Netflix offering one year of paid leave to parents

Quote
Techie
@Studio54: I don't know about other companies, but at my workplace, to get maternity leave, a birth certificate will be required along with paperwork from a doctor. If you can find a desperate single moo to hook you up with such, I guess one could pull it off. Now, paternity leave at my workplace is only 2 weeks paid, the rest is not. Maternity leave, on the other hand, is paid for all the way and is much longer. Finding all the paperwork for a 2 week free ride is not worth it. Not for me.

That's not worth it to me, either. But keep in mind that with this particular case (Netflix) we're talking about a full year off.

There has to be at least one childfree person who works for them who are really ticked off about this policy, and may be willing to attempt this.

I wonder what will happen after the year is up? Suppose an employee takes that full year and then comes back and quits? Obviously the company won't see the effects of this policy for some time, but it will be interesting to see.

I also wonder how many employees will actually take advantage of it. My guess is it will largely skew towards low level/pink collar types who can be easily replaced by temporary workers. A higher level executive or professional worker probably wouldn't want to be out of the office for an entire year, if for no other reason than they'd worry over missed professional opportunities.

Forgetting the CF, I can think of any number of breederific arguments for discrimination with this. What if a worker is infertile and his or her religion doesn't permit assisted reproduction? Is that disability and/or religious discrimination? What about a worker whose 3 year old gets sick and needs extended care? Why don't workers who are already parents get a year's leave? If a gay male couple is using a surrogate to have a baby, do they get the disability leave for the weeks prior to the birth?

Quote
cfinboston
I wonder what will happen after the year is up? Suppose an employee takes that full year and then comes back and quits? Obviously the company won't see the effects of this policy for some time, but it will be interesting to see.

You bring up some great questions. In regards to this, what if an employee takes a full year of paid maternity leave, then comes back for a month or so, and then... SURPRISE! Said employee is knocked up again!

And she wants another year off, with pay... after another gift grab shower, of course.

This isn't even about cf vs. parents, it's anyone who isn't going to get inpig while working there. Think of all the workers with completed famblees who may have kids with medical problems, any workers who may have elderly parents needing care, etc. People struggle with real problems not of their own choice or making and who gets the big break here? Breeders who are well enough to breed, and to make that choice to breed and raise a kid, something seen by society as a happy positive thing. So they get the kid (yay!) and they get this paid leisure time off for a freaking year (double yay!), while any of their co-workers may be struggling with real problems that the company doesn't give a shit about. WHAT is wrong with this picture?

I have another question. How long does an employee have to be with the company to get the leave?

Since employers can't discriminate against a pregnant woman, can a woman who is like 6 or 7 months along apply for a job and then take the leave just a couple of months later? What is to stop someone who is planning to get pregnant from applying for a job *just* because of this policy and then getting knocked up right away?

@ cfinboston:
"How long does an employee have to be with the company to get the leave?"
-> EU country: you must have an indefinite contract. Normally, you start a new job on a six month fixed-term contract.
After six months, your employer either hires you and gives you an indefinite contract or you have to start looking for a new job since your fixed-term contract expired. Once you have that indefinite contract, you can get inpig and you will get paid mooternity leave.

"Since employers can't discriminate against a pregnant woman, can a woman who is like 6 or 7 months along apply for a job and then take the leave just a couple of months later? "
-> A woman who applies for a job and is visibly inpig won't get the job. The HR will always find a reason
why she couldn't be hired like she is missing this and that qualification...blah blah blah

"What is to stop someone who is planning to get pregnant from applying for a job *just* because of this policy and then getting knocked up right away?" -> absolutely nothing

Quote
cfinboston
I have another question. How long does an employee have to be with the company to get the leave?

Since employers can't discriminate against a pregnant woman, can a woman who is like 6 or 7 months along apply for a job and then take the leave just a couple of months later? What is to stop someone who is planning to get pregnant from applying for a job *just* because of this policy and then getting knocked up right away?

I don't know exactly about NutFix, but generally employers in the US require anywhere from 6 months to a year of service in order to get a paid moo-termity leave. Pregnant women cannot and are not being discriminated against by any means. Companies will hire a qualified woman - pregnant or not. I tend to say that hiring a pregnant woman looks good for the company and keeps Department of Labor happy, so it is not uncommon to hire a pregnant woman over the one who is not because it simply looks better to do so.

Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

There is one thing that has not been mentioned yet. NutFux is a publicly traded company. It is other people's money that they are handing out. While they have a responsibility to the share holders, things like moo-termite leave are considered uncontrolled expense, so even if that kind of a money doll out would kill their stock, they are not really in violation of any kind. Speaking of their stuck, it is only slightly down since the announcement - looks like investors think that this is a good idea. We all know that Wall Street is just another political showdown and breeding is politically a great idea.

Quote
Techie


Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

Sounds like a wonderful workplace culture, Techie. eyes2


Did they hire anyone besides you who wants to go to work to... you know... actually get some work done?

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
Techie


Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

Sounds like a wonderful workplace culture, Techie. eyes2


Did they hire anyone besides you who wants to go to work to... you know... actually get some work done?

There are some states where it is against state law for private insurance to cover abortion.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
Techie


Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

Sounds like a wonderful workplace culture, Techie. eyes2


Did they hire anyone besides you who wants to go to work to... you know... actually get some work done?

Well, yes, but it is a little tricky. They have flex schedule for parents, as for CF people, no. What I do is I don't discuss ANYTHING that is not related to my job. If someone starts asking stupid shit, I either lie or I calmly shift attention to them and before we know it we are talking about them and not me. There is another CF dude, lives alone and all that but he has a single moo who is "helping him out" - he has her pics together with him. Since he looks like a captain save-a-hoe, he gets treated well. He gets some flex time and good raises along with good reviews because of his "good personal character". Granted, I get treated well too but only because I am always there on time and my work performance is top notch. There is another bullshit policy. When a moo takes off for maternity leave or kid sick leave, her performance is at 100% - that's how company sees it. She gets 6 months of 100%, she is promotable. Gets who gets promoted when they come back to work? Let me give you a hint: not the person who had to do both jobs and run in the overload mode.

I forgot to mention that my work does cover male sterilization but only at 80% and only after the deductible has been met. Paternity leave is also only like 2 weeks. It's a good place for moos, that's for sure. Some things are done for political show and that is how many big companies function over here.

Btw, I am not mad at the other CF guy. I am glad he knows how to work the system. I could do the same if I have to, but I will save that for a last ditch effort, if I really need it. I don't really trust single moos - I read it on this blog here, everyday, the things that they are capable of are limitless and that's is not in a good way.

Quote
evilchildlessbitch

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
Techie


Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

Sounds like a wonderful workplace culture, Techie. eyes2


Did they hire anyone besides you who wants to go to work to... you know... actually get some work done?

There are some states where it is against state law for private insurance to cover abortion.

Not where I am at. What is against company policy here is discussing medical records. So if someone did terminate preggo have elective miscarriage, they are not allowed to tell co-workers. Weird.

Quote
Techie

Quote
evilchildlessbitch

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
Techie


Place where I work hires women right out of college and company is blunt and clear about the fact that pregnancy is welcomed and will be paid for. Likewise, all forms of female birth control, abortions included, are covered by work's insurance plan 100% without any deductible at all. Some women who work here are on a 3rd kid in a 5 year span - no problem - keep them coming, according to my workplace.

Sounds like a wonderful workplace culture, Techie. eyes2


Did they hire anyone besides you who wants to go to work to... you know... actually get some work done?

There are some states where it is against state law for private insurance to cover abortion.

Not where I am at. What is against company policy here is discussing medical records. So if someone did terminate preggo have elective miscarriage, they are not allowed to tell co-workers. Weird.

It isn't a matter of telling co-workers. It is a matter that clinics can not accept the insurance without violating state law. It is illegal for a clinic to file the claim and insurance claims can not be processed without being coded. To knowingly improperly code is criminal. Also, it doesn't have to be linked to the workplace. If I live in a state that doesn't allow insurance to pay for elective abortion and pay for a private policy not linked to work, it still can't be used to cover abortion. Even if your workplace has a policy that covers it, workplace policy never trumps the law.

@evilchildlessbitch: as far as I know, where I live and work, state does not prohibit preggo termination coverage. Not yet. But for as useless as Dems have been in defending women's rights, nothing will surprise me.

I don't doubt it Techie.
My only point was that this benefit can be nullified. My insurance also covers terminations but not in the state I live much of the year.

Years ago I worked at a tech company that offered top notch benefits. They were "the" company to try to get into and it was easy because they hired temps who then were offered permanent positions. Most of the jobs were support positions or some kind of entry level job. It was well known to apply with X temp agency to get into this company, get hired to permanent, work there three months and then get knocked up, use the bennies for 100% medical coverage and the generous moo leave policies then quit. It was a known tactic, I thought it was disgusting but if I said anything then I became the enemy.

It was expensive and stupid because the workers who did it were so expendable and it was just churning them through the system. They should have hired older women for those jobs but the company loved young blood, like these 20 year old freshly married women with high school diplomas were all going to be loyal company career ladder climbers.

Quote
evilchildlessbitch
I don't doubt it Techie.
My only point was that this benefit can be nullified. My insurance also covers terminations but not in the state I live much of the year.

At my workplace, one of the very important people at the very top is a woman. She already made remarks that if insurance fails to cover "certain benefits for women", she already has an alternative on a stand-by to cover such procedures anyways.

Quote
Techie

Quote
evilchildlessbitch
I don't doubt it Techie.
My only point was that this benefit can be nullified. My insurance also covers terminations but not in the state I live much of the year.

At my workplace, one of the very important people at the very top is a woman. She already made remarks that if insurance fails to cover "certain benefits for women", she already has an alternative on a stand-by to cover such procedures anyways.

Of course a company can pay out of pocket if insurance doesn't cover it. That is their right. I don't like this either as it requires a person to notify the company of medical issues that should be private. If I use my insurance to go to the doctor for birth control then both my medical provider and insurance company are prohibited from revealing this. I don't want to have to tell my employer about health issues.

ETA that if your insurance company is revealing who has what procedure then that is a big, fat HIPAA violation. Even if an employer like Hobby Lobby is (wrongly in my opinion) allowed to deny IUD coverage to women, they still aren't entitled to know who has sought that care. The provider would pre-authorize the insurance card and, in the case of Hobby Lobby, the woman would be told that her insurance would not cover it. Same with abortion. At no point would anybody in the workplace be made aware.

@evilchildlessbitch: I have never heard of my workplace insurance disclosing who got what procedure done. In fact, work goes one step further and does not want people to discuss their medical history with anyone at work due to the fear of legal troubles.

Anything not covered by insurance would be covered by a third party - not related to my work but funded by my work. Work still would not know which medical procedure was done.

They wont do this but there should be a cap. So if you have 5 kids, that's 5 yrs off. And if moob and dud work at same company that is combo of 10 yrs off. I am cleaning up my dad's estate, it is gonna take forever, because I can only do here and there and i''m alone in the matter except for some help from spouse. I truly could use a half to full year off to do this 8 hrs a day.


Prediction, by the end of the 12 mos, moob will be in pig again to start all over.

Quote
cf uter
Prediction, by the end of the 12 mos, moob will be in pig again to start all over.

Which is a distinct possibility, and it raises the question just how long will Netflix be able to continue with this?

We have to assume that those who work for Netflix, particularly in the tech departments, are quite accomplished and have impressive resumes. How long will childfree workers, older workers, and all non-parents be willing to put up with an onerous and steadily increasing workload while the company essentially subsidizes people to have babies?

My guess is that as the workload increases, these folks will increasingly look for employment elsewhere. As they get hired, Netflix may be forced to reevaluate this "progressive" policy.

You can't ask the non-parents to put in 65 hour weeks so parents can be paid to do nothing for the company.

Quote
evilchildlessbitch
Companies should be able to offer whatever benefits but only offering parents a year leave should be considered discrimination, especially since it is paid. For that matter, I believe if companies offer paid time off for people with one life circumstance they should have to offer it for all. Every employee should be able to take a year paid leave for any reason then-parenting, care of friends or family members, personal illness, furthering education full time or just going to travel around the world. They could use it if and when they see fit but would not get additional time for breeding if they have already used it.
I'm not saying company A should be required to offer the same benefits as company B.
I am saying that since parenting is a personal choice the same benefits should be offered within the same company. I really don't see why companies are allowed to have "parent only" benefits when you can't have "white only," "under 40 only," or "women only" benefits.

I agree with this so hard. It's pure discrimination. It's the new old boys network where breeders take care of their own. Like a poster above said, there's no danger of the human race dying out, or no medical reason that I know of where a woman needs a year off after sluicing.

--------------------
"[GFG's pregnancy is] kind of like at the stables where that one dumb, ugly-ass mare broke out of her corral one day and got herself screwed by the equally fugly colt that was due to be gelded the same afternoon."- Shiny

This is very clever of big companies! Just as the debate about the length of maternity leave is circling around being made mandatory, they voluntarily institute it.

Now they have people on their side, going "See?! It doesn't have to be made mandatory, they're doing it voluntarily!"
Whatever a company institutes voluntarily, can also be discontinued when it "doesn't work out".


My code: CU(k)NT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... what's one more once you've already got two shedding on the couch?"

I read an interesting article about this the other day (which, try as I might, I can't find now), which pointed out that generally, when a company has a leave policy as unstructured as this, employees take less time off because they're unsure of how much time away is appropriate and don't want to risk losing their jobs for taking too much leave. So I guess it'll be interesting to see the numbers after a while. Maybe someone at Netflix was clever enough to know that, so while people are patting them on the back for having a supposedly progressive policy, they know that the overall leave taken will be the same or less than before.

@alana: I don't know what will happen @ Netfux, but at the place where I work, breeders take off without any shame.

I think that you are mostly thinking about vacation and general time off that people don't feel like taking because they feel that they would be replaced. Breeders don't really fear that, laws in US protect them better than anyone else.