[austhrow743]

Absolutely not.

I'm against giving up my ability to negotiate for myself to someone who is going to negotiate for compensation that I can't use at the expense of compensation I can.

Also, weird take. In a scenario where compensation has no lifestyle strings attached to it, both the childless person and the child having person can use that money. Pushing for heavy parental leave is the "fuck you, getting mine" option.

[etherealG]

It's only that way if you think of money and time as equivalent, which I assume from your tone you do. For many parents, time with their child during those early months is invaluable, and no money compensation can compare, so it's not really a viable option for them to "get theirs" while you don't "get yours". I think collective bargaining could solve this better by asking for an option to either have the cash or the time... but getting only cash is also saying to parents "fuck you, getting mine", just with the added "and you get it too, even if you don't want it".

Overall, I think grouping together to have a more powerful negotiating position is better for the group as a whole... It's a classic Nash Equilibrium problem, and obvious to many people that grouping together even if you don't want the exact same things is still better.

I'm not sure why people who advocate for staying "alone" in your negotiation think that the outcome will be better by leaving the employer in the state of having more power in the negotiation by you being alone. Can you explain if you see it as better for any reason other than that you prefer to "have yours" even if "yours" is more for you at the cost of less for us all?