My wife will be delivering soon in December, and I will be asking my
employer about paternity leave benefits so I can plan and budget
accordingly.

I also want to gauge whether my company's benefits are above or below the
average norms that a company should provide paternity leave. So here are
some questions that I'd like to ask, especially for dads:

What did your company do for you when your wife was expecting? How much
time off did your company allow? Was it paid leave? How were you treated
when you got back to the office?

Did you and/or your wife want more time off than the company allowed? If
so, by how much more would you have wanted? How do you approach your boss
in asking for more time than the company allowed? What does the law
provide?

Here's my situation:

I've been working at my company as a product developer and manager for just
over 3 years now, and have seen it grow from 12 employees to 48. I enjoy my
job, and I have a good relationship with my boss and everyone else in the
office. I am 31 and the only one with an income in my household because my
wife of 28 years is a homemaker. Her mom can fly in to help out for at most
2 to 3 weeks. Other than that, it's just the two of us unless we can
somehow justify hiring a postpartnum doula. We live in the San Francisco Bay
Area and will be having our first child. I have two months of emergency
cash stashed away.

Thanks in advance for all your opinions and feedback.

Drew

Snoop Drew <snoopdrew@nospam.com> wrote:
My wife will be delivering soon in December, and I will be asking my employer about paternity leave benefits so I can plan and budget accordingly. I also want to gauge whether my company's benefits are above or below the average norms that a company should provide paternity leave. So here are some questions that I'd like to ask, especially for dads: What did your company do for you when your wife was expecting? How much time off did your company allow? Was it paid leave? How were you treated when you got back to the office?

My H got one week off, paid. He took it, but did a lot of work on the
phone. Frankly the U.S. is extremely stingy about paternity leave.
It's rare to get much of a paid benefit. Unpaid is legally guaranteed,
if your company is big enough.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:41:41 GMT, mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne)
wrote:
Snoop Drew <snoopdrew@nospam.com> wrote: My wife will be delivering soon in December, and I will be asking my employer about paternity leave benefits so I can plan and budget accordingly. I also want to gauge whether my company's benefits are above or below the average norms that a company should provide paternity leave. So here are some questions that I'd like to ask, especially for dads: What did your company do for you when your wife was expecting? How much time off did your company allow? Was it paid leave? How were you treated when you got back to the office?My H got one week off, paid. He took it, but did a lot of work on thephone. Frankly the U.S. is extremely stingy about paternity leave.It's rare to get much of a paid benefit. Unpaid is legally guaranteed,if your company is big enough.

PATERNITY LEAVE? What a crock of ****. Use your god damn vacation
time, if you want the time off.

No one should expect extra paid time off to accomodate his own
lifestyle choices. Any employee who came to me with such an
entitlement mentality would automatically go onto my permanent ****
list, and would soon find his *** unemployed.

JDK <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote, of paternity leave: No one should expect extra paid time off to accomodate his own lifestyle choices. Any employee who came to me with such an entitlement mentality would automatically go onto my permanent [...] list, and would soon find his *** unemployed.

Depends on how important he is. Like it or not, some people have
skills which are hard to replace.


I think leave for a *particular* reason that only applies to some
people is screwy; but "family medical leave", which gives you time
for any relative who has health problems (parents, etc), and which
can apply to anybody, seems much fairer.

Were I childfree, the strategy I would use to is raise my own status
instead of lowering the parents'. It is a mistake to complain about a
benefit others get that you don't -- instead, one should angle to get
it too, by making it general.

The best tack I've heard of was "Give everybody 10 days per two years
of paid family medical leave, and have unused days trade off 2-for-1 as
vacation." So people with no kids essentially got an extra five days
of vacation every two years, and people with kids who were gone to
kid-related stuff were happy to have their concerns considered by the
management.

In case where you are commodity, and can be easily replaced by another
worker with minimal training, trying to get benefits for yourself is
hard, and ripping away benefits for others is likely to be easy. And
even in some skilled jobs, if your industry is in a job market with
lots of excess people, it's hard to get stuff out of management. So
intead, you wait until the time is good for you.

If you're someone hard to replace, especially if the job market is
really good for employees, then you make your argument for equalizing
benefits by making them general instead of issue-specific, and even
try for trading in unused medical days for extra vacation days.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"He who is patient, and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be
victorious." -- Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
Were I childfree, the strategy I would use to is raise my own status instead of lowering the parents'. It is a mistake to complain about a benefit others get that you don't -- instead, one should angle to get it too, by making it general.

That would be my approach as well.

I'm amazed at the attitude over the pond.

here in the UK my husband got a week off and all fathers are entitled
to 6 months unpaid leave in the first 5 years to take off during
illness, to care fort he children if their wives are working.

We share our time off to look after the children.

Isn't it about time that we started placing some importance to the
raising of children. Companies will survive, noone is indispensible!

It's all about being sensible about work/life/family balance.

To be jealous because someone else has chosen to have children and gets
time to care for them is a bit childish. A bit like "he's got more
chips than me". If you choose not to have children, then thats your
choice, accept the consequences of it.

There are swings and roundabouts in all our choices - it doesn't mean
we have to deny someone else because they make a different choice.

Just my thoughts


--
scholar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scholar's Profile: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=50
View this thread: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=8818



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:48:22 +0100, scholar
<scholar.uvnx5@timelimit.yourserver.com> wrote:
To be jealous because someone else has chosen to have children and getstime to care for them is a bit childish. A bit like "he's got morechips than me". If you choose not to have children, then thats yourchoice, accept the consequences of it.

You have it completely wrong. If you chose to have children, accept
the consequences of your lifestyle choice. Don't expect a free ride
in the workplace because of it.

No one should be given additional time off from work because they made
different choices in their personal life than someone else. Don't
want to work? Quit your job, and let someone else take it who does.

"JDK" <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f817931.42331565@news.cis.dfn.de... On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:48:22 +0100, scholar <scholar.uvnx5@timelimit.yourserver.com> wrote:To be jealous because someone else has chosen to have children and getstime to care for them is a bit childish. A bit like "he's got morechips than me". If you choose not to have children, then thats yourchoice, accept the consequences of it. You have it completely wrong. If you chose to have children, accept the consequences of your lifestyle choice. Don't expect a free ride in the workplace because of it.

Those that choose to have children should be rewarded with more than just a
few extra days to care for them. They should also be given higher rates of
pay. After all they are supplying the next generation. :) What are you
supplying?

Don't want to work? Quit your job, and let someone else take it who does.

Don't want to have children? Quit your job and let someone who needs it more
than you take it. :)

Amy

I'm with Amy on this one.

People shouldn't be classed as second rate in the workplace for
choosing to have children. By bringing up children with confidence, in
a happy home environment and feeling secure will help all countries in
the future.

If I was "forced" to stay at home full time rather than work part time,
i would not be as happy and confident and that would rub off on my
children.

I have the advantage that i run my own business.


--
scholar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scholar's Profile: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=50
View this thread: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=8818



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

jdk00@yahoo.com (JDK) wrote in message news:<3f817931.42331565@news.cis.dfn.de>...
You have it completely wrong. If you chose to have children, accept the consequences of your lifestyle choice. Don't expect a free ride in the workplace because of it. No one should be given additional time off from work because they made different choices in their personal life than someone else. Don't want to work? Quit your job, and let someone else take it who does.

Actually, isn't paternity leave covered by the Family Leave Act? IOW,
even if you choose not to have children, you still have the right to
take a leave to cover care of aging parents or, say, if your spouse
gets seriously ill.

So I'm not sure what you're whining about here.

jen

Nor should people be classed as second-rate in the work place for NOT
having children. Does it happen? Yes it does, I know it does because
I've experienced it firsthand.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:14:12 +0100, scholar
<scholar.uxlcf@timelimit.yourserver.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be classed as second rate in the workplace forchoosing to have children.
------
Kim (Dreamspinner3)
http://members.tripod.com/dreamspinner3/
ICQ: 48547727
YAHOO: dreamspinner3
MSN: dreamspinner3
AOL AIM: coolkmm

"scholar <scholar.uxlcf@timelimit.yourserver.com>" wrote: People shouldn't be classed as second rate in the workplace for choosing to have children.

"Dreamspinner3 <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com>" wrote: Nor should people be classed as second-rate in the work place for NOT having children. Does it happen? Yes it does, I know it does because I've experienced it firsthand.

So what do you want to *do*?

These threads come up every so often, and the childfree participants
usually dwell on a lot of "if only"s. But, as it usually the case,
"if only" is a waste of time. The thing to think about is "What now?"


Suppose someone wanted time off to go on his honeymoon, and a single
coworker replied with:

No one should be given additional time off from work because they
made different choices in their personal life than someone else.
Don't want to work? Quit your job, and let someone else take it
who does.

These are Mr Kendrick's exact words: he stated it as a general principle
which should apply to everybody all the time. You supported him when he
wanted to apply this principle to parents; would you support applying
the exact same principle to newlyweds?

If not, why not? Aren't unmarried people who don't get extra honeymoon
time essentially treated as second-rate, because they don't get a bonus
that will go to an employee who gets married?

If so, do you really think someone should be fired for wanting time off
to go on a honeymoon? Do you think an employer who did something like
that would be doing a good job of running his company?

*

As a practical matter, a little extra time off for honeymoon or
paternity leave is essentially nothing. Yes, it may be temporarily
inconvenient, and it could come at a bad time (proposal due, or
something), but over the long run it's nothing. The reason is that
getting married and having kids are not really all that common for any
given person.

Suppose your an employer, and you have a worker who is capable and
productive. You hope he'll stay with the comnpay for 30 years. He
wants two weeks off with pay to stay home with a new baby. Let's do
some math:

30 years * 50 weeks/year * 40 hours/week = 60000 hours

two weeks off with new baby * 40 hours/week = 80 hours.

80 hours / 60000 hours = 0.13%

So, in exchange for warm fuzzies from an employee, and one who will
now have extra financial responsibilities and may well work harder to
keep the job, you have to give up 0.13% of his expected employment
time (note that this isn't his total productivity, because relatively
few jobs are that strictly time sensitive).

If he had a kid every month, that would be a problem, but I think the
average in the USA is now less than two kids per couple. So he's going
to want this *twice*, upping it to a whopping 0.26% of your hoped-for
total employment time.

If you think it makes sense to cause a stink over 0.26% of someone's
total hoped-for employment time (again, just time: not productivity),
then you must not run an actual business. A happy and productive
employee is worth a *lot*.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."
-- John McCarthy

People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our overpopulated earth.

Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the world
crotchfruit!

s


--
scholar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scholar's Profile: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=50
View this thread: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=8818



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:56:49 GMT, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
"scholar <scholar.uxlcf@timelimit.yourserver.com>" wrote: People shouldn't be classed as second rate in the workplace for choosing to have children."Dreamspinner3 <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com>" wrote: Nor should people be classed as second-rate in the work place for NOT having children. Does it happen? Yes it does, I know it does because I've experienced it firsthand.So what do you want to *do*?These threads come up every so often, and the childfree participantsusually dwell on a lot of "if only"s. But, as it usually the case,"if only" is a waste of time. The thing to think about is "What now?"Suppose someone wanted time off to go on his honeymoon, and a singlecoworker replied with: No one should be given additional time off from work because they made different choices in their personal life than someone else. Don't want to work? Quit your job, and let someone else take it who does.These are Mr Kendrick's exact words: he stated it as a general principlewhich should apply to everybody all the time. You supported him when hewanted to apply this principle to parents; would you support applyingthe exact same principle to newlyweds?If not, why not? Aren't unmarried people who don't get extra honeymoontime essentially treated as second-rate, because they don't get a bonusthat will go to an employee who gets married?If so, do you really think someone should be fired for wanting time offto go on a honeymoon? Do you think an employer who did something likethat would be doing a good job of running his company?

The employee should have to take vacation time off for the honeymoon,
just as a parent should have to take vacation time if he wants to
spend his days lounging around with his yardmonkeys.

Where is the contradiction? I'll give you a hint: there is none.
As a practical matter, a little extra time off for honeymoon orpaternity leave is essentially nothing. Yes, it may be temporarilyinconvenient, and it could come at a bad time (proposal due, orsomething), but over the long run it's nothing. The reason is thatgetting married and having kids are not really all that common for anygiven person.Suppose your an employer, and you have a worker who is capable andproductive. You hope he'll stay with the comnpay for 30 years. Hewants two weeks off with pay to stay home with a new baby. Let's dosome math: 30 years * 50 weeks/year * 40 hours/week = 60000 hours two weeks off with new baby * 40 hours/week = 80 hours. 80 hours / 60000 hours = 0.13%

This is crap. No one stays with companies for 30 years any more.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:20:57 +0100, scholar
<scholar.uzx21@timelimit.yourserver.com> wrote:
People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our overpopulated earth.Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the worldcrotchfruit!

First, when I was born, there were barely over 3 billion people on the
planet. Human population has DOUBLED since then. They can be excused
for breeding; people today cannot.

Sonce, every human being on the planet started its life as
crotchfruit. What's your point?

For someone who considers himself a scholar, you sure are an
unbelievable dumbass!

People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our overpopulated earth.Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the worldcrotchfruit!

First, when I was born, there were barely over 3 billion people on the
planet. Human population has DOUBLED since then. They can be excused
for breeding; people today cannot.

Sonce, every human being on the planet started its life as
crotchfruit. What's your point?

For someone who considers himself a scholar, you sure are an
unbelievable dumbass!




Actually I am a "herself".

What would be your criteria for who can breed or not. Would you just
have the world end in 100 years because no-one could reproduce?

Good to see you have a get out clause for your parents. As I see it, if
people then had the forethought to cross their legs, the population
wouldn't have doubled.

And if i'm a dumbass, then you must be dumbasser.

Enjoy the rest of your life, up till now can't have been that good to
make you so bitter and twisted.


--
scholar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scholar's Profile: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=50
View this thread: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=8818



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:39:36 +0100, scholar
<scholar.v0x87@timelimit.yourserver.com> wrote:
People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our overpopulated earth.Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the worldcrotchfruit!First, when I was born, there were barely over 3 billion people on theplanet. Human population has DOUBLED since then. They can be excusedfor breeding; people today cannot.Sonce, every human being on the planet started its life ascrotchfruit. What's your point?For someone who considers himself a scholar, you sure are anunbelievable dumbass!Actually I am a "herself".What would be your criteria for who can breed or not. Would you justhave the world end in 100 years because no-one could reproduce?

That wouldn't make the world end, dumbass. The world doesn't need
people.

Anyway, a moratorium on breeding for the next 20 years would do
wonders for the planet.
Good to see you have a get out clause for your parents. As I see it, ifpeople then had the forethought to cross their legs, the populationwouldn't have doubled.

But they didn't know how insanely the rest of the worl would breed in
the interim. Now, there are no more excuses.
And if i'm a dumbass, then you must be dumbasser.

Wow, the depths of your idiocy are revealed to be greater every day.
Enjoy the rest of your life, up till now can't have been that good tomake you so bitter and twisted.

Amazing - every word from your mouth is dumber than ther last!
Bitter? No. just realistic, asswipe.

The twisted poeple are the ones killing the planet through mindless
breeding. If there is a hell, it awaits you and your foul
crothdroppings.

scholar <scholar.v0x87@timelimit.yourserver.com> writes:
People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our overpopulated earth.Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the worldcrotchfruit! First, when I was born, there were barely over 3 billion people on the planet. Human population has DOUBLED since then. They can be excused for breeding; people today cannot. Sonce, every human being on the planet started its life as crotchfruit. What's your point? For someone who considers himself a scholar, you sure are an unbelievable dumbass!

scholar: he's a well-known dumbass here, and probably best ignored.

He mainly likes riling people up.

Doug

I realise what he is and for the moment am enjoying the banter. I think
it must be my sadistic streak that likes him to dig a big hole and boy
is he diggin deep.

And now i await the next insult (boo hoo)!!!!!


--
scholar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scholar's Profile: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=50
View this thread: http://www.weddingmanual.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=8818



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I suggested some rough estimates of time off for special events (birth
of a child or a wedding). John Kendricks replied, on the subject of a
wedding:
The employee should have to take vacation time off for the honeymoon, just as a parent should have to take vacation time if he wants to spend his days lounging around with his yardmonkeys.

I know of a case where someone used his vacation in March, and then
wanted to travel to his brother's wedding in another country (which
hadn't been scheduled when he used his vacation time). He was to be
gone six days, and requested extra time off. He was given unpaid time
off without a moment's hesitation, and his job was waiting for him when
he got back.

Do you believe this was a mistake?


What about an employee who uses his vacation early in the year and
later discovers there's a birth on the way? Can't use vacation, it's
already used for the year. Now what?

If your workers are unskilled, maybe they're interchangable and can be
tossed aside at a whim. But many people are not trivially replaced.

*

In response to some back-of-the-envelope math, involving an employee
who stays for 30 years, Mr Kendricks wrote:
No one stays with companies for 30 years any more.

Okay, let's do five years, and one baby.

Suppose the employer is lame and only gives two weeks vacation and
ten holidays a year (that's what I got at my first job after college).
So that's working 240 days a year, over five years that's 1200 days.
The father-to-be wants four weeks off for a birth, taking 20 days out
of the total. That's still only 1.6%.

A good employee, who knows his job, does it well, and works more than
the usual eight hours when there's work to be done, will more than make
up the missing 1.6%. I don't see the big tragedy here.

*

Maybe the fundamental disconnect is that I think of jobs in terms of
what work gets done, without so much concern about work measured in
time. If you have some sort of horrible time-locked job, like
telemarketing or something%, maybe every hour gone could be seen as
depriving your employer of something. But in the jobs I've usually had,
what mattered was whether the work got done. Working 20 hours a day got
you no awards if the work wasn't finished -- and if the work was done,
taking off early, or an extra day, was no problem.
--
% This is a bad example. If you're a telemarketer you should quit and
do something more respectable, like prostitution, or selling used
cars, or working for the RIAA finding people to sue.


In my view, an employee whose work gets done can take off for a few
weeks for Big Stuff without any trouble. Answer the phone so we can
call in an emergency, and we'll be fine without you while you get things
under control.

Maybe this is somehow an extra benefit for people who have more Big
Stuff to deal with. But as long as everybody gets his share of the work
done, what does it hurt anybody?


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish." -- traditional proverb

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:36:07 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
scholar <scholar.v0x87@timelimit.yourserver.com> writes:> People do choose to **** out crotchfruit to further soil our> overpopulated earth.Well I guess your parents chose to as well. So welcome to the worldcrotchfruit! First, when I was born, there were barely over 3 billion people on the planet. Human population has DOUBLED since then. They can be excused for breeding; people today cannot. Sonce, every human being on the planet started its life as crotchfruit. What's your point? For someone who considers himself a scholar, you sure are an unbelievable dumbass!scholar: he's a well-known dumbass here, and probably best ignored.He mainly likes riling people up.


Predictably, Dumb *** Doug resorts to insults, as he cannot possibly
hope to counter any of the points I am making.

Way to go, dumbass!

JDK wrote: You have it completely wrong. If you chose to have children, accept the consequences of your lifestyle choice. Don't expect a free ride in the workplace because of it.

"Free ride" in the workplace? LOL! First off, those leaves are generally
UNPAID. Second of all, as you so eloquently pointed out, you're risking
your job by taking them. There are obvious consequences. You do it
anyway, though, because the family is more important than the job.

Furthermore, you do it when your parents get sick or your wife gets sick
or your father's best friend (whose just like an Uncle to you) gets sick
and needs you to take him to the hospital where they diagnose him with
terminal cancer and you just CAN'T leave him there all alone...

I have best friends who are adamantly child-free. They took a hell of a
lot of time off when their beloved Labrador Retriever came down with
cancer. They treated it aggressively - lots of vet visits, lots of
surgeries, lots of special diets and accupressure and aromatherapy for all
I know. What I do know is that they took unpaid time off. Not because
it's good policy to allow worker units a "pet leave", but because humans
have different needs.

Life is like that. Curse a man for taking a week to be home with
his newborn (unpaid) and just see what kind of karma it'll bring you.

(Do you demand that everyone get equal time off for funerals, too?)

Wendy