If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Time Warner on paid parental leave: Biological mother? Alright. Adoptive mother or father? Sure. Biological father? Whoa there, let's not get crazy   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 70
    More: Sad, Time Warner, paid parental leave, biological fathers, parents  
•       •       •

4766 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2013 at 4:46 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-02 01:05:28 AM
That's strange.

My TWC coworker has been off for a month twice in two years for his wife's babby-having.
 
2013-11-02 01:10:07 AM
Dude works for CNN.  What a schmuck.
 
2013-11-02 03:17:58 AM
It is weird that adoptive fathers can get bonding time, but not biological fathers. But as a non-parent who goes to work and doesn't have to deal with infants, newborns, sick kids, soccer games, I say... GET BACK TO WORK.

/and thanks for contributing future participants to the SSI pyramid scheme
 
2013-11-02 03:33:33 AM
yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.
 
2013-11-02 04:50:46 AM
This is due to a patchwork of company policies: women who give birth get 10 paid weeks off, as do new parents with new children through adoption or surrogacy. But new biological fathers aren't covered.

Hard to argue that this doesn't discriminate against biological fathers. It will probably fall under the "impact but no intent" loophole, which will be closed and that will be an end of it. However, with that said, it is undeniable that dads have traditionally been denied a chance to be dads until very recently, and I'm glad this guy has the manhood to stand up for his paternal rights.
 
2013-11-02 04:56:07 AM

log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.


Aren't you supposed to be fixing the cable?
 
2013-11-02 04:57:04 AM

Deacon Blue: log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.

Aren't you supposed to be fixing the cable?


I already took care of it i am an expert
 
2013-11-02 05:16:36 AM
Figures. Time Warner represents old skool 1950s values where they expect the woman to do the cooking and cleaning while barefoot.

They have a lot of catching up to do with Real America. Depends on how stubborn they are. They think they're heavy hitters, but I doubt their stock is worth as much as their history of pandering to the right.
 
2013-11-02 05:19:46 AM
Evil business solution: "You're right.  Two weeks paid leave for everybody.  We have removed the loophole that allowed ten weeks of paid leave."

Then this guy is reviled by the every woman and adoptive father in the company and he quits.  Problem solved.
 
2013-11-02 05:22:00 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see why anyone should get special treatment.  If you want time off to DO _________; that is your business.  __________ is something you are doing that prevents you from doing work.  The most fair (arguably the only fair) system is to treat everyone's _________ the same.  It shouldn't matter if you are male or female, single or married, children or not, etc, etc.....if you want time off, it should be treated the same as anyone else's time off.

That would be fair.
 
2013-11-02 05:27:44 AM
Meanwhile, here in Socialist Sweden....
 
GBB
2013-11-02 05:29:46 AM

Deacon Blue: log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.

Aren't you supposed to be fixing the cable?


Give him a break.  It's still between the hours of 8AM and February.
 
2013-11-02 05:29:51 AM
CSB:

My aunt and uncle got a divorce. My aunt became a doctor while they were married. When she graduated, she filed for divorce. My uncle was unemployed at the time but he was a stay at home dad taking care of their small child. When the divorce came through, the judge ruled that she had to pay alimony to him.

Moral of the story: you get 100% equality, expect 100% equality
 
2013-11-02 05:30:11 AM

log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.


That's brilliant!  I'll never work again!  Or at least until the hundreds of child support payments each month become completely crippling.
 
2013-11-02 05:34:01 AM

Huck Chaser: log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.

That's brilliant!  I'll never work again!  Or at least until the hundreds of child support payments each month become completely crippling.


you just watch. a month from now this guy will be wanting more time off. then the next month and the month after that. It's why companies have to have rules like, so people like him don't game the system.
 
2013-11-02 05:36:36 AM

Gyrfalcon: This is due to a patchwork of company policies: women who give birth get 10 paid weeks off, as do new parents with new children through adoption or surrogacy. But new biological fathers aren't covered.

Hard to argue that this doesn't discriminate against biological fathers. It will probably fall under the "impact but no intent" loophole, which will be closed and that will be an end of it. However, with that said, it is undeniable that dads have traditionally been denied a chance to be dads until very recently, and I'm glad this guy has the manhood to stand up for his paternal rights.


Agreed, men deserve time off for a baby. To be honest though most women don't get time off for having a baby. The companies let this fall under the short term disability policy because they consider it a medical thing. Sucks too that many short term disability rates are partial pay so you get a new baby and a pay decrease until you rush back to work.
 
2013-11-02 05:36:43 AM

overCee: Evil business solution: "You're right.  Two weeks paid leave for everybody.  We have removed the loophole that allowed ten weeks of paid leave."

Then this guy is reviled by the every woman and adoptive father in the company and he quits.  Problem solved.



Would work.  The FMLA says over 50 employees company has to give up to X amount of time off.  Company complies and says, "We go one step farther and will pay UP TO this amount of weeks off for new parents"  Company is still compliant with the law and try to spin it where it looks like they care about the hired help.  Did nobody in the writing of this policy have the foresight to see this as a potential scenario?
 
2013-11-02 05:41:54 AM
They should knock em all down to two weeks to make it fair, then call it Josh's Rule so all the new moms at the company know who screwed them over.
 
2013-11-02 05:42:44 AM
There was a time when new fathers got an hour off to go to the hospital, a pat on the back and a cigar.  Now they get two weeks?  Luxury.

Fortunately, for less-valued staff I'm sure corporate America will find inventive ways to punish or dismiss men who dare to take more than the minimum time off.  Oh your wife has "post partum depression" and "recovering from third degree tears"??  Well, GBTW.  TPS reports won't write themselves you know.  It's been happening for years to American women who take the pitiful amount of mat leave that you get there.
 
2013-11-02 05:45:36 AM

No Such Agency: There was a time when new fathers got an hour off to go to the hospital, a pat on the back and a cigar.  Now they get two weeks?  Luxury.

i131.photobucket.com

 
2013-11-02 05:47:52 AM
Why all the uproar? Progressives, Feminists and the legal system have already established that fathers are not necessary (except for their wallets).
 
2013-11-02 05:48:44 AM
How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?
 
2013-11-02 05:49:10 AM
log_jammin:
No Such Agency: There was a time when new fathers got an hour off to go to the hospital, a pat on the back and a cigar.  Now they get two weeks?  Luxury.

[2/4 Welshmen]


Yeah I typed it in that voice, too.
 
2013-11-02 05:49:38 AM

jimmyjackfunk: overCee: Evil business solution: "You're right.  Two weeks paid leave for everybody.  We have removed the loophole that allowed ten weeks of paid leave."

Then this guy is reviled by the every woman and adoptive father in the company and he quits.  Problem solved.


Would work.  The FMLA says over 50 employees company has to give up to X amount of time off.  Company complies and says, "We go one step farther and will pay UP TO this amount of weeks off for new parents"  Company is still compliant with the law and try to spin it where it looks like they care about the hired help.  Did nobody in the writing of this policy have the foresight to see this as a potential scenario?


Lots policies like this end up being cancelled because there are edge-cases the company's HR drones didn't consider.  My current employer is ending it's policy on 'time off for your wedding' because of all the headaches it has caused.  It sounded good, getting married?  Okay - well, here is an extra week off, enjoy!  The problem?  First, some people get married *a lot* and other people felt it was unfair and some guy entering his fourth marriage should get *another* paid week off.  Then, apparently, there were some concerns about 'same-sex' couples....and the policy being discriminatory because same-sex couples can't get married.  Then, apparently, HR was making exceptions for employees who wanted the extra time-off to honor their same-sex 'arrangement'; but those don't carry the weight of the law with them and other people were upset that anyone could 'claim' to be 'marrying' their same-sex buddy and taking a free week off work.  In my particular case, my wife and I got legally married in a court house for legal/financial/logistical reasons a year before we were going to have our actual wedding.  So, when I went to HR to get my extra week off work, since I was having a traditional wedding; they told me I couldn't get it - because I was already married.  Apparently, they also had a big problem of people who were already married, hearing about the week off, and claiming to get married....I found that hard to believe, but, as I was told, people were doing it and other people were expressing concern over it.

What a mess.

Once a company reaches a certain size, I think it just becomes a faceless entity and employees are happy to game the system (even if it means lying) to get a few extra days off.  And once it is 'policy' it is no longer seen as a gift or a benefit or a nice thing; it's an ENTITLEMENT and people will go crazy to fight for what they feel they deserve.

Nobody decided to work for this company over another because of the extra one week off.  But people are happy to fight over the policy endlessly.  So the company says, 'Feck this' and cancels it.  Problem solved.
 
2013-11-02 05:52:53 AM
Coming on a Bicycle:
How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?

That's a great idea.  They should require the paternity test (at employee's expense) before the time off is granted.  It would dissuade a small percentage of male employee female spousal units from asking their husbands to take the time at all, and generally be invasive and humilating enough to remind employees of their place in the world, while complying with the law.
 
2013-11-02 06:11:48 AM
They should flip that and give the dad 10 weeks and the mom 2. Since, like every woman with kids I work with, she's going to spend at least the 10-15 years never putting in a full week. "My kid is sick." "My kid has the day off". "I have a parent teacher conference" etc. etc. etc.

Kids are the bet excuse in the world to miss work because no one dare even question it. And they milk it as much as they possibly can.
 
2013-11-02 06:12:57 AM

Deacon Blue: log_jammin: yes, but then guys would start getting women pregnant just for time off of work. women cant do that since they can only be pregnant one child at a time.

Aren't you supposed to be fixing the cable?


But they've already got a babby.
 
2013-11-02 06:21:11 AM
abhorrent1:
They should flip that and give the dad 10 weeks and the mom 2. Since, like every woman with kids I work with, she's going to spend at least the 10-15 years never putting in a full week. "My kid is sick." "My kid has the day off". "I have a parent teacher conference" etc. etc. etc.

Kids are the bet excuse in the world to miss work because no one dare even question it. And they milk it as much as they possibly can.


At the majority of American jobs you can't do any of that.  Your average retail or non-union factory worker gets written up for taking two bathroom breaks in one day, let alone leaving early to go to some superfluous bullshiat like "Timmy's medical appointment".
 
2013-11-02 06:23:03 AM
Often adoptive fathers are single, so they need leave. Rarely are biological fathers are single; since they typically have the mother at their disposal to tend the kid. Given he offers up no good reason to actually just throw money at him for nothing by proving to us his wife isn't in the picture to handle the kid, all I can say is, "Sorry snowflake, no reason for you to be at home. Stop being lazy."
 
2013-11-02 06:23:50 AM

abhorrent1: They should flip that and give the dad 10 weeks and the mom 2. Since, like every woman with kids I work with, she's going to spend at least the 10-15 years never putting in a full week. "My kid is sick." "My kid has the day off". "I have a parent teacher conference" etc. etc. etc.

Kids are the bet excuse in the world to miss work because no one dare even question it. And they milk it as much as they possibly can.


that's what sick time is for. deal with it.
 
2013-11-02 06:25:51 AM

Terrible Old Man: Often adoptive fathers are single, so they need leave.


most of my single male friends have at least two adoptive Nigerian kids.
 
2013-11-02 06:28:09 AM

No Such Agency: Coming on a Bicycle:
How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?

That's a great idea.  They should require the paternity test (at employee's expense) before the time off is granted.  It would dissuade a small percentage of male employee female spousal units from asking their husbands to take the time at all, and generally be invasive and humilating enough to remind employees of their place in the world, while complying with the law.


Invasive and humiliating?  Come'on, it's less invasive than a trip to the airport these days.  A cheek swap is not humiliating.

It seems pretty reasonable to me, the value of a few weeks off work, depending on the employee, is quite high.  If I buy lunch on a business trip, it's only $20 - but I need to itemize it and report it.  Or I can choose not to buy lunch on the company's dime.  If someone wants to get time off work, and there is a policy for people to get time off work for having a child; they can either not take advantage of that policy, or comply with the policy.  Seems reasonable to me.
 
2013-11-02 06:35:28 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?


But Maury, I'm 1000% sure that he be the baby daddy.
 
2013-11-02 06:50:36 AM
Gasp it's a legitimate issue that impacts males. I was told those don't exist and the men's rights group was made up of nothing but sexist assholes with no real concerns
 
2013-11-02 06:53:27 AM

johncb76006: But Maury, I'm 1000% sure that he be the baby daddy.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-11-02 07:04:36 AM

cman: CSB:

My aunt and uncle got a divorce. My aunt became a doctor while they were married. When she graduated, she filed for divorce. My uncle was unemployed at the time but he was a stay at home dad taking care of their small child. When the divorce came through, the judge ruled that she had to pay alimony to him.

Moral of the story: you get 100% equality, expect 100% equality


that rarely happens I have only ever meet 1 man that got child support and alimony payments in my life and I am 43.
 
2013-11-02 07:09:01 AM

TheJoe03: johncb76006: But Maury, I'm 1000% sure that he be the baby daddy.

[images.wikia.com image 200x150]


I raise you a crab dance
s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-11-02 07:09:44 AM

uttertosh: Meanwhile, here in Socialist Sweden....


I noticed that nobody has responded to your comment about where they actually do understand the word "progressive" outside of the obvious insurance company connotation.

TWC's "progressiveness" may have been progressive in the 1950s, but today? not so much.
 
2013-11-02 07:12:22 AM

My last employer had a great system for handling time off that was pretty effective at keeping things fair and square. First off, they were pretty generous with the time - everybody got five weeks/year, no reasons or excuses necessary. Anybody could take any amount of time they wished, up to the limit, for any reason or no reason at all, BUT all time off counted toward the limit including things like taking an extra half hour at lunch for a PTA meeting.

Now, four out of those five weeks were use-or-lose.  The fifth week however you could choose to bank for later.  This meant you could build up a decent amount of time off for those "life event" occasions - births, deaths, marriages, etc...

For example, say you worked there for five years, and four out of those five years you banked a week. In your sixth year working there your wife has a babby - congratulations - you can take up to nine weeks off (that year's quota of five weeks, plus the four you banked) but if you're planning another one in a couple years maybe you don't want to take all of it so you can also take some for the next one.

All in all it was a pretty good system. By not granting specific amounts of time for certain reasons it eliminated 99% of the games people play and took out the sense of unfairness. However it really hinged on the employer not being stingy with time in the first place and for that reason I don't see it taking off, which is a shame.

 
2013-11-02 07:19:05 AM

Bucky Katt: Dude works for CNN.  What a schmuck.


What did he expect from a state controlled media outlet?
 
2013-11-02 07:25:08 AM

SlothB77: Bucky Katt: Dude works for CNN.  What a schmuck.

What did he expect from a state controlled media outlet?


lulz
 
2013-11-02 07:50:19 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: No Such Agency: Coming on a Bicycle:
How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?

That's a great idea.  They should require the paternity test (at employee's expense) before the time off is granted.  It would dissuade a small percentage of male employee female spousal units from asking their husbands to take the time at all, and generally be invasive and humilating enough to remind employees of their place in the world, while complying with the law.

Invasive and humiliating?  Come'on, it's less invasive than a trip to the airport these days.  A cheek swap is not humiliating.

It seems pretty reasonable to me, the value of a few weeks off work, depending on the employee, is quite high.  If I buy lunch on a business trip, it's only $20 - but I need to itemize it and report it.  Or I can choose not to buy lunch on the company's dime.  If someone wants to get time off work, and there is a policy for people to get time off work for having a child; they can either not take advantage of that policy, or comply with the policy.  Seems reasonable to me.


'yeah Rob, this is jane for HR.  We just got your dna tests back on the new one.  Oh yeah congratulations by the way.  How is the wife?  Great!  Yeah anyways the reason I am calling is it came back negative, so we are going to have to dock your pay for the last two days that you missed and we expect you to be here at the normal time tomorrow.  So see you then, have a good afternoon with the bastard and your whore of a wife!'

Also the looks someone gets when they aren't allowed to take the leave would be great.  They would essentially be outting you to the entire company as a cuckold.
 
2013-11-02 08:15:46 AM
Honestly, this guy's amount of leave is actually pretty generous in comparison to my husband's when I had my son -- he only got a couple of days, and those were used in the time I was in the hospital.  Because he had to get up in the morning to work, I had to be up with the baby every night when he cried.  At the time I was lucky that I had my mom about 45 min away who offered to let me stay with her for one weekend to give me some rest and she took over overnight baby duties while I caught up on some sleep.
 
2013-11-02 09:14:53 AM
In Ontario, workers are entitled to 17 weeks pregnancy leave (biological mothers only) and 35-37 weeks parental leave (any biological or adoptive parent.). While this is unpaid, Canada pays eligible workers EI maternity benefits for 15 weeks for a biological mother, plus 35 weeks parental leave that can be split between two parents any way they choose. A lot of employers will top up the EI benefits so workers are getting 75-100% of their full salary.

How do you Americans even reproduce?
 
2013-11-02 09:19:16 AM

Gyrfalcon: dads have traditionally been denied a chance to be dads until very recently, and I'm glad this guy has the manhood to stand up for his paternal rights.


Dads have been denied the chance to be dads since women entered the workforce, inflating the labor pool, until it is impossible to live off one paycheck. This is nothing new.

Thanks, gals!!
 
2013-11-02 09:22:15 AM

otaku69: that rarely happens I have only ever meet 1 man that got child support and alimony payments in my life and I am 43.


I get child support.

(I give it back)
 
2013-11-02 09:22:43 AM
What a farking mancy. Unless there are complications with the birth, mommy should be fine after two weeks. Get back to work.
 
2013-11-02 09:28:32 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm sorry, but I don't see why anyone should get special treatment.  If you want time off to DO _________; that is your business.  __________ is something you are doing that prevents you from doing work.  The most fair (arguably the only fair) system is to treat everyone's _________ the same.  It shouldn't matter if you are male or female, single or married, children or not, etc, etc.....if you want time off, it should be treated the same as anyone else's time off.

That would be fair.


This may not be a popular point of view, but it is one I share.

On another note, I wouldn't mind maternity leave as much if I were allowed to ask applicants about possible maternity.  I think it is bullshiat that I could hire someone and train them and boom.  They're gone for 2-3 months for a baby.

Knowing that someone is going to need 3 months off within the next year or two is certainly relevant information pre-hire.  Why can I not ask?
 
2013-11-02 10:12:11 AM

angrycrank: In Ontario, workers are entitled to 17 weeks pregnancy leave (biological mothers only) and 35-37 weeks parental leave (any biological or adoptive parent.). While this is unpaid, Canada pays eligible workers EI maternity benefits for 15 weeks for a biological mother, plus 35 weeks parental leave that can be split between two parents any way they choose. A lot of employers will top up the EI benefits so workers are getting 75-100% of their full salary.

How do you Americans even reproduce?

Poor

ly, obviously, ah!  I imagine its quantity over quality.

/Enjoys our Ontario entitlements except when its several co-workers at once and I'm stuck holdin' the bag.
 
2013-11-02 10:12:51 AM

NickelP: Fark_Guy_Rob: No Such Agency: Coming on a Bicycle:
How do we know he is the biological father - did they do a DNA test or something?

That's a great idea.  They should require the paternity test (at employee's expense) before the time off is granted.  It would dissuade a small percentage of male employee female spousal units from asking their husbands to take the time at all, and generally be invasive and humilating enough to remind employees of their place in the world, while complying with the law.

Invasive and humiliating?  Come'on, it's less invasive than a trip to the airport these days.  A cheek swap is not humiliating.

It seems pretty reasonable to me, the value of a few weeks off work, depending on the employee, is quite high.  If I buy lunch on a business trip, it's only $20 - but I need to itemize it and report it.  Or I can choose not to buy lunch on the company's dime.  If someone wants to get time off work, and there is a policy for people to get time off work for having a child; they can either not take advantage of that policy, or comply with the policy.  Seems reasonable to me.

'yeah Rob, this is jane for HR.  We just got your dna tests back on the new one.  Oh yeah congratulations by the way.  How is the wife?  Great!  Yeah anyways the reason I am calling is it came back negative, so we are going to have to dock your pay for the last two days that you missed and we expect you to be here at the normal time tomorrow.  So see you then, have a good afternoon with the bastard and your whore of a wife!'

Also the looks someone gets when they aren't allowed to take the leave would be great.  They would essentially be outting you to the entire company as a cuckold.


HR departments already have a lot of confidential information.  Given that someone is already an employee, their is an implicit trust.  If you are concerned about the HR lady knowing whether or not you have a biological son, then you can choose not to submit the paperwork that would let you take advantage of an additional perk that goes above and beyond what the law requires.  You don't *have* to participate.

To be perfectly honest, I don't put any stock in the biological factor.  I know people who have biological children and that they had zero part in raising.  They were effectively sperm donors.  And a person, regardless of gender, can be a parent to a child that isn't, biological theirs.  But companies are free to offer all sorts of crazy benefits and you are free to avail of them, or choose not to....so long as they don't violate the law.  I think they are all b.s. - from discounted gym memberships to discounted public transport.....all of it is the employer attempting to control how you live your life.  Giving time off to parents encourages having children, it also unfairly favors young employees.  Giving time off for weddings unfairly screws over people who are single or morally opposed to marriage.  Giving discounted gym memberships screws over people who already invested in home gyms.

But if these perks are going to exist, people are going to exploit them.  Most companies will add additional checks to stop people from cheating the system.  At my current company, they give extra time off for having a baby, but they require a copy of the birth certificate.  You don't *have* to take extra paid time off, you don't *have* to submit a birth certificate; but if you want the time off, you have to submit the certificate.  I had to submit paperwork showing I was a member of a gym in order to get the $30 per month added to my paycheck.

It all seems very reasonable to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report