Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

So What If Yahoo's New Dads Get Less Leave Than Moms?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the what-about-occasional-babysitters? dept.

Yahoo! 832

Dawn Kawamoto writes "Yahoo rolled out an expanded maternity/paternity policy that doubled the family leave for moms to 16 weeks. But new dads at Yahoo get only 8 weeks. It turns out that Yahoo is not the only Fortune 500 company to short-shrift news dads. But, really, do new dads think it's worth crying over? Hmmm...changing diapers or cleaning up code — both are messy, but one smells less."

cancel ×

832 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Equal rights (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613055)

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.

Re:Equal rights (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43613103)

I should add, its ironic that ultraliberal California doesn't consider this illegal, but Ruby Red North Carolina prevents such discrimination.

Re:Equal rights (2, Informative)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#43613277)

Actually in California fathers are granted the 12 weeks required under the FMLA at the federal level. So while it may be legal to give mom's 16 weeks (though I am not sure it is), dads are required by law to get at least 12 weeks.

Re:Equal rights (4, Informative)

toastar (573882) | about a year ago | (#43613365)

unpaid

Re:Equal rights (5, Informative)

Enry (630) | about a year ago | (#43613387)

Last I saw, FMLA says unpaid leave. Yahoo(!) is offering paid leave. Dads can still take 12 weeks, but the last 4 have to come out of vacation or unpaid time.

Re:Equal rights (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613399)

Here in Brazil, where we've had 10 years of socialist government (seriously, the American say Obama is a leftist, but here he'd be considered extreme right wing, in the same level as the remains of the military government), women get 120 days off and men get 5 days, both with full payment, granted as constitutional rights. The first reference in English I found was Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave [wikipedia.org]

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613415)

FMLA is a leave of absence without pay and only requires that your company retain your employment when you come back Most people don't have the option to go that long without pay. I had to use this when my first son was born and only took 1 week and it wasn't easy.

Re:Equal rights (4, Informative)

Dawn Kawamoto (2858799) | about a year ago | (#43613429)

Hi Jittles, In my submission, I left out the word *paid* maternity, *paid* paternity leave. You're dead on regarding FMLA's 12 week requirement, but it does not require it be paid.

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613455)

As a new Dad, I would have been allowed to take 12 weeks UNPAID, and graciously not be fired for it, thanks to FMLA. My dear wife got 16 weeks off, paid.

After the 16 weeks, she took unpaid family leave and her job is waiting for her for the next two years.

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613433)

NC? It's not _that_ red.

Re:Equal rights (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43613185)

I was in the military when my wife gave birth. I got 10 days, and felt that was quite generous. Females who give birth have a lot more issues than simply making sure the baby is fed and has a clean diaper. Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

Re:Equal rights (4, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year ago | (#43613241)

That's quite understandable, but if a new mother and new father at the same company with the same job title and same salary each have children in the same year, and the new mother gets more paid time off than the new father, how is that not discrimination?

Re:Equal rights (-1, Flamebait)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year ago | (#43613421)

As long as exactly the same thing happens to each biologically, then it would be discrimination. If there were some difference; say the man actually gave birth to the child and had to recover whilst the woman just supported him afterwards; then you might expect a difference. However I would have thought that the man would need more time in that case.

Re:Equal rights (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43613497)

It's not discrimination for a company to say "we don't want to give lots of paid leave to both parents." It is discrimination to say "we arbitrarily decide one parent deserves more leave than the other."

In other words, I am fine with giving extensive parental leave to only one parent -- but I think the beneficiary, not the employer, should decide which parent deserves the benefit. I think in more than 90% of the cases, it will be the mother who wants it. I could be wrong about that, and even if I'm not, real equality includes having the freedom to switch roles if you want.

This is, of course, complicated by two factors. Most couples don't both work for the same company, so the employer can't tell who is taking time off to be the primary care giver. That could be addressed by making the employee sign some papers promising he/she is really using the leave for child care. Another problem is that mothers have medical recovery, but that could be addressed by having separating medical leave from parental leave and having them run consecutively (not concurrently) when appropriate.

Re:Equal rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613289)

Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

Why? Got any science to back that claim up?

Re:Equal rights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613409)

Men are usually more violent.

Re:Equal rights (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43613463)

Men are usually more violent.

Watch it, or I'll kick your ass!

Re:Equal rights (1)

haystor (102186) | about a year ago | (#43613505)

I'm going to go way out on limb here and say that nursing is more frequently done by the mothers.

Re:Equal rights (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43613349)

Under normal circumstances women need less than a week. And in general giving birth is considered the equivalent of day surgery. The main exception being for c-sections.

Remember that as a species we used to have to be on the move constantly, and having women need 16 weeks to recover from giving birth would likely have meant the death of the species.

What's more, there's absolutely no evidence to back up the belief that babies require more bonding between them and their mother than with their father.

Re:Equal rights (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#43613363)

Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

I agree that it usually is but I see no reason that it should be. Fathers who start involved stay involved and one of the most common reasons fathers stop being involved is that the mother is 'better' at doing things. Better at soothing, better at putting the baby down for a nap, faster diaper changes... and why is that? The innate bond between mother and child? Probably has something to do with it. But isn't it possible that a big chunk of that being "better" at taking care of the baby stems directly from the extra time mother's get with their newborns?

For the record, I would have killed for 8 weeks off when my daughter was born. And I still think it's wildly unfair to give mothers more time than fathers.

Re:Equal rights (4, Insightful)

Kongming (448396) | about a year ago | (#43613375)

bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

Not everyone agrees with you.

Re:Equal rights (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613199)

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

So are women by preventing them from being given a break by the father and by relegating her to primary care giver whether or not she would rather get back to work faster than the father.

Re:Equal rights (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43613467)

No one is forcing her to take off the full 16 weeks. The mother could return to work after 8 weeks.

Re:Equal rights (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43613207)

Every place I've worked, it didn't really matter how much leave you took, you were rated at the end of the year based on how much you contributed. Take a month off, or work at sleep-deprived half-speed for two months, either way you were a month behind everyone else and your review showed it.

Is that a problem? Not by itself IMO, you did less work over the year, why expect equal pay. But I kept seeing those people getting laid off come layoff season, and that's a serious, fundamental problem. To me, paying for work done is quite correct, but treating someone like a slacker when they do their part in the months they're at work? That's BS. It's not like the leave was some surprise to project planners.

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613237)

Another way to look at it is that Yahoo is saying "Women should stay home longer and not come back to work".. I think in a way both sides are getting a negative treatment. It should be up to the couple to decide who gets to stay home with the kids longer.

Re:Equal rights (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613243)

Childfree people are being discriminated against because they get no leave. I should be able to take leave to take care of my cat.

Re:Equal rights (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about a year ago | (#43613389)

Except in 30 years that kid could likely be taking care of you in a home or driving a bus or even being a Dr taking care of you. Your cat won't.

Nearly every single other country in the world realizes that long term they're better off if kids are taken care of from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave [wikipedia.org]

Re:Equal rights (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613509)

The kid could also end up the next killer or bomber, and also may be estranged and not want to take care of his/her parents. It is drastically safer to save the horrendous amount of cash it takes to raise a child and use it to take care of yourself.

Re:Equal rights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613427)

You are wrong. It is a life event, not a yearly occurrence, and you would be given the same benefit when experiencing the same life event. A person "choosing" not to have a child is not being discriminated against. The only possible discrimination claim is a person incapable of having children. But, wouldn't they be afforded the same privilege for adopting?

Re:Equal rights (4, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43613469)

You are wrong. It is a life event, not a yearly occurrence...

Clearly you are not Catholic, Mormon, or from the Bible Belt.

Re:Equal rights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613461)

You have a choice to have a child or not. Men do not get a choice of they get to be a mom or a dad.

Re:Equal rights (2, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43613273)

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.

Then don't think of it as man vs woman. Think of it this way: if a human being comes out of you, you get an extra 8 weeks off. You can be a man OR a woman; as long as a human being comes out of you, then you get the time. See how that works?

Re:Equal rights (4, Insightful)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about a year ago | (#43613369)

Then they are discriminating against people that can not give birth. That includes men, some women, and some people in between.

Re:Equal rights (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year ago | (#43613371)

The leave is NOT for recovering from childbirth otherwise it would only be 4 weeks, the rest of the leave is for child rearing. Parents that adopt get leave just the same as everyone else.

Re:Equal rights (0)

robbo (4388) | about a year ago | (#43613411)

It's not just that a human being comes out of you. A human being comes out of you which induces huge amounts of tissue and skeletal trauma (or best case you get sliced wide open across the midriff, mangling your abs and literally slicing apart a muscle- the uterine wall). Then, top it off you start leaking fluids from your chest.

[sarcasm] But just think of the poor dad who has to watch this happen! That will take at least 12 weeks of therapy!

Re: Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613439)

Don't think of women as getting paid less. You just get more pay for having a dick. Man or women, having a dick makes you more money. No discrimination here!

Re:Equal rights (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43613465)

Except that the law isn't supposed to work like that. The US constitution does not permit women to get special rights that are not available to men. Which is why things like title IX don't specify a sex, they specify that both sexes are required to get equal opportunity to resources covered under the title. And that can mean extra resources for men, even though it usually works out benefiting women.

What's more the bulk of the maternity leave has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with bonding with the newborn. It's questionable as to why we're granting women all that time off and then bitching about how men don't spend as much time with their children. Well, no shit, we don't give them the same sort of break in terms of availability to bond with their own children.

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613335)

As a man and a parent I see both sides.

How about 8wks parental leave and 8wks medical recovery leave.
Fathers typically don't have post pregnancy issues.

Personally I think the leave should be longer (1yr or so)
I also wonder how the 8 weeks stacks up, apparently many companies don't even allow that much.

Grow a pair of tits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613405)

A newborn needs to be with his mother - and nursing on mother's milk.

I agree 100% with you but in corporate America the next best thing is to have the mother have more time than the father since we are stuck with this treatment.

And if Americans weren't so infantile about breast feeding, the mother should be able to bring her baby to work and nurse them there.

I don't see what the big deal is about mothers nursing their babies. We Americans are so fucked up when it comes to things regarding reproduction, sexuality and other things regarding family.

But yet, we have NO problem letting our kids see someone's brains get blown out in the movies or in video games.

Re:Equal rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613413)

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Better sue the universe then because only women get pregnant and produce the milk the newborn needs. There are biological differences between men and women and when those differences are important it is stupid to expect absolute equality.

Re:Equal rights (1)

smbell (974184) | about a year ago | (#43613449)

Not only that but this isn't even a real win for women. It is very likely to enforce the impression (real or imagined) that men are a more valuable worker and enable glass ceiling type behavior during promotional considerations.

"...one smells less" (5, Funny)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year ago | (#43613057)

Which one is that?

Re:"...one smells less" (5, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#43613091)

At Yahoo, a company with legacy code dating back to 1995, I think you can guess.

Re:"...one smells less" (2)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year ago | (#43613267)

One smells worse in the short term, but the other will keep stinking for years.

Re:"...one smells less" (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#43613281)

Yup. I'll take a huge diaperfull of steamy pungent poo over server-side Perl every time.

Re:"...one smells less" (1)

FacePlant (19134) | about a year ago | (#43613359)

Ten yard penalty for gratuitous Perl bashing.

Second down and 20.

Re:"...one smells less" (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#43613395)

Perl bashing is never gratuitous.

Yes but see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613069)

we get paid more.
 
The pay differential makes up for missing out on conveniences like this.

Check the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613079)

I got 2 days, as per the law here in the Netherlands. But I saved up for 6 weeks, definitely needed those 6 weeks...

Sexist (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613081)

They shouldn't be so sexist about it. They should offer 16 weeks to any human employee that gestates a fetus, and 8 weeks to the partner of the gestater. That way it's not sexist.

Re:Sexist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613331)

And a hearty "screw you" to anybody who adopts, I guess.

Re:Sexist (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43613393)

That seems like a sensible bit of future-proofing. If memory serves, somebody (female) is so-far-successfully spawning a fetus using a donor uterus as we speak. I assume that the engineering challenges of hacking a uterus into a male would be considerably greater, but likely not impossible.

In that vein, what's the leave policy for people who outsource gestation to 3rd-party managed uterine providers? Those are surprisingly cheap in low-wage countries already, and will probably be cheaper still once we figure out how to hack some flavor of large livestock into an efficient batch-gestation platform(Something like a cow is a pretty big animal, it could probably support 4-6 fetuses in parallel, each with its own little gestation nodule...).

Re:Sexist (1)

Nethead (1563) | about a year ago | (#43613487)

And the kid gets to brag that he was born in the cloud.

I can now see some wacko religious cult leaders ordering up kids by the hundreds to generate more followers, all with the same DNA.

Re:Sexist (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#43613489)

Actually I think the problem is that it is called "maternity leave". If you called it "gestation leave" and allow to take it anytime within 3 months of the delivery data (before or after). Then I am sure no-one will have a problem with that.

Yes, well.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613089)

That would be the diapers that smell less, right?

Homosexual couples? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613093)

This gives the shaft to homosexual couples where there is no mom to take 16 weeks leave with the child.

Re:Homosexual couples? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613195)

Cha-ching, hello lawsuit.

Re:Homosexual couples? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613221)

Oh stop it. Nobody's going to give you time off every time you poop.

Re:Homosexual couples? (1)

cc1984_ (1096355) | about a year ago | (#43613403)

This gives the shaft to homosexual couples where there is no mom to take 16 weeks leave with the child.

The child could have two mums although I guess if that's the case however there would be no shaft.

Sperm Donors, That's All We Are (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43613119)

At least, that's how Corporate America seems intent on treating male parents.

Society, too - basically, if you have a penis, you are considered tertiary to the rearing of a child. Look at custody battles - The mother is given the benefit of the doubt almost without exception. Case in point, my ex-sister-in-law has documented psychosis, multiple suicide attempts on her record, and a known history of violent behavior, whereas my brothers record is sterling; yet she was given damn near full custody of my nephew anyway.

One has to wonder if the unbalanced treatment of fathers in our society has anything to do with the number of them who bail on their spouses/offspring...

Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43613435)

If I had to place a guess, I'd guess it goes all the way back to the Roman republic. There was a legal principle there called "Mater semper certa est," which much like in Judaism, rulings about uncertain ancestry were determined strictly by the mothers. I believe the concept also spilled over to divorce, but divorce wasn't really common until the modern era, so it's possible we're still working all this out.

Saskatchewan (2)

Nos. (179609) | about a year ago | (#43613129)

Here, the mother gets 17 weeks, and there are an additional 35 weeks that can be split up however the parents decide. There are some requirements (you have to be eligible for Employment Insurance - worked a minimum number of hours, your income must be significantly reduced, etc.).

Sweden, 1 year (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613133)

Sweden has 1 year paid parental leave, covered by the government, with a bonus if split close to even between parents.

Move here. It is nice. Well... except for the moose.

Re:Sweden, 1 year (4, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | about a year ago | (#43613299)

A MÃÃse once bit my sister ...

Re:Sweden, 1 year (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613327)

Those responsible for the maternity leave discrimination have been sacked.

Re:Sweden, 1 year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613379)

Almost all of Sweden's social policies put the US to shame. I know I had to study a few countries' social policies for a Sociology class, and walked away thinking that if I ever have kids, Sweden is on my list of countries to move to. The US really doesn't rank high on any list of best countries to move to under any circumstances. Unless I was in Mexico--in that case, the US is attractive just because it's right there and is better. Otherwise, there's better countries by far for the vast majority of every factor I care about, personally (there are a couple of things that the US is great at, but meh... all of that is useless the way the US is going otherwise).

Re:Sweden, 1 year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613445)

A m00se bit my sister once.

Our church did the same thing (1)

swm (171547) | about a year ago | (#43613135)

I was on the personnel committee at our church.

We grant 2 weeks parental leave to any employee who becomes the parent of a child (natural or adopted)
and 2 additional weeks to any employee who bears a child.

Women on the committee who had borne children did not think this was excessive.

What about lesbian couples? (4, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43613143)

Do they each get 16 weeks?

Re:What about lesbian couples? (3, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#43613431)

The one who squeezes the watermelon-sized thing out through the lemon-sized opening gets more leave than the one who doesn't.

Some are more equal than others. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613145)

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

How men could use this (3, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year ago | (#43613147)

1) To wife: "If all goes well I'm taking a week off after the baby comes."
2) To work: "I'm taking all eight weeks off."
3) Enjoy seven weeks of 8-5 freedom.

Re:How men could use this (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about a year ago | (#43613423)

A good way to improve the golf game.

Re:How men could use this (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43613457)

Can we make sure xxxJonBoyxxx never reproduces? Not just for the gene-pool's sake, but for his children.

Barbarian.

As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 years (1)

t0qer (230538) | about a year ago | (#43613149)

Nothing motivates you better to go back to the grind of corporate work than 7 years of shitty diapers. I love my kids, but 7 years of diapers was enough. Much happier with a regular paycheck and a nanny.

Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year (5, Funny)

Literaphile (927079) | about a year ago | (#43613211)

Nothing motivates you better to go back to the grind of corporate work than 7 years of shitty diapers. I love my kids, but 7 years of diapers was enough. Much happier with a regular paycheck and a nanny.

Maybe your problem was leaving your kids in diapers until they were 7?

Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year (4, Funny)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#43613271)

Gross! You're supposed to change them at least once a day, aren't you?

Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | about a year ago | (#43613345)

Maybe your problem was leaving your kids in diapers until they were 7?

Unless he had multiples, they don't all arrive at the same time. Sometimes just as soon as one is out of diapers, another one pops out.

Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43613495)

Ehm, some people get more than one children. Then the time can just add up.

Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about a year ago | (#43613447)

If you send them to a boarding school too, you only have to see them a couple times a year.

Frosty Piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613153)

We need a men's liberation (bowel) movement. I'm burning my jockstrap in anger!

Why shouldn't dad's get equal treatment? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613165)

This inequality just furthers the discrimination between the sexes in our society. By giving men less leave, they are saying that men are less inportant and/or less effective when it comes to childcare. What if the mom doesn't get any leave at all? What if mom wants a break after 8 weeks? Or what if the mom completely abandoned the kid to the father? I see no excuse for this.

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613167)

This is just another way to inflate the stats that say being raised with no mom is a bad thing, but being raised with no dad is relatively fine.

Discrimination is discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613171)

It doesn't matter how you wrap it, or what you call it. Discrimination based upon gender is illegal. That's what Yahoo! is doing when they up the benefits to females and not to men equally.

Is it worth crying over? Yes. Reverse the flow of "who gets what" in the equation, and see if women would flip out and start getting all lawsuit-ish. (Protip: you're damn right they would, and for good reason.)

You want equality? Then it's time to fight for it....on both sides. Ladies, if you're silent on this matter, you're guilty.

As a stay-at-home dad and former IT worker (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613175)

I would never, ever, give up the time I've spent with my child for a job. Your children are only ever that age once. To miss that time with them would be far greater loss than anything else.

Fortune 500? This is silicon valley pampering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613213)

I work at an illustrious "fortune 500" and guess how much paid paternity leave there is? One fucking day. Paid leave is a gift, whether its for the mom or the dad, so take it and don't you dare complain. That is all, AC out.

Real motivation here (2)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year ago | (#43613239)

Hmmm...A head scratchier

Let's try to figure this one out...

The new CEO - a woman who just gave birth (or is about to?) - and has publicly cracked-down on people putting time in at home comes up with a Maternity/Paternity policy....

Canada!~ (4, Interesting)

Literaphile (927079) | about a year ago | (#43613261)

Happy to live in Canada where both men and women can take 35 weeks of parental leave, covered by employment insurance.

Bad incentive effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613291)

When employers don't have to give parents who didn't give birth as much leave employers have an incentive to discriminate against parents they ARE forced to give a lot of leave to. A company might reason that if employee A might get pregnant and have to miss a lot of work and get paid time off, we should promote employee B instead!

Re:Bad incentive effects (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43613481)

The bad incentives are based on biology. Only women can become pregnant (thank Bob). Nothing can change this fact.

We're supposed to ignore it.

Give me the diapers... (2)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43613305)

After the past week of looking at some really stinky code around here, I would cherish diapers.

Injustice!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613309)

This injustice demands some sort of action for men's rights. I demand an Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution! /s

a discrimination case waiting to happen (4, Informative)

KernelMuncher (989766) | about a year ago | (#43613321)

American federal law prohibits policies that discriminate based on sex. By giving different leave times according to the person's gender, Yahoo is in violation. They could be subject to EEOC fines or even sued in civil court by any aggrieved parties (meaning the dads).

Gender Inequality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613353)

Men should also be able to breastfeed their babies!

I loved my parental leave (2)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#43613355)

When our daughter was born I took a month off to be home. Coffee and sleep deprivation was the order of the day, but I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat.

Against the grain argument (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613383)

In all fairness, the fathers (typically) aren't the ones who *had* the baby and have to recover, physically, chemically, emotionally, mentally, or have to breastfeed. An AC above posted the following:

"They should offer 16 weeks to any human employee that gestates a fetus, and 8 weeks to the partner of the gestater. That way it's not sexist."

This is actually a pretty valid argument even though it was meant as a joke. Seriously. Female to male transgender fathers can have babies too. What would they do in this case? Any man that can have a baby can have 16 weeks off. Sounds logical to me.

Missing the point... (3, Insightful)

grmoc (57943) | about a year ago | (#43613417)

Ensuring that men have and *must take* as much leave when a child is born ends up improving equality *for women*, as now employers have no productivity basis for discriminating against women w.r.t. having kids.

Diapers Smell Less? (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43613473)

Would that be the diapers that smell less? Diapers don't typically stink until the baby starts eating solid food. This happens at around the 4 to 6 month mark. So if dads got 16 weeks of paternity time, they would head back to work just when the diapers began to smell.

Yes, I'm a dad (two wonderful boys) and yes I changed my fair share of diapers when they were younger. (However, I'm glad that we're out of the diaper phase for good now!) Unfortunately, I didn't even get 8 weeks of paternity leave. I took a week off when my first son was born (out of my own vacation days) and then took a couple of days off when my second was born. I would have loved to have spent 8 weeks pampering my wife and helping her with our newborn.

Summary discriminates against dads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613475)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that dads don't want to bond with their new babies? That dads would rather spend time at work than with their family?

Stop living in the past. Men want to spend time with their babies just as much as mothers do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>