Paternity Leave Rant

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by freedogger

Having kids has made me a better employee for three simple reasons. Its the number of additional mouths I have to feed. At the end of the day, I have a stronger motivation to deliver more. Failure really isn't an option.

Failure isn't an option, eh? An ill kid, sick/injured wife, sick/injured you...when things are going smooth that's great. If any number of things beyond your control go sideways you won't be a star employee for long and if that were to happen I hope you have empathetic people at work or a tough situation will become unnecessarily tougher.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Failure isn't an option, eh? An ill kid, sick/injured wife, sick/injured you...when things are going smooth that's great. If any number of things beyond your control go sideways you won't be a star employee for long and if that were to happen I hope you have empathetic people at work or a tough situation will become unnecessarily tougher.

I have life and disability insurance, a six month emergency fund and other forms of insurance. I have worked many times when injured without issue - broken kneecap, jaw surgery, broken hand... I am set up to work from home, and working any hour of the day is acceptable. My client/employer can take my wage and send it over to someone else who will do my job if I leave or drastically cut back my hours. I have also trained people up on my work and they have taken over projects I have completed or partially finished in the past. There should be no ill will, a good reference and a job available in most cases if I have to take time off for decent reasons. Most of your scenarios above would allow me time to transition my duties before I left.

There are no co-workers that will take a hit if things go south in my world.

Yes it is pretty stark for me, be a star employee or throw in the towel. Without kids, I could slack off or putt along without any worry. From what I have seen, some employers do realize the stakes are higher and see breadwinners as more committed.

I'm not complaining about it, I chose this life and like it better than the one I had before all of this responsibility. In my situation the "your work colleague's are pulling part of your share now that you have young kids" line is total BS.

[Zevo]

If you can't do your job properly and have kids, maybe you shouldn't try and do both. I know plenty of people who balance work and kids and don't expect someone else to pick up the slack.

If you you can't afford to have kids or don't have the energy to work an 8 hour day and have young kids, maybe people should re-think having kids. It's not a right, for christs sake, it's a choice.

There are plenty of capable people raising families that don't need help from the 'village'. Society won't collapse if the self entitled stop having kids. I actually think we would be better off.

[HELPNEEDED]

This is Canada, kids are essential the growth of our country. That is why we have the best maternity leave system int he world. We need mothers and fathers to raise their kids compitently and the "village" is our country. We contribute to children via tax breaks etc. I don't have kids, and I have zero problem working with people who do, and understand that sometimes kids require special attention and one day these kids will pay us back by contributing to the tax and pension pool, aswell as contributing to raise kids around the country they will never see.

[MarchHare]

This is Canada, kids are essential the growth of our country.

Why?

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why?

I would say kids are essential to us being able to retire. Why - because you can tax them! Same thing goes for immigrants. Japan has a lot of challenges with their low birth rate, lack of immigration and greying population. We want to avoid that situation if Canada is to even maintain its current programs.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by freedogger

I would say kids are essential to us being able to retire. Why - because you can tax them! Same thing goes for immigrants. Japan has a lot of challenges with their low birth rate, lack of immigration and greying population. We want to avoid that situation if Canada is to even maintain its current programs.

A future generation to staff our workforce and supply a tax base is essential, but it does not follow that we need more children. We could satisfy our future workforce requirements through immigration. From a strictly economics perspective, it's actually better value for Canadian taxpayers to import skilled/educated immigrats in their 20s who will contribute to our economy throughout their adult careers.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A future generation to staff our workforce and supply a tax base is essential, but it does not follow that we need more children. We could satisfy our future workforce requirements through immigration. From a strictly economics perspective, it's actually better value for Canadian taxpayers to import skilled/educated immigrats in their 20s who will contribute to our economy throughout their adult careers.

Sure, but either alone aren't enough.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

This is Canada, kids are essential the growth of our country. That is why we have the best maternity leave system int he world. We need mothers and fathers to raise their kids compitently and the "village" is our country. We contribute to children via tax breaks etc. I don't have kids, and I have zero problem working with people who do, and understand that sometimes kids require special attention and one day these kids will pay us back by contributing to the tax and pension pool, aswell as contributing to raise kids around the country they will never see.

Well put and applies to most people in Canada, CP excepted.

It's pretty awesome that CP is full of Super Heroes that don't need anybody but themselves and anybody who needs help shouldn't have had kids in the first place. Funny how we all rally around to help Mayer pay for his dog's surgery (myself included, CP's resident dog lover), but suggest some parents may need a couple extra breaks to look after their infants and you can GTFO.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why?

Because Canada is in a dire position to organically increase its population. We need more home grown Canadians (Ancestory nobar). There is a big immigrant population in Canada which resides in Canada while their kids study and then suck out money once their kids have acheived their desired level of education. Thats an example of why we need organic growth.

Further as world population increases we need to be able in the future (not our life time) justify our useage of our vast lands. As time moves so will a countries dependencies on taxes etc. we need more people for that. And its always better, like in hockey, to create your own talent and population.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A future generation to staff our workforce and supply a tax base is essential, but it does not follow that we need more children. We could satisfy our future workforce requirements through immigration. From a strictly economics perspective, it's actually better value for Canadian taxpayers to import skilled/educated immigrats in their 20s who will contribute to our economy throughout their adult careers.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Then why don't you educate me instead of simply saying that I'm wrong? Your post prior to this one read like anti-immigrant xenophobia, not an adequate explanation on why our future workforce must be Canada-born.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Funny how we all rally around to help Mayer pay for his dog's surgery (myself included, CP's resident dog lover), but suggest some parents may need a couple extra breaks to look after their infants and you can GTFO.

What you simply don't seem to be grokking is that most folks don't mind helping out, watching for a co-worker, covering, whatever. Most of the folks out there understand that "Life Happens" (tm) and they may need a hand covering it. What most folks DON'T want to hear is that someone feels entitled to this for ANY reason. "You have to cover for me because it's your responsibility because I am a manic depressive". "You have to cover for me because I'm a hypochondriac and have to go to the hospital again." These sorts of reasons will irritate people just as much as the "I have kids so the world must bow to me" line you are trying to feed us. Of late, and of course, this is purely anecdotal, in the work force it seems that folks with children are taking advantage of this. Hell, your own anecdotes about paying this lady in your employ for hours she misses due to her kids simply reinforces this. Would you do this for someone who didn't have kids, for instance?

Think back before you had kids. Did you like not getting a weekend off because "so and so has a family, and the weekend is family time." or "You have to work overtime, because so and so can't because they have to go get their kids from/take them to hockey/ballet/soccer/whatever." Did you like feeling like your life didn't matter because you didn't have kids? Did you like feeling like your family (and a family does not have to include kids to be a family...) was second-rate because you didn't have kids? Did you like it being assumed that you could work any extra and/or holidays because "you don't have a family"?

And folks with kids have to wonder why those without them are getting tired of this.

[GP_Matt]

“I dream of an America with nudity and F-words on network TV. Where the whole world doesn’t stop because a school bus did. Children are the future… today belongs to me!”
- Lindsey Naegle

I assume that we must now split into opposing camps. I just wish the Wildrose had won so that we could try to get the issue on a plebiscite.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Funny how we all rally around to help Mayer pay for his dog's surgery (myself included, CP's resident dog lover), but suggest some parents may need a couple extra breaks to look after their infants and you can GTFO.

That is what is great about most people and why I have many libertarian leanings. People who want to help others typically will. Sometimes many people will help someone, but opt out of doing so because they figure the government is already doing enough for them (correct thinking or not).

So if I want to help a struggling family I will. Should I be forced to help someone I don't want to by threat of losing my job or jail time (if I refuse to pay my taxes). Is that freedom to you? Threaten people to help others.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I just wonder what charmed lives you guys are leading or why posters that know of the difficulties I'm talking about are being so silent. One of my best friends right now is going through something brutal. His wife injured her arm severely and they have a nine month old baby. She can't lift the baby or use her arm at all without risking further and permanent damage. My friend has had to take a month off work to keep his house running and his baby cared for. Is this stuff not happening in your guys' world of the land of easy babies?

You really think that it is odd that people aren't experiencing a severe arm injury to their wife that affects her ability to lift and care for her baby? That seems like a pretty unique type of situation. Maybe I am living a charmed life but I can't think of anyone that I know that has had that type of situation and I know a number of families with children.

As for "knowing about the difficulties that you are talking about" as a father of 4 children 5 and under I know about the difficulties of raising kids but what you are talking is much more exaggerated than reality and the concessions you think parents should get at work are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

This is Canada, kids are essential the growth of our country. That is why we have the best maternity leave system int he world.

We have better maternity system than Sweden and Norway? They may have changed but in the past both parents got parental leave not having to split it between both parents. That sounds like a better system than ours.

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's pretty awesome that CP is full of Super Heroes that don't need anybody but themselves and anybody who needs help shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

I would like to see where anyone has said they don't need help and do it all themselves.

[MrMastodonFarm]

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by moon

I would like to see where anyone has said they don't need help and do it all themselves.

It was tough, but I found it like five posts above yours.

Originally Posted by freedogger

I have life and disability insurance, a six month emergency fund and other forms of insurance. I have worked many times when injured without issue - broken kneecap, jaw surgery, broken hand... I am set up to work from home, and working any hour of the day is acceptable. My client/employer can take my wage and send it over to someone else who will do my job if I leave or drastically cut back my hours. I have also trained people up on my work and they have taken over projects I have completed or partially finished in the past. There should be no ill will, a good reference and a job available in most cases if I have to take time off for decent reasons. Most of your scenarios above would allow me time to transition my duties before I left.

There are no co-workers that will take a hit if things go south in my world.

Yes it is pretty stark for me, be a star employee or throw in the towel. Without kids, I could slack off or putt along without any worry. From what I have seen, some employers do realize the stakes are higher and see breadwinners as more committed.

I'm not complaining about it, I chose this life and like it better than the one I had before all of this responsibility. In my situation the "your work colleague's are pulling part of your share now that you have young kids" line is total BS.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

What you simply don't seem to be grokking is that most folks don't mind helping out, watching for a co-worker, covering, whatever. Most of the folks out there understand that "Life Happens" (tm) and they may need a hand covering it. What most folks DON'T want to hear is that someone feels entitled to this for ANY reason. "You have to cover for me because it's your responsibility because I am a manic depressive". "You have to cover for me because I'm a hypochondriac and have to go to the hospital again." These sorts of reasons will irritate people just as much as the "I have kids so the world must bow to me" line you are trying to feed us. Of late, and of course, this is purely anecdotal, in the work force it seems that folks with children are taking advantage of this. Hell, your own anecdotes about paying this lady in your employ for hours she misses due to her kids simply reinforces this. Would you do this for someone who didn't have kids, for instance?

Think back before you had kids. Did you like not getting a weekend off because "so and so has a family, and the weekend is family time." or "You have to work overtime, because so and so can't because they have to go get their kids from/take them to hockey/ballet/soccer/whatever." Did you like feeling like your life didn't matter because you didn't have kids? Did you like feeling like your family (and a family does not have to include kids to be a family...) was second-rate because you didn't have kids? Did you like it being assumed that you could work any extra and/or holidays because "you don't have a family"?

And folks with kids have to wonder why those without them are getting tired of this.

Great questions. Before I had kids and before I owned my own business, I worked in the marketing department of a public company for five years. Your typical 20-something office dude that was expected to work a fair amount of overtime, put in some weekends, come in early, work from home on occasion, go away from home now and then, etc.

About two years into my job, a new manager was hired above me to relieve my current manager as we grew. My old manager busted her balls and worked as much as me and our team. This new guy came in, late 30s, and was all about his family. His big thing was he would be home for supper with his kids no matter what. I'm embarrassed to say I thought it was a joke and I thought he was a slacker.

Now I know through linked in he's a VP at a prominent company. His kids are probably finishing or finished high school by now. While he was raising his kids he worked his day and was home for supper. Before kids I know he was a hard worker based on his achievements and qualifications prior to coming to my office, and now that his kids are raised and based on his position with greater responsibility it looks like he is able to devote more of himself to work again.

Say your career is 40 years long...a small percentage of the time will be raising young kids relative to the length of your career. I think society can cut you some slack when needed during that time. It's funny, I can't even remember what projects we were working on when I'd be pissed off he was leaving. I'm sure they didn't matter in the big scheme of things no matter how important they felt at the time. But I do remember he couldn't be there late because he had to be with his kids. He made the right call - the time with them and the fact that his kids knew their dad cared more about them than some stupid press release, or annual report, or promotion, etc. could not have been better spent even though I had to work harder.

So yes, I do know where you are coming from and why you are pissed off. I had the same opinion as you guys 10 years ago. Now my opinion has evolved to what I see as a higher standard of caring for the people around me and empathizing with their unique situations and needs.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A future generation to staff our workforce and supply a tax base is essential, but it does not follow that we need more children. We could satisfy our future workforce requirements through immigration. From a strictly economics perspective, it's actually better value for Canadian taxpayers to import skilled/educated immigrats in their 20s who will contribute to our economy throughout their adult careers.

Immigration works for how many generations though? You will be eventually facing the same issues unless you expect India, China, etc to just export their most talented and brightest workers for the benefit of Canada, and then sterilized them so they don't have children to interfere with their work.

I don't really understand how the OP got saddled with this suddenly though. Processes should be in place to ensure a smooth transition of any work, and that nothing is left incomplete. Ideally the worker going on leave, and the company knew this well in advance. The worker should have bee wrapping up any unfinished work.