Microsoft will require suppliers to offer paid parental leave

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/microsoft-to-business-partners-if-you-want-to-work-with-us-offer-paid-family-leave/2018/08/29/979ffcca-abc0-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html

by aaronbrethorst • 8 years ago

155 120 8 years ago

washingtonpost.com

s73v3r_3• 8 years ago

This is great, but it still is incredibly sad that only certain people get this benefit, instead of it being something given to everyone in the country like in most of the civilized world.

toomuchtodo2• 8 years ago

Progress by any means necessary. It would be absolutely phenomenal if legislation fixed this for everyone today, but until that time, there are a lot of people who will benefit from this who otherwise wouldn't.

s73v3r_3• 8 years ago

That's what I said?

cprayingmantis• 8 years ago

I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.

tomatotomato37• 8 years ago

Eh, can't really have the latter if a supplier is also a mega-corporation. You don't need to be a household name in order to be a market leader

bluntfang• 8 years ago

Just think what could be accomplished if software engineers unionized. If all the SREs at amazon went on strike for 6 hours, the world would descent into chaos. I really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.

lovich• 8 years ago

The other reply to this comment is why software engineers don't unionize. Many think they're better off without a union, but a large number go even further and are adamantly opposed to the existence of unions

dominotw4• 8 years ago

they'd prbly be against h1b first.

jpttsn5• 8 years ago

Sinking the world into chaos might not be palatable to enough people.

If it were, would they be the kind of people you want changing the world?

frockington• 8 years ago

I already pay enough in taxes, the idea of union fees on top of that is revolting

BeetleB2• 8 years ago

I really don't understand why that group of people don't want to leverage their power to change the world.

Have you tried talking to such anti-union programmers/engineers?

I've seen both good and bad unions, so I'm fairly neutral on the topic, but some things to ponder over:

In a previous job, I would occasionally stay a little late to work on performance improvements (automating the workflow, improving tools, etc). I usually did it without management's permission - just on my own. They'd hear about it once I was ready to tell them.

Some of my coworkers were against this, for a variety of reasons, including the fear that my work would raise the bar. I strongly suspect that if they were unionized, they'd find a way to make sure I don't do this type of work.

Many SW folks do worry that unionizing will bring their productivity down to the median, and will make it harder for job growth. They don't want to be held back by a union.

(I wasn't even doing this to get ahead of them (I was paid about the median, and some who opposed were a full grade level above me). I just got sick of crappy in-house tools.)

Beyond that, there are the "usual" reasons: Unions can become quite political, and they can use as many dirty tactics/propaganda/misinformation with their own people as the company they work for can/does. Their conformity tactics can get nasty as well. My wife has a union job and the union is considering a strike. Plenty of attempts to silence/shame anti-strike voices from within the union. The paranoia within the union is quite high. Who amongst us is a spy for the employer? Stuff like that.

Unions can really increase the drama at a work place.

Again, I'm listing the negative examples. Not all unions are like this. I suspect, though, that unless the union actively guards against these, this will be the normal evolution of a union.

wincy• 8 years ago

Well right now my wife (who is a stay at home mom) is seven months pregnant and I’m looking for a job. If this was mandated at any of the companies I was applying to I’d be guaranteed to not get hired. I don’t want 12 weeks, and it’s not like this baby is a surprise.

glhaynes• 8 years ago

Other than perhaps through social media (one more reason to consider "going dark" while job hunting, I suppose), how would any potential employer know your wife was expecting?

bitcurious• 8 years ago

If this was mandated at any of the companies I was applying to I’d be guaranteed to not get hired.

Why would you disclose your wife's pregnancy?

pjc50• 8 years ago

All potential employers have illegal hiring practices?

jacobkg• 8 years ago

In case you don’t know, it’s illegal for them to ask and you have no duty to disclose it. You don’t even need to tell them you are married.

moorhosj3• 8 years ago

==I’d be guaranteed to not get hired.==

Flat out false. My wife got a new job while 7 months pregnant. When she had the baby, she took 8 weeks off, I start my 4 week paternity leave soon and everyone is happy.

nanidin• 8 years ago

During training I underwent at Bigcorp about how to run an interview, this was one of the things we were explicitly told not to ask about in any way shape or form.

We were located in one of the best school districts in the area - we could mention that fact, but we could not ask if they had kids or were planning to have kids or expected kids. Nothing about kids.

chefkoch2• 8 years ago

At my current job ( in Germany where parental leave is mandated ) i had collagues write there parental leave application (you have to apply, but your employer is not allowed to deny it) on their first day. They where open about it in the interview and most fathers take 2 months off.

crunchlibrarian• 8 years ago

The end of shareholder primacy can't come soon enough, it's one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century.

geodel2• 8 years ago

Yeah before shareholders people were doing so much better as working for someone else.

Fnoord• 8 years ago

I find it incredibly interesting that a company can make these sort of demands for a change that the determine is better for society. Wonder if people will consider this a grass roots change for worker good or the unwanted imposing requirement of a a mega-corporation.

Not just any company; Microsoft, a huge multinational.

If its a positive change, it is warranted. The first year of a child is very important for the connection with his or her parents. [1] Also, the first 3 months are very hectic (our baby is half a year now so I can attest). With paternity leave a father can support both the baby and his/her mother. So it is a win-win for men and women (and, in a way, feminism).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder

ikeboy2• 8 years ago

They going to stop producing in China then?

freeone3000• 8 years ago

Why? State Council Decree No. 619 gives 14 weeks of paid parental leave to all Chinese.

ikeboy2• 8 years ago

No, they only give it to women

s0rce• 8 years ago

It says US based suppliers with > 50 employees will be subject to the new requirements.

humantiy• 8 years ago

Nope. They keyword in this was 'U.S.-based' suppliers so they are only doing this in a place where for the most part this is already practiced or where they have very few suppliers in the first place. As you hinted probably most of their supplies are coming from China.

linuxftw4• 8 years ago

Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs. If this doesn't apply to part time workers, some suppliers are likely to cut full time positions into part time positions.

This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees.

Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'

staticautomatic• 8 years ago

The fact that a given solution won't or can't solve all problems shouldn't prevent us from enacting it. Consequential problems can and should be addressed if and when they arise. We shouldn't let fear get in the way of doing the right thing.

Arubis• 8 years ago

Conversely, this is an invitation to renegotiate prices. If a client is going to require you to do something expensive, you calculate how much that's going to cost you, and pass that cost along to your customer. You can even tell them that's exactly what you're doing and what the numbers look like, and if your customer isn't terrible they'll appreciate the transparency.

Frankly, that's a potential PR win for MSFT, as well: "we're requiring our suppliers to do this, and it's increasing our costs by $X; we're putting our money where our mouth is & invite you to do the same".

pkaye• 8 years ago

How do renegotiate prices when Microsoft is not your only customer? Just increase the prices on Microsoft or on all your customers to pay for these benefits?

bovermyer• 8 years ago

I'm not convinced of any of that. What sources can you offer for studies into similar situations in the past?

LanceH• 8 years ago

Labor gets more expensive, less labor is purchased. It is fundamental. Even with cuts it can be hailed as a success because of survivorship bias.

You should ask for studies to support an idea rather than assume the idea is good because nobody cites studies contradicting it. Most people know in the back of their mind you can't just raise minimum wage to $100/hour and make everyone rich. It's just a matter of degree. There will be some marginal cost of raising the price of labor. Whether it is shorter hours, fewer employees, or one less company that was otherwise on the bubble.

BeetleB2• 8 years ago

And in a distant land, someone is advocating change to increase productivity and wage growth, and to have more full time employees. Then someone will respond with a comment with "Nice sentiment, but that will invite behavior to cut costs by slashing benefits like paid parental leave".

Thinking this way is falling for the "default effect" (sorry, I don't know the proper name).

Of course enacting this will have effects. That alone is not a problem.

Don't assume a default (i.e. the status quo). Examine both options, look at the pros and cons of each, and pick one. Don't frame it as "If we go this route, this is what will change." That's automatically making the status quo as the reference point. There's no good reason it should be one.

s73v3r_3• 8 years ago

"This could also cost an employer (either real or perceived) productivity, and result in wage stagnation or lack of hiring new full time employees."

Why should I care about that more?

"Additionally, and most importantly, full time employees will be fired and converted to 'contractors,' they'll fill their previous role for less money and benefits and not technically be 'employees.'"

Then we need to punish that company extremely harshly, as much as we can.

cosinetau• 8 years ago

They already support parental leave by supporting ICE.

MR4D3• 8 years ago

This sounds great until it comes time to set up a new supplier contract and they go to India.

When they outsource something to India because labor in the US is "too expensive", I'm going to give them hell for it.

For what it's worth, I'm not against the policy, but the second-order effects are going to suck for some.

cududa• 8 years ago

This is wrong minded. Microsoft is requiring this of the companies that offer their janitorial services, cooking, etc - which is HUGE

jbob2000• 8 years ago

Janitorial company keeps 20% of staff full time with parental leave benefits, 80% are temporary contractors that don't qualify for parental leave.

At least that's how companies in Canada get around the requirement.

MR4D3• 8 years ago

Right, so now the cost of maintaining the office space of a US worker has increased and that goes into something called “fully-burdened FTE cost”, which is basically the whole cost of putting an employee on he payroll in the US. The more you raise that cost, the more likely you are to use offshore labor, even if the salaries are the same.

Utilities, insurance, and taxes are three other costs in the fully burdened rate. Salary is only one piece.

jitix• 8 years ago

Actually in India maternity leave is mandated by law.

potlee2• 8 years ago

What’s wrong with new supplier contacts going to India?

MR4D3• 8 years ago

Nothing at all. But if MSFTbdoes Hingis that increase the labor cost and then move jobs overseas because labor costs are too high, then I call BS.

Does that help?

jl27183• 8 years ago

Do people not realize that leave benefits decrease wages? Some will abuse this. Most will not use it at all.

Why does anybody need paid leave? Are we unable to save money for planned vacations and life events?

SandwichTeeth• 8 years ago

Many US employees are literally living paycheck to paycheck. Not being given paid leave would mean not taking leave at all as they cannot afford to miss a paycheck.

EliRivers• 8 years ago

Why does anybody need paid leave? Are we unable to save money for planned vacations and life events?

There is evidence indicating that to be the case, yes.

crysin• 8 years ago

I think there is also a psychological effect. Knowing you're getting paid while vacationing is a lot more comforting than thinking about all the hours of pay you're not getting. I think this would fall under a similar effect to how JC Penney removing their sales pricing and just pricing their clothing accurately caused a decrease in sales because people didn't get that feeling of victory that they're making a strategic purchase.

squirrelicus• 8 years ago

Definitely. Though I'd expand on one dimension

These benefits must necessarily cause at least one, but often more than one of:

- increase in product price

- decrease in product quality

- decrease in liquid compensation

- decrease in profit margins

For those that argue along the lines of "profit margins ought to be reduced" should also take into account that the profit margins are already often set as low as possible by the nature of market competition, so there's often not a lot to work with. Most companies globally don't get the luxury of holding everything constant but cutting costs of goods sold like we do in software because most companies don't catastrophically overspend in costs of goods sold like we do.

jrfinkel• 8 years ago

"Some will abuse this." LOL, yeah I'm gonna deal with 9 months of pregnancy, and then several months of recovery, and then raise a kid for 18+ years just so I can get that sweet, sweet leave.

Do people not realize that leave benefits are necessary if you wish to attract high skill workers?

jl27183• 8 years ago

You ask a yes/no question where both options indicate acceptance of your premise. Is there a name for this rhetorical device?

The premise, however, is wrong. The best workers in any field are not employees.

mrgoldenbrown• 8 years ago

Yes many working Americans are "unable to save money for planned vacations and life events." Stagnant wages vs living costs mean many Americans working full time jobs (sometimes a full time job and a part time job) are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to save.

jl27183• 8 years ago

I understand that employees are exploited. I don't think employee benefits helps the problem.

geodel2• 8 years ago

Indian government passed a new law which provision for 6 month paid maternity leave. Sounds very progressive. But 2 things: 90% of women work in unorganized sector so no effect on them. Employers have started showing reluctance in hiring them and about 12 million women could lose jobs due to this new law.

deadalus• 8 years ago

Someone1234• 8 years ago

That's why parental leave should apply to both parents/all genders. I believe one of the Nordic countries has a law on the books that gives a fixed period of time per child and parents can split it between parents as they wish.

fastbeef• 8 years ago

It’s been in place since the late 70’s. 480 days per kid, each parent had ~20% earmarked and the rest is up to the parents to divide up.

alkonaut2• 8 years ago

Sweden has 480 days to share (part of that is with lower pay), but 90 days for each parent cannot be transferred so the minimum for dads is effectively 3 months per child. This has had great effect. If you are going to leave work for 3 months you can just as well do 6 or 12 with little difference to the employer.

alkonaut2• 8 years ago

This is why you need parental leave to not just be possible for both parents but actually used by both parents. If it’s actually called maternity leave rather than parental leave that’s a warning sign.

dang• 8 years ago

Url changed from https://www.axios.com/microsoft-require-suppliers-offer-paid..., which has more information.

h4b4n3r0• 8 years ago

This needs to be transitive or it won’t work. It’s trivial to set up a front which complies and subcontract everything to the old (but perhaps renamed) company that does not.

duxup3• 8 years ago

I wish this was more common.

I worked for a company based out of the valley. One year they announced their awesome new paid parental leave policy. My wife and I were expecting and I was excited.

I submitted for paid parental leave..... denied, unpaid leave only.

The paid parental leave was only available to employees in California... because that is the only place they were required to do so.

The lesson was that many companies will only do it if they are forced.

thenewwazoo• 8 years ago

I think your company may have been advertising a "benefit" in a disingenuous manner. In CA we pay into a state disability fund (SDI), from which you can draw for maternity/paternity leave, sort of like unemployment insurance. You can only draw on the SDI if you pay into it, and it's unavailable to you if your employer pays some maximum portion of your salary (for example, I was ineligible because I was paid during my leave). It sounds like they were trying to pull a fast one on CA residents and hoping nobody was paying attention.

duxup3• 8 years ago

Exactly they absolutely were advertising it in a semi truthful way. It was totally announced as a company wide policy.....but like a lot of things they really were only talking about the valley.

When a layoff happened years later I got less because "that only applies to CA employees" despite repeated announcements with no qualifications.

pnutjam2• 8 years ago

I got two weeks paternity leave from HP. Too bad they are a hollowed out husk called DXC now...

duxup3• 8 years ago

I with some former HPers, they were always bummed about what HP turned into.

imgabe2• 8 years ago

One thing I didn't know that I learned recently - in countries where paid parental leave is mandated by law, the government reimburses companies for most of the cost of the employee's salary while they're on leave. At least, this is what I was told about the UK (I think it was like 90% of the cost that the gov't reimbursed).

That makes a huge difference. Of course every company would be offering it if the cost to them were minimal. If we want to this to happen in the US, it needs to happen at the voting booth to approve a program like that. Unfortunately it would most likely have to go on a state-by-state level.

But, I think this should be brought up every time someone complains about how US companies are so barbaric that they don't offer this paid leave. Well, duh, of course they don't because it would be an enormous cost to them that it's not elsewhere in the world.

dustinmoris• 8 years ago

Lol, 90% reimbursed by the government? No it's definitely not in the UK, not in Austria, not in Germany and any other European country I know. It's quite simple, the government introduces a law of minimum leave and all companies in the country either oblidge or have to leave. Not being able to serve a rich market like Europe is not an option, so that's really incentive enough for them to follow the rules.

xyzzyz• 8 years ago

No, you’re wrong. The policies differ between various places, and it’s not always 90% of last pay, but almost always it is government or social security who foots the bill, not the employer.

NeedMoreTea• 8 years ago

It's 90% for the first six weeks and is taxable, for maternity leave only, then some low amount of a few hundred a month for the rest. There's a separate entitlement for unpaid parental leave. Many employers pay higher and for longer than statutory amounts.

heeen2• 8 years ago

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlage_U2

In Germany companies get reimbursed100% 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth, which is motherhood protection leave during which mothers are not allowed to work with regular pay (part of which comes from health insurance, the rest from the employer)

Parental leave is unpaid but you cannot fire someone for or during taking it.

svendbt• 8 years ago

In Norway the government will pay you 100% for 49 weeks or 80% for 59 weeks with a cutoff at $66k. (Slightly above national average). Most/all tech employers will cover the remaining part of your salary.

chefkoch2• 8 years ago

not in Germany

While on parenteral leave (Elternzeit) above the mandated minimum (Mutterschutz) you don't even get paid by your employer but you get 66% of your last pay up to a maximum amount from social securities.

rajacombinator• 8 years ago

TANSTAAFL. You’re paying for it somewhere even if you don’t see the price.

jpttsn5• 8 years ago

It’s rarely you; taxes transfer wealth.

Broken_Hippo• 8 years ago

And?

It means that folks won't lose their job when the doctor orders bed rest in the last month. It gives time for proper care of children. And so on. You might be helping pay for someone else's benefits, but if you ever need them, you are paying for your own as well.

Heck, I'm childless by choice (and female on top of this) and I completely approve of such things - for both mothers and fathers. I'm fine with parents getting more sick leave for their children. After all, they have more responsibility than I do. Children with proper support are more likely to grow up to be good adults. I will probably need these adults as I age.

And it isn't like this sort of cost is limited to such things as parental leave. If you pay for your hospital bill, you are helping pay for folks that do not. Shop retail? You are paying for theft, charity work they do, and whatever benefits they give their employees. Pay taxes? You are helping pay for roads you don't use, wars you don't agree with, politician benefits and pay, and a slew of other things.

I'll add that sometimes the placement of price makes all the difference. For example, when taxes are included in the price on the shelf, there is no more pain at the register. Most places have electronic receipts that can tell you how much tax you've paid, so the cost isn't hidden. Taxpayer-funded health care means you can better budget for everyday life's ups and downs, especially the health things that are out of one's control. It matters where the price and cost actually are.

r00fus• 8 years ago

The same can be said for not paying the price up front. You get turnover, employees going into work sick and the like.

There's a societal cost to not paying for rational breaks. You get breakdowns instead.

pm2152• 8 years ago

This sounded unlikely to me (I'm from the UK), but https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments confirms that UK employers can recover 92% of statutory maternity/paternity pay that they pay to employees, or 103% if they are a sufficiently small employer.

Note that this is only for the statutory minimum -- many employers offer better-than-statutory as part of their benefits package.

But I disagree with you that the major reason why every company offers at least the statutory minimum is because they're getting a rebate. I think it is simply because it is a legal requirement. The rebate is just the government as a policy choice shifting the cost of it around a bit.

kosievdmerwe• 8 years ago

The rebate affects how much companies complain and lobby for changing the law though.

zdragnar2• 8 years ago

If the rebate were offered, without a legal requirement, most or all companies would probably provide the benefit, since it's basically free for them and they'd lose candidate recruits to their competitors otherwise.

johnchristopher2• 8 years ago

I am surprised no one makes the argument that even if the government cover the salary costs there's still missing money in the form of the employer's work added value to the company (his output is worth more than his salary).

gowld• 8 years ago

Paid parental leave is simply a disability insurance policy. You can use your wages to buy one. So it comes down to two things:

1) Can you keep your job after you go on leave? Yes, for 12 weeks, protected by FMLA (at least in theory)

2) Factoring in the cost of that insurance policy, are you satisfied with your income level?

imgabe2• 8 years ago

I don't think it's "simply" a disability insurance policy. Pregnancy can be planned. If someone were to buy an insurance policy before they conceived, pay $100/month for a year or so, then get 60% of their salary for 3 months (much more than they paid in probably), they'd just cancel the policy afterward. The insurance company would lose money on this every time.

Some quick googling suggests that there are disability insurance companies that will cover maternity leave, but they must be making a profit on it somehow or they wouldn't offer it. Besides which, I don't think there's any way paternity leave could be considered a disability, so it's no help there.

If this were rolled into social security, the cost could be more spread out. Since it's beneficial for us to have a growing population, I think it's in all our interest to support children being born, even if we don't want to have them ourselves.

mjevans• 8 years ago

It makes more sense to have benefits to employees focused on the employee side. It also makes it more fair (and more cost effective) if all benefits are equal for all; at least up to basic minimums that everyone should have for society to function well.

CaptainZapp• 8 years ago

Whike this is (sort of) true in Switzerland it's not the tax payer who faces the bill, but it's financed partly via payroll taxes.

That means that employers ultimately pay at least half of the costs.

dominotw4• 8 years ago

I am struggled with caring for a parent in the past and its far more burdensome( mentally and physically) than having a baby( which i also experienced).

Why can't everyone get equal paid time for 'life events' instead of just for having a baby.

jpttsn5• 8 years ago

Could be a hard wired mammalian thing expressing as policy.

dominotw4• 8 years ago

Or cater to young families and people they are tying to woo. It another big fuck you to older employees that have to care for their ageing parents, would be a good excuse to fire them.

ohthehugemanate• 8 years ago

I work at Microsoft (full time employee). We are offered some time for life events, including moving, death of a family member, etc. Also, a part of the benefits package (in Germany) is a company that helps source elder Care. Iirc it's partially funded, too (but don't quote me on that).

When you're negotiating your job, ask the recruiter about the HR concept. Some companies, like MS, really try to take care of employees and gear packages for the long term. Others focus on lifestyle, or on cash compensation... The benefits package is one of the more important ways a company should align with your needs.

linuxftw4• 8 years ago

Paid time off is merely a component of salary. Some employers might be willing to pay more $$ for less PTO, others more PTO than $$.

Personally, I'd rather have the extra cash, and take only unpaid leave. I'd rather have the extra cash and buy my own health insurance.

You are already being paid at your market rate, it's up to you to plan for these unforeseen life events and save accordingly.

dominotw4• 8 years ago

plan for these unforeseen life events and save accordingly.

why doesn't this apply to parents? Becoming a parent is no more unforeseen than ageing.

BrandonMarc2• 8 years ago

Next on Hacker News: Microsoft suppliers now hiring more contractors and less full-time staff.

trumped2• 8 years ago

Why do you expect them to do the wrong thing?

BrandonMarc2• 8 years ago

Why do you expect them to do [this]?

Economics

---

No less "wrong" than Nike moving its shoe factories out of the USA and into China, Vietnam, or anywhere else that doesn't have OSHA, EPA, minimum wage, labor unions, ACA, etc.

---

I've read on HN about Facebook doing similar things. They brag up and down about the amazing benefits they give employees, while at the same time moving headcount to contractors who don't get to eat the free food ... literally.

[edit] found the article:

Facebook's underclass: staffers enjoy perks, contractors barely get by

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15350600

... heh, one commenter even mentions Eloi and Morlocks.

toast_coder• 8 years ago

Why is it the wrong thing?

Microsoft will require suppliers to offer paid parental leave

Related Stories