I have an 18-mo old now. My company "generously" offers 2 weeks of paid parental leave. I went through similar conversations as you, only I was merely asking to use 2 weeks of PTO after my 2 weeks of paid parental leave for a total of 1 month of time off. My management and HR refused that request, I was told that my option was take the 2 weeks of paid leave and then you can take unpaid leave (the legally mandated FMLA). Due to "project schedule" they could refuse my PTO but legally they were not allowed to deny unpaid FMLA. Truly a despicable amount of leverage. I was also told by my manager at the time how atypical my requested amount of time was and was asked why I needed that much time since I wasn't the one giving birth. I too am astonished at the typical amount of parental leave used/requested by men in the US. It seems like a very deep cultural issue.

I have no loyalty and have just been biding my time. I've been just comfortable enough so far, but things haven't been great in a few aspects. They were not hard up for coverage and my absence, which should have been planned for far in advance, would not have effected the schedule in any manner.

The US is full of psychopaths. Just look at the comments in this thread. This amount of backlash against even maternity leave would be incredible in civilized countries.

There does seem to be something uniquely perverse and wicked about US society (at least among the developed nations), and I say that as someone who nevertheless broadly admires the US. So incredibly religious and prone to moralising and yet so utterly, utterly indifferent (at best) towards each other. Baffling.

I'm about a month behind you, but the difference is that I'm in Canada. I'll be taking 8 weeks, and most people are asking "is that all?".

My wife and I get to split 69 weeks, of which neither of us can take more than 61. She's going to take the max, plus her 15 weeks she gets post-birth (76 weeks total) and I'll take 8 right at the start. We get a small amount of government-paid employment insurance, and jobs will exist when we return.

What's important is that here, it's enforced by law, not by company generosity. To punish me (or my wife) for taking this time off is literally illegal. I soon need to have a conversation with my manager (based in the US) to make sure he's aware of the this all. He's a nice guy, but he may be surprised.

This is what Americans have never kind of enjoyed about "big government" (i.e. government heavily regulating some society rules): Private companies will always strive to minimize losses, and individuals have pretty tiny leverage force to negotiate. The government is capable of implementing laws fully in favour of such individuals, and maybe also unions could get more leverage, but they are also seen in bad light in the US.

I should have clarified that I'm Canadian as well. The 8 weeks I refer to are the extended benefits, my wife is taking the other 61.

The company (not your government) pays for 69 weeks of... nothingness? and then government also pays for the full education up to employment?

Hey, didn't see your reply until now but you're asking a very good question!

Throughout my life, I pay a small additional tax called "EI"- employment insurance. Everyone does. There's a yearly maximum of around $900 (CAD) and it scales based on income level.

The reward for this is that the government pays us $400/week (a little less I think) for those 69 weeks. That's not much, but it's enough to survive.

Overall in my life I likely won't come out ahead on this 'deal' but I'm okay with that. I'd rather live in a society where everyone gets this benefit than one where no one does. Kids grow up healthier, families are stronger, society is stronger. Lower-income families probably come out ahead overall from this, especially when you factor in daycare prices.

My employer's only obligation is that the job must be there when I get back, and punishment for taking my leave is forbidden. That said, there's nothing stopping them from doing more. My employer tops up my pay to 85% of my base salary for I believe 10 weeks of parental leave (might be 8 or 12, I forget).

It's unpaid leave, with a small compensation paid by the government.

That's how it works in most countries, companies almost never have to pay for maternity/paternity or parental leave. They only have to allow it and take the employee back on a similar position afterwards.

Without knowing your company in detail, based on what you describe and general business practices, I'd be willing to bet that they'd fire you in no time if you ever stopped providing value for them. So why be loyal at all? 8 weeks is crumbs, and you even had to fight for that. I mean if you've been a solid employee for X years, briefly asking for a bit of time off for a life changing event should be absolutely fine, instead of the miserly response you describe. Just a bit of outsider's perspective, but I'd say you're hardly working with people who really respect you beyond their bottom line.

>So why be loyal at all?

I got severely sick when I started working there... like 2 weeks in and I was hospitalized with a brain infection for a week + another couple weeks at home recuperating. They paid full wages during my absence.

When my father was dying from cancer they did the same thing as I helped move him to hospice and handle the estate.

There's been other things as well where they've gone above and beyond what an employer should do, and maybe "loyalty" isn't exactly how I should frame it, I do feel "safe" working there knowing I'm not about to be thrown out on my ass should something inconvenient happen.

It's a business relationship so I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. Of course that's the case. You'd stopped working in no time if they stopped providing value to you too. As it should be, from both sides.

You can have loyalty and still understand that there's a social/informal contract in place (and maybe a formal one in some places).

I don't think it's a negative in absolute terms, it's just an argument against loyalty to a company. Loyalty is a two way street, and is defined by how people treat each other when times are tough.

It is common for companies to expect "loyalty" in the form of working extra hours when the company is in a tight spot or settling for meager raises rather than switching companies while at the same time laying people off at the first sign of trouble. In such an environment, an employee offering loyalty to a company when none is offered in return is setting themselves up to be taken advantage of.

Right, which is why you should never feel loyalty for a company. They're not people, they don't have brains, they don't have empathy or loyalty to you, they will drop you the moment it makes sense to.

Have loyalty for people who deserve it, but never for companies.

You'll think very differently the moment you get a disability and people think you are no longer providing sufficient value to society.

Great strawman/non sequitur but completely irrelevant.

If you really wanted to treat it like a business relationship, any employee should constantly be looking for higher paying / better job and leave immediately when that job is offered, not even giving 2 weeks, because that's 2 weeks of additional income the employee wouldn't be getting. Are you in agreeable with that as well? Hard, cold business decisions work both ways.

One can treat an employment contract like a business relationship while also giving some preference to a company they like working for, and vice versa (always bearing in mind that all but very small personally run companies are likely brainless , soulless corporate entities regardless of any PR platitudes to the contrary). Agreed on that. However, in the OP above, the guy describes a situation in which despite being a well established employee, he had to basically claw for even a meager 8 weeks of paid leave for something as important as a newborn baby. Based on that description alone, I'd tentatively say that the employer hardly deserves much loyalty at all. As I already mentioned.

Sure, I was replying to this:

>I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative.

It seems the whole loyalty thing is always sided heavily in favor of the employer. When both sides eschew loyalty and make cold, hard business decisions, my example is what the employee's might look like. Not very appealing I know, but neither is laying off 25% of your workforce because Zillow decided it wanted to be a real estate investor and failed miserably at it; an example of a cold, hard business decision.

I don't think this is true. I've been given resumes by bosses of people I've worked with before and told them not to interview based on previous interactions, whether they were good to work with or not, etc. You can burn every bridge as you cross it but eventually that will bite you. We software people like to pretend everything is a 1 or a 0 but that's not the case in the real world. Relationships matter.

a fully rational actor would do exactly that, unless he also puts utility value on hard to define 'relationships', but why would he if money in hand has clearly defined utility...?

just another hole in classical economics and theory of rational choice.

You're building up a ridiculous strawman. Why, in your farcical example, does "fully rational" mean by definition maximizing short-term economic gain? Even if it's hard to give an exact value to a relationship (are you quoting something or do you mean the word ironically?) certainly a good relationship is better than a bad one, and poisoning a relationship strictly for economic gain has some sort of opportunity cost.

> not even giving 2 weeks,

You give 2 weeks because of the people, not the company

My former company enacted a paternal leave policy around the time MSFT required suppliers/partners to offer them in order to continue doing business with MSFT.

Shortly after I became the manager of my team, one of my reports informed me that he wanted to use 3-4 weeks of paternal leave (out of a max of 6) a few months after the birth of his child (company policy allowed it within 12 months.) He said he'd keep his laptop nearby in case of emergencies. "You're crazy!" I told him, "take the full 6 weeks! And leave the laptop off!"

As a manager, if it's the company policy, then it's the employee's right to take the time off. There should be no amount of brow-beating (assuming sufficient advance notice, of course.) I checked in with HR for procedural details, and overall it was easy/painless from top to bottom.

I am sorry to hear this. As a recent father myself, I find the fact that comparatively few fathers here in the US do (or can) take this leave very sad. The act of caring for our newborn is how we form our attachments and love, and it is ultimately a loss for the dads that choose not to participate in the caring. My dad never really took care of me as a baby (in the feeding, diapers, etc. sense) and is squeamish/ not able to do it with our own child now. Again, a loss for previous generations of men.

Which is all to say - if this company in the slightest gives you more negative feedback about taking leave,.. I would, if I were in your shoes, be looking for a new place. They're not showing you any loyalty, so you don't owe it to them.

A twitter thread from Ezra Klein (also recently took parental leave) that might resonate with you: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1457771021327503360

Good on you.

An important lesson we all need to remember: there are two ways to get the time off which is owed to you, the hard way or the easy way. If your boss is really willing to make it the hard way, it's on him/her to find a train a replacement. Get out of there.

I've also seen this with vacation.... A skilled engineer saves up vacation with a well-known to the boss goal of making a 2 month adventure trip. When it's time to go, he's "too valuable" to "lose" for 2 months. He threatens to quit. Now he's "too valuable" to lose over the situation and he gets his vacation. So stupid.

Keeping yourself ready and able to change jobs is unfortunately necessary, because company loyalty is kaput, and the threat of quitting is unfortunately occasionally needed to get proper to treatment.

Unions or humane work cultures would fix this. Not holding my breath in the USA. Europe is way better.

> So I do have a small sense of loyalty to them

Why? They already showed they have no loyalty to you. Also, 8 weeks is pretty bare bones as is. 12 weeks is the minimum even in US states that have managed to implement it.

It always surprises me how little companies think this through. They're willing to lose all your knowledge and damage morale over a trifling 8 weeks? Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.

Never mind that in this labor market an open role might sit unfilled for more than 8 weeks!

Good on ya - your partner will be forever grateful, and you’ll thank yourself as well for not trying to work while no one is getting a full night's sleep. Even if breastfeeding works out 100%, having someone else get some of those overnight diaper changes is the difference between holding it together and being a complete wreck.

Those first few weeks present an unparalleled opportunity of becoming a larger part of the rhythm of your baby’s life. My husband took the month after our kid’s birth, and then the transition to daycare at a year old, and that has entrenched wake up/go to sleep as their special time together, no matter how long his work days have ended up.

My major advice on this is to consider splitting into two chunks, one right away and one a little later after the adrenaline wears off, you start bottle feeding, and you can take over the night shift (feeding etc).

I could take 7 month off from my job - all I have to say is when - it's the law and I could not be happier.

The child got off the ground well and I think it stems from both parents being regularly present during the first year. Also, being a young parent is stressful, so it's good to share the effort.

If all goes well, my kid will be a productive member of society - so maybe it's not just family friendly, but profitable, too.

That’s bullshit your manager would even say that to you.