you being a hypocrite by saying you'd rather cash in on those kids in the future?

[ornornor]

This will likely end up happening anyway.

The amount of children we’d need to become next generation workers and support our generation are exponential and cannot be sustained. I suspect that as for the last decade or two, old age benefits will keep shrinking and shrinking anyway because there is no way we can keep having, feeding, and sustaining the exponential numbers required.

[ironman1478]

They are not being "rewarded." They need leniency to deal with the raw hand they've been dealt. Its called empathy. Companies are choosing to help their employees out in a rough spot and that's the correct thing to do. My mother was sick a few years ago and I "worked" remotely for 1-2 months to take care of her. The company could have easily said "nah." I am eternally grateful that the company did that and I stayed for 2 years longer than I would have and worked very hard. By treating your employees well not only are you acting like a normal person, but you get the side benefit of building goodwill with your employees.

[Smaug123]

I think you haven't disagreed? The point of the parent comments in this thread is that "parents are not the only people for whom companies should have empathy", and you've replied "companies are having empathy for parents, which is great".

[ironman1478]

I might've misinterpreted what op was saying.