who f---ing cares...has OMM matched?

I recently returned from "parenting leave" at your favorite firm, Nixon Peabody, and I am very disappointed with our policy. 4 weeks paid leave - that is all! Its ridiculous, especially given how much longer other firms are giving. Thought you would like to know! Maybe reading these posts will spark a change.

10 weeks paid paternal leave at kirkland

10 weeks paid paternal leave at kirkland

10 weeks paid paternal leave at kirkland

Kudos to LW for this very positive step.

I've heard Kirkland gives 4 weeks paternal leave. Is that true?

Nice work by Latham and Simpson.

Now if only my firm would match...

So a woman who gives birth only gets 4 weeks if her husband can be considered the primary caregiver? boy, that's rotten. I hope she also gets some short term disability at full pay, or something. That's definitely not a policy that assumes there's anything extra involved in being the one who actually births the baby and breast feeds it.

How do they determine who is a primary caregiver?

So under the Latham plan, under what scenario does a primary caregiver get only 10 weeks not 18? When does someone become a primary caregiver other than birth or adoption? If your sister dies, and you become mother to her kids but you don't adopt her kids?

3:47: Good point. I presume she'd get the six weeks disability leave (at least in NY) on top of the four weeks.

3:51 -- sounds like if you are a father (other than by adoption) who is a primary caregiver, apparently you only get 10 weeks.

This is a step in the right direction, but firms need to be more flexible to keep women.

how much should i tip my baby?

i mean, its cute and all...but it hardly ever does secretarial work for me.

sometimes it poops.

3:51 - This pulls in highly speculative outside information about the birds and bees, but maybe the fathers would fit that description.

So here is the question:

How many male associates out there hink they could actually get away with taking 8 weeks paternity leave?????

So do they pro-rate your billable hour and bonus requirements? What about other places? 18 weeks paid or whatever is great, but do they still expect you to hit billable levels?

Is kirkland a good firm?

3:54

There aren't any male associates that take 8 weeks paternity leave; they're called staff attorneys.

Ah, obviously. I'm an idiot.

Hey Lat -- It's called "Second Parent Leave," not "Paternity Leave." And this faux pas from a gay guy!

My Texas firm (DC office) gives 12 weeks for either parent and pro-rates billables but not bonuses.

I've talked to several other DC Dads and there seems to be a pretty even split between firms that offer 4 weeks and those that offer 10-12.

3:51, um...how about FATHERS who are the primary caregiver. Duh. They'd get 10 weeks and not 18.

3:47, why are you putting words in Latham's mouth: e.g. "breast feeds it." If you're breast feeding a baby from the source (not bottling it for someone else), I bet you're also the primary caregiver. If you birth it and bottle the milk for the primary caregiver, then you don't need more than 4 weeks PAID leave.

I applaud L&W for taking a lead.

Attorneys shouldn't be having kids, that's the reality of it. They'll probably turn out as screwed up as any crackhead baby. Look at all the posters here whose parents are lawyers. Proof is in the PIRATE! Take that Ninajs!

Attorneys shouldn't be having kids, that's the reality of it. These kids will probably turn out as screwed up as any crackhead baby. Look at all the posters here whose parents are lawyers. Proof is in the PIRATE! Take that Ninajs!

My Texas firm (DC office) gives 12 weeks for either parent and pro-rates billables but not bonuses.

I've talked to several other DC Dads and there seems to be a pretty even split between firms that offer 4 weeks and those that offer 10-12.

3:54 is clearly not a parent or s/he would know that, albeit cute, it poops all the time!

When I was at OMM LA a few years ago, fathers got 4 weeks paid time off, plus your hours were pro rated for the year.

Best deal ever.

"Pace Reduction Option for Returning Associates To Adjust" - or PRORATA. How cute!

Doesn't Latham & Watkins believe that the devil and Jesus are brothers?

Lat, why don't you get off your arse and fix the comments? There's no reason it should take 3-4 minutes for the site to think about posting them. Granted, many now know that the comments are flawed and don't double up, but it shouldn't even be an issue.

I took two weeks paid paternity leave (my firm's allowed amount, and hours for bonus purposes are pro-rated). The partners were great and very understanding, but some of the other associates have been subtly harassing me about it.

Outside of the two weeks, it would be great to have a reduced-time arrangement for a few months. Trying to meet hours (for bonus) and still get home in time to help my wife out with the newborn is tough.

long parental = drain on firm economics

Can't believe Jessica Alba is pregnant and the father is way beneath her.

And my brother-in-law is engaged to be married to a fatty Filipina (size 16)!

S&C is also 18 weeks (the memo came right around the time of the Simpson memo--if not before)

When I was at OMM LA a few years ago, fathers got 4 weeks paid time off, plus your hours were pro rated for the year.

Best deal ever.

How many times a year can you take advantage of this?

For instance, could I adopt a kid, take my 18 weeks, and then, at the end of the 18 weeks, exchange the kid for another one and take 18 more?

3:27- the actual policy appears to give all birthing mothers 8 weeks leave plus the 4 weeks.

Lat, I can help you fix the issue of posts taking 3-4 minutes to post. I can write a few snippets of code for you, it's really not that hard.

4:01, I don't know how you feel confident that all women who breast feed will be the primary caregiver. It's circular, right? Most people are happy to be the primary caregiver if they can be paid a lawyer's salary to do it. So, if all it takes to be the primary caregiver as a woman is declaring that you will be staying home for 18 weeks getting paid to take care of the baby, then fine, I have no problem with it. If the firm says "oh wait, your husband is going to be the primary caretaker once you go back to work and doesn't work, so you actually only get 4 weeks," then your statement that most people who are actually breast feeding are the primary caretaker is only true because the firm has made it be that way by telling women attys that their breast-feeding decisions have to be based on whether their husbands work.

Now of course this doesn't matter b/c in the real world I doubt seriously that primary caregiver rules are ever applied to limit women's time off. Those are rules to extend leave to men without having to give them as much as women.

Another odd question, though, is why the adoptive primary caretaker father gets 18 weeks and the birth father who's a primary caretaker gets 10. That's just weird.

S&C is also 18 weeks (the memo came right around the time of the Simpson memo--if not before)

How many times a year can you take advantage of this?

For instance, could I adopt a kid, take my 18 weeks, and then, at the end of the 18 weeks, exchange the kid for another one and take 18 more?

When I was at OMM LA a few years ago, fathers got 4 weeks paid time off, plus your hours were pro rated for the year.

Best deal ever.

Not a LW lawyer:

Apparently your parents just dropped you in the field and kept working when you were born.

Breastfeeding has nothing to do with how long you need to recover from having a baby. Most babies don't even start to sleep through the night until they are somewhat older than that (mine did at 8 weeks -- he was considered a prodigy) but you are still in a daze and exhausted, regardless of how much help you have at home, including having your partner/spouse be the "primary caregiver."

Not a L&W associate:

Apparently your parents just dropped you in the field and kept working when you were born.

Breastfeeding has nothing to do with how long you need to recover from having a baby. Most babies don't even start to sleep through the night until they are somewhat older than that (mine did at 8 weeks -- he was considered a prodigy) but you are still in a daze and exhausted, regardless of how much help you have at home, including having your partner/spouse be the "primary caregiver."

Thelen Reid gives only 4 weeks to a birthing mother!!

Of course, the other option beyond all this 'Oh great we get lots of leave but then how do I balance billables and seeing my kids' is to jump off the biglaw wagon and realize that no matter what at a big firm, you're not going to get to see your kids half as much as you want.

A big reason I jumped was because all my colleagues with kids never got to see them.

Cue the "I was defending depositions while in labor...." commentary.

Adoptive parents should get more than birthing parents because adopted kids usually eat their own feces, etc. It's always harder to deal with damaged goods.

It baffles me why posters like 4:07 are concerned with how their taking leave will be perceived.

First of all, none, or at least very few, of my fellow associates would think maxing out your leave was anything but a good thing. That's not to say everyone does it, but the consensus is that if you can take it all, you should.

What about the partners? Unless you are deadset on becoming partner and think taking 2-3 months will hurt your chances (which, of course, all firms say would never be the case), who cares what they think. The law firm is trying to extract as much value out of you as it can and you should do the same. My work speaks for itself. If some partners want to think less of me because I took my full leave (which I plan on doing next year), that's their problem.

This appears to be "quality of life" area where firms are actually ahead of in-house and government lawyers. As an in-house attorney for a large corporation, I received two days of paid leave when each of my first two children were born. As a government attorney, I will receive no paid leave when my third is born in January.

My 2 year old still doesn't sleep through the night. I think we may be done with diapers before that happens. Heck... maybe done with kindergarten too...

Why do lawyers only act in pacts??? Ohh, if every other parent didn't take full leave then I can't either.

Just take the leave and quit worrying about how it affects your future at the firm. If you are not the family type, then don't take the leave. It's a personal choice - either way you are probably not making partner so it really doesn't matter.

This is absolutely absurd. It is a choice to have children. Nobody forces you to do it. There should be no paid maternity/paternity leave, and if there is, those who choose not to have children should be given the opportunity to take the same amount of time.

4:36 - It is irresponsible to have more than two children. The Earth is becoming more and more densely populated and before long people will struggle to gain access to valued resources.

I think it's great that firms are taking steps to retain women and ease the transition back, but at the end of the day, it's just a short term fix and being on a reduced schedule for 6 months doesn't help much when your kids are around for 18 yrs. Of course, since most big firms only have a short-term interest in the majority of associates, it should work out well for them.

4:22, I have to admit ignorance as to most things baby related, so I yield to your opinions there.

However, I was using breastfeeding as a proxy, and only in response of 3:47's comment. Babies, I assume, must be fed many times per day. If a mother is breastfeeding from the source, then she must stay at home to do it. It is the breastfeeding mother's requirement to stay at home that warrants the assumption that she's the primary caregiver (she's at home already so she might as well be). If she's bottling the breastmilk for the second parent, then I don't see how her role is different than the father back in the day when all dads worked and didn't get paternity leave. In this role, all she'd need is time to recover from the birth herself, right?

4:01...wha?? No firm would dictate from above who the primary caregiver is. The argument isn't circular as explained above.

hahah...nice...take 10 weeks off and enjoy it. You'll never see your kid again!!

Lat, why don't you get off your arse and fix the comments complaining about double comments? There's no reason there should be 3-4 comments complaining about each double post. Granted, many now know that the commenters are flawed and don't slam people who double up, but it shouldn't even be an issue.

this is great - latham should be applauded. my v30 only gives 12 weeks, and i dont think paternity leave is covered at all.

4:30--It baffles me that you have no concern over how your leave will be perceived. You may do good work, but building a solid professional reputation depends on a lot of nebulous subjective factors, like how you are perceived by your colleagues. It doesn't matter if you plan to make partner or not.

Rumor is OMM NY matched special bonuses but all associates who didn't make their hours are getting fired---

think of it as a special severance package - Happy Holidays!!!!!

Reiterate the questions above re: billables/bonus levels.

If they aren't reducing the hours targets than that is isn't any better than the "unlimited vacation" that can be taken at many places.

Also, this seems to not be any sort of enhanced benefit to dads. Kind of sexist if you ask me...

4:48: I can't imagine depriving myself of paid, unfettered time with my newborn (truly a once-in-a-lifetime event) because I was concerned some douchebag would question my commitment to the firm.

I only took paternity leave for my legitimate children.

4:07 - you are smokin some good sh*t if you think you are building a solid professional reputation. You will be forgotten as soon as you hit the door and only remembered for what have you done for me lately. Plus you get another shot at each new gig. But keep thinking you are building a solid reputation while you get pimped out like a crack whore. Go make me some mo money B**ch!

Not a L&W associate:

I'm a feminist, but I can tell you that babies can tell the difference between their mothers and fathers. 3 months, let alone 4 weeks, is not enough to bond with the baby and develop a healthy attachment, if the parents have to go back to 80-hour weeks. Mothers are not just vessels for providing milk. Most parents need more than 4 weeks to adapt to the enormous changes in their lives that accompany having a baby. You'll know what I am talking about when you have your own kids.

interesting policy choice on LW's part to give a primary caregiver father who adopts 18 weeks but only 10 weeks if his wife is the birth mother.

looks like the step in the right direction needs to be tweaked already...

4:56:

Latham prorates both billables and bonus for any leave taken. So it is a real benefit. And I think you're wrong to say there is no benefit to dads-- If a dad is the primary caregiver (i.e. if mom goes back to work at week 8 after mom gets 8 weeks to recover from birthing) he gets an extra 6 weeks of leave (plus the 4 weeks that they gave before). There is only no benefit to dads if you assume a dad will never be the primary caregiver (which is itself sexist!).

4:56:

Latham prorates both billables and bonus for any leave taken. So it is a real benefit. And I think you're wrong to say there is no benefit to dads-- If a dad is the primary caregiver (i.e. if mom goes back to work at week 8 after mom gets 8 weeks to recover from birthing) he gets an extra 6 weeks of leave (plus the 4 weeks that they gave before). There is only no benefit to dads if you assume a dad will never be the primary caregiver (which is itself sexist!).

@ 4:41 --

"pacts"?

Poor 4:07.

4:42-

You've got me, I have no clue. Maybe it is just that it is so common - the default seems to be to have kids. Otherwise, are firms really saying that educational and volunteering choices are less worthy, and less deserving of paid time off?

But I suppose if firms are going to subsudize lifestyle choices, this is a very PC place to do it.

4:36 -- I think there's pending legislation to give federal employees 8 wks paid parental leave - you can hope that squeaks through in time. How much unpaid leave do you get in the gov't (federal or state?), just the 12 wks or do they give more?

5:16 and 4:42: Right. Having a child is just like doing Habitat for Humanity.

Apparently no one on this blog has ever heard of FMLA. As a new father, you're entitled to up to 12 weeks off to care of your new kid. Now, if you're going to be fussy and only take the time off if you're paid--that's another story.

There's no way to tell what the real benefit here is, since the details are so sketchy.

5:22: Good point. Habitat work always betters the community, while your kid is just as likely to turn out to be a drain on society as she is a contributor to it.

5:25: I'm sure you can get paid leave to tend to your pet cat.

yeah latham, I knew you had it in you

5:16 and 4:22, I agree. Paid mat/pat leave comes from the sweat of those who choose not to have children. Paid or unpaid leave of a certain amount should be offered to eveyone, without discriminating on the basis of familial status.

Do we really need the government and our employers juding which uses of off-work time are worthy of a bonus? I thought that workers were supposed to pay you for what you do ON the job.

Kudos to Latham.

I'm more heartened to see a big firm adopt a policy like this than I am to see them responding to the bonus du jour

Some of the posts are disgusting.

Moreover, I can't believe how most of you are sooo clueless about babies!

First, a newborn has to be fed every 2 hours, you need to wake the baby up if sleeping. This goes on for 2 weeks. Other than feeding, the baby cries bloody murder all day because the baby doesn't know how the pass gas. It takes a while to relieve the poor thing. Just when you're exhausted and think that you can finally rest, it's feeding time again! Add on top of this the fact that babies don't sleep much, you have one homicidal woman.

Then, as if all of this isn't enough, you have the post-partum issues. Mothers feel inadequate, stressed, overwhelmed, you name it. In this state, the woman tries to bond with the baby.

Moreover, even if you're not breastfeeding, you need to pump your milk out. Otherwise, there's a big chance of developing what's called mastitis, and even get an infection from it. Becomes as severe as requiring surgery. Breast milk doesn't just wait to get out before being refilled.

SO, new mothers absolutely NEED at least 12 weeks at home. It's absolute chaos during the first 3 months of a baby's introduction into the family. It's almost for the firm's benefit that new mothers (and fathers) get time off during this huge adjustment period. It takes enormous effort to get adjusted and then get separated from your cute little bundle of joy and get back to work. So, YES, bonus is totally deserved.

6:23, I'm afraid that the childless attorneys slaving away at the office during your 3 months, covering for your selfish desire to have a child, are expending enormous effort as well. Your attitude completely missed this. So please, don't act like you're doing anyone a favor by choosing to have a kid.

All leave should be unpaid, or -- if paid --should be extended to all associates on an equal basis, regardless of gender and familial status. We all deserve to have time outside of the office to focus on what we want in our lives. What we do with that time does not deserve to be subsidized by the firm.

6:23: I'm sorry, I don't see how details of how hard one's voluntary commitment is has anything to do with whether it is "deserved".

5:51-without past professionals having babies- who are then sent to better schools, get better jobs and have discretionary money to keep the economy going-we'd all be out of jobs. In the long-run, it is probably better to encourage baby making than to discourage it. For the record, I don't have kids and could care less if others around me get a few weeks off to take care of a newborn. Lighten up, you'll live longer (and in that extra time you might realize that you also want kids and will be thankful that your firm gave you paid time off).

I don't need "12 WEEKS OF PARENTAL LEAVE"; I'm not a "RESPONSIBLE LOVING PARENT."

6:23, you make a great argument for not having kids. Sounds like no fun, and completely unrewarding. I can see why you feel like you need some remuneration as a result, from somewhere. But I don't see why the law firm should be the one to pay you for your choice.

5:51, your "constant growth" argument (actually, it's just upper class "constant growth", isn't it?) sounds to me like an elitist justification for the status quo rather than a thoughtful remark on the fairness arguments raised. I'd rather have a fair workplace and society than one that seeks to relentlessly grow the size of its upper class by micromanaging the birth rate.

(btw, thanks for not including the "trickle down" epilogue, as most who embrace your economic model would. Or is that where you're headed next?)

06:29--

First, I'm sorry you're infertile.

You have no good reason to take that much time off from your job. With a baby, you need that time off, it's not optional. It's not a pleasure thing with babies and that's my point.

Also, I was only discussing from a new mother's perspective, not the impact of a baby within the firm overall. I'm not saying that others don't have to cover. But if you don't want to "slave away", quit your job, that's all that lawyering is at any big firm. You cannot possibly work more than the hours you normally do anyway. So it's not like you're suddenly going to have to work inhuman hours. And besides, if your firm is so small that a newborn makes that much of a difference in your firm, I feel sorry for you. You're just an unreasonable person in my opinion.

6:30--

I think it's the same idea as work. You get your bonus based on your hours (plus other factors but let's ignore that for now), you need to work at least the minimum requirement to get the bonus. Taking care of a newborn is just as hard in my eyes. You put in so many hours to it, work so hard at home during the first 3 months. Also, I look at it as a reward for coming back to work. I could easily quit my job, put the firm in a more difficult position.

6:23, you make a great argument for not having kids. Sounds like no fun, and completely unrewarding.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 06:47 PM

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! True, it doesn't sound appealing. I don't have kids yet but the instant love and bond is supposed to be worth all the pain. So the reward is supposed to be the love of the baby. And most women think that men don't get this, and never will, since they don't carry the baby inside their bodies and don't experience "the miracle" of birth. I personally think birth is gross but most women apparently forget all of it once the baby is out.

I'm so sick of people that view themselves as marytrs just for having a kid. And asking the firm, or your fellow associates, to subsidize you is selfish beyond believe.

I don't care if it's tough. Life is tough, and you pick your battles. People who whine that others should pay for their own selfish choices are freeloaders, pure and simple. I could understand subsidizing others who choose to teach, or even providing a safety net for the elderly and those who are temporarily out of work. Those are things that we all might benefit from. But just for giving birth? Give me a break...

So if the birth mother and birth father have different places of employment.... can't each advise his/her own employer that he/she is the "primary caregiver"?

How does the firm know for sure who's the primary caregiver?

7:03: I wish you would quit your job. But I suppose you'll wait until *after* your 18 paid weeks off, won't you?

I think it's pretty clear that there's a double standard here in favor people who choose to have kids. While it's not like having a kid is a vacation, clearly there is some personal gain, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying that there's an equitable alternative-- equal paid or unpaid leave for all. You haven't come up with a good rebuttal to that yet.

The difference between "paid" to working to raise a baby and "paid" to work at a law firm is that the former produces no revenue, and in fact increases the burden on your coworkers. It may have some marginal benefits in terms of retention long term, but so would giving everyone paid leave (not just the childbearers).

Sorry to be the lawyer here, but Latham's previous policy was 4 weeks paternity leave? How were they exempt from FMLA, under which qualifying entities are required to give 12 weeks to dads too? It doesn't have to be paid leave, but it has to be leave.

The first 4:42 poster, you're an asshole. People should not have to choose between having children and having time and money for them.

7:41-- I love that instead of coming up with a thoughtful counterargument for giving all associates paid or unpaid leave on an equal basis (regardless of the outside-of-work reason), you simply call them an "asshole" and say it "should not" be so.

Brilliantly, argued, counselor.

4:25: "A big reason I jumped was because all my colleagues with kids never got to see them."

*** Ditto. Children and career are not "either/or" "choices." To say that anyone should have to choose between the two is ludicrous. To suggest that lawyering should be a parentless profession is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Why the F is this even a debate?

Nobody's suggesting you can't have both. In fact, I think everyone agrees that people should get time off (unpaid) for having kids, and that their bonuses should be prorated accordingly.

It's the paid leave idea that is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.

Yes, nobody is "entitled" to paid leave. It's a subsidy. The people who think that their childless rights are being infringed are fucking retarded. Have you seen Idiocracy? Do you know what will happen if only poor people reproduce? Don't you realize that 30 years from now, the economy will collapse if society doesn't maintain a replacement rate? Watch what happens in Europe in the next few decades. Of course having kids is a "selfish" choice, but it should be incentivized. Plus, law firms are rational actors. They clearly think that offering these benefits is a net plus for them. I am sure they have analyzed the issue. Sure, lots of women leave for good. Some don't. If the firm has done the math and decided that the benefits outweigh the costs, then who the fuck are you to whine about fairness. Bitter, sad people.

6:53-my remark was more of a joke than any form of economic theory. I did take some odd pleasure, however, in having it called "elitist" since I was raised in a blue collar family.

1. unless you're a partner, none of you are subsidizing anything, do you really think you have to work 600 more hours a year b/c some associate took 12 weeks off? 2. Yes, there are valid arguments against paid maternity leave, but here are some arguments in favor of it:

* A national paid maternity leave scheme would go some way to addressing the male/female wage disadvantage and compensate for the period of childbirth and time shortly after when women take time off work or reduce their labour force activity.
* Maternity leave is generally restricted to long term, permanent employees. Industries with high proportions of women and casual workers, such as retail and hospitality, are generally less likely to offer paid maternity leave
* For couples who save money to afford each child, a period of paid leave would enable them to bring forward their decision to have a child. It may also encourage some couples to have an additional child.
* Paid maternity leave would assist with the direct costs of having children, especially the increased costs faced at the time of the birth of a child;
* Paid maternity leave encourages women to participate in the labour force and promote their economic security by enabling them to retain skills and expertise and maintain income
* Paid maternity leave would assist to reduce attrition rates, particularly for women, and encouraging women who have had babies to maintain their attachment to the workforce (benefiting the employer by reducing retraining and staff replacement costs.

speaking personally, if I hadn't gotten paid maternity leave, i would have considered myself unemployed and may not have gone back to my firm, meaning they would have had to pay a headhunter to fill my spot, lose $$ on training, taken a risk with someone who might not have been as good (and yes, I'm damn good) and lost a lot of goodwill among female associates.

8:15-- so was Hitler. (I'm not comparing you, I just thought this debate needed a reference to Hitler...)

Well, great, thread over.

8:20 - did the third reich offer paid maternity leave?

8:15, I don't want to encourage people to bring forward their decision to have a child, and I certainly don't want to encourage some couples to have an additional child.

I also don't want to assist with the direct costs of having children.

I love this kookie notion that having kids is a "lifestyle choice" like taking up golf or adopting a greyhound. When my kid asks me why mommie and I chose to make him, I'll just say "we really liked the idea of the parenting lifestyle--it looked great on Brad and Angelina!" That sounds much cooler than boring stuff like love, biological imperative, or even a deep seated belief that the Little Baby Jesus wanted us to (last one really not our motivation). Thanks guys!

8:31 - but you are overruled by society, so you will encourage them anyway. Don't like the policies? Vote with your feet. Move to a country where they have no problems sustaining a birth rate. Unfortunately, you won't be able to drink the tap water.

Oh noes! My rights are being trampled! I am being dicriminated against by breeders! Jesus h christ, as though preventing a demographic crisis is not in your interest. Get your head out of your ass. Someone was kind enough to put you on this earth. Unless you wish they didn't - then do us a favor and killself.

8:31, the "love it or leave it" argument is cliche. This country has no problems sustaining a birth rate, and I don't give a shit about anyone's ability to have an additional child.

Umm, yeah it does. The only reason the birth rate is (barely) above sustainable is due to unskilled immigration, largely from Latin America. These policies rightly incentivize educated professionals to have more children, which is kinda important for the knowledge economy,

You know what's even more cliche? People who choose not to have children yelling discrimination. Yes, your property taxes pay for schools. Deal with it. You don't think ensuring a future generation is important. You are wrong, and luckily, the majority disagrees with you.

guess what 8:52, my benefit from the increase in educated babies due to paid parental leave is not worth the cost to me. I don't give a shit about your babies.

8:53, this is about paid parental leave, not schools. I'm happy to spend my tax dollars on public schools because (1) I attended them and (2) I receive great benefit from an educated population.

I don't give a shit about INCREASING the number of babies, from intelligent parents or otherwise.

Well, if your individual benefit were the only relevant factor to policy making, then you might have a point. But you know, state of nature, social contract, etc.. You may like it in Mogadishu, where everybody is completely free to pursue their own interests.

8:53, way to create a straw man. The argument isn't that "ensuring a future generation" isn't important.

According to your logic, you should not give a shit about public schools at all, since you have already extracted your value from them, and will not need them anymore. You say you receive a benefit from an educated population. Don't you see that a key ingredient for that is a population that can be educated?

Maybe you should live in Communist China, where everybody is completely required to pursue state of nature, social contract, etc.

Boohoohoo the baby people get everything! I get nothing!! Their good times are coming out of my blood, sweat, and tears!! I am so put upon by those terrible baby people and their terrible, terrible babies!! Ihatethemihatethemihatethemihatethem!!!

people - the debate here is nothing compared to the conflagration going on in the ropes thread over nyc vs. boston!

9:02, are you saying that only elite babies are capable of education?

According to your inability to read a sentence to completion, you shoudn't see that I have not extracted my value from public schools because I continue to derive value from a base level of education in this country.

8:59 - How about the argument that law firms have decided that it is economically advantageous to them to offer this benefit? If they thought it was similarly advantageous to give the same to the childless, then they would do so as well. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Childless associates - organize! Make demands! Threaten to quit! See what your worth is to them as a group.

Here's one for you:
Two gay attorneys at same firm are a couple and have twins through a surrogate. Neither gave birth, obviously. But through the miracle (and reality) of IVF, each is a biological father of one of the twins. But legally, each guy needs to adopt the other child who isn't his biologically.

So neither is the birth mother. They're both adoptive parents. But they're both also biological parents. If they both work full time, who is the primary caregiver?

Even if only one of them worked for Latham, how many weeks would he get? 18, 10, or 4?

actually 9:03, you make a good argument, notwithstanding the sarcasm.

You provided two arguments. I disposed of one of them. The second one is flawed as well.

I am saying that elite babies will have a statistically greater chance of filling their parents' shoes as knowledge workers. Unless yo uthink that intelligence is wholly a product of nurture. Somehow, I think you don't.

So you admit, 9:07, that this really just comes down to baby-hatred, eh?

Can't blame you. I hate 'em too. Droolin' squallin' jackasses! My kids exspezially!

9:05, I agree. Law firms should be free to do whatever is in their financial interests, and us childless should just shut up and organize if we have a problem with the status quo. I can't speak for others, but I personally was speaking to the introduction of a federal, paid parental leave.

9:08, you did dispose of my first argument. I don't think the second is flawed, though. Although you're right, and I think the boundaries of intelligence are genetic, I think the baseline required for society's needs is not substantial. I, personally, don't care whether the next generation is replete with lawyers or PR gurus or hedge fund managers. I do care if the next generation has its share of brilliant thinkers (Hawking, Gates, Posner, ect), but I don't believe the presence or absence of paid parental leave will have a statistically significant effect.

While genius levels will be unaffected, if the overall intelligence level drops, we will have problems. Lower productivity, shitty economy, then who knows, maybe a slow decline. This could happen in your lifetime, and could affect your nest egg. Even if the worst effects will surface after you die, which you don't care about, the people who do have children do care, and they vote accordingly.

9:21, you've convinced me to believe in federally funded, paid, parental leave for parents whose mean intelligence (or individual intelligences depending on how the trait is passed) surpasses a given mark. Yay!

Well, there will likely be a very high correlation. Assuming that overall, more intelligent people have higher paying jobs, the bulk of the expense will be subsidizing those with above average intelligence. We already have a system to subsidize parental leave for a good bunch of the rest. I think it's called welfare.

hey babyhaters: hope you're saving all your bonus money for retirement since under your plan there'd be no future generation supporting the public infrastructure to care for you

8:54, who do you think is going to take care of you in the nursing home?

The mini magnet is stronger than the maxi magnet.

9:39 - In the off chance I even make it long enough to see a nursing home, then my own babies or someone who wants me to pay them to take care of me in the nursing home. In any event, it won't require someone with vast intelligence to feed me pudding.

hey 9:39, there's still going to be a future generation supporting the public infrastructure to care for us because there will always be biological incentives to bear children.

9:32, I don't think the bulk of the expense will be for intelligent parents with high paying jobs because of the larger quantity of averagly intelligent parents with averagely paying jobs. Their babies can suck my aqua dots.

The solution is simple: give childless crybabies 8 weeks off to tend to someone else's kid(s) 24 hours a day. Be a nanny at lawyer pay for two months, since that sounds like such an enviable deal to you. Maybe you can even get a slight pay bump to account for the fact that the kids aren't yours, and so you don't get the intangible benefits of bonding, etc. Would you actually take that deal?

11:10, would I also get to have sex with the parents? If so, then yes.

If you're getting dumped on because of a colleague's paid leave, it's because of your firm's shitting staffing, not because your colleague was "selfish" (fucking idiots) enough to have a baby.

Also, the leave is something one's entitled to after working at the firm for a certain amount of time. You owe the firm jack shit after your leave and you are 100% entitled to quit a month after your return. Believe me, if you fall a day short of the required time at the firm, you won't get leave.

Way to go Latham. This is a fantastic move to show that you give a damn about your employees' families. Wish DLA would do the same.

I am so fucking happy I live in Europe, where I am guaranteed six months of paid (statutory pay, but still) maternity leave and another 6 months unpaid after that, and they have to give me my job back.

Did anyone notice that the new program has the initials "PRO RATA"? Ah, puns.

I don't even get the "oh poor me, my co-worker had a baby and now I have more work" argument from law firm associates. While y'all are salaried, your bonus and advancement are heavily contingent on your hours worked, and co-workers on leave give you an opportunity to work more hours.

Of course, the whole "anti-baby" argument is absurd. If you believe people will have babies anyway, then you ought to want to support parents in helping raise well-adjusted, productive members of society. If you actually think not providing paid leave will somehow minimize birth rates, and you consider this desirable, then you are short-sighted fool.

1. There are many legal workplace enviornments far more hospitable to working mothers than law firms.
Some of these workplaces offer generous maternity leave and work-from-home schedules.

2.People who prioritize procreation and child-rearing should step aside and let those soley focused on work have their jobs.

3. Having children is very much a lifestyle choice. So is working at a law firm. So is marriage. So is the rest of your conformist lives.

Are you even an attorney 10:49? Because there's plenty of hours up for grabs at most firms. So thank you for the "opportunity" to work more hours, but I'm doing just with the hours I'm working.

Second, don't tell me what I ought to want. I *don't* want to support parents, and I don't want people having babies if they can't raise a "well-adjusted, productive [member] of society" without my help.

Finally, your "short-sighted fool" argument only betrays your inability to make a point based on logic.

9:05, law firms are not rational economic actors. If you know of a field with more clueless management (seriously... big companies run entirely by lawyers with questionable business sense and limited personalities?), let me know...

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the parents here have a penchant for swearing rather than constructing logical arguments? I think this undermines the argument that they will be producing intelligent offspring (or at least offspring capable of making a cogent argument without calling people "fuckers" or "assholes"...)

1:10 makes a good point. Furthermore, the realities of recruiting means that even those decisions in the best interest of the bottom line might not be logical, or fair.

As long as the mentality seen here continues to pervade society, there will be pressure on firms to treat parents better than childless workers with policies such as this. Pronatalism is so commonly accepted and so rarely questioned (evidenced here by those "disgusted" with ther mere mention of a contrary opinion) that even unfair/unsound policies will make the firm appear more attractive to the many prospective candidates who have never bothered to question the system of employers subsudizing the choice to have a child.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that the realities of our society make paid maternity leave (beyond that required for health) may be necessary to retain women, and that that retention may be in the best interests of society. But unless we're willing to question the assumption that parents "deserve" the firm's help funding their children, we will never be able to honestly evalulate this possibility.

Intelligence isn't everything. Sure it helps, but work ethic, values, and lots of other factors will play into how any given child will contribute to society. I'm not convinced that the (generally) spoiled kids of BigLaw attorneys are any more valuable than those of middle class school teachers, etc. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we're better off with the latter.

maybe someone already said this (it was tiring reading all these comments), but last i checked, two people "decide" to have a baby, but in the past only one person had to deal with the consequences. paid maternity leave accounted for that by saying to women, you chose to have a baby, but you didn't choose to be the one who gets pregnant.

and just as a side note, male attorneys are more likely to have children than female attorneys - yet female attorneys are more likely to pay a price in terms of their careers for having children.

this isn't to say that men got the better end of the stick - it sucks not getting to spend time with your family, but it sucks even more that men had the choice and women didn't, which is why paid maternity and paternity leave is smart.

not to mention the fact that firms do this in order to retain talent because they recognize that work/life balance is important. if you don't have a child, then you just don't get that benefit. but there are lots of benefits/perks firms offer to retain talent that not everyone decides to take advantage of. that's just the way it works.

10:13, yes, the woman does choose to be the one who gets pregnant. Last time I checked, you can adopt or hire a surrogate. So women still have "the choice."

Does anyone know how long you have to be at the firms before you are elible for paid leave?