Is this discriminatory against gays and non parental people.

[jackjackjack]

http://jezebel.com/twitter-will-offer-employees-20-weeks-paid-family-leave-1769237883

I like the idea of paid leave, especially for parents with newborns. But what if you're not a parent?. Does this paid leave extend to singles or couples with no children?

[Nvr2Thick]

In the same way that FMLA is discriminatory against people who never have to deal with a serious illness.

 

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

[jackjackjack]

I could never read through that government, long winded verbiage on that site, , but just the first line states 'unpaid' leave. With paid leave it seems like it's more unfair and can be subject for abuse.

[rvwnsd]

I do not see this as being discriminatory to gays because gay men can adopt children, hire a surrogate, or have a female friend or relative carry a baby and then take paid family leave. Likewise, I don't see it as being discriminatory to those who choose not to have children. A person who does not have children today could have one or more tomorrow. Or not.

 

Regarding abuse, I'm not sure how it would be abused.

[+ ArVaGuy]

I work for a nonprofit, we've offered this benefit to both male and female employees for years. Our gay employees are entitled to the same benefits as anyone who adopts or has a child with a surrogate. This might be a big deal that the private sector is extending such benefits to both genders but the relative impact is minimal in my point of view.

[jjkrkwood]

I think benefits in ANY genre are intended for those they apply to. I don't think its discriminatory if someone to whom the benefit is not intended or applicable cant take advantage of it. It is what it is...a benefit that protects those IN NEED of it...

[+ poolboy48220]

I remember there was a trend to offer "short-term disability leave" to mothers after birth, rather than maternity leave, so they did not have to offer paternity leave as well. I don't know if that's still going on.

[+ Truereview]

My employer has offered parental care leave for about 5 years now and they also offer backup child care when an employee's primary is unavailable. Neither of those benefits are a big deal except that both were introduced with paid critical care leave and backup adult care. These are 5days of paid leave to assist when an employee's spouse/partner, parent/child is seriously ill. The backup adult care provides professional in-home care options if the primary care provider is unable to care for a qualified adult the employee has responsibility for. To me this expands benefits to a much broader spectrum of employee and their worklife & well-being challenges.

[Kenny]

I think some of the confusion over this issue comes from assuming that "paid leave" = "vacation." If you have a new baby or a serious illness, you know that ain't true.

[MikeyGMin]

I hate to pee on anyone's benefit parade, but at my company there would be a career price paid for taking 20 weeks off. We (they) currently offer six weeks of maternity leave and two weeks of paternity leave. Even taking the 6 weeks will set you back, but if you are out for five months we will have replaced you. Maybe not on paper, but in reality someone else will have taken over your job and when you come back they scramble to find something for you. Unless your timing is very lucky, that "something" is usually a lesser job.

 

I am ambivalent about this. I don't mind anyone getting benefits, but I'm not a believer that you can have it all. Life is all about priorities and trade-offs.

[TruthBTold]

We may wish to move elsewhere.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/best-countries-for-patern_n_7595946.html

[+ saminseattle]

It benefits society as a whole to invest in the next generation. If nothing else, we need those younger than us to pay our social security and pension benefits. For example, people who aren’t raising kids still help out people who are by paying taxes for schools, but they also benefit from a more educated populace. So does providing paid leave to new parents “discriminate” against non-parents? I suppose, but the better question is, “so what, if there’s a good reason for it?”

 

My concern with government-mandated benefits like this (as opposed to those that a company voluntarily offers to attract and retain the best workers as Twitter is apparently doing) is that you’re requiring private actors to provide a public benefit. It would probably be more fair and efficient, and certainly more transparent, to collect taxes to pay for this rather than hide the cost by pawning it off on employers. Of course, there are political considerations than militate otherwise.

[Guest]

Yegads. It seems that whenever we hire a heterosexual, the employee or his employee's wife gets pregnant within a few weeks of being hired. At least where I work maternity/paternity leave isn't paid, but some of these people take off for several months, and it leaves all of their patients for the most part without care. I can just imagine if employees got 20 paid weeks off for each baby. It would be bad enough if they did it after working for a couple of years, but for most employees, getting the family started is the #1 priority. Heterosexuality is such a scourge. We ought to stop hiring heterosexuals; they're so unreliable... If we don't get pregnant, we should get paid extra.

[rvwnsd]

I hate to pee on anyone's benefit parade, but at my company there would be a career price paid for taking 20 weeks off. We (they) currently offer six weeks of maternity leave and two weeks of paternity leave. Even taking the 6 weeks will set you back, but if you are out for five months we will have replaced you. Maybe not on paper, but in reality someone else will have taken over your job and when you come back they scramble to find something for you. Unless your timing is very lucky, that "something" is usually a lesser job.

 

I am ambivalent about this. I don't mind anyone getting benefits, but I'm not a believer that you can have it all. Life is all about priorities and trade-offs.

How unfortunate it is that the parents of the person who created that practice decided to procreate. I hope they didn't get paid baby leave.

[Nvr2Thick]

In the same way that FMLA is discriminatory against people who never have to deal with a serious illness.

 

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

 

To put it another way: No, if a benefit is available but you're inherently ineligible it is not discriminatory.

[MikeyGMin]

How unfortunate it is that the parents of the person who created that practice decided to procreate. I hope they didn't get paid baby leave.

 

It's a cut-throat world. People talk about work-life balance, but for the most part that's all it is...talk.

[+ poolboy48220]

To play devil's advocate - the business world doesn't stop while someone's off on leave. SOMEBODY has to cover that work.

[Guest countryboywny]

To say that a law or policy is discriminatory because it does not benefit everyone equally is not only inflammatory, it's just NOT the case. It's like saying that public assistance laws/welfare are/is discriminatory because it doesn't benefit everyone equally.

Further, the article was addressing FMA as it relates to child birth. There are other accommodations in the law that benefit non-child bearing people. For instance, if you have to leave work to care for a parent, it would be covered under the law.

[+ ArVaGuy]

It's a cut-throat world. People talk about work-life balance, but for the most part that's all it is...talk.

 

It's also bullshit IMHO. This is an issue at my organization and we have a number of people who are vocal about it. From my experience dealing with the impact of this asinine concept - one employee's "life balance" creates another employee's "work imbalance". Someone has to either pick up the slack or work around inefficiencies created by the absence a team member under such circumstances.

[Guest]

From my experience dealing with the impact of this asinine concept - one employee's "life balance" creates another employee's "work imbalance". Someone has to either pick up the slack or work around inefficiencies created by the absence a team member under such circumstances.

 

Yes, and the employee who does the work of the other seldom gets recognition, in my experience, either from the employee or from the new parent. I've never had a parent come back to work and write a letter of recognition to those who helped her/him with the new family member.

[Bargara Leatherboy]

I have always thought maternity and paternity leave to by discriminatory. I work with a lady who had 4 children, she has had 12 months of paid maternity leave. At the end of our careers she has had 1 year mre than me where she got paid for not coming to work.

[marylander1940]

http://jezebel.com/twitter-will-offer-employees-20-weeks-paid-family-leave-1769237883

I like the idea of paid leave, especially for parents with newborns. But what if you're not a parent?. Does this paid leave extend to singles or couples with no children?

 

You do have a point... when it's snows here, both dad and mom, don't go to work even it's waking distance because there's no school even though just one could stay home. Obviously this doesn't apply to working class folks, if they don't work, they don't get paid their wage.

 

At the same time, we need to make it desirable for straight people to get married and have children. Now a days when 40 is the new 30, and 50 the new 40, the lifestyle of eternal hookups (that used to be associated with gay people) can go on for as long as they want to... I'm going to shocked many of yinz because I'm liberal but I think we're going a little bit too far and I think marriage should be made likable for a straight guy even if she's not a "trust fund baby" and a 10. My nephews and even my recently divorce cousin keep getting new women over and over again, they love living in such a gay city.

 

As a friend of mine said recently: "Straight people (because of their behavior of endless hookups, rapes, gold digging, revenge fucking, games, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to openly served in the military but some are good people..."

 

He said it as a joke but it makes you think about it, doesn't it?