Deloitte and Zoom Cut Paid Family Leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

(Your employer isn’t giving you more cash instead of parental leave.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

Salary is also tax deductable. My old company we had a annual rate of return we owed the parent company that bought us each year. What we did was benefits just focused on medical stuff. No mumbo Jubo. 401k was funded once a year on 12-31 if we met our numbers. Our Bonus paid in March was based on if we met our numbers

9 out of ten times we hit all numbers. We also hired less scammers, was cold hard quantfiable numbers. People out of office on long leaves wrecks metrics. In end it wrecks my bonus. I like my bonus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

Salary is also tax deductable. My old company we had a annual rate of return we owed the parent company that bought us each year. What we did was benefits just focused on medical stuff. No mumbo Jubo. 401k was funded once a year on 12-31 if we met our numbers. Our Bonus paid in March was based on if we met our numbers

9 out of ten times we hit all numbers. We also hired less scammers, was cold hard quantfiable numbers. People out of office on long leaves wrecks metrics. In end it wrecks my bonus. I like my bonus.

So you mean you just didn’t hire women in their childbearing years? Got it.

You really don’t understand much. First, salary incurs payroll taxes. Other benefits like “health insurance mumbo jumbo” and 401k contributions do not incur payroll taxes. That’s why employers do 401k contributions as opposed to just paying straight compensation—tax benefits.

By your logic, employers shouldn’t be offering health insurance either. Take that money and pay people in cash instead of spending it on premiums that disproportionately benefit sick people you don’t want employed anyway. Sick people suck! They call out more. They need pricey medical treatments. None of that medical mumbo jumbo.

Anyway, it sounds to me like you like benefits, just not benefits you aren’t personally using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop using term parental leave. It is Maternity leave and in a woke period they gave it to men for no reason .

Which is ripe with fraud. Plus Big 4 has super huge amount of vacation I worked there I had six weeks vacation, plus 10 holidays. Then they added paternity leave which was crazy.

When I left Big 5 I has the max amount of vacation you could accrue. Six weeks was already too much time off to meet charability goals and client needs. Add in Paternity leave I would have lost all my clients in my name. And I had a sales goal.

Six weeks wouldn’t cover the basic recovery time for a C-section. This has to be a man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop using term parental leave. It is Maternity leave and in a woke period they gave it to men for no reason .

Which is ripe with fraud. Plus Big 4 has super huge amount of vacation I worked there I had six weeks vacation, plus 10 holidays. Then they added paternity leave which was crazy.

When I left Big 5 I has the max amount of vacation you could accrue. Six weeks was already too much time off to meet charability goals and client needs. Add in Paternity leave I would have lost all my clients in my name. And I had a sales goal.

Stfu grandpa

+1 Feel free to cite the research that shows that parents are using parental leave fraudulently. There's lots of research that shows that paid parental leave provides significant health, economic, and developmental benefits, including reduced infant mortality, increased breastfeeding duration, improved maternal mental health, and higher labor force participation over the long run for women.

I don’t even understand what fraudulent parental leave is. You fake a baby?

lol I had to provide a birth certificate within 30 days.

You should have just provided a loaded diaper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

Salary is also tax deductable. My old company we had a annual rate of return we owed the parent company that bought us each year. What we did was benefits just focused on medical stuff. No mumbo Jubo. 401k was funded once a year on 12-31 if we met our numbers. Our Bonus paid in March was based on if we met our numbers

9 out of ten times we hit all numbers. We also hired less scammers, was cold hard quantfiable numbers. People out of office on long leaves wrecks metrics. In end it wrecks my bonus. I like my bonus.

So you mean you just didn’t hire women in their childbearing years? Got it.

You really don’t understand much. First, salary incurs payroll taxes. Other benefits like “health insurance mumbo jumbo” and 401k contributions do not incur payroll taxes. That’s why employers do 401k contributions as opposed to just paying straight compensation—tax benefits.

By your logic, employers shouldn’t be offering health insurance either. Take that money and pay people in cash instead of spending it on premiums that disproportionately benefit sick people you don’t want employed anyway. Sick people suck! They call out more. They need pricey medical treatments. None of that medical mumbo jumbo.

Anyway, it sounds to me like you like benefits, just not benefits you aren’t personally using.

Sounds good. My kids company a start up they do zero 401k match. Only basic single medical policy subsidized. Family plans are full rate. And do unlimited PTO nonsense so no sick days or Vacation days. Bunch of straight single people under 30 work there for must part. They pay well give good stock grants. RSUs bypass payroll tax on pre ipo companies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

Salary is also tax deductable. My old company we had a annual rate of return we owed the parent company that bought us each year. What we did was benefits just focused on medical stuff. No mumbo Jubo. 401k was funded once a year on 12-31 if we met our numbers. Our Bonus paid in March was based on if we met our numbers

9 out of ten times we hit all numbers. We also hired less scammers, was cold hard quantfiable numbers. People out of office on long leaves wrecks metrics. In end it wrecks my bonus. I like my bonus.

So you mean you just didn’t hire women in their childbearing years? Got it.

You really don’t understand much. First, salary incurs payroll taxes. Other benefits like “health insurance mumbo jumbo” and 401k contributions do not incur payroll taxes. That’s why employers do 401k contributions as opposed to just paying straight compensation—tax benefits.

By your logic, employers shouldn’t be offering health insurance either. Take that money and pay people in cash instead of spending it on premiums that disproportionately benefit sick people you don’t want employed anyway. Sick people suck! They call out more. They need pricey medical treatments. None of that medical mumbo jumbo.

Anyway, it sounds to me like you like benefits, just not benefits you aren’t personally using.

Sounds good. My kids company a start up they do zero 401k match. Only basic single medical policy subsidized. Family plans are full rate. And do unlimited PTO nonsense so no sick days or Vacation days. Bunch of straight single people under 30 work there for must part. They pay well give good stock grants. RSUs bypass payroll tax on pre ipo companies

Sounds like a place that won’t be able to attract anyone with real experience. And better hope the startup makes it, or those RSUs are worthless.

The company should go the extra mile and kill employer sponsored healthcare altogether. Or at least the employee subsidy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop using term parental leave. It is Maternity leave and in a woke period they gave it to men for no reason .

Which is ripe with fraud. Plus Big 4 has super huge amount of vacation I worked there I had six weeks vacation, plus 10 holidays. Then they added paternity leave which was crazy.

When I left Big 5 I has the max amount of vacation you could accrue. Six weeks was already too much time off to meet charability goals and client needs. Add in Paternity leave I would have lost all my clients in my name. And I had a sales goal.

Stfu grandpa

+1 Feel free to cite the research that shows that parents are using parental leave fraudulently. There's lots of research that shows that paid parental leave provides significant health, economic, and developmental benefits, including reduced infant mortality, increased breastfeeding duration, improved maternal mental health, and higher labor force participation over the long run for women.

I don’t even understand what fraudulent parental leave is. You fake a baby?

No, you have the baby, but then give it up for adoption after the leave is over.

I adopted an infant for the parental leave, but then returned it when the leave was over. The baby wasn't a good fit for our family anyway, so I was glad to get rid of it. I got a dog instead.

You guys crack me up

+1 Did you return the baby at Whole Foods, the Staples dropoff point or UPS?

Be sure you order from a place that doesn’t require you to have kept the original packaging for the return.

I like Zappos’s 365-day policy in case you don’t get around to sending the baby back until month 11-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman, I think paternity leave is fantastic. It should be equal in length to maternity leave, and men should be strongly encouraged or even required to take the full amount.

I wish we had the set up other countries had where you get a few weeks of concurrent leave and then parents have to take their leave separately. So both parents are home when the baby is born, then usually dad goes to work while mom stays home for a bit (makes sense since women are still recovering from birth plus if they breastfeed that's a critical time), then mom goes to work while Dad stays home alone with the baby, then baby goes into childcare.

Having parents take concurrent leave sometimes doesn't actually help with men stepping up because people revert to traditional roles and the mom still does most things and dad "helps". If men have to take parental leave alone with the baby, they figure out how to do it and become more confident, competent parents. That is what makes the difference in countries where men participate in parenting more equally -- they aren't just around, they are taking on an independent role.

This also helps women with returning to work since she's leaving the baby with Dad instead of a stranger. It's harder fur women due to hormones, so bridging the gap with a family caregiver can make a big difference in women returning to the workforce and also adjusting to leaving their babies in someone else's care.

At most of the places I have worked, including Big4, this is what 90% of the men did. It makes the most sense. At one job you had to be the primary caregiver to get paternity leave which meant you couldn't have both parents there at the same time to stagger the leave but you could use PTO for the birth of the child then argue primary caregiver when the woman went back to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman, I think paternity leave is fantastic. It should be equal in length to maternity leave, and men should be strongly encouraged or even required to take the full amount.

I wish we had the set up other countries had where you get a few weeks of concurrent leave and then parents have to take their leave separately. So both parents are home when the baby is born, then usually dad goes to work while mom stays home for a bit (makes sense since women are still recovering from birth plus if they breastfeed that's a critical time), then mom goes to work while Dad stays home alone with the baby, then baby goes into childcare.

Having parents take concurrent leave sometimes doesn't actually help with men stepping up because people revert to traditional roles and the mom still does most things and dad "helps". If men have to take parental leave alone with the baby, they figure out how to do it and become more confident, competent parents. That is what makes the difference in countries where men participate in parenting more equally -- they aren't just around, they are taking on an independent role.

This also helps women with returning to work since she's leaving the baby with Dad instead of a stranger. It's harder fur women due to hormones, so bridging the gap with a family caregiver can make a big difference in women returning to the workforce and also adjusting to leaving their babies in someone else's care.

At most of the places I have worked, including Big4, this is what 90% of the men did. It makes the most sense. At one job you had to be the primary caregiver to get paternity leave which meant you couldn't have both parents there at the same time to stagger the leave but you could use PTO for the birth of the child then argue primary caregiver when the woman went back to work.

Most Dads in my office do this as did my husband. It's good for Dad to get one on one time with the baby. My husband took our sons all over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop using term parental leave. It is Maternity leave and in a woke period they gave it to men for no reason .

Which is ripe with fraud. Plus Big 4 has super huge amount of vacation I worked there I had six weeks vacation, plus 10 holidays. Then they added paternity leave which was crazy.

When I left Big 5 I has the max amount of vacation you could accrue. Six weeks was already too much time off to meet charability goals and client needs. Add in Paternity leave I would have lost all my clients in my name. And I had a sales goal.

I’m sorry you care about your sales goals more than your child.

[Anonymous]

Deloitte is really going downhill. They lost a lot of federal contracts and the sweat shop is not as lucrative as it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop using term parental leave. It is Maternity leave and in a woke period they gave it to men for no reason .

Which is ripe with fraud. Plus Big 4 has super huge amount of vacation I worked there I had six weeks vacation, plus 10 holidays. Then they added paternity leave which was crazy.

When I left Big 5 I has the max amount of vacation you could accrue. Six weeks was already too much time off to meet charability goals and client needs. Add in Paternity leave I would have lost all my clients in my name. And I had a sales goal.

I’m sorry you care about your sales goals more than your child.

We like to eat. My wife is a SAHM and I had a 20 month old and new born and a mortgage. I was promoted three times when kids were little

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the bottom line according to my CEO from two companies ago.

He did not believe in paying for any of this mumbo jumbo. All of the money he saved by not providing these types of programs he just paid us more salary and bonus and we were free to do what we want with it.

I think I rather skip this mumbo jumbo and just make more cash.

There’s no one fixed pot of money, but that’s what employers want you to think. They will provide the pay and benefits they have to in order to a) be competitive and b) comply with the law.

To the extent benefits and pay are pitted against each other, there are real benefits to the employer in compensating employees through nonsalary benefits. First, for many benefits, there is a tax advantage. Second, not all employees use the maximum available benefit.

In any case, I’d prefer we had a society where we didn’t have to rely on employers for paid leave, and it was a tax-funded program like in 90% of the world, but here we are.

Salary is also tax deductable. My old company we had a annual rate of return we owed the parent company that bought us each year. What we did was benefits just focused on medical stuff. No mumbo Jubo. 401k was funded once a year on 12-31 if we met our numbers. Our Bonus paid in March was based on if we met our numbers

9 out of ten times we hit all numbers. We also hired less scammers, was cold hard quantfiable numbers. People out of office on long leaves wrecks metrics. In end it wrecks my bonus. I like my bonus.

So you mean you just didn’t hire women in their childbearing years? Got it.

You really don’t understand much. First, salary incurs payroll taxes. Other benefits like “health insurance mumbo jumbo” and 401k contributions do not incur payroll taxes. That’s why employers do 401k contributions as opposed to just paying straight compensation—tax benefits.

By your logic, employers shouldn’t be offering health insurance either. Take that money and pay people in cash instead of spending it on premiums that disproportionately benefit sick people you don’t want employed anyway. Sick people suck! They call out more. They need pricey medical treatments. None of that medical mumbo jumbo.

Anyway, it sounds to me like you like benefits, just not benefits you aren’t personally using.

Sounds good. My kids company a start up they do zero 401k match. Only basic single medical policy subsidized. Family plans are full rate. And do unlimited PTO nonsense so no sick days or Vacation days. Bunch of straight single people under 30 work there for must part. They pay well give good stock grants. RSUs bypass payroll tax on pre ipo companies

This works great during the first two years of a startup when everyone’s doing everything working thousands of hours and coming up with innovative ideas. Been there done that was rewarded for it. That’s a time and place in most people’s lives and often young people.

Problem is at some point a start up if it’s successful becomes a company, and there are a lot of mundane things that people need to do. You need somebody to make payroll. You need some lawyers to make sure you’re following regulations. You need to hire regular people in a bunch of jobs that don’t require innovation and whiteboards and burning the midnight oil and drinking energy drinks and sleeping in the office and slogging away to impress the next round of investors or to revolutionize the app or whatever your goal is. All those people that want to slog away and be in an exciting time in their career are going to go to the next start up or are going to grow up and eventually want other things. And those are the people actually want structure and benefit benefits and days off and work life balance. And you have to be able to accommodate at least some of those people in every long-term company.

In short, life is not startup culture, and a successful business can only be in startup culture for a short amount of time.