question about paid time off for new parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No and I also find it frustrating. I have 4 kids who I had before my employer, the federal government, offered any paid parental leave. By the last 2 I was out of sick and annual balances so I took unpaid leave for just 8 weeks after a difficult birth because we really couldn’t afford anything more. The men who announce their 12 weeks of paid bonding time make me extremely resentful.

Time to put on your big girl pants and GET OVER IT.

No, the man in my office who just came back from 12 weeks of paid playing golf time while his wife, mother, mother-in-law and infant were at home are extremely frustrating. I know he did some bonding and helping mom, but the 12 weeks for dads when most moms don't get that much is absurd and I am also very resentful I had to cover his work for his extra vacation. All of the older parents in my office look sideways at the dads who take paid parental leave for more than a couple of weeks.

Boo hoo, you don’t like how others are spending their leave. Sounds like the arrangement is working well for him and his family!
You sound obsessed with your coworker tbh. Hope he files an HR complaint on your creepy self.

No I don't like that men get this leave in the first place. Parental leave for men is another example of how we've stopped valuing women in the name of misguided gender equality ideology.

Yes we should go back to the good old days when a Mom with a c section doesn't have assistance when she or the baby has complications, PPD, and a wide variety of common occurrences beyond family bonding.

In the first weeks of my daughter we had daily visits to the NICU, I had trips to the ER for undiagnosed post partum pre-clampsia, then she came home and had to go to the hospital daily for bilirubin tests. I don't know how people don't understand it isn't just a "abandon Mom" she'll be fine carrying a 30 lb baby in a carrier to medical appointments.

I'm sorry that happened to you. In a case like that any father could take his sick leave and help care for mom and baby. That makes perfect sense. 12 weeks for all fathers in all circumstances seems really excessive. Another gent at my agency adopted 2 elementary school kids when he married their mom and took his 12 weeks while they went to school all day.

[Anonymous]

Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

People other than new parents will have desparate needs to take 12 weeks off of work at times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

People other than new parents will have desparate needs to take 12 weeks off of work at times.

agreed, and hopefully they have sick or vacation time to cover it. Another coworker of mine was very ill last year and everyone happily covered for her while she was out, but the guy who is golfing while the rest of the team is scrambling to do his job breeds resentment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

People other than new parents will have desparate needs to take 12 weeks off of work at times.

agreed, and hopefully they have sick or vacation time to cover it. Another coworker of mine was very ill last year and everyone happily covered for her while she was out, but the guy who is golfing while the rest of the team is scrambling to do his job breeds resentment.

But they do not get an extra benefit of 12 weeks like new parents get. It is fine that you are not concerned about this, but don't make it seem like they are not at a disadvantage. Again, you make not care, and that is your right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

People other than new parents will have desparate needs to take 12 weeks off of work at times.

agreed, and hopefully they have sick or vacation time to cover it. Another coworker of mine was very ill last year and everyone happily covered for her while she was out, but the guy who is golfing while the rest of the team is scrambling to do his job breeds resentment.

But they do not get an extra benefit of 12 weeks like new parents get. It is fine that you are not concerned about this, but don't make it seem like they are not at a disadvantage. Again, you make not care, and that is your right.

I think I'm agreeing with you, I think people who are ill should get enough time to recover from an illness but new dads are not part of that group and haven't done anything to merit a 12 week vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

People other than new parents will have desparate needs to take 12 weeks off of work at times.

agreed, and hopefully they have sick or vacation time to cover it. Another coworker of mine was very ill last year and everyone happily covered for her while she was out, but the guy who is golfing while the rest of the team is scrambling to do his job breeds resentment.

But they do not get an extra benefit of 12 weeks like new parents get. It is fine that you are not concerned about this, but don't make it seem like they are not at a disadvantage. Again, you make not care, and that is your right.

I think I'm agreeing with you, I think people who are ill should get enough time to recover from an illness but new dads are not part of that group and haven't done anything to merit a 12 week vacation.

sorry I misunderstood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No and I also find it frustrating. I have 4 kids who I had before my employer, the federal government, offered any paid parental leave. By the last 2 I was out of sick and annual balances so I took unpaid leave for just 8 weeks after a difficult birth because we really couldn’t afford anything more. The men who announce their 12 weeks of paid bonding time make me extremely resentful.

Time to put on your big girl pants and GET OVER IT.

No, the man in my office who just came back from 12 weeks of paid playing golf time while his wife, mother, mother-in-law and infant were at home are extremely frustrating. I know he did some bonding and helping mom, but the 12 weeks for dads when most moms don't get that much is absurd and I am also very resentful I had to cover his work for his extra vacation. All of the older parents in my office look sideways at the dads who take paid parental leave for more than a couple of weeks.

Boo hoo, you don’t like how others are spending their leave. Sounds like the arrangement is working well for him and his family!
You sound obsessed with your coworker tbh. Hope he files an HR complaint on your creepy self.

No I don't like that men get this leave in the first place. Parental leave for men is another example of how we've stopped valuing women in the name of misguided gender equality ideology.

Yes we should go back to the good old days when a Mom with a c section doesn't have assistance when she or the baby has complications, PPD, and a wide variety of common occurrences beyond family bonding.

In the first weeks of my daughter we had daily visits to the NICU, I had trips to the ER for undiagnosed post partum pre-clampsia, then she came home and had to go to the hospital daily for bilirubin tests. I don't know how people don't understand it isn't just a "abandon Mom" she'll be fine carrying a 30 lb baby in a carrier to medical appointments.

I'm sorry that happened to you. In a case like that any father could take his sick leave and help care for mom and baby. That makes perfect sense. 12 weeks for all fathers in all circumstances seems really excessive. Another gent at my agency adopted 2 elementary school kids when he married their mom and took his 12 weeks while they went to school all day.

Sure. He could. Or he could work in a company with basic leave.

Google gives 24 weeks to the parent who gives birth and 18 to the partner. Because they’re so benevolent? No. Because that’s what top talent expects. The professional expectations on this has shifted and you’re going to have to get with the times.

But companies that act like no one has ever had a baby and have cultures that blame the parent taking leave not the company planning for their highly predictable absence want to keep the social pressure on not to take the leave. It’s not working for Gen Z at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

No one suddenly has a baby. Your workplace has at least three and likely six months to plan for this absence. Your anger is misplaced— just the way your bosses want it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No and I also find it frustrating. I have 4 kids who I had before my employer, the federal government, offered any paid parental leave. By the last 2 I was out of sick and annual balances so I took unpaid leave for just 8 weeks after a difficult birth because we really couldn’t afford anything more. The men who announce their 12 weeks of paid bonding time make me extremely resentful.

Time to put on your big girl pants and GET OVER IT.

No, the man in my office who just came back from 12 weeks of paid playing golf time while his wife, mother, mother-in-law and infant were at home are extremely frustrating. I know he did some bonding and helping mom, but the 12 weeks for dads when most moms don't get that much is absurd and I am also very resentful I had to cover his work for his extra vacation. All of the older parents in my office look sideways at the dads who take paid parental leave for more than a couple of weeks.

Boo hoo, you don’t like how others are spending their leave. Sounds like the arrangement is working well for him and his family!
You sound obsessed with your coworker tbh. Hope he files an HR complaint on your creepy self.

No I don't like that men get this leave in the first place. Parental leave for men is another example of how we've stopped valuing women in the name of misguided gender equality ideology.

The point is really to help the mom out or even help the infant to stay with a family member instead of going to childcare at 3 months old (even if the guy in PP’s example wasn’t really using it that way).
My DH took about 2 weeks off but then I was still left alone exhausted and caring for my baby. It would have helped if he could have more time off. Or, it would have helped if he staggered the time off after I went back to work.

[Anonymous]

I find it annoying they do this. I had three kids. My wife since SAHM got zero benefits and I got zero paternity leave.

Yet at work I have to cover for every new dad and mom for weeks taking them me away from my kids for a benefit my wife and I never got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Workplace benefits are are not moral issues, they are socieital and company choices that have been made. Upper-class women who want themselves and their peers to maintain their lifestyles (can't spare any of that dual-income for things beyond our wants and desires, others need to pay for our needs, right?) and therefore need their child-rearing financially subsidized clamed paid funds toward their child-rearing is a moral right. Young-ish (meaning not truly middle aged or elderly), mostly white women advocated for this, claiming needs of their children--more sympathetic parties of people than other sets of groups in our sociey who could also benefit from subsidies (elderly, inner city single moms who do not have office jobs, etc).

Understood but at the individual level there can be a cost to those around you. If you are in a small team and someone needs to cover your work for 12 weeks when you don't really have any need to be on vacation there is a cost to the person who is carrying your burden on the job. Of course there are larger societal issues, but blanket policies ignore any individual cost.

No one suddenly has a baby. Your workplace has at least three and likely six months to plan for this absence. Your anger is misplaced— just the way your bosses want it to be.

+1

People are human resources. Humans have babies, and babies need care as do the new parents. Companies need to care for these resources just as they get maintenance on the copy machine and order a new pencils on a routine basis. Human needs are predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it annoying they do this. I had three kids. My wife since SAHM got zero benefits and I got zero paternity leave.

Yet at work I have to cover for every new dad and mom for weeks taking them me away from my kids for a benefit my wife and I never got.

Obviously your stay at home spouse didn't get benefits because she doesn't work for pay.

If you got zero paternity leave when your child was born, your employer sucks. You need to work for an employer that offers these benefits.

[Anonymous]

Somehow every other industrialized country in the world provides these benefits and no one bats an eye.

Is capitalism working for us, or are we working for capitalism?