Deloitte and Zoom Cut Paid Family Leave

[Anonymous]

So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

He needs to take care of his child.

But in any case, a supervisor “screwing” a subordinate should be fired and thus not eligible for parental leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

Is this a common series of events? If you think it is, can you show us how you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

If he screwed his wife and got her pregnant he’d still get paternity leave and you’d have to cover for him, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

If he screwed his wife and got her pregnant he’d still get paternity leave and you’d have to cover for him, right?

Except there is a limit to the wife's child bearing ability. For instance Sultan Moulay Ismail of Morocco is credited with fathering over 1,000 children, the highest number recorded for any man in history.

My old company gave four weeks paternity leave. If we hired this guy even at two weeks it would be 77 years paid paternity leave.

Plus my other old job we had a lot of unionized employees. When we started the benefit we did not realize the amount of clerks and hourly staff from the hood who on a regular basis were having kids. A few were deadbeat dads we garnish paychecks to boot.

the men unlike the women could have 2-3 women in play. We also gave off for National Guard in contract with pay. Some of guys in National Guard wth a few women in play would be off all the time.

It was never women faking it all men.

[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?

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

With adoption, your body still needs time to recover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

If he screwed his wife and got her pregnant he’d still get paternity leave and you’d have to cover for him, right?

Except there is a limit to the wife's child bearing ability. For instance Sultan Moulay Ismail of Morocco is credited with fathering over 1,000 children, the highest number recorded for any man in history.

My old company gave four weeks paternity leave. If we hired this guy even at two weeks it would be 77 years paid paternity leave.

Plus my other old job we had a lot of unionized employees. When we started the benefit we did not realize the amount of clerks and hourly staff from the hood who on a regular basis were having kids. A few were deadbeat dads we garnish paychecks to boot.

the men unlike the women could have 2-3 women in play. We also gave off for National Guard in contract with pay. Some of guys in National Guard wth a few women in play would be off all the time.

It was never women faking it all men.

And yet no company has had this problem. Because no one is fathering 1000 kids and trying to take paternity leave each time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. A guy at work is screwing the hot secretary at work on long lunch breaks. He knocks her up. He is rewarded with Paternity leave. We all cover for him.

If he screwed his wife and got her pregnant he’d still get paternity leave and you’d have to cover for him, right?

Except there is a limit to the wife's child bearing ability. For instance Sultan Moulay Ismail of Morocco is credited with fathering over 1,000 children, the highest number recorded for any man in history.

My old company gave four weeks paternity leave. If we hired this guy even at two weeks it would be 77 years paid paternity leave.

Plus my other old job we had a lot of unionized employees. When we started the benefit we did not realize the amount of clerks and hourly staff from the hood who on a regular basis were having kids. A few were deadbeat dads we garnish paychecks to boot.

the men unlike the women could have 2-3 women in play. We also gave off for National Guard in contract with pay. Some of guys in National Guard wth a few women in play would be off all the time.

It was never women faking it all men.

And yet no company has had this problem. Because no one is fathering 1000 kids and trying to take paternity leave each time.

Well if your are a donor you can do it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Sounds great in theory, but you know you won't actually get paid more over time.

[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!