Just wrote our org’s paid leave policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd have two considerations to add one regarding teleworking and a second regarding guarantee.

What do you do with teleworking? When I was managing several departments I would get requests for teleworking and part time teleworking after disability benefits ran out. We did it as a case by case basis depending in the job, projects and duties. It worked for very well for the programmers and it was easy to asses whether they submitted their code on time and whether it worked. However, several wanted to keep teleworking 100% which would not work because while missing the in person interaction with colleagues and mentoring for several months was OK the entire group did not work well if everyone was teleworking 100%. It also did not work well for employees who were in positions that had some face time activities even with video conferencing. These employees would be upset that one group got to telework full time for several months while they did not.

For small businesses, profitability is often a problem with outstanding liabilities. Smaller businesses have a harder time quantifying the cost of longer paid parental leave policies. Hiring a contractor to cover parental leave is often far more expensive than the salary savings from the disability. If others simply pick up the work then there is opportunity cost in what things those individuals are not doing. If the work just slows down that is also opportunity cost. A generous parental leave policy can help a small business recruit and train talent. If the company is doing well and doesn't really track costs closely then it can quickly get into a point later on when profits are down in needing to reverse policy fast. Does your policy convey any guarantees or is subject to change on an annual basis?

The latter point is tough, and we have ratios in place designed to be able to support work assuming that at any given time a staff member may be out or overextended. (E.g., if the work normally needs 6 people, we hire 7.) That gives us room for there to be more proactive, strategic planning at down times, and enough staffing during times of leave. But if multiple employees were on leave, we'd need a contractor.

Re: teleworking, our entire office is telework. We might at some point in the future have to have an explicit policy regarding child care requirements if there is abuse of working from home while attempting to provide child care, but it hasn't been an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

+1 it’s excessively greedy. You’re making new mothers look like freeloaders with this policy. I’m trying to understand why any company would want to pay someone their full salary for 3 months when they’re completely MIA and THEN on top of that pay them another 3 months of a full salary when they’re only working part-time. That sounds so incredibly entitled and short-sighted.

Probably so they can attract and retain good employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Update from OP here.

85% of our new hires since this policy was rolled out have come from underrepresented populations because we've updated our recruitment practices to maximize inclusion, and two people have used this policy thus far -- both are stellar employees that many organizations are interested in recruiting away, and this will undoubtedly help us retain them (in addition to evaluating our pay to ensure it's in line with industry standards). Continuing to monitor and identify ways we can continue to maximize support and ensure equity and inclusion in our workplace.

Overall, our employees are really happy about this policy and have cited is as an example of employee satisfaction in the end-of-year survey.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a "good thing." I'd be more impressed if you said that 100% of your new hires were the very best qualified candidate, regardless of the "population" they come from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Update from OP here.

85% of our new hires since this policy was rolled out have come from underrepresented populations because we've updated our recruitment practices to maximize inclusion, and two people have used this policy thus far -- both are stellar employees that many organizations are interested in recruiting away, and this will undoubtedly help us retain them (in addition to evaluating our pay to ensure it's in line with industry standards). Continuing to monitor and identify ways we can continue to maximize support and ensure equity and inclusion in our workplace.

Overall, our employees are really happy about this policy and have cited is as an example of employee satisfaction in the end-of-year survey.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a "good thing." I'd be more impressed if you said that 100% of your new hires were the very best qualified candidate, regardless of the "population" they come from.

And they are the best qualified candidates. But by improving our recruitment process (through intentional outreach, navigating to networks outside of our pre-existing ones which would just net us more of the same pool), we significantly diversified our applicant pool, and the candidates that stood out where mostly POC.

What a world we live in in which that concept is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Update from OP here.

85% of our new hires since this policy was rolled out have come from underrepresented populations because we've updated our recruitment practices to maximize inclusion, and two people have used this policy thus far -- both are stellar employees that many organizations are interested in recruiting away, and this will undoubtedly help us retain them (in addition to evaluating our pay to ensure it's in line with industry standards). Continuing to monitor and identify ways we can continue to maximize support and ensure equity and inclusion in our workplace.

Overall, our employees are really happy about this policy and have cited is as an example of employee satisfaction in the end-of-year survey.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a "good thing." I'd be more impressed if you said that 100% of your new hires were the very best qualified candidate, regardless of the "population" they come from.

And they are the best qualified candidates. But by improving our recruitment process (through intentional outreach, navigating to networks outside of our pre-existing ones which would just net us more of the same pool), we significantly diversified our applicant pool, and the candidates that stood out where mostly POC.

What a world we live in in which that concept is offensive.

Yes, I find discrimination offensive, but apparently your organization is proud to say they do it! What a world we live in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Update from OP here.

85% of our new hires since this policy was rolled out have come from underrepresented populations because we've updated our recruitment practices to maximize inclusion, and two people have used this policy thus far -- both are stellar employees that many organizations are interested in recruiting away, and this will undoubtedly help us retain them (in addition to evaluating our pay to ensure it's in line with industry standards). Continuing to monitor and identify ways we can continue to maximize support and ensure equity and inclusion in our workplace.

Overall, our employees are really happy about this policy and have cited is as an example of employee satisfaction in the end-of-year survey.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a "good thing." I'd be more impressed if you said that 100% of your new hires were the very best qualified candidate, regardless of the "population" they come from.

And they are the best qualified candidates. But by improving our recruitment process (through intentional outreach, navigating to networks outside of our pre-existing ones which would just net us more of the same pool), we significantly diversified our applicant pool, and the candidates that stood out where mostly POC.

What a world we live in in which that concept is offensive.

Yes, I find discrimination offensive, but apparently your organization is proud to say they do it! What a world we live in!

Seeking candidates from a broader pool is discrimination? Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of special leave for those who don't have children get? My children are grown and I want the same privileges you get just for having a baby. You have created a monster and resentment from other employees.

Nothing. Your work will have less work to do replacing employees who leave because of no maternity leave. But at least your children will get maternity/paternity leave. Not everything in life is fair.

No. The other employees will have to cover for you while on leave and then cover when you come back and take your pumping breaks. Believe me, this kind of special treatment creates resentment by other employees. All an employer has to do is keep a job open for you but it doesn't have to be the same job.

What's your point? I work for a company with mostly 50+ employees. I've covered for bunion surgeries, ACL tears, heart attacks, breast implants, you name it. Maternity leave is no different.

But it is different solely because of the length.

My (male) coworker got approved for more short-term disability after his knee surgery than I did for childbirth.

[Anonymous]

Here is my concern with gender-neutral leave for the birth of a child:
Reality is that you do not need two people to be at home caring for an infant. You just don't. So, let's say a woman and her husband are both home for 3 months of leave. The man is going to either mess around, giving the parental leave the reputation of a joke, or he is going to work from home -- take calls, answer e-mails. I'm worried parental leave will become the equivalent of working from home for three months, which is not ideal for a mother recovering from birth and breastfeeding. The reality is that the mother has a different need and obligation during that time than the father. His body ain't involved. I want to preserve that time for women and I think adding men to the mix will screw it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my concern with gender-neutral leave for the birth of a child:
Reality is that you do not need two people to be at home caring for an infant. You just don't. So, let's say a woman and her husband are both home for 3 months of leave. The man is going to either mess around, giving the parental leave the reputation of a joke, or he is going to work from home -- take calls, answer e-mails. I'm worried parental leave will become the equivalent of working from home for three months, which is not ideal for a mother recovering from birth and breastfeeding. The reality is that the mother has a different need and obligation during that time than the father. His body ain't involved. I want to preserve that time for women and I think adding men to the mix will screw it up.

Disagree - for the first month, the mom definitely needs/deserves someone around to help. that's how many other cultures do it - we're alone in essentially abandoning mothers with their newborns. After that, I agree it would be a little weird if the parents took all the leave simultaneously. I know a lot of families where the mom did 3 months, then the dad did the next 3 months. I think that's really great because a) it invests the dad in parenting equally and b) lets you delay childcare until the baby is 6 months old and a little more robust and more likely to be sleeping through the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is my concern with gender-neutral leave for the birth of a child:
Reality is that you do not need two people to be at home caring for an infant. You just don't. So, let's say a woman and her husband are both home for 3 months of leave. The man is going to either mess around, giving the parental leave the reputation of a joke, or he is going to work from home -- take calls, answer e-mails. I'm worried parental leave will become the equivalent of working from home for three months, which is not ideal for a mother recovering from birth and breastfeeding. The reality is that the mother has a different need and obligation during that time than the father. His body ain't involved. I want to preserve that time for women and I think adding men to the mix will screw it up.

Disagree - for the first month, the mom definitely needs/deserves someone around to help. that's how many other cultures do it - we're alone in essentially abandoning mothers with their newborns. After that, I agree it would be a little weird if the parents took all the leave simultaneously. I know a lot of families where the mom did 3 months, then the dad did the next 3 months. I think that's really great because a) it invests the dad in parenting equally and b) lets you delay childcare until the baby is 6 months old and a little more robust and more likely to be sleeping through the night.

OP again. We did it as gender-neutral because gendered leave promotes gendered stereotypes. And no, men or non-binary persons who use the leave don't use it to work from home -- shocker, they actually take the leave. Men who have been surveyed have said that they want to be able to bond with their children; research shows they are less often to actually take it because they feel unspoken pressure to not use it. It's clear that workplaces providing and truly supporting gender-neutral leave is essential to dismantling the gender divide in pay and leadership.

Additionally, not structuring it in this way would be discriminatory against gay families.

As a personal aside, with my first child, I had only 3 months of leave, 2 of it paid. (And yes, I say only realizing that it's much more than many have.) It wasn't immediately apparent to my husband and I until a few weeks in that our baby had a serious feeding disorder. Our baby ended up requiring around-the-clock care. We had planned on taking 3 months each, back to back, and every single day of that leave over those 6 months was used to keep our baby alive. A few years later, we had another child. This one did not have the same medical needs, but we set up our leave back to back again because as the PP said, it really does promote equal parenting and bonding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Update from OP here.

85% of our new hires since this policy was rolled out have come from underrepresented populations because we've updated our recruitment practices to maximize inclusion, and two people have used this policy thus far -- both are stellar employees that many organizations are interested in recruiting away, and this will undoubtedly help us retain them (in addition to evaluating our pay to ensure it's in line with industry standards). Continuing to monitor and identify ways we can continue to maximize support and ensure equity and inclusion in our workplace.

Overall, our employees are really happy about this policy and have cited is as an example of employee satisfaction in the end-of-year survey.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a "good thing." I'd be more impressed if you said that 100% of your new hires were the very best qualified candidate, regardless of the "population" they come from.

And they are the best qualified candidates. But by improving our recruitment process (through intentional outreach, navigating to networks outside of our pre-existing ones which would just net us more of the same pool), we significantly diversified our applicant pool, and the candidates that stood out where mostly POC.

What a world we live in in which that concept is offensive.

Yes, I find discrimination offensive, but apparently your organization is proud to say they do it! What a world we live in!

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Gender-neutral paid leave for new parents of new children (includes biological, adopted and foster)
* Six months total: 3 months fully paid, 3 months of partially paid leave or return to work for 3 months part-time with full-time pay
* Same for medical leave
* 1 month caregiving leave

We’re a small org (less than 50 people), but they’re very serious about diversifying their staff and especially leadership and I told them
this is how you do it.

I wonder if you’re going to get the result you want. I think there’s a segment of the workforce that will like this but I don’t see it as universal by any means and I think a lot of people are going to resent it. I also think it’s going to be tough for a small organization to actually provide this.

+1 it’s excessively greedy. You’re making new mothers look like freeloaders with this policy. I’m trying to understand why any company would want to pay someone their full salary for 3 months when they’re completely MIA and THEN on top of that pay them another 3 months of a full salary when they’re only working part-time. That sounds so incredibly entitled and short-sighted.

Probably so they can attract and retain good employees.

This creates resentment for those not getting the same. Pregnant women take too much time off, complain, and do not pull their weight.