Tech firms face growing resentment of parent employees during Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/tech-firms-face-growing-resentment-of-parent-employees-during-covid-19/ <comment><USER4> I am a middle-aged adult with no children who's worked at tech firms for the past couple decades. To be honest, the "resentment" of those without children have for "benefits" those with children get strikes me as extremely selfish, immature and displaying a total lack of empathy. This is time off specifically to take care of children, something now that has become exceedingly more difficult in Covid times.

What's next, complaining that the cancer patient gets extra time off so why don't I?

If anything, I'm thankful for all those people with kids who will (a) take care of the continuation of the human race, and more selfishly (b) support our society and economy when I am too old to do so.

<comment><USER5> I don't fully agree with you.

Back when I worked in retail or fast food, smokers could step out for a 5 minute smoke break every once in a while. As a non-smoker, I wasn't allowed to just sit there for 5 minutes. At the end of the day, we got paid the same, but smokers got 30 minutes off, courtesy of the non-smokers who picked up the slack.

Likewise, parents are excused from work because they have children. I fully appreciate the difficulty of being a parent and the necessity for those measures. I don't think we really have a choice. It's either that or we watch them slowly crack under the pressure.

That being said, they chose to have children, and I chose not to. Whatever I have going on instead can't have priority over my work schedule. Whether it's a side hustle or a little league baseball team, it has to wait.

To be clear, I _want_ those parents to get the time they desperately need. However, if this arrangement is to last, then childless employees should also get time for their personal obligations, whatever they might be.

<comment><USER6> Someone has to provide the goods and services you'll consume when you're old. Those people are today's kids, whose parents are doing you a big favor at considerable expense to themselves.

Raising children isn't like smoking, a hobby, a side hustle, or other miscellaneous personal obligations. It's more like military service and jury duty -- an essential service that some people perform to ensure that society as we know it can continue to exist. And one which employers can, should, and often do make special allowances for.

<comment><USER5> Then is it cool if I skip a few meetings to volunteer to help the homeless?

We already heavily subsidise child-rearing through taxes and other benefits. As I said elsewhere, there are mechanisms for supporting parents already. If you tried to let any other charitable endeavour take over your work schedule, you wouldn't expect your compensation to remain unaffected.

I'm not resentful at parents. It just seems completely unfair to make childless employees subsidise this adventure, as if they didn't already do it through 40 years of tax contributions.

Besides, let's not pretend that people choose to have kids as a service to humanity. I've never, ever heard anyone claim that. People have kids because they're fun, and because making them is fun.

<comment><USER6> > Then is it cool if I skip a few meetings to volunteer to help the homeless?

That's the thing -- you won't actually go volunteer with the homeless. (Or at least, 99% of us wouldn't.) But parents actually have to change those diapers. If there's a little kid running around in the background of that Zoom call, someone is doing a lot of hard work to keep the kid alive. And unlike volunteering at the homeless shelter, they can't just decide they don't feel like it.

<comment><USER5> > you won't actually go volunteer with the homeless

This was in response to the parent post:

> an essential service that some people perform to ensure that society as we > know it can continue to exist

If this was the reason why parents get a free pass, people who provide essential services would also get to do it on their employer's dime, at the expense of their colleagues.

My point across this entire comments section is that this privilege is arbitrary. A lot of people do hard work for all sorts of important reasons, but when they miss work, it gets mentioned in their performance review.

<comment><USER7> I guess you're advocating that parents get lower performance ratings during the pandemic if their responsibility to their family has caused them to do lower quality work for their employer. I think that's sort of absurd (for all the reasons jdm2212 has pointed out), but, as a parent of two grade-school children myself, I'd take that deal of it made all the childless people feel they were being treated fairly. I am concerned that performance reviews are generally about communicating paths for development and progress against some goal. I'm not sure how valuable that feedback will be for parents who suffer low performance because of child-rearing responsibilities. I wouldn't suddenly work more hours to improve my performance at the expense of my children's education during this period. It's a poor trade for everyone involved, except perhaps my employer, and even then, it's likely only beneficial for them in the short-term.

<comment><USER8> Tech is full of entitled low empathy technocrats. This may seem harsh, but it is very true in my experience. Especially at organizations that skew younger and have discriminatory or ageists hiring practices. It gets talked about obliquely and there are a lot of compelling and meritocratic arguments about how unfair all of this is to people without kids, but ultimately the concessions are few and far between. This mostly comes down to empathy and it is a skill many young technologists have not cultivated by choice or through a general life path to this point. Yes, I am making a lot of generalizations but I don't think they are a reach.

<comment><USER9> I'm a low empathy technocrat because:

(1) I chose not to have children, and

(2) I find it unfair that I'm expected to work longer hours for the same compensation/work profile.

Is that it? ... No, that's not it. Your position assumes that:

(1) Child-rearing is some a-priori, guaranteed good, and

(2) That it apparently should be subsidized by employers,

(3) and (both implicitly and explicitly, from you and others) at the expense of their non-child having coworkers.

Am I getting something wrong, or missing something?

I absolutely think parents should get a break during the pandemic. I think everyone should. The work people are doing here to act like we should worship the ground parents walk is easily the most shocking thing I've witnessed.

Honestly, it's not at all a stretch to say you basically insist parents get extra compensation (in the form of extra paid vacation). Call me whatever name you want, but people are well within their rights on this, of all places, to raise an eyebrow.

\---

The other generous interpretation is that there is some base assumption that we ALL (parents and non-parents) should running ourselves at 90+% capacity. And that children are an accept caveat since parents are usually at 100% capacity. What a terrifying dismal way to look at life. I hope that's not it.

<comment><USER8> children are an a-priori good for society and they massively subsidized the childless in the long run. Anyhow, try the empathy thing out. Put yourself in the shoes of a hard working parent that up to this point, possible for 10+ years of child-rearing carries the same load as everyone else. Now, COVID has happened an unprecedented pandemic since the Spanish Flu. Maybe they have their hands a little full right now? Employers in general should be helping everyone out right now, not just parents, but I am sure you can see where I am going here? Some people are stuck in a 100% capacity spot for whatever reason. It's not what I would prefer, but it's how society is set up.

<comment><USER10> > they massively subsidised the childless in the long run

How, exactly? It feels like the glass-makers fallacy every time this point is expanded on.

> Anyhow, try the empathy thing out

empathy means "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another"; you assume this isn't the case because others draw a different conclusion to you own. What If others understand perfectly well? From my perspective the phrasing "try the empathy thing out" is pretty patronising, leading me to conclude you either lack empathy on that point, or else wanted it to be that way; it's possible to _be_ (if not act) empathetic while acting vindictive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This feels like more of an effort to create a story than accurate reporting of what life is like inside tech firms right now.

1\. Parents lives have been temporarily turned upside down as almost all childcare disappears. Temporary is turning out to be a long time... but still.

2\. Most companies are composed of people of all ages and stages of life which means there are lots of parents. Particularly when you consider management tends to be older and more likely to have had kids, it's not too surprising that management in most companies has looked at the outside world and said, "you know, we're all going to just have to do the best we can until this thing is over."

3\. Parents naturally feel (1) stressed out and (2) guilty when they are having a hard time maintaining their old workload given the new and vastly different circumstances.

4\. Some small minority of tech workers without kids have been unable to empathize with the situation and are publicly complaining about it.

Given that saying mean things online is practically America's past-time, and trying to fan the sparks to see if you can make a flame is how news companies make money... it's not really surprising to see a story like this portraying some kind of "backlash."

<comment><USER12> I know of two parents who have been let go during covid. All of the people on their team who had been let go were parents of young children.

<comment><USER13> Man that's shitty, unless I guess that's your thing. A few posters here would love to be in that environment

<comment><USER14> > A few posters here would love to be in that environment

I'm sure there are a few spiteful posters, but I think a lot of the posters would love to be in an environment where _everyone_ would be okay with regards to food and healthcare even if they were let go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Personally, I struggle with these feelings as well.

It seems nuts that someone working 50%+ less than someone else is going to keep all the same equity, vacation, and salary. Then again it seems nuts that they don't.

All employees who had children or family members to care for before or after COVID get none of the same support. I don't think backpay is coming for those who were forced to take leave or even quit their jobs when they had family they had to care for.

It isn't "unfair" or something, parents with kids of certain ages have a much higher burden right now than most, and our society should support them.

That support won't exist for anything exceptional, and for diseases like autism, alzheimer's or cancer, we've normalized the experience and force individuals to just handle it. It's hard to see how far some companies are willing to go for parents today, when I see how little we do for others.

<comment><USER16> Have small elementary age kids. It's rough. 8-10 interruptions the first couple hours of work. Then meltdown over being hungry.

Then afternoon interruptions because they are bored. Lots of crappy reasons, but also because they want me to spend time with them.

Also dealing with my own chronic illness. I was managing to cope/hide before Covid.

Between it all is a sense of guilt of not getting enough done for work and not supporting kids enough.

Other day I got a note under the door asking if I would draw a cat. Man talk about breaking heart.

<comment><USER17> It's not much better with older kids either; I have 3 teens with mental health issues (depression/anxiety/migraines/ADHD) which have gotten worse with 6 months sheltering-in-place.

<comment><USER16> Me and kids have adhd and migraines.

Migraines for them have improved greatly since they are away from harsh lighting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What I find short sighted about these policies are they don't realize that people without children can also feel stressed and need more time off.

e.g. if you're single during this time, you are completely isolated from the world, and your colleagues. This can be extremely difficult mentally and on an individual level can be much harder than just someone with a kid. These policies shouldn't be "oh if you have kids you can take this time off" and more "this is an unprecedented time, please take time off if you need it for any reason."

Trying to make judgement calls on who needs the time off and who doesn't is the major cause of this issue.

<comment><USER19> Taking care of a child isn't time off, it's work. And it's not even time away from work because you're still getting pinged on Slack, still expected to review Google docs or leave people blocked, still missing meetings or dialing in (poorly) because they can't be rescheduled, and generally feeling guilty that you can't get enough done.

All while trying to handle a baby, or monitor a first grader attending live school on a computer, or trying to re-create preschool at home... whatever. Oh, and prep meals, plan after-school isolated activities, etc. All while feeling guilty because your kids are suffering and miss their friends.

We're all isolated. As a parent, I'd love more time off [to myself, as you imply]. But that's not what I'm getting. I work more than ever yet do everything (work, parenting, life) worse than before.

<comment><USER20> as a single I'd love to get a kid and take care of it during the pandemic. will feel much less lonely.

<comment><USER21> If you haven't got a dog, you should get a dog!

Dogs give 80% of the happy good time feels and require 5% of the effort.

Source: have a child and a dog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's simply depressing how parent/kid-hostile society has become... I'm not saying we need explosive population growth. But I feel one of the main purposes of society is raising and protecting children. If you're a human- future-optimist, you want some kind of generation that's better than us to continue on.... I'm not saying you NEED to have kids, but I feel it's part of society's collective duty to consider the next generation, build a better world, enable them to build something better than came before...

<comment><USER23> It is not necessarily just hostility to parents. I see it more as hostility to the HR policies in place at some of the companies. A new parent at facebook gets 4 months leave after the birth and then can take another 10 weeks of family leave.

Alternatively, non parent employees at facebook can take 3 days off to cope with stress or else need to take sick days. Otherwise they can take sick days, which probably would be frowned upon if overused.

Yes, parents have to deal with a lot more added stress during this pandemic. But, the difference between 10 weeks off (with no questions asked) and 3 days off (to "cope with mental health issues") is pretty stark. It seems like the tech companies could at least give those who do not take family leave an extra week of vacation or something.

<comment><USER24> What's the solution? Allow non parents to take 10 weeks off for health issues?

What if then a parent has a baby and then has some other health issues. Can they take 20 weeks off? Or would that be unfair because as parents they can take 20 weeks vs 10 for the single person?

<comment><USER25> Is it too much to ask that everyone be treated equally?

Family status is a protected class, unless you are childfree. If we said everyone except Hispanics gets an extra 10 weeks paid time off, HN would be losing its collective minds.

<comment><USER24> How do you treat everyone equally then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Before the pandemic, this resentment already existed. It's just exacerbated now. There have always been hidden benefits for people with kids. And although those benefits don't nearly make up for the extra responsibilities of having kids, those without kids feel that it's unfair.

For example, someone with kids gets a bigger insurance benefit. Usually managers are pretty forgiving when someone says they need to leave the office at exactly 6pm every day to get to soccer practice, leaving the single people stuck without the same excuse. Oftentimes the single people are asked to do the extra off-hours work "because you have no kids so you don't mind right?"

This is just an extension of that, which is perceived as unfair to the single folks.

<comment><USER27> One thing I've found in the change to being a parent is that I'm much more confident in saying, "No, I have this other important thing I have to do. If you want my contributions, it will have to be on these terms."

Most employers that would accept that of parents would accept it of anyone. Most employers that wouldn't accept employees setting reasonable boundaries or making reasonable requests wouldn't accept them from parents, either. There are bound to be some that only accept boundary-setting from parents, but I assert that it's a very small percent of employers or managers. Maybe I'm wrong.

What I'm proposing here is that most people are too afraid to ask for what they want. Parents have the benefit of having some of those expectations carved out beforehand, but I think that many of them also develop a newfound ability to say, "No, sorry, can't do that."

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> One thing I wish I could make my childless peers grok is that THERE IS NO VACATION when you have young kids.

I'm taking this week off and people speak as if I'm on vacation. Please please hear my words literally: my job is my break. Weekends are more physically and intellectually exhausting than weekdays when I get to $&@# off to work for eight hours.

My paid time off is a way to give us a fighting chance at laundry and housecleaning and other chores.

Grocery shopping was my break today. Home Depot was my treat today.

I'm not on vacation. Please help me keep my marbles. Give me a break.

<comment><USER25> That is called life. There is no vacation when you have a sick spouse, or bought a new house, or are in a car accident. Your job shouldn't be your break, regardless of your situation.

My wife is at a FAANG company currently covering for 4 people who all get double digit weeks off because they chose to have children. Does she get any time off for literally working 18 hour days 7 days a week? No of course not.

<comment><USER29> > Your job shouldn't be your break, regardless of your situation.

If it's less stressful that the ambient level in your life, then it's a break. Why shouldn't it be?

<comment><USER25> If your day-to-day life is that stressful, I strongly encourage you to reach out to the National Parent Helpline at 1-855-427-2736.

<comment><USER29> Thanks for your concern. I'm pretty sure it's just regular parent stuff vs regular office job though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> FWIW, in the Bay Area at least, there have always been companies with fairly toxic cultures that impute "shame" on people who go home early or choose family events over company events.

Because technical people have generally (although not universally) employable at multiple companies, it was has been possible to leave a company once you figured out they were 'dinging' you for spending too much time with your family. It is also why I found the rationale for leaving of "going to spend more time with my family" somewhat painful as it implies that company would not support that choice while still employing you. (and yes, I know its a euphemism more than an _actual_ reason but still).

One need look no further than the "controversy" over parental leave to understand that American companies have a fairly broken value system when it comes to their employee's well being.

</comment><comment><USER31> Isn't it just bizarre how people can have children and not expect it to disrupt their lives. They are children, they require your engagement, this is part of the deal. Tech companies should offer the same time off to all employees whether they have children or not. Children should not be allowed to be bargaining chip to obtain more from others. Your choice. To be honest having children out weighs any negative impact it has on career progression and if you don't understand that you should have not have had children to begin with.

Oddly this is little different than what some people do with pets, they are fine and wonderful until they realize they require time, attention, and money.

<comment><USER11> Nobody expects having kids to be free or easy. But nobody expected to have a global pandemic that completely disrupted and in most cases eliminated the entire support structure that parents have in place either. Right now companies that are offering more support to parents are doing so because they recognize that parents are much more impacted by current events than non- parents, and _also_ because this is expected to be _temporary._

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I"m not sure why this thread is so polarized. I am 30 and I don't have kids - I am burnt out from the pandemic and can assume that those trapped inside with their kids are orders of magnitude more burnt out than me. I feel bad for them. I am also very burnt out, which shows itself in an array of different symptoms (more irritable, more prone to being frustrated/resentful for those that have different situations than me, etc).

It's fine to acknowledge that some have it harder than you, but to also wish that you had it easier. I wish we all had it easier. Sometimes, when I'm feeling most frustrated with everything, I wish I also had an excuse to work part time but keep my entire pay (which is, ignoring all else, what a lot of peers with children get). Humans are complicated and can have lots of feelings, some of which are irrational and some of which are unempathetic. We're all getting squeezed right now.

</comment><comment><USER33> This thread is absolutely bananas. I actually read most of it at 759 comments.

The short version is that people with kids are insanely defensive about it. In many cases, they have literally rewritten their brains to see reproduction as exclusively good and necessary. If you suggest anything else, you will be swiftly brigaded and condemned.

Those without children are all over the place. Their opinions vary from complete disinterest to strong resentment of parents.

<comment><USER34> "rewritten their brains"... conceiving, carrying, birthing, raising a child is not like picking a favorite beverage or ice cream flavour, and changing the choice as you evolve. It's not something you set your mind about, and change it a couple weeks later as a result of a mood swing, or because of an influential article or a comment on the web.

"reproduction ... good and necessary"... people don't get kids because it's "good", and certainly not because it's "necessary"... They're a little more to it.

and no, you either read all of the 759 comments, or you didn't. Also, skim through ≠ read.

<comment><USER35> You're not really making a point here. If you think they are wrong, then tell us why you think this. Shooting down the comment and providing no real input is unproductive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Managing remote school sessions plus my work was a mess.

I made my 10 and 12yo kids drop their remote school stuff and work with me instead. The young one is responsible for slack, keeping everyone in the living room updated and replying with text and the occasional gif, he also summarizes with voice important incoming emails. Older one writes python code alongside me and I now mostly check her syntax. She learned git at the beginning of the pandemic and my manager is now impressed that commits from us get pushed while I am on the phone with him.

The kids drafted an email yesterday to ask for a raise and align my compensation with that of 1senior+2juniors SWE. Fingers crossed

<comment><USER37> I'm pretty sure child labor is against the law....

</comment></comment><comment> WD-42 This feels like a symptom of a society that has accepted the act of completely outsourcing child-rearing clashing with an event that makes that outsourcing impossible. Being able to work full time while comfortably having other people/institutions raise your child seems like a privilege. Now we are just seeing what happens when that privilege is taken away. I can't help but imagine there are a bunch of parents out there who decided to forgo full time jobs and careers to raise their own children shaking their heads and saying "this is how it is".

<comment><USER38> Being able to work full time while kids attend school isn't a privilege, it's often a necessity, at least in many parts of the US.

Until relatively recently, supporting my family of four required both my partner and I to work full time. Raising kids is an expensive endeavor. Luckily, I've advanced in my career enough that I can now support my family on my own.

<comment> WD-42 You are right, but I think you are missing the context of the article. While I'd like to avoid generalizations, most employees of SV tech giants aren't exactly struggling to get by. These are employees that can now work from home (another privilege many parents don't have) a high paying jobs - the ones that usually afford them to be able to hire childcare so that they can work through the day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Honestly, when public policy is garbage and everyone has to deal with unreasonable demands, it is quite natural for groups to turn on each other rather than to demand more for everyone.

This entire experience has been difficult for everyone, and everyone is somewhere on a spectrum of minimal disruption to profound stress. I have kids, but it's been "ok" so far. On the other hand I know of a woman who is an attorney representing abused children. Her childcare bailed on her at the last minute. She had to do a zoom _trial_ while her 2 year old began screaming in the background and she had no one to take over her case or her child. She literally broke down in court. There was no obvious "solution" to that situation.

I don't have a conclusion other than it is up to employers and government to provide resources so that we aren't all fighting like animals over the scraps.

</comment><comment><USER40> This reminds me of local retirees who are resentful that their taxes are paying for public schools. They seem to have forgotten that someone paid for them to attend school.

Regarding parental time off, it's conceivable that their own parents never had that support. Maternal/parental leave is taking decades to roll out - <USER2> as long as it took for public schooling to become universally available.

<comment><USER41> The problem with this analogy is that everyone uses the school system at some point in their life, but not everyone is a parent at some point.

<comment><USER42> But everyone was a child at some point

<comment><USER25> My parents never got time off to just take care of me. I was on my own. Do I get a refund or a credit? Maybe a vacation voucher?

<comment><USER43> Can life not be better for us or our children than for our parents? This kind of thinking keeps everyone down.

<comment><USER44> That's a separate argument from claiming that everyone was once a child so they must have benefited from something similar.

<comment><USER41> Even further, just because you benefited indirectly through a parent, someone who doesn't have children is still receiving less benefit than someone with children. They are getting the benefit twice. Whereas a childless person gets it once and indirectly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> How much of this issue is related to having a part of the population think that people having children is solely a private question? "You had children, why should I bear your burden!"

If none of us had children there would d be no economy to support anyone's life in, let's say, 40 years from now.

People making and _raising_ new sane and healthy people should be considered a social and common good, for the sake of all, and should be protected and encouraged. Maybe not too many children, true, but at least enough to keep some semblance of population balance, no?

<comment><USER5> As I understand it, we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate. This is fine.

However, this is happening at a smaller, more arbitrary scale. It's not "I support our future through a legally defined contribution", but "my colleague is working 25% less and still gets paid the same, but I need to take PTO to get a haircut".

I think it depends on how you frame it.

1\. We should all get equal treatment. Parents enjoys benefits that other employees don't. Their personal life can affect their performance, but that doesn't apply to other employees.

2\. We're all in this situation together. To each according to their needs, from each according to their capacity.

I think both are true.

<comment><USER46> Not disputing your other points, but:

> we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless > people are taxed at a higher rate

In the US, being married is a tax advantage only if one partner earns much more than the other. Otherwise it's a wash.

In the US, the child tax credit is $2K per child per year. In most cases, this does not come close to covering the costs of raising a child.

So, no, for most people being discussed in the article (generally, dual earners in HCOL US areas), child-rearing is not significantly subsidized through taxation (at least not at the income tax level as you implied).

<comment><USER47> But having child is your choice.

It's so strange to complain that government doesn't cover the cost of your child. You choose to have your child. I'm sure you plan to support your child.

This is like me complaining that government doesn't subsidize my Tesla.

<comment><USER48> A Tesla is a consumer good, a child is an investment in the future of the society.

I'm childless, I will very likely be childless my whole life but this attitude is both: very naive, very ignorant and very very reductionist.

I'm happy that my taxes here in Sweden pay for child support, childcare and schools that I won't ever use, because that is the basic fabric of this society.

<comment><USER47> It's an investment that the parents will reap 10000x the benefit compared to everyone else in the society.

Also, it's very rare that people think they are going to bear a child to improve society. Adoption would make much much more sense if that was their goal.

In any case, people want to have children, sure.

Then they complain that having a child is so tough so much hardship (e.g. no vacation ever in this thread, child tax credit is not enough). Then, they turn to society to support them in an unfair way

Almost everyone knows the estimated cost and effort upfront. There are tons of materials and prior experience.

It's like me spending all my cash on Tesla and then complain that society doesnt support me enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> In remote environments, some people clearly put in more hours than necessary. It allows people who are capable of making sacrifices work overtime, and therefore raise the bar unnecessarily. No matter how much a company attempts to reinforce a 8 hour work day; people will sneak around it to keep up or to get ahead. This unbalances the playing field for parents. I myself am guilty of putting in more time than necessary. Sometimes I need to get a report in before eurozone starts, so I push something out at 11pm.

It's in the best interests for a company to maintain the interests of people with children. People with children tend to stay longer and keep skill in your company, since they prefer stability. Compare this with new grads that job hop every year.

</comment><comment><USER50> It's so sad many commenters don't seem to objectively acknowledge non-parents argument here. Calling them as selfish and non empathetic.

What If there is no pay cut and every employee gets the same 6 weeks time off whether you have kids or not. If employees are willing to work for those 6 weeks they will be paid extra. This should be a win-win solution.

I as a non parent, I'm struggling with being locked down for longer duration. With almost none social and dating life. I used to eat company catered meals before covid and now I have to spend extra hours doing it all by myself and no one to share the work load with. I wish I could take time off from work, visit my family back home or work on finding my future partner. But our manager looks up to us non-parents to meet our OKR's. So yeah, being a non-parent in this pandemic is hard. So please don't disregard our struggles just because you were non-parents before and you think all we do is chill and play xbox.

<comment><USER51> > What If there is no pay cut and every employee gets the same 6 weeks time > off whether you have kids or not. If employees are willing to work for those > 6 weeks they will be paid extra. This should be a win-win solution.

This is the only way to do it, by my estimation, but how do you divvy this up? Does everyone just get 6 weeks off per year? I think that's a tough wrinkle, actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> It is about time companies stop rewarding employees for time spent doing work, as opposed to results of the deliverables.

In SV there is a myth that employees that are young and single are somehow more productive. That might be in a cruel sense true for the founders, as you most likely have no obligations outside of your company and generally feel like spending 24 hours devoted to it, but for an employee, this notion is utterly false.

Plenty of married/parents spend unhealthy amount of time on their work, and plenty of single employees spend way too much time talking and playing games in the office, all to appear as if they are putting in the long hours.

Meanwhile, although parents certainly have a lot less "free time," you also learn to be very efficient with it. Talk less, do more, be more strategic, ..etc.

There is no one size fits all, and it's just lazy to say that one group is more productive than the other solely based on the factor of hours theoretically available to do work.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is one of the biggest reasons I've chosen to forego parenthood. I can't imagine trying to carve out a solid career in tech while being a parent. I'm sure there are so many here on HN that will say it's not so hard, but employer expectations have historically been incredibly high at companies I've worked for, to the point that sacrificing one's personal life is pretty much expected (although never explicitly stated).

The pattern of viewing non-parents as more accessible and therefore more committed has been incredibly noticeable, particularly among startups and smaller companies.

<comment><USER54> > _employer expectations have historically been incredibly high at companies > I've worked for, to the point that sacrificing one's personal life is pretty > much expected (although never explicitly stated)._

This sounds horrible. Honest question: why do you _want_ to carve out a solid career in an industry that you can see works this way?

<comment><USER53> Because it's likely my best shot at financial independence. There's no other line of work I can pursue without taking on tens of thousands in student debt and starting over career-wise.

I've worked in several industries in my life, and it's not like tech is unique this way. In a lot of ways, finance is much, much worse. It would be great to have enough money to pursue whatever goal or passion I wanted, but that's not my reality.

<comment><USER55> I would refer you to the Parable of the Fisherman and the Businessman.

[https://www.momentum-coaching.eu/en/inspiration/the- parable-...](https://www.momentum-coaching.eu/en/inspiration/the-parable-of- the-businessman-and-the-fisherman)

TL;DR: try to live now in the way you would want to live once you achieve "financial independence"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I sympathize with the parents but this is just how life goes. If you have kids, you're going to be more occupied than people without kids since we all have limited time on this Earth. And of course your career will be negatively impacted.

There are good things about having kids and bad things. This is one of those potential bad things. If you don't want to deal with this possibility then simply don't have kids.

<comment><USER57> I don't have kids, but this strikes me as lacking empathy in the current climate.

Choosing to have kids or not pre-COVID came with a set of expectations, risks, and choices that were fairly well defined. Parental leave, childcare, proximity to family and friends, school, increased costs, medical treatemtn, etc. Parents could evaluate those based on what their employer offered and the experiences of their peers going through the same processes.

Now, with COVID, the entire world has changed. School is no longer school. Childcare doesn't exist. Friends and family are socially distanced or inaccessible due to quarantine. Parks and beaches are closed. Vacations are extremely limited. Any social interaction has become a risk. _None_ of these were risks that a reasonable parent would consider, and even for the paranoid ones, it is highly unlikely that anyone considered it _all at once_.

Given the extreme change we are going through, the "if you can't handle it, don't have kids argument" is just not realistic. A pandemic isn't "just how life goes".

<comment><USER58> I disagree with your last bit.

>'Given the extreme change we are going through, the "if you can't handle it, don't have kids argument" is just not realistic. A pandemic isn't "just how life goes".'

Maybe not a pandemic but it shouldn't be any shock that children make things much more complicated. It's, most of the time in the US today, a choice to have a child. The unexpected nature of a pandemic isn't really an excuse for me. One knows unexpected things happen with children, if you haven't prepared for those unplanned contingencies, that's on you as a parent. Should the same benefits be given to parents who maybe have to stay home more because they feel their kid a slightly larger burden than others? What if the child becomes autistic and you are required to spend more time with them?

Any situation like this sucks but at what point should it really be a businesses problem and when shouldn't it be? I think these are really interesting problems under normal circumstances, the Covid part is just businesses having to deal with them all at the same time rather than individually on a case-by-case. To show that this isn't just Covid, let me share with you a story about a few nurses I met who have been exploiting a hospital system for personal gain (and brag about it!), something that could ruin a small business with relative ease.

Big hospital near me has a policy of maternity leave for nursing staff, something like 6 months off, no questions asked whenever you have a child. Sounds fantastic on the surface. Well, this small pack of nurses all knowingly do the same thing, they have children as much as humanly possible, think on the order of 8-13 children. Because of their constant pregnancy and child birthing, they are effectively able to work only 6 months out of the year, 6 month vacations. Everyone else at this org, maximum time off in one stint is 3 weeks. This means, under this hospital's policy, the only way that I can take a month off is to either work at least 1 day each month. Say goodby to taking months of in winter to stay in warmer climate, say goodbye to benefits otherwise. These nurses though, who are easily able to save their salaries to cover their yearly costs, get all company benefits like healthcare. Is this 'fair'? As someone who isn't physically able to have children, I would argue no, it's not completely. This isn't to there should be nothing for these parents, I don't really know what the right answer is.

<comment><USER59> > Maybe not a pandemic ...

But, we are in a pandemic now. So the rest of your argument is moot.

> One knows unexpected things happen with children, if you haven't prepared > for those unplanned contingencies, that's on you as a parent.

Sure, maybe a broken leg, or mono, or some other health issue could force the child to be home for a while. But not all schools close suddenly, and all other childcare options as well. What would planning for that look like exactly?

> Well, this small pack of nurses all knowingly do the same thing, they have > children as much as humanly possible, think on the order of 8-13 children > ... able to work only 6 months out of the year, 6 month vacations

As a father of two small children, I can confidently tell you that having a newborn is hardly a six month vacation.

<comment><USER58> >But, we are in a pandemic now. So the rest of your argument is moot.

Firm disagreement, change the word pandemic with cancer diagnosis, it's the same problem from the parent point of view. My point is, when, exactly, should the company be going above and beyond for you if it isn't spelled out in your contract?

> Sure, maybe a broken leg, or mono, or some other health issue could force > the child to be home for a while. But not all schools close suddenly, and > all other childcare options as well.

What about summer, schools close for months at a time. I understand what you are saying though, for the record, I'm not saying this is an easy situation. The reality though, like all catastrophe, there is going to be a bit of chaos and headache finding methods to resume 'normal' life.

> and all other childcare options as well. It's an absurd notion to say that > _all_ other options closed, maybe businesses are but this isn't the only > option.

> What would planning for that look like exactly? With first hand experience, > it's quite straightforward. Parent coordination work hours, family members > take care watching the younger members, close friends/neighbors pick up > slack from the line. I guarantee you that there is someone out their willing > to watch your kids for a few hours a day if you look hard enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> After reading many, many comments here I think it's become very evident to me how important it is to live with/near extended family and very close friends. It takes a village to raise a child and living as isolated parents far from friends or family that can help in raising children is not sustainable.

Americans (and maybe other western civilizations) seem to have removed ourselves so far from community that we forgot what true community is even for. Sharing resources and helping others simply to be a part of the "tribe" without having to pay for every single thing. This transactional consumerist economy has pushed us to where we're paying for everything, have incredibly fragile networks of dependency, and can't trust anyone unless money and a contract is involved.

</comment><comment><USER61> A lot of this feels like people looking into their neighbor's bowl to see if they are getting more than them.

Love him or hate him Louis C.K. has a great quote here

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them."

Times are tough, don't blame the parents for what they have to do, blame your management if they haven't adjusted team goals/metrics to take into account the new normal.

<comment><USER62> There is a team of 4 people. 2 have families, 2 don't. The ones that don't picked up the slack for the ones that did. Work quality was equal, but output was greater for the singles. The team has 2 slots for promotion. Do you ignore the fact that the single people put in more work or do you factor it in in the promotion decision?

<comment><USER63> Neither. The failure is with the team's manager. The team's leadership should have reduced the workload of the team.

It starts at the top. I work at a (non-tech) Fortune 50 and the message from the CEO on down has been the same: take vacation, take care of your family, some priorities/projects for this year will not be met and that is fine.

<comment><USER64> >> The team's leadership should have reduced the workload of the team.

This isn't always possible, especially given the target businesses that hang out here. This is just evading a tough question.

<comment><USER65> Then the leadership should plan around this, given covid has so far been an 8 month+ shitshow into the future. If leadership can't handle a chronic issue within the org then this is bad leadership.

<comment><USER66> Any management that isn't looking at the current situation and planning for another year of the same – or worse – probably needs to find a new role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Not _at all_ true where I work.

I work with folks who have kids and folks that don't. There is absolutely no sign of this. I interact with a fairly large group of people; everybody is understanding and supportive.

Now. Perhaps I'm in a lucky bubble here, and it's different in other places. Perhaps the article is click-bait. Hard to know.

In the end it seems rather pointless to build up resentment this way anyway. There is so much evidence that a good work-live balance has a greater impact on productivity than skill - engineers who work less often get done more.

Managers who do not understand that should, frankly, do something else.

</comment><comment><USER68> A 50 year transition to 50% of the current population would be difficult to manage, but if you could skip ahead another 50 years, I believe everyone would have a higher quality of life: cheaper housing, less crowded nature and more of it, less competition for natural resources, more land available per person, more opportunities for recognition in winner-take-all markets, etc.

At our current population density levels and birthrate, I believe society should (moderately) discourage having kids, and one of the best ways to do that is to say "those who want it the most should do it", which means those for whom its the most beneficial and meaningful. A good starting point for that is not to discourage having kids, but not particularly support it either. If its hard, that's ok, the people who are ok with the difficulty will do it, and those that aren't won't, and we'll have fewer new people to the benefit of ourselves and future generations.

I didn't think this until several years ago, when I got the opportunity to work at an NGO focused on carbon neutral energy systems research. This gave me a lot of work time to explore what the US looks like today, and how that has changed over the past 50 years. One of my key random personal takeaways from several years exploring carbon chains, land use, etc, a takeaway shared with several of my colleagues who already had children, was that we had previously underestimated the degree to which quality of life in post-2000 (completely aside from quality of life for other species, which is a separate topic) is negatively impacted by the increased density of people.

For example, and there's lots of stories you can tell like this, many people like having access to alone time in nature, and it's a lot harder in 2020 than it was in 1970, simply because more people in the country => less natural / fallow land. "The woods behind the neighborhood" is less and less a thing.

As an aside, my wife and I were considering having kids until I got exposed to these viewpoints, and they changed my mind. I think its better that my brother has kids, because he REALLY REALLY wanted to have them. And that's great. But, for example, he now doesn't have the free time I have to do open source.... and neither will I if I work longer hours to cover for him ;-)

</comment><comment><USER69> Come to the Midwest. Here's how we do it. First of all, you can't retire at 30 on an entry level engineer salary (poetic license taken). Second, there are no child care benefits.

Instead, parents with kids split things up. One parent (usually the one who was earning less anyway) dials down their career, perhaps by going part time. The other parent dials up, by competing for promotions. For instance, it's almost like clockwork that someone announces the birth of their first child, and shortly after that, they've become a project- or middle-manager, or they've gone to work somewhere else. A few years later, when their family life stabilizes, they might come back to engineering. That's what I did.

This is a known economic effect. More than half of workers will change jobs for higher pay shortly after their first kid is born. There was a study of unskilled single women in a poor neighborhood in Chicago. After adjusting for everything else, the ones with kids tended to work for higher pay, changed jobs more often, and worked further from home.

This is all pre-COVID of course, but is how things have worked for decades.

Is this a good thing? Well, it stratifies the career ladder quite noticeably. How do you make it so that people with kids aren't running the entire show? Likewise for society as a whole?

In my view, employer based child care benefits make about as much sense as employer based health care benefits.

<comment><USER70> After hearing that, I really don't think I want to come to the Midwest :-P (to work, that is).

<comment><USER69> I look at it like being in a different country. I mean, suppose you live in country X, and you know that salaries and benefits are higher in country Y. Still, only so many people can move from X to Y, for whatever reason. So you live your life as well as you can in your home country.

And at least you don't live in country Z. ;-)

At my age and skill set, I don't know if I'd be competitive for a job in one of the high-wage cities anyway. There may be some things that I can do cheaper, that make it attractive for my employer to keep me rather than moving my work elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> There is a fairness problem, and I don't see a solution except to allow everyone to work less. Working less is not a bad thing.

As a manager, I've always accommodated parental (or other family) leave requests. I even encouraged hesitant parents or other care-givers to take paid time away from work. I don't remember ever refusing leave or pressuring anyone to return to work. This was sometimes contrary to the employer's stated policy. Had I been asked about it (and I never was) I would have made the case that it is in the employer's interest and my interest as a manger to be flexible.

I never had a request for more than a few days at a time. Obviously, requests to take an extended period (months or years) are another matter.

I remember very few requests for non-vacation, self-care time off, just the rare "mental health" day.

In my experience, it really is true that parents and other care-givers take more time off than non-care-givers. In partial mitigation, I have found caregivers to be somewhat more efficient in completing work at the office, compared to single people, especially single people under 30. Parents don't have time to waste!

EDIT: I see two fairness issues, caregivers getting more time off than other employees. And, not all managers are the way I was, and it is unfair that "my" employees had a better situation than others.

</comment><comment><USER72> This all strikes me as the 10,000th variation of the old joke: the billionaire takes 11 donuts, leaves one in the middle, and tells the childless guy "hey, that guy with a kid is trying to take your donut." If in the US we lived in a culture that actually treated people as humans and not as either expendable producers or expendable consumers, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

</comment><comment><USER73> A job in big tech is not a job. It's half a job, half a privilege.

Perfectly capable s/w developers fail big tech interviews for the tiniest slip-ups in a day long coding marathon.

Big tech response: "We can afford to lose perfectly capable s/w developers as false positives during interviews, cz the supply for filling up our positions is abundant."

A significant number of capable s/w developers even acknowledge that, and accept it as the nature of the beast.

Big tech can definitely grow some balls and apply the same rules to those who get in and then decide to go on baby vacay sprees.

(Oh, and btw, this also goes by the name of "an effin company doing its effin job!")

Parents can switch to minimum wage jobs with full parental coverage, PTO, what have you.

Don't think minimum wage is high enough to support children? I agree, let's raise the minimum wage. I even support government funded childcare.

If a big tech company decides to run like a baby-producing country club charity, it's only a matter of time before it'll be taken over by an actual big tech company that gives a shit about its business.

<comment><USER13> Lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Honestly how prevalent is this hate? I haven't really seen it.

To me this comes off as another clickbaity "let's bash on techbros" article.

<comment><USER75> I would have said the same until I read this thread

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> If your company is incapable of structuring things to get done when you set reasonable boundaries about the amount you're going to work, that's its fault, not your coworkers'. If you choose to set those boundaries tightly and your company tries to put more than a fair burden on you, that is not your coworkers' fault. If you choose to do more and your company proves incapable of recognizing you stepping up to the plate in the absence of your parent- coworkers, that's your company's fault, not your coworkers'.

</comment><comment><USER77> Parenting is a full-time+ job. Hopefully the past six months will help people better appreciate their colleague's partners/spouses that 'stay at home' to care for their children, but I admit that is optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER78> The anti-natalism in tech is just totally unsustainable. What will it become, a race to hire the last remaining infertile young people? Who will provide new humans to replace them - other families that aren't in tech? Parents have a strong influence on the careers of their children - we expect to completely remove that influence, since we will have no parents in tech - and expect their children to discover tech careers of their own accord?

<comment><USER79> It's really of no consequence...there are just not that many people who work in tech. If none of them had children, it wouldn't matter.

<comment><USER78> That makes me feel better if true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I'd be happy to do some overtime to help people with children in my company. Even as a childless single, I chose a family friendly company because it aligns with my personal values.

<comment><USER81> That's very noble, but do you believe that your choice should be forced onto others?

<comment><USER82> Should we be forced to pay taxes?

<comment><USER81> Exactly, I'm asking if they believe their personal choice to work additional overtime for a specific demographic of people should be compelled by the state via an additional tax.

Do you?

<comment><USER80> Somehow you all think everyone is american because here in germany there are many taxes levied on me or rather not levied on families with children.

<comment><USER81> In Germany, there is a tax if you don't work overtime for people with children? Because that is what I'm asking about. In America there was an additional tax if you didn't buy health insurance, so it was compelled via a tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> It's a give and a take, isn't it? For example, I don't have kids, but I know this whole experience is a nightmare for many people with kids. I can hear it in the background in conference calls - and sometimes I can literally see little kids running and jumping up and down.

That's all you need to show me to gain my sympathy, because that's a nightmarish scenario as far as I'm concerned. I don't admire people with kids.

Now, one day I might get sick, or a family member might, or something happens, or I need to take time for some reason. I expect the company to give a little there, too, if I've been there a while.

It's not an exchange, just a humane approach one hopes and expects.

</comment><comment><USER84> I've gone through maybe 20 of the top comments so far and not one has pointed out that having kids is a choice. All of them are saying "childless workers don't understand parents have it tough!" Yes, they do. That's why they're childless.

As a childless worker, if I volunteer at non-profits with all my free time, can I take 6 months of paid leave occasionally too? Which non-work related hobbies are deemed "worthy" for all this extra paid leave? Is there a list somewhere? Or is "being a parent" the only item on the list?

</comment><comment><USER85> The most important point here is that this is about _the company 's own self interest_ and the complainers are asking them to act against that. People who are unable to reconcile the demands of parenthood with those of their job will quit. That's bad for the bottom line, the company wants to avoid that, so they make accommodations. The reward - salary, equity, perks - each employee gets was _always_ about supply and demand and cost of replacement, not mushy ideas of deservedness or fairness.

The second point is that these same people were strangely silent when everything about working conditions benefited them. Long working hours and oncall requirements are _far_ more burdensome to those with families than to those without. Ditto performance-review and promotion standards that require consistent delivery on pre-planned items over a long period of time. Easy enough to arrange your life around that when you have no other demands or commitments. I did that myself when I was single. It's a lot harder when an event within the family - even a joyous one such as a long-desired child - <USER3> throw your availability and concentration for an unexpected loop. Goodbye, last 11 months of effort. Have to reset now.

After benefiting from years of policies that favor the childless, suddenly strict equality must be the rule? Please. Again, this is about the company acting in its own self interest. Attrition and lack of diversity are bad in the long run. The complainers are simply easier to replace than those they're complaining about. See first paragraph.

<comment><USER79> "Long working hours and oncall requirements..." are not benefits and they are only increasing now for childless people, while the parents get multiple weeks of free vacation.

You've engaged in a slight of hand here by describing the demands of a job that are somewhat easier for the childless to meet, and then turning around and treating these demands like they're "...policies that favor the childless...".

<comment><USER85> How is a demand that is easier for the childless to meet, even if only slightly, _not_ a policy that favors the childless? That's not sleight of hand. It's just English.

<comment><USER86> Because a demand isn't a favor? A demand to someone implies a loss on their part, of time or effort or value. It doesn't matter how easy it is for them to do. If I say that ice cream vendors must give out their ice cream for free, it's not a policy that favors them just because they can more easily meet the demand then someone without an ice cream business.

<comment><USER85> You're being _very_ slippery with different meanings of "demand" here. I have no interest in engaging with such sophistry, as I'm sure honest readers already knew what I meant.

<comment><USER79> You are being _very_ slippery with different meanings of "policy" here. Of course, we have to engage with -- and reject -- such sophistry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I am charmed by kids popping into meeting backgrounds on zoom. They tend to speed up standups, and that's a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER88> > _More than half of 1,000 people surveyed by Care.com said they felt like > they 'd let down their colleagues due to juggling children and work during > the pandemic._

Frankly, it's true, they probably have. I've quickly learned that my co- workers who have kids will be less productive. But so what? This is just the reality we're all facing, and we have to account for that when planning and assigning work.

Now, I don't think that should mean that I have to pick up the slack and work 80 hour weeks (that's just generally unfair, and I'm dealing with my own COVID-related difficulties), but that does mean that a project that would normally take 3 months might now take 4 or 5 or 6. Tech companies are lucky that they mostly still get to complete their projects, even late! Companies that require in-person and in-office work to get things done aren't completing projects at all right now.

> _And 45% believe their career advancement has suffered because they 're > juggling work and kids at home._

This is the only thing that's actually a problem. Parents shouldn't have to be judged against their pre-COVID productivity levels. That's entirely unreasonable to expect of them, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

</comment><comment><USER89> I felt that the headline of this article wasn't well-supported by its content. Almost everyone in the article supports parents and understands how difficult they have it. The only exception was three commenters on Blind, which is notoriously full of trolls. That's hardly evidence of "growing resentment". People here on HN seem to agree, if that upvoted comments are indication.

To be honest, I feel this headline is clickbait trafficking on the anxiety felt by many parents.

</comment><comment><USER90> FYI: if you hold these opinions, it would be wise of you to not voice them in public at work. Most of your bosses have kids, and as a parent myself I struggle to think of anything that would cause more resentment on my part than idiotic bullshit like this.

</comment><comment><USER91> This reminds me of an episode from my own life. After I'd left FB, I interviewed at a smaller SV social media company for a remote SWE role. The technical interviews were easy enough, during the final interview with the director of the department, he asked me point blank: "Do you have any children?". I found that question to be very jarring because my spouse was 2 months pregnant with our first child at the time. After pausing to weigh my options a bit, I replied with a curt "no". The first thought that came across my mind was, how was even legal to ask questions like that at a job interview? But then I remembered that he was sitting in California and I was in Ireland. In all likelihood there aren't any international laws preventing it.

To conclude the story, I got an offer that I accepted. Told the director during our first 1:1 that I was expecting a child. At both subsequent interaction I had with that person started with an anti-natalist rant about how children slow down one's career. I left the company in 3 months. The anti- natalism was one of the many reasons to do so.

</comment><comment><USER92> Ok, good luck with that sentiment, kids. If you want the "crazy benefits" of parenthood, becoming one is not that difficult. Be prepared for a severe loss of quality of life and wealth in the short (0-21 years) run though.

</comment><comment><USER93> Just to get my take out in the open: I do not have kids yet. People are going to have kids and I like kids. Raging against that is like whipping the ocean. Of course we should support families as much as we can as a society, they are our future. ( And maybe we should cut workers some slack across the board...)

However, I feel like people are creating this narrative where society is persecuting them for having children, and they feel judged and persecuted.

Most people have children. Where is this boogeyman coming from? I agree that it is hard to have children in this political and economic climate.

But to assert "People don't get how hard it is to have kids!" BULLSHIT! Most people fucking HAVE kids! And even people who do not have kids understand how hard it is!

This persecution complex natalists have is completely unfounded. Society is VERY positive of having children. Now, support from the government/place of work is another story. But to suggest that society is "hostile" to people with children is absurd.

<comment><USER94> > Most people have children.

I can't find any source for this claim.

<comment><USER95> [https://www.statista.com/statistics/241535/percentage-of- chi...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241535/percentage-of-childless- women-in-the-us-by-age/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I don't see how this is specific to tech firms? Why not any other company currently WFH-ing?

</comment><comment><USER97> I'll take the rep hit.

But as a childless middle aged employee... I think we need to reign things in and less experienced expecting the world need to actually prove themselves beyond leet code and one prior couple year experience.

Those with families, should expect the younger snots to be sympathetic because during this time those same younger snots are bitching about being stuck inside with third roommates, hang outs limited, etc.

My point - regardless of your situation, Covid sucks. Those dealing with responsibility for others is a hardship; those expecting the world of opportunity and bitching about lack of progress, suck a fat one; we are all in this together.

</comment><comment><USER98> I hope the situation changes soon. I'm a parent and two of my kids are doing school online. I have been able to make it work, in that I'm not slacking at work or leaving stuff for someone else, but I'm working much longer than I ever did at the office. I've found the best way to meet the demands of work, while meeting the demands of my kids, is the put some work on the back burner. Once they go to bed, I catch an hour or two before getting up and knocking out the work I wanted to do earlier. I understand it's not tenable, but nothing else I can do at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER99> I understand the stance of "taking responsibility of your actions", such as deciding to have a kid, but I'm pretty surprised how people view the current situation. At one point, society has to decide when to help those in need for benefit of society and your morality. How is this any different from any other natural disaster? You wouldn't expect one of your colleagues to work normally if they lost their house to a wild fire. You wouldn't tell them, "well you shouldn't of decided to live in a wild fire prone area. Suck it up and figure it out.".

</comment><comment><USER100> ITT a lot of people who don't have kids talking about the "benefits" of having children. It's pretty clear anyone who talks about "benefits of being of parent" don't have kids.

</comment><comment><USER101> I suspect people are less inclined to empathize with people they don't see face-to-face every day. Mass-WFH could cause a general drop in empathy, particularly when the circumstances are so stressful.

<comment><USER53> I've noticed the opposite, actually.

Working from home has meant that I often see parents interacting with their children or spouses during calls, I get to see another facet of my coworkers lives that I couldn't before. Generally, I really appreciate this perspective, it's very humanizing.

The lack of empathy around parents long preceded COVID, it has everything to do with the anxiety-driven "ship or die" culture that's prevalent in startup culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> If you resent people who have children at your place of employment you have too much time on your hands.

</comment><comment><USER103> I'm pretty sure this is a made up story. I also rarely see parents work less - usually they're happy to work late to avoid having to go home and look after the kids. :)

</comment><comment><USER104> There is a lot of talk about the extra hours non-parents are finding themselves working but I have found most of my resentment comes from the reduced ability to get things done.

With half my team taking some kind of pandemic related leave or reduced hours we're just simply ineffective and treading water. That's just a fact the rest of us have to deal with but you can't deny that it's disappointing if you're motivated by achievement.

<comment><USER105> This is true, although I don't resent anyone for it - it's mostly just demoralizing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> So much debate about cost/benefits of children and to whom.

Which employees subsidise others....

It's the _employer_ doing it. Allowing it. If there's good benefits (who doesn't want to work less/more flexibly). There's no reason not to give it to everybody. Act of god is kind of just an accelerator here.

So long as there's shareholder value to be extracted, saying it's impossible is a lie.

Stop squabbling and stand together to demand better working conditions for all.

</comment><comment><USER107> This is a mark of a sick and decaying society. Without everyone having more or less two kids, who is going to pay for social security? (Or work at Amazon, etc., so your 401k isn't worthless?) And no, immigration isn't a solution, it's a cop-out. Us immigrants still have to raise our kids amongst co-workers who are complaining why parents get more slack during Covid. (I mean, I don't, because my coworkers aren't psychotic.)

</comment><comment><USER108> I think the actual absurdity going on is that we are keeping pre-COVID expectations during a pandemic(crisis). I've used this time to really reevaluate the things my area is responsible for and trim the fat. We all know people have things that will come up, so we all need to be more Agile. Been pushing Kanban hard in my area now because we offer so much work flexibility. So I've been prioritizing work and making sure it's there for the team to take on. If only one person usually does certain tasks, make sure they train others. And I'm there to protect them if upper management takes issue with their output. I feel like I've been cold hearted or just methodical but it's only in regards to the work not the people. Work is just that, work. It isn't life, come to work get your work done and if life gets in the way, fine let me know. I mean what the hell is the point of a team if one person (or many) have less availability and it all falls apart? Get the highest priority work done first and maybe that lower stuff isn't actually that important.

</comment><comment><USER109> Someone took care of us when we were young. By the time we can be employed by major corporations for far more than the average family makes, we all owe a debt to those who care for the young.

We cannot truly pay back those who took care of us, so we pay it forward. Maybe that payment will only ever be supporting the caregivers by our side. That is worthy work.

</comment><comment><USER110> Letting parents with kids to arrange work schedule however they see fit is the least we can do. I understand there will be some professions/situations where it is not possible but it should be used as a general rule otherwise.

We already have large segments of populace fucked up by the growing inequality and subjecting people to even more is really bad idea I think.

</comment><comment><USER111> All of the data presented seems to be parents who are anxious about their performance at work, then, what, a single anecdote about an asshole manager?

I'm sure this problem exists, but I as a peer or manager do not hold this against those with kids. If you have kids, I want you to feel supported right now, not afraid.

</comment><comment><USER112> I continue to wonder who is needing new widgets during this time. It all seems so disconnected from reality.

</comment><comment><USER113> I suppose if they're able, workers with children should quit and go somewhere more child friendly.

Most ... no, all of the places I've worked, except the USN, have been matter of factly child friendly. It shouldn't be hard to find such a place.

</comment><comment><USER114> > Still, these types of experiences with rogue managers or toxic employees are > unsettling many parents.

What is 'toxic' about expecting to be treated the same as someone else who probably has the same contract T&Cs as me?

</comment><comment><USER115> Who gets upset by this? Say "I gotta go take care of my sister's/cousin's/niece's kids" and then go play videogames or Netflix or whatever. It's not like anyone can confirm.

</comment><comment><USER116> I think this is more of the firm's responsibility to communicate in a better way and sort out the conflicts in one way or another. This is stressful time for everyone and indeed the conflicts will intensify here and there. As a would-be parent I do believe that everyone is selfish and if the number of people who show such frustration do increase to hundreds then the company better addresses it directly instead of letting people attack each other. It's HR's (and manager's) duty to quiet such conflicts before it gets to that point.

</comment><comment><USER117> This just feels like a clickbait non-story to me. The media nowadays seems primarily concerned with sewing divisiveness to take advantage of people's fear and attract eyeballs and outrage.

</comment><comment><USER118> This is stupid. I've seen 0 signs of this as the FAANG company I work at (my gauge being our internal forum). Absolutely 0 mention of this. No mentions from coworkers, friends, etc.

</comment><comment><USER119> Anecdotally, my manager has been a terrible human being after I took paternity leave at the height of Covid in NYC. I 100% sense the resentment. Not only has he been a disgusting person towards me, but my duties have shifted to India and I'm being assigned projects where I have 0 experience in.

I've been laid off from my current employer for taking parental leave before. So it's not surprising that I'm being pushed out again.

FYI: labor laws in my situation are very much stacked against me, as usual.

</comment><comment><USER120> Life with two working adults(both in higher level tech roles) and a toddler is absolute hell in covid. For the people complaining I wish they could spend a day in either me or my Wife's shoes and see how easy they have it. WLB has gotten so unbearable we are thinking of quitting one of our jobs and just going solo income. It was one of the main reasons we sold our house and left the bay area early this year so we are not trapped in a 2 income house payment.

</comment><comment><USER121> This whole thread makes me think that we all work too much. People are upset that those with children are given more schedule flexibility than those who do not have children. It seems like straight up jealousy. Instead of resenting parents, resent your manager and ask for ( or demand) what you want.

The argument that other workers need to make up for the slack left by parents does not really make sense; you just add tasks to your backlog, and do them when you have time. You should be in control of your own schedule, and don't let your manager just extend your workday. If your manager does not respect your time and is overworking you, quit. As engineers, we are not punching a time clock. If you are, take issue with that, not the flexibility some other coworkers are getting (flexibility that they need).

If you also want more schedule flexibility, push for it. Talk to your manager. Organize with your fellow employees. Organize with other engineers. Start a union (gasp!).

Work-life balance is always a balance. Our jobs should take note of what we do outside of work and how that affects our ability to work. We are people, not mindless, identical worker bees. Our life outside of work is most likely more important to us than our life at work.

Having children is very much unlike most other activities in that you cannot quit. You can quit a side hustle, you can quit a sport. But you can't quit being a parent. So when a parent turns to their boss and says "I need more flexibility", the manager has to give that flexibility or the worker is going to have to find a new job that does give that flexibility. Usually capitalism will extract as much time from a worker as possible, forcing the worker to give up many things in the name of work. It's impossible to give up your child though, so obviously capitalism has to yield there. But with better labor organization, capitalism will yield to other things too.

If we all want schedule flexibility and more time so badly, let's unionize and get that. Not resent our working parents, who most likely have more on their plate and less free time than non-parents, even with the flexibility.

</comment><comment><USER122> I'm going to be the devil's advocate here. Why should I have to cope with you absences while there is no downside for you but many for the rest of us? Ask for less hours, flexible schedule or delegate your responsibilities to someone else when you can't show up or when you risk getting called. Just because you have children doesn't mean you are entitled than me.

</comment><comment><USER123> To those who say "I didn't choose to have children, why should I suffer / pay extra tax / not receive time off?" I have a simple response: you exist because you were born and cared for by society. Caring for children (which is what those parents are doing) is a societal cost.

Those raised by wolves should be allowed wilderness time.

</comment><comment><USER124> As a parent, I fear that even in the best of times, parenthood is simply incompatible with the level of time and effort that working in tech demands.

I really wish I knew how to resolve this problem, but it feels more like a physical problem, to do with the limits of human attention and learning, than a social one. I suspect there is no easy fix.

<comment><USER125> I think part-time employment could be a viable solution. Parenting takes time and I'm not sure if there's enough time in the day to be a parent and work a full time job

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I am surprised and perhaps impressed by the tremendous number of commenters dropping by to post that children are beneficial, we should all be working together to help parents, the purpose of society is to raise children...while omitting to mention that having children is also incredibly rewarding and represents evolutionary success of the highest order. No one would say, aerospace is beneficial, so we should give all the employees with private planes extra time off to pursue their avocation. Some of those planes are going to participate in search and rescue some day. People would recognize that this is robbing the poor to feed the rich and that is exactly what taking from single people -- overwhelmingly people who are less able, socially or financially, to have children -- represents. The many people who had children while expecting to rely on society for the whole ~20 years of it -- who had not backup plan involving extended family and didn't consider that a problem -- weren't thinking straight and made a mistake. It's amazing that so many people made imprudent choices and imprudency is not something we can ask our coworkers to cover for.

</comment><comment><USER126> This is media framing that seems to be designed to divide parents and non- parents. Who really knows if many of the non-parents are actually mad at the parents rather than at their employers?

This seems like a fabricated narrative pushed by wealthy tech companies, or maybe just by the media to get clicks and be controversial.

</comment><comment><USER127> The various extra entitlements parents get in terms of paid leave, long-term leave with a guaranteed job on the other side, and so on, are a complete joke. I know my opinions won't be popular on this left-wing website, but there won't be any rational reply to what I say.

The fact is that it is a benefit given to a specific group of employees and not others. What are the reasons? Well, there are none. In my country, it is required by law to have these benefits. The rationale they gave was "it is an essential role, we need to increase the birth rate, etc". After decades of this policy, there was no increase in the birth rate. The population had to grow via immigration, not births from residents. As for an "essential role", the people having babies don't think they are doing the world a favour, they are doing it for themselves. That is beside the point though.

The reality is that I had to sit at my desk and watch as every parent in the company took months of paid leave off that I never got, based on a rationale that is proven to be incorrect. They often had more than one baby, so they took these benefits multiple times.

The reality is that it was introduced to buy votes, and now they won't take it away. That is how it is in my country. It makes no sense to give money and time off to my boss, who makes more than me, and not me because I am not in any position to have kids. This is absurd.

</comment><comment><USER128> It is only fair for those who cannot have children to let them have parental leave when they get a pet (fur baby).

I don't buy that we need to keep on producing children- there aren't enough decent jobs for the present generation, let alone a bunch of new kids, unless you count OnlyFans.

</comment><comment><USER129> To some extent all firms have to grade on a curve, so does it really hurt me if my parent coworkers are less able to deliver? If anything it would help me comparatively, though maybe at an overall cost to the firm's goals (which are different from my personal goals).

</comment><comment><USER130> Companies don't have any social responsibility.

Companies don't have any country allegiance responsibilities.

Companies don't have any employee allegiance responsibilities.

Companies only have responsibilities to the shareholders.

If I was running a company in the U.S., and in my role I basically I am doing that I'd be completely furious with the the U.S. government and how they've handled the pandemic, and I am furious with the U.S. government and how they've handled this pandemic.

Health care responsibilities for employees have been shoved down the throat of companies for years. Now companies are supposed to make accommodations for the failure of a government to act correctly during a pandemic.

Pandemic, Blah, blah blah, "I need to spend my day as a parent, so I can't work, but please pay me like I am working." If an employee can't complete their job tasks they should be fired. It doesn't matter that it's the failure of a government to act that's causing the employee come up short, that's not the problem of the company.

</comment><comment><USER131> If employees of tech companies have to argue about whether parents can be afforded concession due to the pandemic situation/home-schooling/etc, I wonder what improvement in quality of life that technology has actually yielded. Is this a US-specific phenomenon?

</comment><comment><USER132> my wife is a middle school teacher and I have kids ages 8 and 10. I work at a major consulting firm but, fortunately, travel is zero right now. it's certainly been out of the ordinary having the kids at home and going to school over zoom. it's not easy but not much of parenthood is, I try to roll with it and pick my battles. I passed on some very cool projects because of LOE knowing full well I wouldn't have the time to dedicate.

ironically, our friends having the hardest time are stay-at-home moms. back to school is a cherished time for them and they're having a hard time adjusting.

</comment><comment><USER133> All their employees are wasting time making the world a worse place anyway or going round in circles... And the corporations are getting free money from the Fed... So they should just give all their employees free money.

</comment><comment><USER134> It helps if the founders have kids - both my co-founder and I have young children and we founded the company on the principles of work/life balance being paramount (Tyk.io).

If you accept that people can be productive when scheduling their own time, you find that there's actually better participation and buy-in, since everyone has flexible time, the benefits for parents vs non parents are the same.

Need to take time to take care of your sick cousin? Sure. Need to move to a different country to help your wife go to a specialist? Sure. Been on the waiting list for two years to go on a special hiking course? Go for it.

People can be productive whenever if you let them. But everyone needs to be able to take the same approach to their own work/life balance.

It's the humanist way to work, and if a company doesn't flex to let their employees flourish you're not doing your employees justice.

Folks forget it's a value exchange between employee and employer not a one-way street. That's too easy to forget in the modern work environment.

</comment><comment><USER135> There is nothing unique about tech in this regard. Not saying it shouldn't be on HN, but it's a weird spin that adds nothing to the important and very real points of the article otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER136> Same discussion, different site from 3 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383264](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383264)

</comment><comment><USER137> Am I the only one who understands the title of the submission

"Tech firms face growing resentment of parent employees"

exactly in the opposite way than the actual headline

"Tech firms face growing resentment toward parent employees"?

</comment><comment><USER138> Parenting is a full time job. We have been brainwashed by feminists that all of us can do everything. Maybe reset assumptions. Covid brings home lessons.

<comment><USER139> We have been brainwashed by capitalists that all of us must do everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Unionization of the tech industry is long overdue.

</comment><comment><USER141> This thread seems weird to me when almost every other article here is talking about how limited and precious focus and attention are.

</comment><comment><USER142> These articles appear every few years regardless of covid19. They also generate the same set of comments then as we see now.

</comment><comment><USER121> I thought this community was left leaning until I read this thread. Individualism running really strong here.

</comment><comment><USER143> My work gave those of us with kids 25% reduced working hours to accommodate. It was really good.

</comment><comment><USER144> This whole discussion to me just boils down to:

I don't live to work. I work to live.

Employers that forget that will not be my employers for too long. And, yes, I have quit more than one job for exactly this reason.

</comment><comment><USER145> The entitlement of equality of outcome is real.

</comment><comment><USER146> As others are saying, any worker vs worker animosity here is a depressing and pathetic waste of energy.

Focus on management. Remember money is relative, but total working hours is absolute.

</comment><comment><USER147> "A manager responded that the employee was expected to work full time, or not at all."

Wow, I have no words... What a shitty leader.

</comment><comment><USER148> from each according to their ability...

</comment><comment><USER149> Our society is not organized collectively -- so you don't really give a shit about your co-workers kids. This is the origin of all the anxiety. You would not worry about sacrificing your time to help them, if you knew them.

It is a simple fix, if companies were formed more like actual communities. Unfortunately, with specialized labor, this is pretty much impossible.

There is a great book, called, "Capitalism and Schizophrenia", by a french psychoanalyst and philosopher duo, Deleuze and Guetarri. They get into why this organizational structure often lead to a profound disconnect by consolidating aspects of production into silos, as described above.

</comment><comment><USER150> > When the Boston Consulting Group surveyed 3,055 people across the US, UK, > France, Germany and Italy, in March and April, it found more than a third of > respondents were worried their performance would be unfairly compared with > that of colleagues without family obligations.

Why is it an unfair comparison and not an accurate comparison?

</comment><comment><USER151> Not trying to make this political, but I wanted to point out my initial thoughts: It's probably safe to say a good majority of these tech employees skew left, and I'm sure a bulk of these "resenters" were the same people barking on facebook about keeping schools/businesses/daycares/etc closed down. However, the underlying causes of resentment discussed here are the 3rd and 4th order effects of keeping everything closed down. It honestly just sounds like once the "resenters" have skin in the game and are immediately impacted by the policies they're pushing, their reaction is to kick the nearest dad in the balls.

</comment><comment><USER152> This is a real phenomenon. When my son was first born I blew through about five jobs in five years because I had to leave at 4:45pm - 5:15pm to pick him up from daycare or school. Before that I tended to remain in the same position for 5-6 years. Then I got into a position where most of my peers and superiors had kids, "got it" and I've been in that position for close to five years now.

Especially annoying when your peers are coming in drunk or stoned, passed out at their desks half the time, and you are the one getting grief because you have a parent/teacher conference to attend. If my peers wanted to WFH because they were hung over, mo problem. If I needed to WFH because I was feeling ill, no problem. If I needed to WFH to watch my child I would have to do video calls with my boss every two hours to show what I had done. Eventually I wised up and just said I was sick instead of mentioning my son.</comment>


Managing successful employees - <AUTHOR> http://www.onesock.net/2011/06/a-management-lesson-from-my-wife/ <comment><USER2> Interesting anecdote, I guess, but what does it have to do with managing successful employees?

<comment><USER3> second that</comment></comment>


Wargames: U.S. Cyberattack starts February 16 watched by all - <AUTHOR> http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/_recreating_a_s_ituation.php

<comment><USER2> How many people involved in this actually have any idea about how computers work?

</comment><comment><USER3> "...and who want to foster a greater sense of urgency among the public and policymakers." I doubt they will reach this goal, instead this seems a nice idea for a blockbuster movie...</comment>


What humans would look like if we could survive car wrecks (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/this-is-what-humans-would-look-like-if-we-could-withstand-car-wrecks <comment><USER2> Posted yesterday, also. But easily one of the weirdest science projects I've seen mention of, or read about.

(Assuming it is a valid research project, and not a troll of some sort).</comment>


Uber Launches in Paris, Raises $32 Million - <AUTHOR> http://siliconfilter.com/uber-arrives-in-paris-closes-32-million-round/

<comment><USER2> This is great news. They have a solid product and I'm glad their success is enabling them to secure funding and bring it to more people.

Uber is an example of something you really couldn't bootstrap in your spare time as is popular around here - it's a big, capital-intensive operation requiring by-location legal and physical infrastructure... a real business.</comment>


Ask HN: Potato knish recipe? - <AUTHOR> I know a lot of people here are seriously into food and cooking, so I figured, why not ask?
Any ideas for a good potato knish recipe? Aiming for the round, baked knishes a la Yonah Schimmel's in New York (or what they used to sell at Mort's Deli in Minneapolis, or at Billy Sherman's Deli in St. Louis). Definitely NOT aiming for the square, fried knishes out of too many food carts or vending machines.
I've tried several recipes, but the dough part especially has never turned out right. If anyone knows the kind of knish I am talking about, and has succeeded in making something similar, I would much appreciate knowing how it's done! <comment><AUTHOR> I did end up stumbling upon a recipe that worked out well:

[http://www.readthespirit.com/feed-the-spirit/tag/mrs- stahls/](http://www.readthespirit.com/feed-the-spirit/tag/mrs-stahls/)

Would definitely recommend, as suggested in the comment on the page, caramelizing the onions rather than putting them in raw. Also might suggest skipping the "jelly roll" assembly approach, and just wrap a thin layer of dough around a heap of potato filling -- but assemble as you see fit. The taste should be the same either way, and this recipe turns out very good.</comment>


In Silicon Valley, Meditation Is No Fad. It Could Make Your Career - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2013/06/meditation-mindfulness-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> It seems like many personal activities, such as meditation, exercising, cooking, and reading, share similar benefits.

They all claim to improve your life and mental happiness and it makes me wonder if those benefits don't stem from the actual activity, but from the common denominator. That common denominator is that you are taking control in your life, and setting aside time to improve yourself. What if that fact itself is what creates these mental benefits, and not the actual activity?

With that being said, I do participate in all of those activities and love them each for their own reason. Although, every one of them place you in the moment and drown out that loud stream of daily thoughts, which is the ultimate benefit.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your best marketing automation techniques? - <AUTHOR> I run an online SaaS business.
I discovered (as many before me...) that marketing is probably the hardest aspect of growing a business. It takes time, patience and perseverance.
I spend a fair amount of time everyday trying to be creative on how I could automate my marketing efforts.
I'm a dev and I work mostly alone so I learned to be efficient in almost everything I do. Always looking for low hanging fruits with maximum impact and controlled costs.
I use automation tools, connect APIs when it makes sense, code some connectors when the tool does not support it, etc.
But I often get stuck when looking to solve complicated problems with advanced scripts that could dynamically take decision based on text analysis, sentiment, topic, etc. In other words replace part of what a human would do but with AI. <comment><USER2> A lot of the times, before you even go into automation, you should run continuous tests to see what content / message has the most impact and on which channels. I've run thousands of tests on posts, blogs, distribution channels to get a better idea of my audience and then I create a customer journey that feeds into my marketing automation and then I measure the success of my marketing automation. Depending on the nature of your SaaS business, you could run several drip campaigns at a time. I would also look into Account Based marketing techniques. Shoot me a DM if you'd like to learn a few more techniques that have worked for me. Have you looked into Zappier / IFTTT to automate some things as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I use Zapier but I feel like I'm not using it at its full potential.

<comment><USER3> If marketing is a primary focus - a classic technique is to comment on relevant threads in your category - filtered RSS feeds from Quora, StackOverflow, Google Alerts, HN, Reddit, etc.

It only takes a second to review a thread and see if you can add value with a comment (and possibly plug your service).

Could use Zapier's Digest app to get them all at the end of a day/week so you don't have noisy alerts all day. Slack and/or email is usually a solid way to get those alerts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you haven't looked at it already, Patio11 has written and talked considerably about marketing SaaS projects: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/)

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, a lot of content there.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Our new free trial flow - <AUTHOR> https://www.limeleads.com/free-leads

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN!

CEO of LimeLeads here, hit me with any questions here or reach out directly: mike (at) limeleads.com

<comment><USER2> I just signed up.

Is there a trial version to understand figure out what we are paying for? It says 50 free leads on the home page. But I couldn't figure out how to use it.</comment></comment>