Apple Announces Expanded Employee Benefits for New Parents

[Stella]

Well during the red scare the American people were successfully convinced that coming together to demand better rights and benefits for workers was letting Communism creep into society and I think we're still feeling the affects of that. When workers protest for better compensation they're generally met with "Well if you want more you're going to just need to work harder for it. Stop being lazy" or in this case "Sorry, if you want to have a kid and need time off why should a company need to compensate you for it when you're not getting work done for them." We're certainly behind the rest of the developed world in several areas.

A number of posters would really like to be living 100 years ago, or only the rich should be able to have kids.

Allowing employees to have time off for new borns, maternity / paternity leave is a sign of progress, not regression, or a negative. Fortunately many companies have realized the importance of a work / life balance and that employees lives don't revolve around the employer 24/7 and time off for whatever reason is important.

 

[acgmph]

Tax on childless people.

Population is aging, so we need more kids. This is an incentive. If it were the other way around, childless people would be rewarded with extra vacation.

 

[rodriguise]

If single and childless people don’t like the policy, then they can quit and move to another company. Why are they being taken advantage when they agree to work for a company that provides benefits for parents?

You should go work for a Chinese company if you like working so much.

Do you know how many small businesses would be destroyed if this was improperly legislated? Your assertion that companies want to take advantage of people is incredibly ignorant. Most companies in this country are just trying to get by the best they can and do the best they can afford to do for all of their employees. Many small business entrepreneurs such as myself have had periods where we don’t even take a salary or get paid so employees aren’t burdened. We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and most small business can’t afford the “loopholes” like Apple. While this policy is virtuous of them, it’s pretty well known they don’t have the best track record for treating employees well, especially engineering contractors. In fact your comment about China is ironic considering how much love Apple has expressed for them to the point of protecting their interests many times.

 

[oneMadRssn]

You started talking about equal footing. You also make a false equivalency. ADA, OSHA, etc. are about stuff that is company related and outside the personal sphere of the employees or the owners. Often, all of the above is controllable (FMLA might be the only exception, however it is factored in).
Pregnancies? 100% personal decision, however what you propose affects the employer more than the employee, and you want the employer to pay for it for an extended time. This is an unacceptable proposition that would make small companies go bankrupt, and quite likely women less hirable. I am all for time off, and I do think that most companies should offer it, but mandating it? No way.

Your assertion that it would cause small companies to go bankrupt, or somehow be ruined by it is totally baseless.

First, the overall cost of an employee is the same regardless of company size. If an employee with a certain skillset costs $X total (salary, benefits, overhead), then that employee costs $X regardless of whether he/she is working for a small company or a large company. Paid time off is a benefit that has a cost just like any other, and that cost would be the same regardless of what size the company is.

Second, the evidence does not support it. There are countries with mandatory paid family leave, and they actually have a higher ratio of small businesses to large businesses than in the US. Even the US, as I posted above, the smaller tech companies actually tend to have better family leave policies than the big tech companies. Further, if we're speculating, I'd argue the economic effect of making it mandatory would actually benefit small businesses as it would remove one of the reasons that working for a big company is better. Studies show paid family leave is a major retention reason, and if everyone had it, it wouldn't be something large companies can use to keep their employees for jumping ship to a small competitor.

Third, the cost to an employee taking a paid leave does not necessarily have to be borne by a company the moment it happens. Look at the model we just started here in MA: companies can either have a nominal payroll cost per employee that goes into a fund that pays out this benefit; or if their policy is equal to or better than what the law requires, they can avoid paying into this fund and do it themselves

Fourth, your moral argument is unavailing for two reasons: lots of things are personal decisions, and raising a child is not entirely personal. ("It takes a village...") There is no valid reason to draw the line at personal decisions like you suggest. Lots of things are 100% personal decisions that have a chance of making use of a company benefit. For example: If an employee is injured skiing and needs disability pay or an ADA accommodation, the decision to ski is still 100% personal. Yes, there is an element of chance, but pregnancy is also part chance (not every pregnancy is intentional, and not every attempt is successful). Further, in addition to the short-term benefits of having parents be available to a newborn (lower infant mortality rates, lower rates of hospitalization) there are countless studies that show major long term benefits to society at large: having parents available to a baby in it's early formative year has major benefits that pay dividends for life - such kids end up having healthier mind and better relationships, doing better in school, which translates to higher earnings and more productivity (things that ultimately benefit everyone!). So while the decision to have a kid pay me personal, the beneficiaries of a society-wide family leave policy would be everyone.

 

[yaxomoxay]

A number of posters would really like to be living 100 years ago, or only the rich should be able to have kids.

Allowing employees to have time off for new borns, maternity / paternity leave is a sign of progress, not regression, or a negative. Fortunately many companies have realized the importance of a work / life balance and that employees lives don't revolve around the employer 24/7 and time off for whatever reason is important.

I don't think that this is what anyone is talking about. When the government mandates something, it has a very wide impact, and often many unintended consequences. This is true even in local governments. When we increase taxes - for any reason - even by a tiny margin, something happens. Most of the times the problems can be solved or eased, and often the advantages outweigh the issues. That's just the nature of policy making.
For example, no one argues that it would be nice to have a higher minimum wage since the current rate is at $7.25/hr. Generally, $15/hr would be much better as it would increase the income of about 17,000,000 workers (most of them would see a slight increase)? If we could sign it, we probably would. However, it is estimated that this would cause the loss of a job for 1,300,000 to 3,700,000 workers. So what do you choose? Do you increase the lifestyle of a few million people (some by much, most by almost nothing) at the cost of a total income loss for 1.3M to 3.7M people?
This is what is argued here. All companies, from the mom and pop bakery shop, to the next Apple that is in the proverbial garage at the moment, to Facebook and Walmart do a cost-benefit analysis. All employees have costs associated (salary, vacation time, estimated sick time, tools cost, benefits, taxes etc). The government mandating a long-term cost on a personal decision that can also be taken multiple time (you can have a kid about every 9 months...) would cause an increase cost of labor... mandated from above. How many small to mid size companies with little cash on hand can actually afford that?

 

[yaxomoxay]

First, the overall cost of an employee is the same regardless of company size.

This is absolutely false due to optimization and other circumstances (such as unions).

If an employee with a certain skillset costs $X total (salary, benefits, overhead), then that employee costs $X regardless of whether he/she is working for a small company or a large company. Paid time off is a benefit that has a cost just like any other, and that cost would be the same regardless of what size the company is.

You have to see the cost of $X vs productivity, loss of productivity, overhead, tax rate, and whatever cost and revenue. With the machinery, logistics, etc, the impact of the cost of an Amazon employee is likely less than that of many other companies, even if the $ amount is the same. This is also how Sam Walton's family optimized its revenues and reduced its costs.

Second, the evidence does not support it. There are countries with mandatory paid family leave, and they actually have a higher ratio of small businesses to large businesses than in the US.

Maybe because in the US its much easier to become... a big business while at the same time the competition is merciless?

Even the US, as I posted above, the smaller tech companies actually tend to have better family leave policies than the big tech companies.

I am not arguing that. I am arguing against mandating them to act. A small business will make its own evaluations on how much time it should give to an employee. By the way, I also assume that your proposal would increase the # of part timers vs the # of full timers for mid skilled jobs.

Further, if we're speculating, I'd argue the economic effect of making it mandatory would actually benefit small businesses as it would remove one of the reasons that working for a big company is better. Studies show paid family leave is a major retention reason, and if everyone had it, it wouldn't be something large companies can use to keep their employees for jumping ship to a small competitor.

Companies like Starbucks would just crush small companies even more then because you're mandating the SAME benefit to both, but one of the two has enough cash to open 5x shops around the mom and pop and drive big discounts and such while being able to pay for such benefits, while for the other one the main barista being on parental leave for 9 months (and on the payroll) would be disastrous.

Third, the cost to an employee taking a paid leave does not necessarily have to be borne by a company the moment it happens. Look at the model we just started here in MA: companies can either have a nominal payroll cost per employee that goes into a fund that pays out this benefit; or if their policy is equal to or better than what the law requires, they can avoid paying into this fund and do it themselves

I am not familiar with what you started in MA, but I am intrigued. Any sources? (not because I don't believe you, it's because I am indeed interested). What you say might be true, but guess what. Workers and companies are moving to states like Texas in big numbers. Here in DFW it is seriously felt. Why? Because companies and workers alike have lots of freedom.

Fourth, your moral argument is unavailing for two reasons: lots of things are personal decisions, and raising a child is not entirely personal.

Uh... I am not really making a moral argument if I have to be honest.

There is no valid reason to draw the line at personal decisions like you suggest. Lots of things are 100% personal decisions that have a chance of making use of a company benefit. For example: If an employee is injured skiing and needs disability pay or an ADA accommodation, the decision to ski is still 100% personal.

You can't seriously put a pregnancy at the same level of a skiing accident or any type of accident. Still, this doesn't change my argument. Companies - at least those that optimize - already factor in the probability of an accident. You're still ADDING, and you're adding something that is substantial and common. On top of that, you're also mandating it. Nothing that you said has any impact on my simple argument.

I'd rather have a serious tax discount for those who need daycare and make less than $100,000 a year with both parents working. THIS is where the government should step in, that is accept less revenue instead of having companies pay taxes, benefits, salaries, etc.

 

[Stella]

Quite a few actually are I think, also a selfish "what's in it for me because I'm not a parent" attitude.

As for companies, see https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ts.2209712/page-6?post=27954675#post-27954675

I think You makes several very valid points.

It also doesn't help companies in the U.S that there is no meaningful guaranteed country-wide maternity / paternity policy like all other developed countries have. As a consequence, this places extra burden on to individual companies.

Analysis | The world’s richest countries guarantee mothers more than a year of paid maternity leave. The U.S. guarantees them nothing.

Our maternity leave policy is bad for moms, bad for kids and bad for the economy.

www.washingtonpost.com

I don't think that this is what anyone is talking about. When the government mandates something, it has a very wide impact, and often many unintended consequences. This is true even in local governments. When we increase taxes - for any reason - even by a tiny margin, something happens. Most of the times the problems can be solved or eased, and often the advantages outweigh the issues. That's just the nature of policy making.

edit: LOL, I didn't originally see I was responding to yaxomoxay who I'm quoting another post to !!

 

[PickUrPoison]

Getting to be just like the government. Take money from the shareholders and give unnecessary things to everyone.

Not like government at all. If you don’t like what a company is doing for its employees (not everyone btw), sell your shares.

Try not paying your taxes and see how well that works out for you

 

[burgman]

I am a parent and probably one of the biggest fans of people having children in the world. On average I took off 2-3 days for my children. Why should the standard be that having a baby means your fellow employees need to pick up your slack and your employer needs to keep paying you to do nothing? This is great for Apple but if I were single I would be upset that the wonder and joy of someone having a child means my job is all screwed up? If your company can handle that great - but that would destroy my company so I don’t want that to be the standard.

The FLMA law only applies to companies with more than 50 employees, so don't worry your greed is safe. Just wondering how long did your wife stay home, so you were able to only invest 2 or 3 days in the beginning .

 

[phillipsac18]

I just hate it when employees at all levels have the possibility to get more benefits from big corporations.....said nobody ever.....unless you dont have kids and have no baseline for how hard it is to raise kids regardless of it being a personal decision or not. Have a little compassion people.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This is absolutely false due to optimization and other circumstances (such as unions).

You have to see the cost of $X vs productivity, loss of productivity, overhead, tax rate, and whatever cost and revenue. With the machinery, logistics, etc, the impact of the cost of an Amazon employee is likely less than that of many other companies, even if the $ amount is the same. This is also how Sam Walton's family optimized its revenues and reduced its costs.

My point is the benefit would just be a cost of doing business. In addition to salary, all companies have to account for benefits and overhead per employee. This would just be one additional benefit cost.

Sure a big company has advantages they can leverage against small companies. That isn't a reason not to pass laws that affect companies for the good of everyone.

Companies like Starbucks would just crush small companies even more then because you're mandating the SAME benefit to both, but one of the two has enough cash to open 5x shops around the mom and pop and drive big discounts and such while being able to pay for such benefits, while for the other one the main barista being on parental leave for 9 months (and on the payroll) would be disastrous.

Starbucks can do all this stuff to crush competition today, and they do. The notion that somehow paid family leave would change these competitive conditions as drastically as you say is laughable.

As I said above, while the benefit should/would flow to all, but the cost does not have to be borne by all. 2-people businesses can be except from the cost. MA draws the line at 25-employee businesses I think, I don't necessarily thing that is the best way to draw the line. (For example, I would think payroll vs owner equity ratio should play a factor too. A 4-person mom and pop bakery is similarly situated as a 4-person private equity firm).

Further, even if done in-house, the cost does not have to be paid all at once. An employer would put money aside for this just like they have to put money aside for income taxes (a huge income tax bill due all at once can be catastrophic to a small business, which is why they pay bit by bit throughout the year).

I am not familiar with what you started in MA, but I am intrigued. Any sources? (not because I don't believe you, it's because I am indeed interested). What you say might be true, but guess what. Workers and companies are moving to states like Texas in big numbers. Here in DFW it is seriously felt. Why? Because companies and workers alike have lots of freedom.

Here is a decent FAQ: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...for-businesses-on-the-massachusetts-paid.html
Here is the actual state site: https://www.mass.gov/paid-family-and-medical-leave-information-for-massachusetts-employers

As I understand it, the law was based on how many other countries do it successfully. A company has the choice of having an in-house fund/program to make paid family leave happen, or they can make use of the state program paid for through a payroll cost. Very small companies are exempt from the cost but employees still get the benefit.

Fwiw, the Boston area is growing quite rapidly too. So is the research triangle in North Carolina, and the DC area, and others. I don't think you can attribute this shift in workforce and companies to "freedom." Some states and cities attract companies and employees with tax breaks, some do it with other amenities. There is no single driving factor.

I'd rather have a serious tax discount for those who need daycare and make less than $100,000 a year with both parents working. THIS is where the government should step in, that is accept less revenue instead of having companies pay taxes, benefits, salaries, etc.

All medical evidence shows that daycare does not convey the same short-term and long-term benefits as time with parents. While I fully support what you proposed, it is not an alternative to family leave.

I'm glad that you at least agree that government has a role to play in this.
[automerge]1573146234[/automerge]

I am a parent and probably one of the biggest fans of people having children in the world. On average I took off 2-3 days for my children.

That's really sad dude, nothing to be proud of.

 

[ajfahey]

What are non-parents getting?

You could try being a parent. Non parents could also quit and go work somewhere else. Let the free market figure it out. If it works, more will follow. If it doesn't work, companies won't offer it. If it doesn't work, government will try to make it law. Politicians are pretty good at taking what doesn't work and enforcing it at the "point of a gun". That's a metaphor for government using their police power to enforce law for the literalists visiting this site.

 

[york2600]

You have to be aware of unintended consequences. If parents or women get significantly more benefits, which impact companies financially and co-workers organizationally, then people will consciously or unconsciously avoid hiring and promoting parents and women, especially in small businesses and startups with limited resources.

The whole point of providing leave for both parents is that a company can't game the system like this. At my startup of 14 over a year we had 3 men out for parental leave and 0 women. First children for all of them so no way a company could avoid it. If anything hiring someone with a solid sized family would be your out.

 

[SVTmaniac]

Dying alone.

If you think your kids won't toss you into a nursing home to die alone faster than they tossed that new shiny toy when it broke then I have new for you that you may not like.

 

[yaxomoxay]

My point is the benefit would just be a cost of doing business. In addition to salary, all companies have to account for benefits and overhead per employee. This would just be one additional benefit cost.

Sure a big company has advantages they can leverage against small companies. That isn't a reason not to pass laws that affect companies for the good of everyone.


Starbucks can do all this stuff to crush competition today, and they do. The notion that somehow paid family leave would change these competitive conditions as drastically as you say is laughable.

As I said above, while the benefit should/would flow to all, but the cost does not have to be borne by all. 2-people businesses can be except from the cost. MA draws the line at 25-employee businesses I think, I don't necessarily thing that is the best way to draw the line. (For example, I would think payroll vs owner equity ratio should play a factor too. A 4-person mom and pop bakery is similarly situated as a 4-person private equity firm).

Further, even if done in-house, the cost does not have to be paid all at once. An employer would put money aside for this just like they have to put money aside for income taxes (a huge income tax bill due all at once can be catastrophic to a small business, which is why they pay bit by bit throughout the year).


Here is a decent FAQ: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...for-businesses-on-the-massachusetts-paid.html
Here is the actual state site: https://www.mass.gov/paid-family-and-medical-leave-information-for-massachusetts-employers

As I understand it, the law was based on how many other countries do it successfully. A company has the choice of having an in-house fund/program to make paid family leave happen, or they can make use of the state program paid for through a payroll cost. Very small companies are exempt from the cost but employees still get the benefit.

Fwiw, the Boston area is growing quite rapidly too. So is the research triangle in North Carolina, and the DC area, and others. I don't think you can attribute this shift in workforce and companies to "freedom." Some states and cities attract companies and employees with tax breaks, some do it with other amenities. There is no single driving factor.


All medical evidence shows that daycare does not convey the same short-term and long-term benefits as time with parents. While I fully support what you proposed, it is not an alternative to family leave.

I'm glad that you at least agree that government has a role to play in this.
[automerge]1573146234[/automerge]


That's really sad dude, nothing to be proud of.

I really do thank you for the good, respectful discussion and for providing the information on the MA laws. I will certainly read more about it (I am a gov't geek after all).
[automerge]1573149248[/automerge]

I'm glad that you at least agree that government has a role to play in this.

I'd never argue otherwise. We might disagree on the extent of the role and some of the gray areas, but not the overall goal.

 

[brewcitywi]

probably nothing.

What do "non-parents" get??? YEARS of extra increases and advancement. The person taking the leave stagnates, and sometimes loses their position, or gets transferred to something with less commitment. They occasionally never get back to the post they previously held. If a family has 2-3 children, you might make $20,000 more per year than them, in ten years time. It's time that they can never make up. That's what non-parents get...tons of extra money flushed into their bank accounts!

We're not talking about a year of free pay to sit around the home and change diapers! Apple is talking about an additional 4 weeks of "transition time," where they would still work, but, have the flexibility of working from home, or, creating an alternate work schedule.

If you are doing their work, you are paid a King's Ransom for doing it, over time.

 

[oneMadRssn]

What are non-parents getting?

Non-parents are getting to live in a community where children grow-up healthier, do better in school, and are more likely to turn into productive and contributing adult members of society, as compared to a community without widespread employer paid family leave policies.
[automerge]1573149531[/automerge]

I really do thank you for the good, respectful discussion and for providing the information on the MA laws. I will certainly read more about it (I am a gov't geek after all).
[automerge]1573149248[/automerge]


I'd never argue otherwise. We might disagree on the extent of the role and some of the gray areas, but not the overall goal.

Thanks man, back at ya, always a pleasure discussing with you.

 

[Angrydad]

Apple today announced a new employee benefit that's designed to ease the transition back to work for new parents, expanding on the 16 weeks of leave that parents are already provided with an additional four-week grace period.

Apple's head of retail and human resources shared details on the changes with Fast Company.

Apple's new policy will give parents a four-week period after returning from leave where they'll be paid like full-time employees but will have the flexibility to work part-time or set their own hours with a manager's oversight.

The updated transition period will be available to all new parents, including those who adopt or take in foster children (non-birth parents are allowed six weeks of paid leave rather than 16). Retail workers are also able to take advantage of the parental leave changes.

Along with the new transition period, Apple is expanding leave for adoptive parents by four weeks through a Paid Family Care benefit that lets parents take time off for family illness. Apple is also tripling its financial assistance for families that choose to adopt, providing up to $14,000 towards an adoption.

For all employees, Apple is improving its mental wellness benefits and will double the number of free counseling sessions available to employees per year along with providing telemedicine options.

According to O'Brien, Apple is hoping to make it easier for parents to ultimately return to work after a period of leave. "I think many times working parents feel like they need to deal with that quietly and make it seem perfectly seamless," O'Brien told Fast Company. "We all know life is complicated. So [we're] making it really clear that we're supporting them in that journey."

Article Link: Apple Announces Expanded Employee Benefits for New Parents

Meanwhile, contractors in janitorial, security, etc, make $12 an hour and live in poverty.

Apple always likes to pick things that look good but in the long run doesn’t help the majority of people. I’ve been an Apple employee for 10 years and for what we do for the company they don’t pay us enough. It’s a greedy corporation that wants to just keep the money for the shareholders. Apple doesn’t wanna pay a working wage. They are just as greedy as the next company. That’s why they can’t retain people for very long in the company. There’s been a few but not many. Steve would be turning in his grave.
[automerge]1573150648[/automerge]

Apple today announced a new employee benefit that's designed to ease the transition back to work for new parents, expanding on the 16 weeks of leave that parents are already provided with an additional four-week grace period.

Apple's head of retail and human resources shared details on the changes with Fast Company.

Apple's new policy will give parents a four-week period after returning from leave where they'll be paid like full-time employees but will have the flexibility to work part-time or set their own hours with a manager's oversight.

The updated transition period will be available to all new parents, including those who adopt or take in foster children (non-birth parents are allowed six weeks of paid leave rather than 16). Retail workers are also able to take advantage of the parental leave changes.

Along with the new transition period, Apple is expanding leave for adoptive parents by four weeks through a Paid Family Care benefit that lets parents take time off for family illness. Apple is also tripling its financial assistance for families that choose to adopt, providing up to $14,000 towards an adoption.

For all employees, Apple is improving its mental wellness benefits and will double the number of free counseling sessions available to employees per year along with providing telemedicine options.

According to O'Brien, Apple is hoping to make it easier for parents to ultimately return to work after a period of leave. "I think many times working parents feel like they need to deal with that quietly and make it seem perfectly seamless," O'Brien told Fast Company. "We all know life is complicated. So [we're] making it really clear that we're supporting them in that journey."

Article Link: Apple Announces Expanded Employee Benefits for New Parents

Apple needs to pay a living wage to people. We are living paycheck to paycheck trying to decide whether to pay rent food or medication. Don’t let Apple fool you in thinking that they care. They take advantage of all the people that come to work for them. If your management you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long.

 

[gbc204]

I am a parent and probably one of the biggest fans of people having children in the world. On average I took off 2-3 days for my children. Why should the standard be that having a baby means your fellow employees need to pick up your slack and your employer needs to keep paying you to do nothing? This is great for Apple but if I were single I would be upset that the wonder and joy of someone having a child means my job is all screwed up? If your company can handle that great - but that would destroy my company so I don’t want that to be the standard.

I think there are too many people in the world and am not a "fan" of people having kids at all. But if you think the time off after giving birth/having a kid is just to bask and revel in the "wonder and joy" then I simply cannot believe you have any kids at all.Women need time to recover physically and especially emotionally and it does no good to go back to work too soon, because the work will just suffer. Do you also go to work when you have the flu? There are times when it's better to take the time off that you need.

 

[mrjohnnyglass]

Also note that most people working at Apple aren't employees.

H1B and temp slave labor.

This. Apple's recent trend is to hire temporary workers from Volt, Kelly Services, and other contract labor firms, keep them for less than a full year, not hire them, then they can report lower fixed costs on their balance sheets for wall street. It sucks, and it creates a caste system within Apple.

Source: Worked for Apple as a contractor on 3 separate contracts lasting a total of 35 months, 2 days.

 

[btrach144]

Companies that can offer this it is great...I HATE it as a forced government policy.

Has anyone ever asked the wives if they WANT their husbands home for that long?

Yeah, otherwise most of them wouldn’t have conceived the child if they weren’t close enough with their partner.

Most mothers don’t want to change diapers and feed 5 times throughout the night alone night after night.

 

[mkelly]

You can probably take unpaid leave for an extended period if desired. USA pays way less taxes than socialist countries like Canada and England.

Oh I was waiting for this one to come up.

That's actually a misconception, at least with respect to Canada's taxation rates. It's not as cut-and-dried as you might think. If you dig around you can find some good comparisons. Here's one that goes into depth. In general, if you're a rich you will pay less taxes in the US than you would in Canada. However, if you are middle-to-lower income, you may be better off in Canada.

Canada vs. U.S. Tax Rates: Do Canadians Pay More?

We look at the difference in taxes on income and services offered on both sides of the border to determine where individuals would be better off financially.

www.investopedia.com

Here's another (they estimate Canadians pay slightly more, but get more for their money)

Canadians may pay more taxes than Americans, but here's what they get for their money

The real difference between the U.S. and Canada isn't what citizens pay, it's what citizens receive.

www.cnbc.com

And then there's the healthcare aspect to consider. An American might pay *marginally* less tax than a Canadian in similar circumstances, but if they both become seriously ill, those tax savings will go out the window with the first hospital bill.

(Note: this isn't a "Canada is better than the US" post - I'm just trying to correct a long-held misconception that many on both sides of the Canada/US border have wrt taxes)

 

[ksnell]

Tax on childless people.

Those childless people aren't producing another tax paying human that will help pay the benefits of retired childless people.
[automerge]1573161239[/automerge]

39 weeks paid leave in the UK, also retaining all of the same benefits as their colleagues such as holiday entitlement, pay increases etc. The employer claims back 92% of the cost back from the government. The system works really well.

But then the government claims 100% of the cost back from the people.

 

[patent10021]

Standard is one year in Japan. Some companies give two years. Problem is for men if they actually end up taking the leave they face big time financial and moral harassment. It's called 'patahara' meaning paternity harassment. There are Landmark cases involving a Canadian working at Mitsubishi UFJ Bank and another at Asics. Japanese and others are supporting these plaintiffs and these Japanese corporations are going to have to pay big.

The Canadian already has 16,000 signatures at this petition. Feel free to read about it, support him and sign it. Just click the confirmation email to confirm and you're done. You can ignore the rest of the Japanese text.

Sign the Petition

Zero-tolerance for Workplace Harassment in Japan!

tiny.cc

 

[PickUrPoison]

Apple always likes to pick things that look good but in the long run doesn’t help the majority of people. I’ve been an Apple employee for 10 years and for what we do for the company they don’t pay us enough. It’s a greedy corporation that wants to just keep the money for the shareholders. Apple doesn’t wanna pay a working wage. They are just as greedy as the next company. That’s why they can’t retain people for very long in the company. There’s been a few but not many. Steve would be turning in his grave.
[automerge]1573150648[/automerge]

Apple needs to pay a living wage to people. We are living paycheck to paycheck trying to decide whether to pay rent food or medication. Don’t let Apple fool you in thinking that they care. They take advantage of all the people that come to work for them. If your management you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long.

So you’ve been working at Apple for ten years, being underpaid and otherwise taken advantage of, but you’re still there? That doesn’t even make sense, does it? If you could get a better deal somewhere else, you would have left many years ago, no?

There’s a tendency for employees to feel underpaid when they see others making more. If the market rate for your position is $9/hr and you’re getting $10 or $11 with better-than-market benefits, you’re not being underpaid—despite others making $15, $30, $60 an hour (or more).

If you’re being paid under market, with uncompetitive benefits, start looking for a new job today. If you’re making less because you’re working below your capabilities, some additional training or education could allow you to advance there at Apple.

Maybe it would be possible to speak with your manager or someone in HR to see what skills might be a good fit for your interests, and allow you to increase your earning capacity.