SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:27AM
moving. so, its 'ok' to leave your home area because the system can't (wont!) support the middle class lifestyle?
I'm a computer hw/sw guy. why the fuck SHOULD I move from the bay area? and what would that solve? I'll have even less companies to pick from, then, I'll have to leave my home and start all over again and I'm not sure WHY that is considered an ok option.
go tell a ceo that he has to leave his home. go ahead. see if he's willing.
so, why is it ok to ask ME to leave the area I now consider my home?
sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm not taking the blame for a broken economy where I'm not the only one in this situation. our middle class is being robbed and yet you put the blame on us, somehow?
"just move away!"
yeah, like that's really going to fix this economy. that's no solution! and its asking too much of people. we have - this country - made a lot of progress over the last 200+ years. why is it ok to start going backwards, now? I don't get that thinking.
I wish there was just a wee bit more compassion for those who were fucked by the system instead of saying 'sucks to be you!'.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Friday August 07 2015, @05:48PM
Yes, absolutely. I have family that live in a long term impoverished area of the country. The branch of the family that left ~60 years ago is better off (financially, anyway). I don't know where you (and others) get the idea that you can dictate that every region of the country is equally affluent, but it doesn't work that way. You happen to live in a place that has a high cost of living, the inverse problem my poorer extended family has. I do actually have compassion for you, it's just that my having compassion for you isn't actually any help at all to you or me. You can't make housing in the bay area cheaper. You can move. You don't like that housing is expensive, and you don't want to move. I'm not sure what you think anyone can do for you.
What I see is actually that happening all the time. The non-managment people can typically just find another job locally. The director level and above typically move to another state when finding a new job.
No, it's exactly the solution. The bay area is expensive because it's in high demand. If people aren't willing to pay the high cost of living, it'll come back down.