Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by corrral 1493 days ago
Seriously.

HN: "Firing a millionaire on paternity leave—and by "firing" I mean continuing to pay for the rest of their leave, plus probably a bunch of severance—is horrible!"

99% of the rest of the US: "WTF is paternity leave? Is that when your boss generously lets you use some of your annual leave for part of the week in which your kid is born?"

2 comments

Many states in the US have family leave (including paternity leave). California is more than 10% of the US population and the rules for paternity leave are extremely broad:

- Welcomed a new child into the family in the past 12 months through birth.

- Paid into State Disability Insurance (noted as "CASDI" on most paystubs) in the past 5 to 18 months.

- Not taken the maximum eight weeks of PFL in the past 12 months

Insinuating that 99% of the US lacks paternity leave is disingenuous.

Nice, didn't know about that. Expanded-qualification FMLA-like unpaid leave and more limited provisions for paid leave, for some workers, is pretty good compared to most of the country.
This is good information, but the original point is still valid. Kayvon is not struggling in the least bit.
I think the issue is more that firing someone during paternity leave discourages others at your company from taking paternity leave, not that this person is in some way financially devastated from the firing.
It's only through birth? I didn't know that and would have expected CA to do better. E.g. adopting a young child or baby. And does surrogacy count as birth?
Looks like adoption is under different category and you get 12 weeks. https://www.yeremianlaw.com/uncategorized/can-i-take-leave-f...
Maybe it's trying to rule out "gaining" a child through marriage (i.e. a step child)?
Lack of empathy between wage workers, pitted against other wage workers, perpetuates this.

These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california income + top federal income + additional taxes). Not the ones with multiple orders of magnitude more money that get taxed at 4%.

Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to fall for the division.

Dude has 19 million dollars worth of twitter stock alone. His interests are more similar to Bezos' than a struggling wage worker's.
> These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california income + top federal income + additional taxes).

Since income taxes are graduated, there is literally no one that pays 55%. Instead, you just approach that rate as your income rises (and never reach it since your front income is taxed at lower rates).

accurate that they are graduated and that it approaches the top tax rates.

you can have many dollars at the top tax rate. wouldn’t recommend.

> Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to fall for the division.

Sticks, stones. I'm rubber, you're glue. Et c.

I'm well aware of the problem of false divisions distracting from the very real and much more important class war, but the level of concern on this one's still kinda silly, considering the broader context. Besides, I'm with the faction that'd rather get this news during paternal leave, than on the first week, or even month, back. Provided any pay for the leave—assuming at least some portion of it was paid—continued, anyway, which I expect it will unless they really want to risk a lawsuit for little benefit.