Yeah, I guess I didn't make it clear in my OP, but I didn't mean to suggest that the way I feel about employment is "right" and the way those women talked about it is "wrong." I just wanted to offer a different lens through which I view the employer/employee relationship.

For me personally, it give me the creeps when my employer encourages or discourages behavior in my personal life. It's why even though I've never even smoked pot a single time in my life I'm opposed to workplace drug tests unless you operate heavy machinery or something. I'm as upset as anybody that Hobby Lobby gets to exert some ethical control over its employees personal health choices by not offering insurance that covers abortions or birth control. If it's not your employer's business when you choose to not have children (birth control/abortions), why is it their business when you do choose to have children?

It's not that people who want that stuff are wrong. I just honestly can't relate to wanting my employer to be involved in my personal decisions.

and if you don't compensate your employees for the value they add, then employees with higher value will leave.

If you hugely (and it is hugely) subsidise your employees breeding, then you are under-compensating the ones that aren't.

There are very few, if any, non-breeding employees* at my company that out perform me, even with all my family related issues.

I don't think there is a strong correlation between the productivity of workers with or without kids.

I was a productive employee when I had no spawn. I am still a productive employee now that I have a mini-me.

* I can't possibly know that, but I am confident that I am a very productive employee.

> There are very few, if any, non-breeding employees* at my company that out perform me, even with all my family related issues.

I'll just copy-paste this from another comment of mine:

don't counter with "someone really good and a parent is better than a mediocre one without children", since you'll find that I said nothing implying otherwise, because of course that's true

But also:

> I don't think there is a strong correlation between the productivity of workers with or without kids.

Do you think that still holds in countries that give a year or more in paid parental leave?

To me being away for a few years will obviously make your career lag by a few years.

So why do you think that other employees will become less productive when they get their Appalachian Trail leave?

I never said they would be less productive--I had no real opinion about allowing employees to go hike the Appalachian trail.

I don't think employers offer Appalachian trail leave, simply because they're not mandated to. They are mandated to offer leave via FMLA. Maybe REI offers it.

Not intending to debate anything here, just framing the FMLA requirements. The mother and father are allowed 12 weeks of combined leave. If they both take off, it's 6 weeks each. And businesses are not required to pay you while you're off. They just can't fire you.

I believe you are mistaken about the leave being combined.

http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/fathers-rights-and-fmla....

"Both or either covered parent may take 12 weeks for the birth of a newborn or the placement of an adopted or foster child. If both parents work in positions covered by the FMLA, they will both be entitled to leave for an expanding family."

In a family with an expectant mother and father, both are allowed 12 weeks of leave under FMLA.

You are correct, however, that this leave is unpaid, employers can require you to use all accrued vacation/sick leave prior to FMLA, and you aren't guaranteed your same job back, just an equivalent job.

Ahh, the combined 12 weeks is the case when both parents are employed by the same employer. So you're right, it's usually 12 weeks each.

https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/fmla/10a1.aspx

> A husband and wife who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employer may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period ...

But generally, even if they're both covered, they can both only take 12 weeks if the mother is somehow incapacitated.

>The mother is entitled to FMLA leave for any period of incapacity due to pregnancy, for prenatal care or for her own serious health condition following the birth of a child. The husband is entitled to FMLA leave if needed to care for his pregnant spouse who is incapacitated or if needed to care for her during her prenatal care, or if needed to care for the spouse following the birth of a child if the spouse has a serious health condition. See Serious Health Condition for more information.

When you get bereavement leave, do you claim that the company is "subsidizing" someone's loss and that you need to get an equal amount of leave to offset that?

What if someone has a rash of deaths in their life? Should the company just fire them for having bad luck because they can't afford to give all other employees and extra X amount of days off so that "everything is equal?"

I would hope that bereavement is not a choice, and it's definitely not as time and mind consuming.

Parents often refer to it as if it's a second job. And you're not even allowed to take a second job if you have a qualified first job, in my experience.

Bereavement leave and sick leave I'm all for, but parenthood is a choice to spend your effort elsewhere.