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This discussion has been archived.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 mojo chan on Friday August 07 2015, @07:30AM

    by mojo chan (266) on Friday August 07 2015, @07:30AM (#219462)

    Renting is almost always more expensive. You have to pay the mortgage plus professional maintenance that you could do more cheaply yourself plus profit for the landlord. You can't even switch utility supplier to get a better deal. It will always be more than you would pay to own the same property yourself, otherwise the landlord would be losing money.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @08:57AM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday August 07 2015, @08:57AM (#219480)

    you must not have had the kinds of landlords I have had.

    they put NO money into maintenance. what 'maint' they did, they did themselves, they fucked it up and ruined things. one time, the landlady tried to bilk me for over $400 on 2 items that had no damage at all. but oh - during the winter, the heater failed, it costed $400 to fix, and when I moved out 6mos later, yeah, I got a mystery $400 bill for things that were entirely fabricated (false, fraud).

    if you live in a large complex, it might be maintained professionally. if you live in a house that a private owner is renting out, oh man, you are mostly on your own and those landlords tend to be unwilling ones (ie, they 'had' to move to put their little snowflakes into a 'better school' and they found they could not sell their first house, so they rent it out. but they have no rental property experience and they often don't even know basic US laws and customs.)

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."