American Express Will Give All Parents 20 Weeks Of Paid Leave (cnn.com) 179
Starting in January, the financial services giant will expand its paid parental leave policy for mothers and fathers to 20 weeks at full pay, plus another six to eight weeks for women who give birth and require medical leave. Full-time and part-time employees who have worked at Amex for at least a year are eligible. CNN adds: That's a big shift from the company's current policy of offering six weeks of paid leave for the primary parent plus another six to eight weeks for birth mothers who require medical leave. Secondary caregivers, meanwhile, have gotten just two weeks. Under the new policy, parents will also have access to a 24-hour lactation consultant. And mothers who go on business trips will be able to ship their breast milk home for free.
All parents? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a parent, I don't work for American Express... will they give me 20 weeks?
Re: (Score:2)
They will give you all the time you need. And they will even pay the rate that they are currently paying you!
Re: (Score:2)
Good Lord... half of Seattle doesn't take AMEX due to the higher-than-otherwise merchant fees, and they focus their money on *this*?
Ugh.
I don't mind that they do nice things for their employees, but a potential problem: should AMEX come into financial troubles, the incentive to offshore/contract employees (and use them as replacements for the existing ones who get fired or laid off) will now get much bigger if the money flow ever gets tight (or the board decides they really need to bump the stock price by e
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they haven't already gradually offshored most of their staff?
so we single folks (Score:4, Insightful)
get to pick up the slack with no extra PTO or a larger salary? I understand the need to help parents, and i don't dispute it. I get that maybe parents needsome time out for a new birth or to leave early or come in late or take time off now and again to deal with older kids, but 20 weeks at full pay? doesn't that put a huge burden on those who dont have kids to pick up the slack?
Re:so we single folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the work environment is already completely fucked up
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The benefit is to you as a human. Your parents, had this policy been in place, would have been better able to care for you as an infant.
Non-breeders needn't look at this as discrimination. The kid is the one who really benefits and we were all kids.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont look at it as discrimination, I think parents should be given help making sure they can care for their kids. But 20 paid weeks off while the non parents get what? two or three weeks a year of sick/vacation time? Lets flip this on its head, lets say some company did say "we evaluated things and saw that non parent singles worked more hours and got more done so we are giving the single childless people 20% higher pay"...how fast would that land in court?
Re: (Score:2)
You get the benefit of not having to deal with a screaming kid ever. You can just decide to shoot heroin or play world of warcraft for 30 straight hours and nobody will call you a bad person for neglecting your kid...
You make up the 20 weeks in just leisure time that you can spend how you will...
Re: (Score:2)
The topic is paid time off, not the benefits of not having children.
The work NOT done by employees who don't come to work for 6 straight months has to be covered by someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like everyone has kids all at the same time of year or anything. You are distributing the workload among other co-workers, those with as well as those without kids.
On the surface, this seems like just because someone decides to have a kid, they get all kinds of extra perks. The thing is, yeah, they get extra perks, but they also have to work their ass off to be a parent.
I am perfectly fine being the single guy with no kids. I love my freedom. No amount of minor perks is going to get me to giv
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like everyone has kids all at the same time of year or anything.
September is the most common birth month, I would assume it's because more children are conceived during the cold months because people stay home and warm in bed.
Re:so we single folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the bigger picture, in 30 years time you will need the children of today to be around to maintain a viable society and economy. If you make it so unattractive to have children that people don't, you will have a major problem like Japan. The only solution will be massive immigration, and you probably won't like that either.
Another way to think of it is that by deciding not to have children you already saved yourself a tonne of money, while still benefiting from other people's kids in the long run.
Rather than being jealous of new parents and the time they get off, maybe you should demand more time off for everyone. In Europe a year for new parents and a minimum of 28 days holiday (which can include national holidays, so typically around 20-22 days you can pick) is normal. We don't have "sick days", you just take time off for illness as you need it, and if you get sick on your holiday you get those days back. I realize this seems insanely socialist to Americans, but honestly our economies don't collapse because of it and in fact it's actually the minimum level you can expect.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. If people don't come to work sick, they don't get everyone else sick, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you those first few months are far more stressful than just about anything going on at work, especially with a first child.
This new policy from AmEx is a recruitment bonus for young professionals. I think it's excellent.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Mod this parent up! if i could i would. Live within the means of one salary for a few years if you value one parent being with the child/children around teh clock for some amount of time. My folks did it, and many of my friends parents did too. They gave up the shiny new cars and yearly vacations for what for me was a pretty great family life.
Re:so we single folks (Score:4, Interesting)
Ask them if what they think about this policy. I bet they'd love to hear how their son thinks that everyone should sacrifice just like they were 'happy' to. Man, nothing is more pathetic than a grown adult bragging about the sacrifices his parents made.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No. This will sound harsh....but I do not care about your kid. It's not my job to care about your kid. Perhaps in a "make the world a better place" mentality, I should. But I don't. You should not get a paid vacation and I do not because you chose to have a child.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, ask your parents how much of a vacation it is to take care of a newborn for 6 months. In fact, I'm fairly sure I couldn't pay you to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Non-breeders needn't look at this as discrimination."
But they should, after all that's EXACTLY what it is.
"The kid is the one who really benefits and we were all kids."
No, it's the parents that benefit. Kids weren't neglected when this wasn't available.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't discriminate against people who choose not to have children. It's a choice.
And having kids is a natural biological function of life. Good luck trying to convince people that you deserve anything more than the inherent independence and freedom you get from choosing not to have kids.
We're also sorry that your parents raised such a whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
"Non-breeders needn't look at this as discrimination."
But they should, after all that's EXACTLY what it is.
It's exactly the same sort of discrimination as non-breeders having to pay taxes to support schools.
Kids weren't neglected when this wasn't available.
This clearly enables parents to take the time to bond more strongly with their young children, and that pays dividends later. Can that be done without? Sure. We also used to have our kids breathe lead fume-filled air and society got by... but had a significantly higher violent crime rate. Stronger, more stable families benefit everyone, including those who don't have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably PT positions would be upgraded to FT or temps would be brought in. This is about attracting and retaining talent, not about fucking people over.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows - perhaps this desire to harm your competition's recruitment and retention will substitute for corporate America's long-established policy of bum-fucking their employees morning, noon and night.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm single and don't plan to marry of have kids. But other people do. That's just a fact of life, and hardly the only instance of life not being "fair".
Since some people are going to have children, it makes sense to me to accommodate this reality in the most constructive way possible. Its either pick up the "slack" for someone on parental leave, pick up the "slack" for someone who is stressed out with a new baby or pick up the "slack" while someone is replaced. IMO, the first option is preferable.
Plus, I wo
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
I used to think that it was unfair that breeders get all kinds of breaks. But then I learned how difficult it is to raise a child. I don't envy parents at all and they really do deserve every break they get (and they don't get that many, really).
I am perfectly happy with giving them all these breaks and more because I can do whatever I want, whenever I want. They can't.
Yeah, they may have chosen to have children. But on the other side of that, I chose not to have children knowing full well that
Re: (Score:1)
It's not even single folks. It's anyone that chooses to not have kids. It's horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Its even worse. Its age discrimination. Say I am a 35-40 year old. I join Amex. I have kids and I have already gone through the hell taht is infancy and toddlerhood. My kids are now in school and I pay for after school day care so that I can work. Now I have to pick up the slack for 20 year olds who go off for 6 months ?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "20 weeks anytime a parent feels they need time off." This is 20 weeks from the birth of your child. As the parent of two kids, I can tell you that the first three months of a child's life is basically hell on the parents. The new baby has no set schedule and will wake up at all hours of the day or night to be fed, changed, held, etc. The baby might sleep for an hour before waking up for a diaper change and then sleep another half hour before wanting to be fed. Since the parents basically need to
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing you're even here, what with all the harsh realities your ancestors had to actually deal with in life. If you're unable to make life choices which you can handle yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
What, you mean when our ancestors lived in villages and the entire village helped out the new parents?
It is only recent behaviour that new parents are living within other people and both working full time in a job located away from your dwelling
Re: (Score:3)
not really.
In a small company, yes, but in a company as big as Amex you always have people on vacation/out sick/etc. your headcount is likely actually +1 or +2 of what you need in an idealized model anyway because of that (within an org level that 1-2 heads == ~8% of staff).
Re: (Score:3)
Travel to a country outside of the US. Their companies have managed to not collapse under the weight of parental leave. Perhaps ask them how they do it.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't seem to add all that much burden in Canada or other countries that similarly don't treat new parents like garbage. If you can't do without sombody in a planned absence (parenthood has some pretty predictable dates), then you're even more SOL if they change jobs, get hit by a car, etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. If somebody leaves, you replace them. If somebody has a kid, you have to find somebody to do their job temporarily while they're away. Completely different situations, and the latter is significantly more difficult for a company to deal with.
Re: (Score:1)
If you look at it that way, I suppose. However a correct way to address either situation is to ensure that your processes, documentation, etc allow for staff turnover of any type. Given the number of mid-large companies that also tend to make use of contractors, it's not much different than what's necessary to get a contractor up to snuff to temporarily fill out a project team.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, again, it works in so many countries.
Better than forcing staff to choose between losing their job and having offspring,
Better than forcing staff to come back to work to come right back to work without time to bond and heal, then give their kids up to a caregiver during the daylight hours
And this is AMERICAN EXPRESS, so I'm pretty sure they can afford to do it, and I'm also fairly sure that if it was a big impact on revenue they wouldn't have done so.
Also pretty sure that neither you nor I work at A
Re: (Score:2)
And then that extra experience is used against you (Score:2)
When women chose to drop out of the workforce to have children, whether it is 20 weeks or whatever, their non-childbearing cohorts--usually males--continue to accrue experience and visibility. They earn raises and promotions. The child-bearing women then sue because they were not given raises or promotions, or at least complain about the "gender gap" and push for laws that force employers to ignore the raw fact that the child-bearing women (and their partners who might also choose to sit out for weeks or mo
Re:so we single folks (Score:5, Informative)
This is such a bizarre and staunchly American attitude. In Canada you automatically get 17 weeks paid leave when having a child. You can also take an unpaid parental leave for up to 35 weeks and your employer cannot penalize you in any way for taking these leaves. The Canadian government is currently look at increasing the paid leave and applying it more equally to men and women in the future as the current system is felt to be inadequate.
Typically when someone goes on parental leave in my workplace a new employee is brought on temporarily under contract to "pick up the slack". If you choose not to have children or are not in a position to have children well then that's just too bad for you. Raising children is a huge commitment, both in time and money and there absolutely should be support from government and business to make major life events like this easier. It also encourages new mothers to do what's best for their health and the baby's by staying home and taking care of the newborn.
As someone from the outside looking in, the American system seems downright barbaric and more companies need to be doing what American Express is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is such a bizarre and staunchly American attitude."
So you think it is not at all unfair that people who choose to have children get 20 weeks of paid off-time while people who choose to not have children get nothing? Even though those non-children people might have, in their minds, equally important family or life things they might have to deal with? Those same people who choose to not have children might have a new pet and get no time off to care for it, train it, bond with it. They might have
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
get to pick up the slack with no extra PTO or a larger salary? I understand the need to help parents, and i don't dispute it. I get that maybe parents needsome time out for a new birth or to leave early or come in late or take time off now and again to deal with older kids, but 20 weeks at full pay? doesn't that put a huge burden on those who dont have kids to pick up the slack?
As a single person with no kids, even I won't complain about giving a new parent a break.
That said, no way am I working a bunch of extra hours for 20 weeks to cover for an event that you knew damn well was coming for the last nine months. If you didn't get temp help, that means you're OK with stuff falling behind while they're gone.
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't that put a huge burden on those who dont have kids to pick up the slack?
The beauty of the situation is you can choose to work at a company that offers parents such leave or not.
As a single person, you can make this choice, as a couple wanting to have kids you can make this choice, as a couple not wanting to have kids you can make this choice.
What would be a problem would be a one-size-fits all solution. You're right on the math, so by choosing your employer you can choose for a better chance at a
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can get someone in as a temp for 20 weeks for most jobs. It is around 5 months after all.
Congratulations America (Score:4, Informative)
News for Nerds? (Score:1)
I'm curious how this story is technology or science related?
Here come the complaints about "breeders"... (Score:2)
I already see comments from single people or people who choose to not have kids saying we "breeders" are taking advantage of them. A policy like this makes sense. Families are already screwed up because unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere, a two-income household is becoming a requirement. Either both parents have to work low end jobs to make ends meet, or the cost of living is so high in regions with jobs that both parents have to be able to cover that so they can do the work they're qualified
Re:Here come the complaints about "breeders"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, depends, I guess, on your definition of "middle of nowhere".
IMHO, unless you consider anywhere outside of LA, NYC, SF and other hugely $$$$ places to live, middle of nowhere....there are plenty of places with reasonable cost of living in the US. And you can still live in a decent place, in a safe neighborhood, where children still play outside, and get by on a single income family. Yes, I am talking about a 'real job', not a burger flipper, but I believe that's what we're all discussing here.
No, you won't have the latest toys, not the newest car....and you won't be going out that much, but hey, that's what my parents did. Mom stayed at home with me till I was in about 2nd grade and then gradually began working again, up to full time by the time I was old enough to come home from grade school and stay on my own will they got home from work. No problems.
We cooked at home most all meals, nothing wrong with that, forced us to eat a bit healthier, AND, I was taught from a young age how to cook myself.
Sure, being a parent is tough, it takes sacrifice both personally and fiscally, But this isn't a new thing...parents have been doing this forever till now.
Don't have them, unless you are willing to make those sacrifices. I never wanted to be tied down with the little fiscal boat anchors, so I chose not to have any...I like my time and my disposable income. A choice you make. I could NOT have both, and I chose my path and am happy with it.
If you choose to have kids....you need to take what goes with it and if you have to move to an area with a lower cost of living, then be prepared to do that. Don't expect others to take up the slack for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Random comments about it. (Score:3)
Random comments...
Workers with families may actually be beneficial to companies. Why? Speaking as a parent in a single-income household, I would think they are less prone to job-hunting/switching frequently. It'd be interesting to see statistics on employee turnover rate for single vs. married vs. married-with-kids (or vs. single-with-kids, whatever). My income is very important to me, because I have three other people to provide for (plus associated "life" activities). It's stressful to not have a job; it's more stressful when you have a spouse and kids to provide for and, well, not starve, get into debt, lose your house, that sort of thing.
That said ... heh, 20 weeks is a lot, that's like 5 months. I'm happy with 2-4 weeks of paternal leave, but it's not a huge deal if a company didn't give paternal leave. I think it's great, because IMO, it's a statement of the importance of family and the importance of fathers in family life. I mean, I wouldn't complain about 20 weeks! But I can see how someone might think 20 weeks for a *father* is a lot.
Also, that said, 20 weeks for a mother is *not* that much. Even the official pediatric recommendation is to breastfeed, exclusively, if you can, for at least 6 months. It's really, really, really hard to exclusively breastfeed while working if you have any milk supply issues at all... because pumping just doesn't work the same. Sure, maybe companies should take that into account when working out pay, or maybe some of that should be without pay, or whatever, but unless we want to say to women that having kids is unimportant, or that making them healthy is unimportant, then time off for those critical months in a baby's development is a big deal to me. As a father. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That said ... heh, 20 weeks is a lot, that's like 5 months.
Actually I am not sure I agree with that. It is not just about the kid being taken care of, it is about ensuring that the parents (both of them) will actually bond with the little one. Bonding with the kid happens for both the mother and the father in the first few month after birth. If society want its fathers to be invested in the life of their kid so they don't bail out, it makes sense in investing in that relationship.
Assuming you take two 20 weeks leave (~ 2 kids in average), that's only about 2% of yo
Re: (Score:2)
If society want its fathers to be invested in the life of their kid so they don't bail out, it makes sense in investing in that relationship.
You said that better than I did, by far, and I totally agree.
I guess I might be in a slightly different position in that I actually work from home anyways. Sometimes I forget that most people are gone from 7am to 6pm or whatever. :)
Just need 6 wives or so... (Score:2)
and I could stay home on full pay for a very long time
You want to tell me a couple things? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
HOW can a business afford to have employees off for that long.
And, if a business CAN afford to have employees off that long, do they have too many employees working
for them?
While you're at it, ask why competitors that don't offer these type of benefits never seem to have significantly lower prices.
This Just In (Score:2)
A plug for American Express (Score:2)
Unexpected (Score:2)
How do you do this? (Score:1)
Mothers get a year in Canada. 52 weeks. Every one of them. The first 16 or 17 are at full pay, the rest are part of everyone's unemployment insurance, so it's 55% pay. It's considered too short, and they're thinking of extending it to 18 months.
Our kid just turned 11 months, and we're preparing for daycare. I can't even imagine that at 20 weeks.
More Time! (Score:1)
Now they will have more time to work on their resumes, they'll need it.
Am I eligible? (Score:1)
Does this apply to current cardholders only? I'm thinking of getting an American express credit card if this applies to new members as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Blue balls.
Re: (Score:3)
They must not be impressed with your work today.
Re:lawsuit incoming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in America.
I guess that this policy is far too wimpy and liberal for the USA. IF you don't like it, sue it to death!
Other countries are implementing policies like this. No lawsuits there!
Some are even making it transferrable between parents.
The USA is becoming more socially unequal by the day. This policy would help the lower paid more than the bosses (who can afford nannies).
You really are going to the dogs.
Canadian Express (Score:2)
Other countries are implementing policies like this.
If the company had been "Canadian Express" they would have to offer just short of a year off per family which can be split between parents almost as desired (the mother must take some minimum)...and they would have been doing this for well over a decade. So well done American Express for finally managing to catch up with late 20th century employment conditions only a few more decades to go...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lawsuit incoming... (Score:5, Informative)
this is america, it's going to happen. discrimination against those who don't want or can't have children. the latter being a medical condition that surely someone will consider an ada-covered disability... and they just might find a judge to agree with them.
Read TFA:
And employees who wish to have a child will receive up to $35,000 for adoption or surrogacy for up to two children. Those undergoing infertility treatments, meanwhile, will receive up to a lifetime maximum of $35,000 to help defray costs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Not to mention, that often those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off to care for the result of fucking without protection.
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation, they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeder
Re: (Score:2)
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
I suppose, then, that they won't advantage themselves of those benefits.
There's a box of Donuts in the break room. I don't want a donut. Have I been harmed by this in any way? How selfish do you need to be to complain about that sort of thing?
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation
With a newborn? It's not vacation.
they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders
Imagination land? If they're not already overstaffed, they'll hire a temp. If they are overstaffed, I suggest they downsize. Preferably starting with toxic, selfish, employees to improve workplace conditions of the remaining sta
Re: (Score:1)
It is *STILL* 20 weeks of Paid Time Off.
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Ok, who'
Re: (Score:2)
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Well I guess you'll have to vote with your talent and keep on not working at Amex.
Re: (Score:2)
It is *STILL* 20 weeks of Paid Time Off.
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Unfair to who? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Who is being cheated?
While you're not a parent now, should you opt to have children, and you can find a willing partner, you're welcome to take that time off. It's there for when you need it!
Are you saying that you want 20 weeks paid leave ... for no reason whatsoever? Because someone who is not you advantaged themselves of that benefit? On what basis? That you think you'll never have children? How would it be decided when that leave was grante
Re: (Score:1)
Re:lawsuit incoming... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not fair that one set of people are offered this PAID BENEFIT, and other are not.
All those childless AMEX employees are offered that same paid benefit. All they need do is have a child. That's what it's for.
.that is discrimination
You're kidding right? Everyone is being offered the same benefit. No one is being excluded. That's not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.
its hard to believe that everyone wouldn't see and jump on this too.
They don't see the discrimination because it doesn't exist. Again, everyone is being offered that same benefit. No one is being excluded.
I'm pretty much settled that I DO NOT WANT kids.
First, let me say Thank You. I couldn't be happier with your decision.
Moving on, just because you don't want to participate in a particular benefit, does not mean that you're being excluded. If a coworker brings in a plate of cookies, and you decline to take one, you don't get to complain that Alice and Bob each got a cookie, but you didn't. If you don't want it, then no one should have it, right?
What I'm seeing here is a disturbingly childlike selfishness. You're absolutely terrified that someone, somewhere, got a bigger cookie than you.
Still, even though you don't want to participate, that benefit is still being offered to you (assuming you're an AMEX employee). You can take your 20 weeks just as soon as you find a willing partner who ultimately delivers.
Re: (Score:3)
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Because their decision actually is more important than yours. They're producing the next generation who you will want to care for you when you're needing medical care in your 70s.
You don't want to contribute to the next generation? Fine, no one is asking you to. However society has always catered for and helped those who produce the next generation because you and your generation will one day stop being a contributing member of society and you and your generation needs to be replaced by another contributing
Re: (Score:2)
Um... we are supposed toworking to make sure that everyoneis compensated equally for their work race, gender, or religious belief.
Are you saying that giving one group20 WEEKS of extra paid time off is compatible with that ideal? What are you smoking?
Re: (Score:3)
People without newborn babies are not a race, gender, religion, or any other class of person subject to discrimination. We have all been people without newborns. People with newborns will, in a very short time, be people without newborns.
If you are an AMEX employee, and you want to take 20weeks of paid leave, you need only find a willing partner and have a baby. (I understand that the first part might be very difficult for you.)
I'll bet you'd complain that sick days are unfair to healthy people!
Re: (Score:1)
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Not to mention, that often those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off to care for the result of fucking without protection.
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation, they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders, and since they are probably salary, that will not come with any overtime.
Tell you what, if you're that butthurt about it, take the fucking condom off.
Seems there isn't a fucking thing that can be brought up at any time that someone won't find a way to bitch about. Fucking hell, shut the FUCK UP already, and go home and start breeding if you want this so fucking bad.
Then you can enjoy a couple of decades of "EXTRA work"
TL; DR - If you're not a parent, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Re: (Score:3)
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Well, if they'd stop slacking and do their proper duty to their country and have kids, everybody would be happy. If the nation is to prosper, it needs more population and particularly from well off people who will raise their kids to also be well off. Even ancient Rome had incentives to get people to have kids. Now this is a company, and not a country, but since IIRC the US is the only industrialized country to not have mandatory leave for havign children, I expect that American Express is just doing this t
Re: (Score:3)
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids? Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!
Re: (Score:3)
How is this discrimination? there is a benefit that you decide not to use, period. It's available to everyone who wants to use it and they will even cover all the expenses to be able to use it y you have trouble doing it naturally (adoption, insemination, surrogacy, etc.)
By your same logic any benefit is discrimination, I don't want to save in a 401k, so I should get the matching money anyway. I don't like the food that is given for free and I decide not to eat it and should get money instead. I don't go to
Re: lawsuit incoming... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Society needs children to keep on going. Nobody is forcing you to have kids, but kids are a benefit to society, so we encourage that. You've received innumerable benefits from living in a human society, complaining about something you choose not to participate in is ridiculous.
Re: lawsuit incoming... (Score:1)
It's not discrimatory. The time is to take care of the child and bond, not play video games and pick your nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lawsuit incoming... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, population growth isn't happening in the industrialized world, but rather in the developing world. So unless you want to start letting in a lot of immigrants over the coming decades, you're going to have to accept that people in the West need to have children as well.
Re: (Score:1)
This sounds like a bad argument: We need to have lots of children to keep people from other countries from coming here by keeping them from being able to find work.
But it doesn't do that it just drives wages down further by increasing the supply of labor.
Limited immigration and low birthrates would eventually lower the labor force potentially to the point companies would pay to keep people they have spent the time to train instead of swapping through people like they are disposable.
I'm not against immigrati
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're busy breeding cannon fodder?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What an incredibly un-insightful post.
Does the earth care where the population growth is? What's wrong with letting immigrants in? It's not a contest.
Unequal benefits is a problem employers should solve, not one they should accelerate as an incentive to do harm to the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like that your company offers maternal benefits to people with children, then quit.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the earth care where the population growth is?
Doesn't matter. Population growth is not a problem. The developed world is already at negative population growth overall and the whole world is already at negative growth in annual births, which means that all of the net population growth worldwide is due to filling out of the age categories. That in turn means that, barring significant increases in lifespans, as soon as those are all filled out worldwide population growth will go negative as well. It appears we'll hit that peak population point in the 2050
Re: (Score:2)
Just take extra breaks for about the same length of time.
If they say anything, point out that the smokers take extra unscheduled breaks, too.