7 ms·

Yahoo Expands Maternity, Paternity Leave

41 points by cwb71 13y ago

john_b 13y ago
Is anyone aware of how the courts have interpreted things like this (if at all)? > "Under the new policy, mothers can take 16 weeks of paid leave with benefits, and fathers can take up to eight weeks" Would that not be considered discriminatory?
- kenjackson 13y ago
  They should be different forms of leave. It would only be discriminatory, IMO, if this also applied for adoptions.
- refurb 13y ago
  How it works is that the leave is the same, but the person who gives birth can get 8 weeks of disability (I think).
- danielki 13y ago
  I wouldn't think so, as there's more than likely enough medical/biological basis for women to require more time. For example, 99.9999% of men are unable to breastfeed a baby, even if they do stay home.
  - gertef 13y ago
    Breastfeeding doesn't interfere with work. Mothers can pump and store. Or they can choose to not work for a while, just as anyone else can.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bluthru 13y ago
  The problem is that different paternity/maternity times makes employers view women as more hazardous. This also reinforces the sexist notion that fathers aren't as integral to early childhood development. I'm sure a new mother would love the extra help for another 8 weeks! Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child? Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    If there was a separate allowance for recovering from childbirth, that would make sense. For example, 16 weeks for a woman who adopts vs. 8 for a man who does exactly the same thing is just discriminatory.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      It would be. That probably explains why yahoo has a policy that both parents get 8 weeks after adoption. Its in the article.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >Equality means treating people equally--including men and children All things aren't equal in this case. Child birth can be incredibly taxing on a woman's body. Some women would need more time to recover.
    - bluthru 13y ago
      Wouldn't that woman want her husband around to help her recover then?
      - jacalata 13y ago
        Not always. Similarly, you could conceivably need to take a sick day without needing your partner to stay home to take care of you.
        bluthru 13y ago
        The difference being that there's also a newborn in this case.
    - gertef 13y ago
      That's medical disability.
  - jerf 13y ago
- radicalbyte 13y ago
  Having a pregnant wife, and having been subjected to videos of the "joy of childbirth".. I'm more than happy with half the time off in exchange for that not happening to my body.
- pc86 13y ago
  No, because what the policy is essentially doing is saying "anyone with a new kid gets 8 weeks off. If you happened to have actually given birth to the kid, we'll give you an extra 8 weeks." As others have stated, it would only be discriminatory if it was based on gender, but it's not - it's based on whether or not you had the physical toll of childbirth, as evident in the adoption v. birth difference for women. It would be interesting to hear what the leave would be for a lesbian couple with one of the women giving birth. I would think 16/8 like a heterosexual couple, but that could get dicey depending on how the rule is worded.
  - just2n 13y ago
    Without trying to get involved, I just want to point out that it is (currently) physically impossible for males to give birth. So it would appear that such a claim is implicitly identifying a gender by excluding all of the other gender.
    - itafroma 13y ago
      That would be true if the policy gave women 16 weeks and men 8 weeks, regardless of whether or not the woman gave birth. But, as reported, if you did not give birth, for example if you adopted a child, you only get 8 weeks: even if you are a woman. A larger point could be made that it's somewhat pointless to speculate about whether a policy is sexist when we're hearing a brief summary from a secondary source. A large aspect of this is how the policy is actually worded and carried out in practice.
    - gertef 13y ago
      This is "disparate impact" and is fiercely debated where it appears.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  Men are not a protected group. Do you know of any government program aimed at compensating for male underperformance or that is biased in favor of males?
  - sp332 13y ago
    What does this have to do with government programs? Gender is a protected category, and many policies (not sure about laws specifically) prohibit discrimination according to gender just as they do about race, age, etc.
    - newnewnew 13y ago
      Do you know of any cases where protected category rules were used to favor males, whites, straight people, or the abled? Men could probably sue for employment discrimination in some jobs such as child care providers. But would anyone care?
      - sp332 13y ago
        I can't think of a bias in favor of males. But there are laws requiring certain equality. I do know of a case where a guy protested the dress code at his work (he wasn't allowed to wear shorts) by wearing a short skirt. The company's dress code allowed employees to wear short skirts, and they were not allowed to enforce the dress code differently for men. Pay and benefits are enforced to be the same. In some states, car insurance companies are not even allowed to give different rates for men vs. women even though statistically women are less risky to insure.
- ben1040 13y ago
  If it was anything like when my child was born, my wife's company gives a base 8 weeks of parental leave to both men and women. The extra 8 was paid for by the company's short term disability insurance policy, for a total of 16 weeks. Childbirth was deemed sufficient to trigger short term disability. I imagine that's what happened here.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
zinssmeister 13y ago
One has nothing to do with the other.
- sp332 13y ago
  They are more related than you think . When WFH was banned, one of the groups that got the most attention was mothers who complained that they were no longer able to work and take care of their kids at the same time, but Meyer built a nursery for her own kid on-site.
- pc86 13y ago
  Why do you say that?
shaydoc 13y ago
8 weeks for fathers is very good.
throwaway1979 13y ago
Kudos to Yahoo!! It is shocking how little maternity leave is provided by the average company. I have a friend who got 8 weeks, took 8 more without pay ... she was so pissed off that she used part of the leave time to find another job. The company lost a top notch worker for being so stingy with maternity leave!
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  Let’s not forget that 16 weeks is still way below what employers in other countries are obligated to offer, on average. Have a look at this graph, linked to by the article: http://childrenschances.org/global-maps/parents-and-children/is-paid-leave-available-for-mothers-of-infants/ http://childrenschances.org/global-maps/parents-and-children... Paid leave from work for mothers of infants: Canada 50 weeks, Mexico 12 weeks, USA zero. Paid leave from work for fathers of infants: Canada 35 weeks, Cuba 40 weeks, USA zero. In Eastern European countries like Belarus, Ukraine, and Slovakia, mothers get 3 years paid leave – that’s 10 times more than what Yahoo is offering.
- gertef 13y ago
  What was the new employer's policy?
general_failure 13y ago
Sweet. Now can we see some news about tech innovations by yahoo?
HorizonXP 13y ago
To be honest, this is exactly why I do not plan on starting a family in the Bay Area, and instead, will return back to Toronto. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/pregnancy.php http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/pregnancy.... http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parental.shtml#eligible http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parent... Basically, in Ontario, mothers are eligible for 17 weeks of pregnancy leave. After giving birth, both parents are eligible for up to 37 weeks of parental leave. This time is unpaid, but has no impact on your benefits, length of employment, seniority, etc. Many companies do pay for this time off, especially since the government employment insurance program will help if your weekly income drops below 40%. The money helps significantly, but for me, it's more about the time. These are important and formative weeks during your child and family's development. A couple of my friends just had a baby, and I can see how much they cherish every moment they spend with him. I won't be worrying about these kinds of benefits for a few more years, but it's still something that I view as important.
- timjahn 13y ago
  >> These are important and formative weeks during your child and family's development. A couple of my friends just had a baby, and I can see how much they cherish every moment they spend with him. This cannot be overstated. The first few moments/hours/days/weeks/months of your child's life (especially your first) are insanely awesome/frightening/joyous/exciting/sleep-depriving/stressful/fun/inspiring/just-freaking-cool. It's not an experience I would want to miss for any reason. I'll probably never understand people who go back to work after a week or two.
  - dagw 13y ago
    I was 'lucky' enough to find myself unemployed when my daughter was born and ended up putting off getting a new job for the first three month. It was amazing. If I get another kid I'm definitely staying home for at least the first 8 weeks, and one way or the other my employer and I will have to come to some sort of agreement.
- throwaway1979 13y ago
NDizzle 13y ago
This is a pretty fair deal. As the sole income for a family of 5 in the bay area, these kind of perks are good. Well, not that it matters for me anymore. No more kids for us!!!
jroseattle 13y ago
It's really hard for me to see this as something other than reactionary to all the criticism after the WFH policy fiasco. I think it's great for those who are expecting, but this feels like trying to save face. After one year, I expected more in terms of results from Yahoo under Mayer's tenure. I'm not as close to it, but I just didn't see benefit and work policies as the difference between success and failure in the marketplace for Yahoo.

41 points by cwb71 13y ago

Is anyone aware of how the courts have interpreted things like this (if at all)? > "Under the new policy, mothers can take 16 weeks of paid leave with benefits, and fathers can take up to eight weeks" Would that not be considered discriminatory?

kenjackson 13y ago
They should be different forms of leave. It would only be discriminatory, IMO, if this also applied for adoptions.
refurb 13y ago
How it works is that the leave is the same, but the person who gives birth can get 8 weeks of disability (I think).
danielki 13y ago
I wouldn't think so, as there's more than likely enough medical/biological basis for women to require more time. For example, 99.9999% of men are unable to breastfeed a baby, even if they do stay home.
- gertef 13y ago
  Breastfeeding doesn't interfere with work. Mothers can pump and store. Or they can choose to not work for a while, just as anyone else can.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bluthru 13y ago
The problem is that different paternity/maternity times makes employers view women as more hazardous. This also reinforces the sexist notion that fathers aren't as integral to early childhood development. I'm sure a new mother would love the extra help for another 8 weeks! Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child? Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.
- astrodust 13y ago
  If there was a separate allowance for recovering from childbirth, that would make sense. For example, 16 weeks for a woman who adopts vs. 8 for a man who does exactly the same thing is just discriminatory.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    It would be. That probably explains why yahoo has a policy that both parents get 8 weeks after adoption. Its in the article.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >Equality means treating people equally--including men and children All things aren't equal in this case. Child birth can be incredibly taxing on a woman's body. Some women would need more time to recover.
  - bluthru 13y ago
    Wouldn't that woman want her husband around to help her recover then?
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Not always. Similarly, you could conceivably need to take a sick day without needing your partner to stay home to take care of you.
      - bluthru 13y ago
        The difference being that there's also a newborn in this case.
  - gertef 13y ago
    That's medical disability.
- jerf 13y ago
radicalbyte 13y ago
Having a pregnant wife, and having been subjected to videos of the "joy of childbirth".. I'm more than happy with half the time off in exchange for that not happening to my body.
pc86 13y ago
No, because what the policy is essentially doing is saying "anyone with a new kid gets 8 weeks off. If you happened to have actually given birth to the kid, we'll give you an extra 8 weeks." As others have stated, it would only be discriminatory if it was based on gender, but it's not - it's based on whether or not you had the physical toll of childbirth, as evident in the adoption v. birth difference for women. It would be interesting to hear what the leave would be for a lesbian couple with one of the women giving birth. I would think 16/8 like a heterosexual couple, but that could get dicey depending on how the rule is worded.
- just2n 13y ago
  Without trying to get involved, I just want to point out that it is (currently) physically impossible for males to give birth. So it would appear that such a claim is implicitly identifying a gender by excluding all of the other gender.
  - itafroma 13y ago
    That would be true if the policy gave women 16 weeks and men 8 weeks, regardless of whether or not the woman gave birth. But, as reported, if you did not give birth, for example if you adopted a child, you only get 8 weeks: even if you are a woman. A larger point could be made that it's somewhat pointless to speculate about whether a policy is sexist when we're hearing a brief summary from a secondary source. A large aspect of this is how the policy is actually worded and carried out in practice.
  - gertef 13y ago
    This is "disparate impact" and is fiercely debated where it appears.
newnewnew 13y ago
Men are not a protected group. Do you know of any government program aimed at compensating for male underperformance or that is biased in favor of males?
- sp332 13y ago
  What does this have to do with government programs? Gender is a protected category, and many policies (not sure about laws specifically) prohibit discrimination according to gender just as they do about race, age, etc.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    Do you know of any cases where protected category rules were used to favor males, whites, straight people, or the abled? Men could probably sue for employment discrimination in some jobs such as child care providers. But would anyone care?
    - sp332 13y ago
      I can't think of a bias in favor of males. But there are laws requiring certain equality. I do know of a case where a guy protested the dress code at his work (he wasn't allowed to wear shorts) by wearing a short skirt. The company's dress code allowed employees to wear short skirts, and they were not allowed to enforce the dress code differently for men. Pay and benefits are enforced to be the same. In some states, car insurance companies are not even allowed to give different rates for men vs. women even though statistically women are less risky to insure.
ben1040 13y ago
If it was anything like when my child was born, my wife's company gives a base 8 weeks of parental leave to both men and women. The extra 8 was paid for by the company's short term disability insurance policy, for a total of 16 weeks. Childbirth was deemed sufficient to trigger short term disability. I imagine that's what happened here.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

zinssmeister 13y ago

One has nothing to do with the other.

sp332 13y ago
They are more related than you think . When WFH was banned, one of the groups that got the most attention was mothers who complained that they were no longer able to work and take care of their kids at the same time, but Meyer built a nursery for her own kid on-site.
pc86 13y ago
Why do you say that?

shaydoc 13y ago

8 weeks for fathers is very good.

throwaway1979 13y ago

Kudos to Yahoo!! It is shocking how little maternity leave is provided by the average company. I have a friend who got 8 weeks, took 8 more without pay ... she was so pissed off that she used part of the leave time to find another job. The company lost a top notch worker for being so stingy with maternity leave!

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Let’s not forget that 16 weeks is still way below what employers in other countries are obligated to offer, on average. Have a look at this graph, linked to by the article: http://childrenschances.org/global-maps/parents-and-children/is-paid-leave-available-for-mothers-of-infants/ http://childrenschances.org/global-maps/parents-and-children... Paid leave from work for mothers of infants: Canada 50 weeks, Mexico 12 weeks, USA zero. Paid leave from work for fathers of infants: Canada 35 weeks, Cuba 40 weeks, USA zero. In Eastern European countries like Belarus, Ukraine, and Slovakia, mothers get 3 years paid leave – that’s 10 times more than what Yahoo is offering.
gertef 13y ago
What was the new employer's policy?

general_failure 13y ago

Sweet. Now can we see some news about tech innovations by yahoo?

HorizonXP 13y ago

To be honest, this is exactly why I do not plan on starting a family in the Bay Area, and instead, will return back to Toronto. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/pregnancy.php http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/pregnancy.... http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parental.shtml#eligible http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/maternity_parent... Basically, in Ontario, mothers are eligible for 17 weeks of pregnancy leave. After giving birth, both parents are eligible for up to 37 weeks of parental leave. This time is unpaid, but has no impact on your benefits, length of employment, seniority, etc. Many companies do pay for this time off, especially since the government employment insurance program will help if your weekly income drops below 40%. The money helps significantly, but for me, it's more about the time. These are important and formative weeks during your child and family's development. A couple of my friends just had a baby, and I can see how much they cherish every moment they spend with him. I won't be worrying about these kinds of benefits for a few more years, but it's still something that I view as important.

timjahn 13y ago
>> These are important and formative weeks during your child and family's development. A couple of my friends just had a baby, and I can see how much they cherish every moment they spend with him. This cannot be overstated. The first few moments/hours/days/weeks/months of your child's life (especially your first) are insanely awesome/frightening/joyous/exciting/sleep-depriving/stressful/fun/inspiring/just-freaking-cool. It's not an experience I would want to miss for any reason. I'll probably never understand people who go back to work after a week or two.
- dagw 13y ago
  I was 'lucky' enough to find myself unemployed when my daughter was born and ended up putting off getting a new job for the first three month. It was amazing. If I get another kid I'm definitely staying home for at least the first 8 weeks, and one way or the other my employer and I will have to come to some sort of agreement.
throwaway1979 13y ago

NDizzle 13y ago

This is a pretty fair deal. As the sole income for a family of 5 in the bay area, these kind of perks are good. Well, not that it matters for me anymore. No more kids for us!!!

jroseattle 13y ago

It's really hard for me to see this as something other than reactionary to all the criticism after the WFH policy fiasco. I think it's great for those who are expecting, but this feels like trying to save face. After one year, I expected more in terms of results from Yahoo under Mayer's tenure. I'm not as close to it, but I just didn't see benefit and work policies as the difference between success and failure in the marketplace for Yahoo.