At Netflix, we work hard to foster a “freedom and responsibility” culture that gives our employees context about our business and the freedom to make their own decisions along with the accompanying responsibility. With this in mind, today we’re introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child’s birth or adoption.
Great, great move by Netflix – especially considering it’s an American company. Technology companies are raking in more cash than ever before, and it’s great to see a small number of them investing that money back into their own employees, and not into foreign tax havens or CxO’s pockets.
Did anybody who had a child birth last year, and wasn’t covered under the unlimited leave policy, quit because it wasn’t fair?
I assume you are trying to make a snide comment relative to the Gravity Payments story?
You are missing the entire point. This is fair, because it applies to everyone equally. The benefit scales with salary and is the same for everyone.
Now if Netflix has said everyone who makes less than 70k got a full year, but everyone else only got 2 weeks… Yeah, that would have been similar – and some people might have quit over it.
Edited 2015-08-05 00:16 UTC
Not really. I have a six month old at home. If I worked at Netflix, I would only be entitled to another six months of free parental leave. Not the full year that these new parents get. Now, medical leave for the birth is one thing, but since I was not covered under the new policy, I had to use personal leave to take my daughter to the Civil Registry for her identification, more personal leave to take her to get registered at the Embassy, more time off to get her passports, etc. That’s time off that I earned and burned, which new parents get for free. They’re not paying their fair share.
Actually, I don’t give a shit. If other employees get a new benefit and it doesn’t adversely impact my life, what do I care? Certainly not enough to make a big stink about it and quit my job in protest. Live and let live.
First off, odds are someone in the situation will probably be grandfathered in (if my company did something like this they almost certainly would, doing otherwise would be kind of unfair and the cost would be negligible). Point is we don’t know the small print of the policy, only the press release.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it is irrelevant.
So people are concerned about the details in this case, but in the other case have no problem assuming the worst of people who earned less because it fits with their ideological economic narrative.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never denigrated anyone in anything I posted on the other topic. I never called anyone a slacker, I never said anyone was lazy, nothing. I saw posts that did, but they certainly weren’t mine. Don’t lump me in with them just because you don’t like what I am saying.
Respond to the argument. I doubt you can because Im right. This policy (the Netflix maternity policy) is fair to their employees, all of their employees. Im sure someone can come up with some stupid implausible thought experiment where it isn’t, but that isn’t the point. It looks fair, fairness was obviously a consideration. Fairness matters to Netflix.
The Gravity Payments salary redistribution was not fair, it didn’t look fair, it wasn’t even remotely fair – that is why some people quit.
Besides, you guys don’t even argue whether it was fair or not. You argue that you wouldn’t care. That is so easy for people to do with things that don’t directly affect them. You have every right not to care, but you judging people that do (and are affected) is the nothing but arrogance.
They are NOT affected. And I will judge them based on their actions. I don’t care if that makes me arrogant. I’m still right.
———–
You know, I just realized something. All the arguments against Gravity Payments’ actions are the same kind of arguments fundamentalists argue against gay marriage.
You all sound like those fundamentalists who think gay people getting married devalues their own marriage by some magical law of conservation of ego.
Generally speaking, I think you could gauge how valuable a person is by how easily you could replace them with somebody else and get the same quality of work and/or revenue out of them, whether that person be a coder, a sales person, or whatever.
In the case of a janitor or burger flipper, they probably wouldn’t be that hard to replace, unless they were REALLY good at their job. Hence, why they don’t get paid as much as others.
Now, don’t get me wrong… I’m specifically speaking about the marketplace here. A person could be a valuable member of their family, their church, their community, etc. But if you’re not very valuable in the marketplace, you don’t get much money. That’s just the way it is.
Edited 2015-08-05 02:44 UTC
Except I am for gay marriage. I’m also an atheist, so I am definitely not a fundamentalist. And my arguments have nothing at all in common with any of that, not even remotely. But feel free to try and paint me with that brush if you like…
Edited 2015-08-05 03:30 UTC
My point is that the arguments are almost exactly the same. You could almost posit them algebraically and plug in the variables with gay marriage or this whole pay business.
I’ll be clearer and mention that I wrote “All the arguments against”, not “All your arguments against”. I wasn’t just addressing your arguments but all the arguments against that everyone has made (that I’m aware of). They are algebraically equivalent arguments for the most part.
Edited 2015-08-05 04:18 UTC
This is nothing like the gay marriage argument. I’m straight – a gay couple now having the right to get married has exactly zero effect on me. I can still get married regardless of whether gays can or can not. There is no “marriage pie” that I am being denied a fair piece of.
You can’t give someone a 250% increase of marriage at the expense of others…
I’m not going to bother restating the same arguments again, there is no point. You do not believe in the concept of the job market as a whole establishing relative wage levels, and without accepting that as a reality everything else will be lost on you.
I respect your point on view on various other things, this is just one I absolutely do not agree with you on.
So you DO have no problems with the Kardashians getting paid obscene amounts of money then.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing between “believing” and “accepting”. The market establishes relative wage levels. That is a fact. Doesn’t make the actual levels it establishes correct.
An above average teacher probably creates huge economic value in the near to distant future by creating future workers, inventors and entreprenuers who are educated better than previous generations. But the market does not care about the future and is so reflected in teacher’s wages. It only cares about now to the next quarter.
Furthermore, who are you to say that paying lower level workers more is against the market? The market hasn’t decided yet. Given the fact that the “market” magically saw fit to give Gravity Payments enough money so that its CEO can have millions of dollars, and the CEO saw fit to give his millions of dollars to the lower level workers, which is an internal affair and does not have an affect on the market, then that would imply the market has enough leeway to support such an action.
Either way, you’re wrong. Market values are wrong due to short-sightedness and anyone who accepts it without question are wrong. Or the market values are right, and the ability of Gravity Payments to make such an internal restructuring means it is something the market can support.
Edited 2015-08-05 05:18 UTC
These are not teachers, they are payment processors. Teachers, in my opinion, deserve far more pay. As a society we do not value their contribution enough. I can get behind a teacher pay raise. But teachers are paid by the government, by my tax dollars. They do not compete with me in the private job market. It they did somehow I would still say they should get more money – but that is because of their contribution.
I’m sorry but I can’t get behind a payment processor pay hike, one that actually would result in them making more money than 98% of teachers in this country. Their job is not that valuable, in my opinion, and my opinion is all that matters to me. It is what I make decisions based on. Where I to work at a place that paid payment processors 70k a year I would quit, because it is categorically unfair to people who pursued expensive educations to aquire skills to become valuable to their employer only to be snubbed as “selfish”. f–k that.
Edited 2015-08-05 05:58 UTC
The whole company is a payment processor. That’s what Gravity Payments do. It’s in their bleeding name. Were you to work at that company, you would also be a payment processor.
Did you even read the other article? The CEO decided to give some of his money away because one of his friends who worked there couldn’t pay for her EXPENSIVE EDUCATION at 40k a year and still pay the rent.
So hypothetically, what would make your expensive education at a payment processor like Gravity Payments more deserving than this person’s expensive education? Remembering that you both work for the same payment processor in this scenario and are thus making the same contributions.
Do you also want there to be some government regulations that dictate how people’s expensive educations are salaried for that ranks their education based on some other person’s sense of fairness?
Edited 2015-08-05 06:09 UTC
I never said this guy should not be allowed to do this. He has every right to do it. What I said was I thought it could have been done much better, that the way he did it was unfair, that it will almost certainly fail, and that it is perfectly understandable for some people to have quit over it.
Edited 2015-08-05 06:24 UTC
You keep asserting it was unfair, but continue to fail to demonstrate it. Your market-based arguments are flawed. And you haven’t provided any reason that there is or should be some global fairness ladder that everyone agrees on.
You were happy enough to hypothetically quit over it, which is the the market-based way of saying “you’re not allowed to do this”. You understand that right? If I don’t think a clothing company should be allowed to use child labour, I take my money elsewhere. It is the same with quitting.
Edited 2015-08-05 06:30 UTC
Which is all I said in the first place… The people that quit have every right to. You think using child labor is wrong (so do I). I think that paying people arbitrarily and ignoring contribution is wrong. Its just as wrong as paying men more than women for doing the same job, for exactly the same reasons. It doesn’t jive with my concept of fairness.
It seems the problem people have with it is that they know about it. If they didn’t know about it, they would be fine with it.
And I didn’t say they didn’t have a right to. I’m saying anyone who does are egotistical arseholes. As is my right to say so. Just like this CEOs actions can be protested against by those employees who quit, people from society are allowed to protest against those employees who quit by naming them for what they are.
Edited 2015-08-05 06:54 UTC
…and now we resort to name calling.
Even when the article comes out about this whole thing failing (and it will fail), you will still think it was the right thing to do.
Yeah, being unemployed is better that making a perfectly reasonable 30k a year (which is what most of them made before, which is already double minimum wage).
What does this even mean? No one was fired. People quit. What even is your point?
Because other payment processor companies, the ones that pay their people market rates (which for this particular job is just slightly above minimum wage), will eventually put this guy out of business because he has artificially created a barrier to future growth.
You think that staff overhead is magically cancelled out by him funding it with his salary? What happens when the million dollars runs out and he still needs more people to meet demand? How does he pay them? There is no more CEO salary to rob, he already gave it all up…
The only way this works is if increasing base pay by 450% over the rest of the industry actually increases productivity by 450%. If it does the guy is a genius, I’m wrong (whether I think it is fair or not), and there is no point discussing anymore. But seriously, there is no way in hell that will happen.
He pretty much self destructed his company. He didn’t help his employees, he will be laying them off soon.
And what happens to his poor employees when his business folds? They have absolutely no chance in hell of getting that kind of income anywhere else. I hope to hell they were all smart and just squirreled away half of it, because if they get used to actually living on 70k a year they are going to regret it…
If he can change it the first time, he can change it back when needed. It’s not brain surgery.
Edited 2015-08-05 08:36 UTC
And you think that doesn’t have consequences? You don’t think a lot of those people will quit in that scenario, for no other reason than just as a reaction to having their livelihood jacked with like this?
“Hey guys. Sorry, this didn’t work. We are going back to 30k a year. Cool?”
Ha.
No. Because they likely took the job because they needed it. They aren’t suddenly going to quit when they need the job even more. I think there’s something wrong with your thinkerbox if you would quit a job because money got tight again.
Remember. They’re entry level scum. They have no pride and don’t work hard blah blah.
Edited 2015-08-05 10:03 UTC
Ok, both of you. I think you’ve done it to death. Besides, have you noticed how very few of the comments here are actually about the linked article and Netflix’s policy? Take it back to the previous article, or let it drop. Neither one of you is going to get through to the other.
There is no degree that would apply to the job of payment processor… Do you even understand what it is? You open an envelop, you key in some shit, you open the next envelop, you key in some shit…
If they have expensive degrees, they are not relevant to this job. They will be busily looking for another job in the interim where their degree will be valued, just like everyone else does. It sucks, but it is reality.
Edited 2015-08-05 07:14 UTC
Everyone keep saying this. But they only say this because it’s a reality they want to accept. However, ff they don’t like a certain reality, they quit. As you attested to yourself.
It’s reality. You suck it up.
It’s reality. I QUIT!
That is what you don’t get. You view this as “helping” people. We call that charity. This is business. You asks earlier if he gave the his salary to charity instead, would that bother me? Nope, no at all – I would even applaud it.
Creating an unsustainable and unfair pay structure in his company though? That is completely different. I don’t work there because of his charitability, I work there because I choose to. Part of that revolves around how he runs the company and how that affects me. If he is going to go off and do crazy shit like this, things that do not benefit the company in the long run, I wouldn’t have any confidence in his leadership.
So people who don’t have degrees blah blah get free money is okay as long as they’re out of mind.
Sure you do! Give all your money to charity. Do you eat out sometimes? Stop doing that! Poor people can’t afford that… Ever go see a movie? Poor people don’t get to do that, why should you? How can you stand even having a computer to type this on knowing that millions of people will never even see one?
I’m not implying your a hypocrite, you are one. If you are affluent (and you said you were) you are by definition a hypocrite – because you ridicule people for not making sacrifices that you won’t personally make yourself. All affluent people are hypocrites that hold your world view, because rationally you cannot be affluent and justify your world view.
Come back when you have shed all the cozy comforts your affluence grants you, then you can take the high road. Until then you are just a lucky guy who got an education and took advantage of it to get ahead – just like me.
And? I fully realize I’m lucky. That’s why I don’t argue like some do that people’s salaries perfectly reflects their worth and that the market is a divine perfection. That’s why I don’t look down on people with janitorial jobs, or road work jobs like some people do. And I certainly don’t require people to look down upon just so I can feel pride about my opinion of myself like some people do.
Edited 2015-08-05 10:43 UTC
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.
Lets try this:
Your employer pays you some amount. It is more than some other people get. You don’t think that is fair to them – they work just as hard as you do. Yet you do nothing about it. Your are a hypocrite.
My employer pays me some amount. It is more than some other people get. I actually think that IS fair. My employer decides nope, its not – you should get the same amount as everyone else. If I don’t quit I’m a hypocrite.
Which one of us is a hypocrite?
You can call me anything you want, except a hypocrite. That’s you buddy.
I called you a hypocrite because you seemed okay with name calling when you do it, but not okay when another person does it. That’s hypocrisy, arsehole. Don’t whinge just because you got exposed as one. Suck it up. It’s reality.
So you have no control over your own life? You have to wait for your employer to take action to right a wrong?
Yep. Your a hypocrite.
Mmm. Smells of desperation.
My arguments are clear. Keep misrepresenting them if you need to.
Yeah… It’s funny. We in denmark are “unionized”, yet no one want’s to strike, as every rule regarding paycheck, and everything else. Is a compromise between everyone.
You are confusing market value and “intrinsic value” which are two very different things. This is basic economics. Yes, teachers are important, but they are also a dime a dozen, and the skills required to become a teacher are not as scarce as the skills required to be a rocket scientist (for example). So rocket scientists are paid better. Market value is all about the intersection of supply and demand. The less the supply and the more the demand, the higher the market value. Nothing to do with “contribution to society”.
So to recap, Economics is primarily concerned with the allocation of scarce resources. Fortunately for the Kardashians, they are scarce (they is really only one of them) and they are in demand, so they are paid very well. If demand fell, then so would their salaries (earnings). So if you have a problem with anyone for making the Kardashians rich, it should be with everyone who demands Kardashians.
Gahg. This kind of argument makes me want to beat my head against a wall.
Will you please get over it already! Life is unfair. The universe is unfair. Just get over it.
If the world were to take this kind of argument seriously, there would be no social security payments for the poor, because oh, it’s unfair to those people who have to work for low wages if others are given money for nothing.
And more… Charities, health care, education… all of these things can be grossly unfair because some people get a better deal out of them than others. So I guess we should just scrap them all entirely, right?
Exactly. Unless it’s you. Then you’ll raise a fuss instead of getting over it and refuse to see the irony.
Slaves – get over it! Life is unfair.
Child brides – get over it! Life is unfair.
Funny how only affluent* people have the supposed bravery to tell everyone else to face reality.
* I’m quite affluent myself.
Edited 2015-08-05 09:41 UTC
There are no social security payments for the poor in the US, at least not directly. That is called welfare, and if you make 30k a year (which is what these guys made before the raise), unless you have 6 kids you make too much to even qualify for it. I don’t think you guys understand how much 30k a year is. I raised a family of 3 for at least a few years on not much more than that, and I didn’t need welfare to do it… It was hard, but it wasn’t poverty.
A young guy/girl making 30k a year in the US is far from poor. If that were household income maybe, but the days of moms staying at home and raising the kids in the US ended about 3 decades ago. If you and the wife both made 30k, you are making 10k more than the median for the country…
The problem is upward mobility. Giving entry level people 70k a year and doing it by denying any upward mobility is criminal. They will never make much more than that where they are, because the guy says anyone who thinks they deserve more is selfish. They will certainly never make it anywhere else either, but at least in other jobs they can take on more responsibility and work themselves up the ladder. The ladder in most companies has rungs… This guy is putting all the rungs right next to each other.
You do realize don’t you that Social Security is not a system where we just give people money right? It is a long-term savings plan in a manner of speaking. Out of every paycheck my social security payments are deducted. When I retire, I get a percentage of those back to assist me financially then.
Trying to compare Social Security to this situation is ignorance at best.
I noticed that too. If the janitor at my company suddenly makes exactly what I make when he was making half that before, good. He has to deal with literal shit all day, when I only have to deal with figurative shit. His pay has no direct bearing on me, my family, or my lifestyle, so more power to him!
I wish all CEOs would drop their pay to match their lowest paid employee (they get to keep their stock options so their success is in line with the company’s success; if they work harder, they make more money). That would be the ethical, honorable thing to do.
I think this is a wonderful and progressive policy, but it is really “up to a year of paternity leave” ^aEUR” not unlimited.
Be careful with mixing European expectations with American announcements!
Any US company giving these “unlimited” freedoms actually has the opposite in mind – and that’s my personal opinion, which I may add:
“Unlimited Vacation/leave/sick” policies have a little add-on: “… as long as it doesn’t negatively affect business..” or similar wording. Which actually means the following: if you go away for a certain amount of time, and business does NOT suffer, you’re actually not needed and hence you have no place in this company…
The truth is, companies like Best Buy, Netflix, etc… (publicly traded, if I may add) all boast how much they actually REDUCED their staff’s paid-time-off with their “unlimited” policies! How much MORE they actually get out of “them”, etc…
On the other hand: if staff members have their annual 2 or 3 weeks off (yes guys, that’s right, 2 weeks – not months! Not only that, but if you actually take 2 weeks in a row, your “work friends” look at you strangely), they’re expected to take that in a given year – it’s kinda predictable.
So, my advice: if any-(European?)-body hears of these “unlimited” nonsense coming from any of these publicly traded US companies, keep in mind that the shareholders do NOT appreciate CEOs giving away “their” money… So, if it wouldn’t help their bottom line, they’d give them the boot, not a bonus, which CEOs generally prefer…
That’s all. But as said above: It’s my personal opinion – but I think it makes a lot of sense.
Cheers.
Your not wrong…
Best post I’ve read in a long time. That’s the real world my friends.
And I have the same doubts as you about this “revolutionary” policy. My humble opinion: pure marketing BS.
That is a wierd way of stating a year leave. Also by not stating an explicit time period there is possibility for managers to “encourage” shorter terms.
This system is basically the same that every citizen here in Finland is entitled to by law. Mothers get about 10 months of paid leave, though fathers are given only a couple months.
Now, I would like to know just how much Netflix are going to pay to those who decide to take leave from work.
Edited 2015-08-05 07:07 UTC
Paid? Where does it read “paid”…???
It kind of says so in Thoms comment: it’s great to see a small number of them investing that money back into their own employees
I think Thom assumed that Netflix would actually pay them, but they don’t. All they get is a “you are officialy still working here, come back later” piece of paper. Think of it as a “sabbatical”.
This is great PR but just as much in the interest of Netflix (hiring people is expensive, keeping people in the backroom is free) as for their employees
Scrolling through the hierarchy of sources, I found another site claiming that this Netflix policy is about ‘paid leave’.
This move by Netflix is a great thing. We in denmark, all can take leave for up to one year, pr. child.
Now..
This is not one year for each parrent. The first 14 day’s, the mother is not allowed to work, because of the bond that she has to create between her and the child.
The rest of the year (minus those 14 day’s) can be equally shared between the two parent’s.
And the two parent’s can decide when and how the leave can be held within the child’s first year.
On some workplaces, you can even decide when the leave is being held, up to, when the child is 18 years old.
And I can not say this too often. It has done wonders for me as a parent, and for my children.
We benefitted really great by this, and we had the time of our lives.
I can only say: Go Netflix, you did a real smart move for both parents and children. The first year of a child’s life is the most important of all.
If people bitch about them not getting the full time, because their child is allready born…. Tough luck, not an equal life. Get ower it, accept it and be happy for you’r fellow co-worker’s and their child.
Just…. Suck it up and move on.
Would you take a year off without getting any money? This “leave” just means you (the mother) can stay home without getting fired. It doesn’t say you get paid – neither from the employer nor the government…
Only difference to get fired is: the health insurance is still (good) there and you cannot collect unemployment money (bad).
Finally, the US is the only Industrialized Nation, where the new parents get no PAID leave whatsoever.
Just FYI – since you consider this “nice”
The quote from Netflix (taken from the article)
So yup, paid.
Oh, I should’ve RTFA!
I was fuming spiteful that unpaid time off would be such advancement, but if it is paid then it is an incredibly generous deal. Even when compared with most of Europe, where paternity leave is often nonexistent and maternity is in general fully paid but only a for a few months (4 in Spain, for example, though it is one of the shortest in Europe).
Does the statement that you can return part time mean you can take 6 months fully off and then 12 more half-time? If both parents work at Netflix will they total 24 paid months off?
Well, you know, I would still like to believe in the good of companies, but I just have gotten disappointed too often – especially (but not only) in the US…
Here’s the thing: they (Netflix) do state, that they will “keep paying them normally”, but that’s somewhat ambiguously mentioned in the same line as part-time and full-time… Which immediately triggers in me the thinking, that women are “allowed” to reduce their workload without much of a fuzz while “adjusting” the pay to actually worked hours (hard to understand for Europeans, but that’s actually considered a “benefit” in the US).
So, without wanting to perform US bashing (a country and people I truely love), parental leave is absolutely abysmal in the US and pretty much non-existent!
My related experience is the following: Many years ago, I (middle aged white male) was a young 1st time father once, and wanted to take a month off (yes, a month, not a year!). Since my wife was already taking her leave-of-absence (max 6 months, no pay, only health insurance covered) in addition to her vacation (3 weeks, paid, yeah – groovy baby), I too wanted to spend some time in a row with my first-born. Oh boy, I did NOT expect that shit-storm that I received from my boss and my boss’ boss – not to mention that we were living of savings during this time (wifey wasn’t paid and neither was I during the 4 weeks), I even survived the next layoff round but not the following one…
So, that said, I have my serious doubts about that “unlimited leave” regarding pay and duration. But hey, maybe I do that company utterly wrong, they are actually social (to Americans that sounds like Communism and therefore ranks near child abuse) – but I have my serious and well-founded doubts…
That’s all. If I’m wrong, I apologize and hence shall live with my foot in my mouth…
Yep, I read it that same way. Your salary will be “normal”, so if you work 3 out of 30 days you will get paid 3 out of 30 days, not get paid 30 out of 30 days.
Lets call it a zero-hour contract where YOU can decide when you work, not the boss….actually that sounds pretty good
Uhmmm… I dunno. Mmmm. Hmmm…
Can you say one year PAID parental leave, earnig 80% of you’r normal income as the norm, for every working man and woman.
Don’t know about you. This is just the way we have it in Denmak in general.
Yeah… I know life is a bit unfair for the CEO’s here, making millions.
And there was me thinking this article was a but out of place on OSAlert.com but clearly it has sparked plenty of discussion!
This is something that Samsung (or any Korean companies) will never do.
We have this as a standard right in the UK and you can split the 52 weeks between the mother and father (makes sense if the mother earns more, for example). I almost find it odd that this is still considered news worthy in the US.
Unless something has changed you are almost right.
I think that for paternity leave you have to state what you are planning on doing in advance:
a) Taking 2 weeks. (The previous entitlement)
b) Splitting part of the 52 weeks with the mother.
the new rules only came in in April
Sure. I’m sure they’ll just let anyone in who wants to move. No problem.
This will back fire on Netflix…Just saying…
How so? Like the blunderbuss in a Daffy Duck cartoon, where he sticks his finger in the end and it blows up in Elmer Fudds face? Will it cause them to suddenly no longer produce some of the best internet-exclusive television shows in the world? Will Kevin Spacey up and leave in protest? Or do you mean politically motivated asshats deride it without any evidence simply because it hurts their feely feels and doesn’t fit their biases?
I like that they’re actually considering both the mother and father in this. The more we can move towards gender equality, the better. In this country at the moment, new mothers are saints but, if you’re a new father and you want some time off to spend with that new baby of yours, then god help your tainted soul. At least, that’s how most US business owners see it. Nice to see at least one business pushing back against this inequality.
Why are those who have children rewarded with the massive bonus of a year’s pay for no work? If you want to attract top talent – pay them more, and they can use that pay to take some time off to have a kid – or to take some time off to go backpacking in Asia. No discrimination.
And BTW, I have three kids.
Edited 2015-08-05 19:44 UTC
Have you read about Netflix company culture?
http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
I think this parental benefit is completely consistent with the company culture detailed right there.
They pay a lot of money to their employees; they seek top people working for them; they look for passion and commitment to the company; so this is one extra bonus for the people working there.
Clap, clap, clap, clap. 1 year is insane and It will not work in the real world. IMHO this is pure marketing BS, in practice nobody will take a full year I don’t care what Netflix says… I want to see how these “wonderland” policies are implemented by low-level managers in the real world, they take the decision at the end…
IMHO what @SpaceDudeAlien describes in his post is 100% real, that’s how vacations/leaves work in American companies. And It’s insane.
I’m pretty anti-European myself and I’m not a socialist at all, but in this particular regard, I think Europe works much better than ‘merica. Vacations and parental leaves must be determined by law with a realistic amount of time. Not 1 year, not 1 week, something smart and good for the people and for the companies too (France is a good example, I like their system).
Vacations, parental leaves, medical leaves, medical care, umemployment subsidies, compensations for dismissal, public transportation… Those hippy euro socialist robots are really busily trying to destroy society!
Police and Army, that’s all they should get! Or maybe they could do with a shotgun in their closet. Slackers! They should all be living under a bridge and eating off charity, if at all, the day they stopped amassing money for the Corporations.
Well, they are socialists and they are destroying society I have no doubt about it. Obviously, all started to explode from the South.
Seriously, EU countries are totally f–ked-up, living with social privileges that they cannot afford… finger pointing weak southern countries to hide the real mess they’ve created. The EU is a complete fantasy.
But the really sad part is that you cannot discuss about it, in EU people are brainwashed (even the smart educated people). If you say the truth, like Yanis Varoufakis or Jean Marie Le Pen does (’cause it’s not a right/left problem), then you are crazy, you are an extremist nazi/communist anti-Euro satanist and you must shut the f–k up. People and major political parties don’t want to discuss the system, the UE and the Euro are sacred!! Don’t dare to question it!! (no kidding, even new left-wing political parties like “Podemos” in Spain defend the Euro!! It’s crazy).
US is f–ked-up too for sure… but the great thing about ‘merica is that you can discuss everything, there’s no unquestionable truth, people question the system everyday. In America you can discuss politics, political parties discuss politics, brains are still working there. In the EU there’s no political discussion, there is a religion called Euro and that’s all. Obey!
It’s so sad for me, seeing great countries like France surrendered to that stupid German fundamentalism, political parties are empty of ideas, they just create excuses to maintain the Euro-fiction… when I see what they are doing to Greece I wanna cry really. I cannot believe it. I don’t expect much from Germany… but France?!?! French society created modern thinking!! Why are they accepting all this shit?!?!
Sorry about this big digression, but I think americans must be more proud than ever of the great nation that they have (with or without vacation leaves xD)
Edited 2015-08-08 03:54 UTC
Sure, very proud of the country that permanently changed “fraternity” for “selfishness” in the French Revolution ideals you say you admire so much. Where slavery was only finished with when it stopped being practical in a modern industrial society. Where protecting social rights is considered preposterous. Where spending money in other than “self” is unimaginable, outside petty little private charities. Where environmental destruction runs unfettered because whatever the destruction outside or down, it may never touch the pockets of up. Where Justice is a joke where lawyers make millions. Where you can discuss everything so long as it doe not touch the deep pockets of the affluent.
Anyway, the very sad fact that there is a LePen with so many votes seems to contradict your statements of lack of discussion or lack of alternatives. But your problem is not without lack of discussion, is that you do not tolerate agreement other than in your own (selfish) beliefs. Sadly, your faction is winning, and justice, and the world, losing.
They are not receiving a years pay for no work.
No work is no pay.
Working every monday only gives you 20% pay
Audio doesn’t work with Netflix on my PS3.
My other set top box is a Nexus player and it keeps logging me out after every single program I watch (if I let it run to the end which is typical of TV shows when you just want it to start playing the next one).
Everybody is complaining about Netflix on the Nexus Player and its been broken for months.
1
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Synapse)