minoanmiss: Minoan Traders and an Egyptian (Minoan Traders)
minoanmiss ([personal profile] minoanmiss) wrote in [community profile] agonyaunt2022-08-24 11:20 am

Ask a Manager: My Coworker is Using Paid Paternity Leave For a Second Job



A reader writes:

My company recently expanded its parental leave policy so that anyone, regardless of gender, gets the same, generous leave of six months fully paid. It’s called “bonding leave” so the intent is pretty clear. One of my male colleagues told me very matter of factly that he is intending to take his full leave after his wife’s paid maternity leave is up. But, instead of caring for the baby, he is going to get a “second” job for 6 months and his wife is going to stay home with the baby and take unpaid leave from her job. In effect, he will have two salaries (but work one job), and she will have no salary. They will actually net out ahead financially because he earns more than her. He is actually going to make tremendously more money during those 6 months, because he is going to do an hourly contractor job, since his benefits are paid for by our company.

I’m appalled but can’t put my finger on why this bothers me so much. His point is that our company – a Fortune 500 company with tens of thousands of employees and plenty of money – is not paying a penny more than they would otherwise; he doesn’t want to care for the baby full-time and his wife desperately does, so they are “maximizing utility.” I didn’t want to ask too many questions because it would have been clear I disapprove. Part of it is, I’m a new mom myself but had my baby before the new policy was announced so was only able to take 18 weeks (still generous, but I’m definitely jealous and kind of mad my baby didn’t “count” in the new policy).


I think my issue is, he is ruining it for those of us who have fought for expanded childcare coverage. Is this an HR violation or just someone smartly taking advantage of the system?


Whether it’s an HR violation depends on how your company’s policy is written. If the wording makes clear that the leave is provided specifically to care for a child, then it should indeed be a violation. Even if not written that clearly, though, if it’s obvious that that’s the spirit of the policy, your company could still consider it a violation.

But I think the reason you’re so bothered isn’t that it’s an HR violation. Rather, it’s exactly what you wrote in your last paragraph: Many, many people — mostly women — have fought long and hard for better parental leave because the amount of time most American companies provide is shamefully low and a genuine hardship for families. To see this dude using a good parental leave policy in a way that it clearly wasn’t intended — not to take care of his kid but to earn more money, and being so flagrant about it — feels like a kick in the face to everyone who has fought for this and to everyone who still doesn’t have it.

I’m not as worried as you are that he’s gong to ruin it for everyone else; it’s more likely that your employer would tighten up their systems rather than revoke the benefit altogether. But it’s certainly a concern too. You get the feeling this guy is operating with a complete disregard for the impact his actions might have on people who really need the leave to actually care for new babies.

The fact that he’s a man doing this makes it burn a lot more — because it’s a pretty safe assumption that he hasn’t been out there pushing for better maternity leave and more support for breast-feeding moms and an end to the wage gap — and yet he’s perfectly happy to rip off (and maybe jeopardize) the work of the women who are still fighting those battles.
castiron: cartoony sketch of owl (Default)

[personal profile] castiron 2022-08-24 04:05 pm (UTC)(link)
I feel about this the way I feel about the male academics who use paternity leave to do more research (thus furthering their careers) rather than to actually care for their children -- it's men taking advantage of physical differences to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the people who need parental leave as medical recovery as well as bonding time.

If his wife desperately wants more time at home with their child, this man should be advocating for longer parental leaves, not gaming the system to his own advantage.
lethe1: (ad: not impressed)

[personal profile] lethe1 2022-08-24 11:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed!
conuly: (Default)

[personal profile] conuly 2022-08-25 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)
If his wife desperately wants more time at home with their child, this man should be advocating for longer parental leaves, not gaming the system to his own advantage.

That's a long-term solution to what is, right now, a pretty short-term problem.
castiron: cartoony sketch of owl (Default)

[personal profile] castiron 2022-08-25 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
True; another six months or year of paid leave for his wife isn't going to magically appear before they no longer need it. "Not only gaming the system" would have been a better statement.
ashbet: (Default)

[personal profile] ashbet 2022-08-24 04:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah — if the end result is “a parent is able to stay home with the child for six months,” that’s still a net benefit for their child and family unit.

He probably shouldn’t be telling coworkers about this plan, but the decision about which parent is providing care during infancy should be up to the parents themselves.

(Especially if his wife couldn’t afford to take the unpaid leave otherwise.)

I don’t see this as an HR violation or a need to “tighten up the rules.” But he was indiscreet in talking about it to a coworker.

I think that the LW being a new mom who didn’t get to benefit from the expanded leave is definitely a factor, and I wish the company had provided some compensatory leave for recent parents.
green_grrl: (Default)

[personal profile] green_grrl 2022-08-24 05:31 pm (UTC)(link)
This is where I came down, too. Wife really wants to stay at home with kid. Husband is doing what he can to make sure she can stay home with kid as long as possible. But…
- Husband talked to the wrong co-worker about it
- Co-worker is understandably raw about missing the more extended leave with her baby
ashbet: (Default)

[personal profile] ashbet 2022-08-24 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed on all points!
haggis: (Default)

[personal profile] haggis 2022-08-24 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)
My gut feeling is that it goes against the spirit of the policy, which is designed to reduce the disproportionate impact of parenthood on women's career and allow all parents to have dedicated bonding time with their children. He benefits financially and careerwise, and his wife loses out. This arrangement reinforces the assumption that childcare is women's work and women's careers are secondary to their family.

The coworker sounds really pleased with himself for 'gaming the system', which makes me assume that this is not about filling a financial gap but I could be wrong. And that possibility (plus the risk of the scheme being reduced/withdrawn as a result of this guy's actions) is why I wouldn't go to HR but I would lose a lot of respect for my coworker.
haggis: (Default)

[personal profile] haggis 2022-08-24 04:09 pm (UTC)(link)
It could be that this is all his wife's idea and that she is just delighted with this plan and feels that his best way of contributing to the family is financial not hands-on care but somehow I doubt it.
ashbet: (Default)

[personal profile] ashbet 2022-08-24 04:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Since his wife is quoted in the letter as “desperately” wanting to stay home, and the alternative is her taking unpaid leave without a compensatory boost in family income, I don’t see this as taking advantage of his *wife.*

It would be a different story if she wanted to go back to work and have someone else handle childcare… but, honestly, these family decisions SHOULD be private and not subject to second-guessing.

(Yes, men disproportionately benefit from women’s unpaid labor, but I honestly think this is less of a cynical cash grab and more of a chance to afford giving one parent the ability to stay home during infancy.)
haggis: (Default)

[personal profile] haggis 2022-08-24 04:37 pm (UTC)(link)
It was a private decision until the coworker decided to boast about how much money it was going to make him. As I said, I wouldn't go to HR about it but I don't believe that this is what the policy was intended to achieve.
cereta: My daughter, with "Evil Genius" (frog is an evil genius)

[personal profile] cereta 2022-08-24 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)
What you said. Also, it reinforces the idea that a father's share of childcare is making money, which is toxic in all kinds of ways. My spouse, who is fairly good about gender issues, talked about getting a second job when we had the small fanperson. I had to point out that 1. him being around less was not exactly helpful, and 2. I could earn more money much more easily by taking an extra course if he was around to do more childcare. And how many letters have we seen to the effect of, "Dad works and thus doesn't see the need to pitch in around the house"?

I get that one family can't change the whole system, and wife not getting paid leave sucks, but I've seen so many situations where a hard-fought step towards equality only ends up reinforcing the existing paradigm.
castiron: cartoony sketch of owl (Default)

[personal profile] castiron 2022-08-24 04:44 pm (UTC)(link)
it reinforces the idea that a father's share of childcare is making money

This. One of the many problems in my first marriage was that Ex insisted on working a freelance job that didn't earn enough to cover childcare (let alone support the household) and that he couldn't complete during the hours our kid was at daycare (so all the evening and weekend caregiving fell on me), out of some notion that he was supposed to be financially contributing. He'd have made a much greater financial contribution by giving up the freelancing and taking care of our kid himself while I was at work.
castiron: cartoony sketch of owl (Default)

[personal profile] castiron 2022-08-25 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
This was even not the worst part of being married to him. He is a good-hearted person who means well, and he's an interesting friend, but he was a terrible, terrible husband. I found single-parenting a special-needs child much less stressful than being married to him.
lethe1: (ad: not impressed)

[personal profile] lethe1 2022-08-24 11:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed.
topaz_eyes: (buns in cups)

[personal profile] topaz_eyes 2022-08-24 04:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Imho this guy's plan is definitely against the spirit of the "bonding leave" policy, and the petty part of me kinda hopes it backfires on him. (I'm guessing he won't be working for a competitor, as some employers may have rules about working for other companies. I'm not sure what the company would think if they found out they were subsidizing an employee's benefits while that employee works for someone else.) Seems to me he's taking a risk though, that could end up screwing over his colleagues later.
shanaqui: Steve Rogers from the Avengers, injured. ((Steve) Smashed)

[personal profile] shanaqui 2022-08-24 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)

Has LW considered going to HR and talking about her resentment about missing out on this policy? You never know what you might get if you use your words.

I am not against this guy's plan, based on the information given in the letter. Note that his wife "desperately" wants time with her baby: he is using the time to provide for his wife and child. The time off appears to be offered without conditions, and he has seen a way to make it work for his family. He doesn't want to take care of the child; I sympathise, I absolutely never want to be the primary caregiver of a child, but would work my fingers to the bone for my wife to be able to do so if that's what they chose. (To clarify before anyone paints gender norms all over this too: we are both female-bodied and non-binary. I lack the desire for a child and always have.)

While I get the ick factor of the gender norms being enforced here, it doesn't sound like his wife is being forced to do this -- this is what she wants and needs. It's unclear how much paid leave she's getting, as I'm guessing she doesn't work for the same company. What if it's a ridiculously small amount, like not even the 18 weeks that the LW got, and he's giving her an opportunity she would otherwise lack?

I'm also very wary of taking this deeply disapproving LW at face value. Did the guy actually say he was going to be making way more money? It is not clear that he actually said that, and may only have gone as far as explaining that the net result would be a little more money than if his wife went back to work. LW may be the one who thinks you can earn "tremendous" amounts of money from contracting. (Strongly depends on your sector, of course, but after sevenish years I would not say I'm earning "tremendous" amounts as a contractor.) So I'm not sure I'd characterise what he did as boasting, as others have, without significantly more information.

ashbet: (Default)

[personal profile] ashbet 2022-08-24 08:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Yep, all of this.

(Although he was, at the least, profoundly inconsiderate/oblivious in saying this to his recent-parent coworker. That’s the honestly the part that I’m side-eyeing him over.)
dabbleswithpoisons: (Default)

[personal profile] dabbleswithpoisons 2022-08-24 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I'm very sympathetic to how this letter writer feels about it, but I mostly think dude just absolutely should never have told anyone at work about what he was doing.
melannen: Commander Valentine of Alpha Squad Seven, a red-haired female Nick Fury in space, smoking contemplatively (Default)

[personal profile] melannen 2022-08-25 08:23 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the point with the "tremendously" more money is that, since he doesn't have to pay for health care etc. out of the contracting money, he'll have a lot more take-home pay from that job than other contractors would. (I suspect LW might also be in the place of wishing she could do WFH contracting but having to stay with the 9-5 for the benefits. I can relate.)
liv: cast iron sign showing etiolated couple drinking tea together (argument)

[personal profile] liv 2022-08-24 07:34 pm (UTC)(link)
I kind of feel similar about this to the shoplifting one. If it's what you've gotta do to survive a hostile system, fair enough. But if you're just exploiting the system in order to make loads of money, and rationalizing to yourself that you're sticking it to The Man, that doesn't impress me.

Yes, 6 months parental leave shared between two caregivers seems like a horror story from a European perspective. And yes, a Fortune 500 company isn't going to suffer financially for this minor bit of bending the rules, and indeed they probably do far worse in wage theft and extractive practices. But coworker isn't so much punishing his employer for being unethical, as contributing to a society where women's labour is exploited. Even if his specific wife is completely on board with this arrangement, it's making the world worse for women in general, IMO.
lavendertook: Cessy and Kimba (Default)

[personal profile] lavendertook 2022-08-25 10:42 am (UTC)(link)
He’s gaming the system and what HR would do with the info if they found out, I don’t know. He should never have told the LW and his bragging makes it clear he does not value care giving as something more important than making money or even equal to it. Which makes him a misogynist tool. LW shouldn’t waste time wondering why he told her, nor should she take on the blow back she would get from him and his friends who are probably the aggressive money making types and will take it out on her. I don’t see what good she would do in exposing him to HR. He’s LW’s coworker, but she should not consider him a friend and keep interactions at arms length. For one thing, it will relieve LW of hearing more about the patriarchal crap he’s getting away with at the expense of everyone else. She should save her energy for coworkers she respects and who deserve it.