Indeed. And if it was an employer's responsibility to care for employees' children: Which employer? Most children have two parents; why should the employer of one parent pay to care for their children while the employer of the other parent doesn't?

Of course, the article answers this question with the assertion that children are a woman's responsibility; Apple's male employees are cavalierly dismissed as "not exactly breeders", which must be one of the harshest judgments I've ever heard applied to such a large group.

It seems to me that the attitude that fathers have no place in the lives of their children is a much bigger problem than the question of whether Apple employees have on-campus or off-campus child care.

> Apple's male employees are cavalierly dismissed as "not exactly breeders", which must be one of the harshest judgments I've ever heard applied to such a large group.

'Harshest judgments'... have you been on the internet?

In any case, her point was not "Apple male employees are dorks", but that "25-year-old tech bros are not breeders... yet". The 'yet' is in her comment. She was saying those kinds of men aren't up for being fathers now, but will be later.

> It seems to me that the attitude that fathers have no place in the lives of their children is a much bigger problem than the question of whether Apple employees have on-campus or off-campus child care.

The very next two paragraphs talk about these same men wanting daycare for their eventual offspring, and being able to find it at Google. Apart from saying the parenting burden falls disproportionately on mothers, the article makes no suggestion that fathers are lesser parents.

And yet, how the employee gets to and from work (shuttles), where the employee eats during the day (cafeterias), if the employee is fit and healthy (gyms, wellness centers) are all within the purview of corporate empires like Apple.

It's only a matter of time.

>how the employee gets to and from work (shuttles)

Well, that sounds like an obvious thing the company should care about. It has been offered to employees and lowly workers since 50 or even 100 years ago...

>where the employee eats during the day (cafeterias)

Any place where people spend 1/3 of their day or more has cafeterias. Even court houses and public government offices in most countries. Obviously a company would HAVE a cafeteria. What else would be going on, have employees take a walk around every time they wanted a soda or snack? Especially in places like some US cities, where you need to drive for 5 or 10 minutes of suburban sprawl to find some food choices.

>if the employee is fit and healthy (gyms, wellness centers)

Again, that's for the employee. Who is sitting 8+ hours straight on some desk coding or doing office work, and needs some exercise for their health.

Daycare, on the other hand, is not for the employee, it's for their family members.

Companies provide health insurance, which family members can be added onto as dependents.

Transportation, food, and health/fitness services are benefits to the Apple employee. Childcare is a benefit to all the parents of the child - in most cases, only one of which is an Apple employee.

Transportation, food etc... benefit the entire family the same way childcare does because most families mix their finances.

For childcare, the benefit to the non-apple parent is financial plus whatever benefit they get from making it more convenient for the apple parent to drop off their kid for daycare.

For transportation, the benefit for a non apple family members is financial plus whatever benefit they get from making it more convenient for the apple employee to get to work.

>Transportation, food etc... benefit the entire family the same way childcare does because most families mix their finances.

They are not meant as services to boost the family finances though -- but to keep them at the company premises more.

How does that affect the OP's comment that I was replying to?

> Childcare is a benefit to all the parents of the child - in most cases, only one of which is an Apple employee.

It adds context to it that the other benefits are not meant for the employees but for the company (and that we don't have much reason to expect one that doesn't benefit the company).

>the other benefits are not meant for the employees

This is only relevant to my reply if someone you're saying that Childcare doesn't benefit the company in the same way a gym membership does, i.e., keeping the employee around longer. I don't think you're saying this, so I still don't understand the point of your reply.

Health insurance, provided by employers such as Apple, usually allow for non-employee dependents to be added.

And for that employee it is most likely more important than a shuttle.

How is it any different from any of the other perks that Apple and other similar employers provide? I don't really think having a cafeteria/gym/shuttle is my employer's business.

I suspect if there was enough demand for daycare as a perk it would be provided. People who work for apple frequently have the option of going elsewhere, so it might be fair to assume they're at least ambivalent on the perk of daycare as a group?

The employers obviously think otherwise.

I wouldn't say no if my employer wanted to run a daycare in the building. It would save me some hassles dropping my kid off and dealing with emergencies.

But they don't. And as far as I know, no one does. Not in Silicon Valley. Not anywhere else. Am I wrong?

SAS (which I believe Google modeled their early benefits packages on) in the RTP has onsite daycare.

Doesn't Cisco have a daycare?

It looks like they do. But don't get excited because it's off-campus. How is that better than any other daycare in Milpitas?

http://child-care-preschool.brighthorizons.com/ca/milpitas/c...