Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the in-dependent-views dept.

On Tuesday, August 4th, Neflix announced on their blog that they would begin offering new parents a progressive parental leave policy:

...Today we're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption.

The Boston Globe picked up the story earlier today and compared Netflix's new policy to Google's, which offers 18 weeks of paid maternity leave and 12 weeks of "baby bonding" time. The Boston Globe also notes:

The US and Papua New Guinea are the only countries among 185 nations and territories that hadn't imposed government-mandated laws requiring employers to pay mothers while on leave with their babies, according to a study released last year by the United Nations' International Labor Organization.

This new policy "covers all of the roughly 2,000 people working at [Netflix's] Internet video and DVD-by-mail services, according to the Los Gatos, California, company."

However, not all media voices are pleased with this change. Suzanne Venker, author of the recent book The Two-Income Trap: Why Parents Are Choosing To Stay Home, writes for Time :

Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.

What does Soylent think? Should companies offer new parents lengthy paid leave after they bring a new bundle of joy into the world, or do generous policies do more harm than good?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM (#219217)

    Cheaper? Not in the long run, because my house is paid off and that's less money I need to pay monthly. I plan to stay for a long time. Renting simply wouldn't have been a good idea in my case.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:50PM (#219240)

    The hilarious thing as soon as baby boomers started to finish paying off the 30 year mortgages EN MASS, all of a sudden the property taxes started to go up to a point where now your taxes are almost exactly what your mortgage plus taxes used to be.... wow what a COINCIDENCE!

    Now imagine trying to get a house where your TAX BILL will be as much as your 30 year mortgage payment... It's robbery. It's like paying rent for your own home.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @03:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @03:16AM (#219390)

      Clearly, we need to raise taxes on the poor even farther, while ignoring that the effective tax rate on the rich is very small.