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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:38PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:38PM (#219234) Homepage Journal

    Yes, I much prefer "tantamount to", thank you.

    Wouldn't it be funny to run a public service campaign where an iconic grammarian sees such terrible misuses of the language and sheds a silent tear?

    Yes indeed! I also despise the reduplicative copula and sometimes daydream of a website featuring a Bonfire of the Is featuring animations of the word "is" spiralling out of video clips of its superfluous usage into the flames. Another page might display millions of closing parentheses to help out those who have inadvertently left theirs open for eons. I think it would be something of a niche site though so I'll just stop there.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:28PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:28PM (#219258) Journal

    Nah, who knows? You might develop a small but fierce audience who'll be enough to keep you in soda and cheetos.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.