minoanmiss (
minoanmiss) wrote in
agonyaunt2022-08-24 11:20 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
That's a long-term solution to what is, right now, a pretty short-term problem.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
- Husband talked to the wrong co-worker about it
- Co-worker is understandably raw about missing the more extended leave with her baby
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.)
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
(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.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject