Hacker News Reader

Comment by rconti | Hacker News Reader

My employer just increased their family leave from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, which is a great perk. These days nobody seems to differentiate from maternity vs paternity leave, which is a great idea because, aside from the value it provides fathers, it also gets rid of the idea that the mother should get more time because mothers should be more involved. (alas, you can argue that it ignores the physical sacrifices the mother makes, but as long as there is parity by raising men's leave up rather than reducing a woman's leave, who can argue with it?)

I don't have kids but I've often thought if I could get 6-12 months off for having a kid it would change the equation from impossible burden to work around to actually a pleasurable experience to learn/grow/bond/etc.

View on HN

Additionally, equal paternity leave is a great thing for women's rights too. When employers will see the same leave for their employees when they have a child regardless of gender, then there's less of a rational reason to discriminate against women in the hiring process.

This is very important. I once worked for the CEO of a startup who told me that he was hesitant to hire women because if they got pregnant “it’d totally screw us over”.

This CEO should suffer legal consequences.

No, we should change the law on maternity leave.

If a startup is running on tight runway then female staff getting pregnant could be massively detrimental.

In many civilized parts of the world, a female employee getting pregnant will mean disruption during the pregnancy to accommodate doctor's visits and health issues, and then months of paid leave PLUS having to pay to backfill their position with a temp, plus the costs of recruiting and ramping up said temp.

That's a huge hit for an early stage startup to take.

Not sure I could disagree more with this. (Not to mention, this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it hard for women to work in tech.)

There are regular doctor's visits during pregnancy, yes, but that's a few hours a month. Surely even the smallest startups can absorb that kind of "disruption".

And typically, since parents know well in advance when and how much leave they'll need to take, the team can plan around the leave and how to take over that work in someone's absence. In most cases, you'll have 5-6 months to prepare.

I work for a small startup - fewer than 20 employees - and two of our team members are married. They had a baby and were both out for month (the mom took more time after that), and everything continued to function just fine because we'd planned for it. And if we needed them, they were just an email or text away.

Finally, parents can be some of the most efficient workers on a team, and are great candidates for startups. They are experienced in time management and balancing multiple tasks and stakeholders.

Honestly, this just fuels my dislike of startups. Startup culture is toxic by nature.

My advice is this: companies need to suck it up. We live in a society with rules and laws for a reason. If your business can't exist under those rules and laws, then it doesn't belong in society. Ventures that are detrimental to society simply shouldn't be allowed.

Please don't think OP's comment is representative of other startups. It isn't.

I’d like you to try doing a mental exercise and see if you feel okay with what you’ve written here.

s/pregnant/cancer/ and then ask yourself if you would feel comfortable inquiring about medical history during the hiring process.

"many civilized parts of the world"

You should try visiting one of them.

Strive to be better, Robert. This is Reddit-tier content and behaviour, maybe you would be more comfortable staying there?

If you look at my comment history I think I have a history of reasonably constructive additions to the community. I indulged in a bit of snark at what was, ultimately, a breathtakingly tone-deaf remark on your part. Speaking of, I might suggest laying off the MRA-ish diatribes.

That's all I have to say on this matter. I will not be posting further.

Like how you said you "once" worked for this CEO. Doesn't seem the kind of leader I'd want to work for either.

Google has a cool system where everyone with a new child gets (very long and equal) parental leave. If you physically give birth, you get extra time for preparation and recovery (e.g. men and women adopting, etc. don’t get it). I think this is a good way to recognize the extra burden of parents who give birth while being fair on the parenting front.

Seems weird to discriminate against adoptive parents... I understand the reasoning but seems weird. It would probably be better to have a medical policy applicable to everyone.

Adopted parents aren't excluded. You get the leave whether you are becoming a parent through adoption, surrogacy, child birth or fostering.

Adoption isn't a debilitating medical condition so why would you get medical leave for it in addition to parental leave?

I think you are framing it incorrectly as discrimination.

If one stretches such an analogy, one could reason that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy people. Not many people would agree with that one.

As you've stated, a sensible medical policy for everyone would be good. I would imagine that Google has a one.

Absolutely I agree that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy people. If you're going to pay people to not work, everyone should be equally eligible.

I think OP means that birth mothers get a little more time than fathers and adoptive parents. Having a baby is rough on the body, and there's a lot more to the physical recovery afterwards than most people realize. For example, if you have a c-section, it takes approximately 6 weeks to recover from that, and there are certain physical side effects that make it more difficult to work from an office until recovery is complete.

So that part is more like medical leave than parental leave (even though you're also parenting at the time).

The use of the word "equal" is reminiscent of the most famous of the seven commandments: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

>everyone with a new child gets (very long and equal) parental leave.

Is offered or is forced to take?

That extra paternity leave can give the dad the opportunity to be around to assist the mom while she's recovering from the birth - which helps her too. (And recovering emotionally as well as physically - post-partum depression can be paralyzing.)

It's just too bad that there's no way to offer an equivalent benefit for women without partners to provide them the same sort of support.

I don't follow what you're lamenting. That women without partners lack partners?

I guess I'm saying that the only women that paternity leave is unfair to in any way are those who lack partners.

Not that there's any simple solution to that. Maybe in a society that believed in social safety nets some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks.

> I guess I'm saying that the only women that paternity leave is unfair to in any way are those who lack partners.

It's not partner leave, it's paternity leave.

> some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks

Men don't take paternity leave solely to be 'home aide' - they're taking the time to bond with their new children.

No. For most women it's awesome that men get paternity leave.

@rconti suggested that equal paternity leave might be unfair because of the additional physical costs that women pay to give birth; I was disagreeing with that, saying that if anything paternity adds value for those women.

Paternity leave even adds value for women who will never have children, because it undercuts any argument that prefers hiring men over women because of parental leave.

The only women it doesn't add much value for are those without partners. "Unfair" is probably the wrong term. They're simply put at a disadvantage relative to other mothers as a result.

> They're simply put at a disadvantage relative to other mothers as a result.

How on earth are they put at a disadvantage that someone who does not exist, and so does not need the benefit, does not get that benefit?

And more broadly is it nice to talk about someone else getting a benefit that they need as being putting people who do not get it at a 'disadvantage'?

Are you disadvantaged that people who can't walk get wheelchairs?

I'm saying that women who have partners who get paternity leave are able to get assistance and support in the weeks after giving birth when they're exhausted, healing, and in many cases fighting post-partum depression.

Women without partners or whose partners don't get leave have to face that time alone.

It's not a disadvantage in a competition. It's an additional obstacle to overcome that not everyone has to. I think it's a shame we can't give every mother the chance to have that physical assistance and moral support after giving birth.

(Of course, before we address that, maybe we should focus on making paid maternity leave universal. Imagine giving birth (pushing a watermelon out of your private parts or having it cut out of your abdomen) and then having to return to a physically demanding minimum wage job immediately after so you can still pay the rent and buy food? While being the sole caregiver for a baby who wakes you every 3 hours for feeding. I don't know how they do it. My friends who gave birth naturally were advised by their doctors not to even try to walk more than around the house for the first 6 weeks after, to allow for proper healing.)

Having a partner when raising a child is an advantage over not having one. The advantage is not merely financial. That's all.

> alas, you can argue that it ignores the physical sacrifices the mother makes

Which is why California provides both equal paid bonding leave for parents (biological or adoptive) and paid pregnancy disability leave based on actual disability (with standard rules for uncomplicated cases) for those carrying a child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com