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

[minoanmiss]

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.

Comments

[castiron]

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]

Agreed!

[conuly]

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]

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.