How would you respond to someone who thinks it’s unfair that new parents get paid parental leave? He seems to understand why parental leave is important (good for baby, society, etc) but ...

That’s why we have family leave. Not just for parents but can be used to care for ailing family member

I’ve heard this argument before and I find it pretty stupid. It’s like saying you should get bereavement regardless of someone close to you passing

D2 - You can take paternity leave for each child that you have. It is possible that one employee could have a child each year for 5 years. In order for this to be equitable you would either A) give all personnel a sabbatical each year or B) limit the number of leave occurrences to 1 per x years. In scenario B someone who has two children in short succession would necessarily lose their current benefit hence the negation I mentioned. You could also go with option C) give no one leave. That would be the only truly equitable solution that I can come up with. Do you have an option D that I haven’t considered?

Ok, so how many years is x?

We can keep going down this rabbit hole but I think it is obvious at this point that the only truly equitable solution is simply to remove all paid leave. Your proposed solution does not actually achieve parity. Rather it is a arbitrary thing that gives the false impression of fairness while being wrong.

Life isn’t always equitable. That’s OK. In my view paternity leave is a positive thing. There are any number of studies that show its positive effects but simply on the most basic of levels it is just the right thing to do. You would propose that someone whose wife become pregnant shortly after they give birth, whether one purpose or not, would not receive leave. They would not get the opportunity to be with their child so that you could feel like you had some fairness in receiving a sabbatical? I just can’t follow that logic.

Why does it have to be none? Seems odd.

If we ignore compete fairness and focus on making things more fair it could simply be giving folks who haven't taken paternity leave a paid sabbatical every x years.

We haven't necessarily reached parity but are closer than we are today. It seems odd for us to acknowledge that it isn't fair but decide we won't try to make it more fair no?

The key question at the top of the thread is whether or not paternity leave is fair. You seem to be willing to admit it isn't fair.

I called out answers didn't get at the premise of the question, but rather focus on the not insignificant hassle of getting woken up constantly by children. That doesn't address where or not it is fair.

Additionally, I pointed out already that I was for a policy that would be equitable. You just didn't like that policy. Moreover I never said I'm that original comment that discretionary leave needed to be 100% in line with maternity/paternity leave, but if that is what you want we could get there with reduced benefits.

You act as if policy has to be at parity or else you should make no change to a policy. That's the equivalent to saying there is no point enacting stricter gun laws because it won't solve all gun related crimes. If you are so concerned with finding an equitable solution I would think you would be for a policy closer to parity rather than farther away.

Great thread.

As a single childless woman approaching 40, I have considered that one day I may apply for family leave on adoption of a new kitten. If I ever get to the point where life seems dull, I may do this and see if it is approved. I’m very persuasive and a little crazy so you never know!

I think that parental leave is a great way to attract and retain talent. I try not to think about it as anything other than that.

I have to say that I think the tone of this thread is really unnecessary. Yes, someone has a different perspective on a benefit than you do. He’s clearly an idiot, a dumbass, incapable of being good at his job, shouldn’t be allowed to breed, and a loser. Are you kidding me? It sounded like he was very respectful when sharing his uncommon opinion on this. There’s a lot of unnecessary aggression going on.

I’m not going to get into a back and forth on individual points in this thread, but I have a few more points.

1) Sabbatical doesn’t need to be a vacation. It could be doing a digital boot camp or something else to further one’s career.

2) Great points on faster advancement, hadn’t considered those, though I will note again that “getting” to be in the office late and work weekends “because you don’t have kids” sucks sometimes.

3) The OP and the colleague in question are from PwC so it makes sense to bring a PwC perspective where it is PARENTAL leave and not FAMILY leave. As I mentioned before, if the 16 weeks extends to general family needs then I’m all about it.

4) And of course it’s a societal good.

C2 I agree with you but that’s not the point of the argument

C2 yes you’re right. I lost focus and was responding to the arguments in the comments

Thanks for all the discussion. As a working mom, I’m pretty biased in this area, so it’s helpful to see such a wide range of perspectives (even if this thread went a little off the rails at times haha).

C2 — totally understand your perspective (and I would hope nobody would argue the need for paid time off for new moms to physically recover and feed/care for their babies!), but I think he was thinking more from a male / paternity leave perspective.

Also FYI for all, PwC recently announced new FAMILY leave policies, including paid time off to take care of aging parents, etc. (starting July 1).

And lastly for more context — the guy who originally made the comments doesn’t work at PwC, he works at a client company

The real question is how would you even determine who to provide the time off to? People could just say they don’t want kids to get the time off or people could change their mind..

If you don't have kids yp u should still plan on growing old someday. When you retire you need an economy to spend your retirememt savings in. So if there's some kind of subsidizing of people having kids it's in everyone's benefit in the grand scheme of things.

I find it everyone's reactions fascinating. I proposed early on that everyone should get discretionary leave to make it a bit more fair for those without children and many have acted as if I said something vile. I fail to understand how non-parents receiving paid leave for a similar period of time as parents would impact parents. It isn't as if something has been taken from parents in this case.

It is also interesting that I said early on that I have nothing against parental leave. Though folks have acted as if I did. Additionally, I didn't want to even create a solution to make things 100% equitable (i.e. my comment about not reaching a consensus and not wanting to solution due to that), but went along with it anyhow because it is interesting to see where things go.

Importantly I also avoided the entire subject of societal good because that had been conceded in the original post. Though everyone seems to have failed to recognize it. It is interesting that people don't seem to recognize that doing something for societal good doesn't necessarily make it fair. In many instances actions taken for the societal good make others worse off through no fault of their own. I'm not sure that is fair and fairness was/is the question at play.

Finally D3 I have no clue what you are on about. If it is of any consultation to you no one will remember any of us in 100K years. And 100K years is just the blink of an eye when measuring time on a cosmic scale. I find it comforting to know that nothing we do matters. Then you don't have to worry about what a mess Trump is, and before people lose their minds I voted Hillary.

On the point of fairness, how is it fair for someone with a newborn to spend the same amount of time/focus at work as someone who chooses not to have children? In life, there are many rules to level the playing field. Yes, its a choice to have kids but like a lot of things in ethics and philosophy, think about what would happen if everyone chooses not to have kids, human race vanishes. So its kind of a stupid argument to make that people can choose not to have kids. Vast majority shouldn’t and because of that its not really a “choice” for most working adults.

I don't understand the premise of the question. Does he own the company or pay for the wages? His employer offers mix of cash and benefits, it is his choice whether he utilizes the benefits, just as is true for a fitness benefit or health insurance.

It is also incredibly common to choose not to maximize the value of your employer provided benefits. For instance, lots of couples have the option to receive health insurance from two different employers but forgo the employer contribution and coverage from the stingier employer. It isn't "fair" that because that employee has a spouse with better coverage they are "paid less" (often by hundreds per month). Heck, most large companies self insure so those that get injured base jumping, use the orthodontia or vision benefit are getting paid more.

In an ideal world, all compensation would be cash and we would be free to choose to deploy it how we will. But there are real risk sharing benefits, as well as gains from socializing costs that for biological reasons have to be front loaded in your life.

Yep - taken to the logical conclusion, why offer any benefits at all vs paying in cash? E.g. health care, retirement. Some people may take this position, but most prefer some amount of insurance. Family leave falls in this category .

I seem to be the only one at EY who thinks our new 4 months paid leave is a bad idea.

Tell him if only he invented electricity he could take credit for that too :)

And that’s how manager should feel about those who they are responsible for, help them succeed and do better than you eventually. It’s a better lesson than any classroom.

Just took parental leave. Honestly not sure it’s “fair” but hey.

Is it fair some people get cash for adoption assistance or in vitro when I didn’t need to use that? Psst with my family of four I also do not pay 4x the health insurance premiums of a single consultant.