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This discussion has been archived.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 Runaway1956 on Friday August 07 2015, @06:22PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 07 2015, @06:22PM (#219648) Homepage Journal

    Ahhh - I see . . . .

    That graph is probably more accurate than my memory. Funny, how closely that graph matches the ever-increasing impotence of unions. I suppose that because the stagnation of wages didn't affect me personally, I just don't remember it happening in the '70's and '80's. Only when it began to affect me and people I know did I take real notice of it.

    As for my step-dad - he loved the holidays, because he could go to work, take the next shift for the other turn foreman who called in, and SOMETIMES take the FOLLOWING shift for the remaining turn foreman. It was nothing for him to bring home $1000 for a day's work, or if he worked three shifts in a row, around $1400. (that's take home pay now, not gross) Me? The only time I have ever earned $1000 or more in a day, is when I signed a reenlistment contract. The few "bonuses" I've ever been given were only in the hundreds of dollars.

    --
    Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2