That notion of paying workers a minimum salary of $70k seemed like a good idea at the time

Just turn cardiac surgeons into "coders." That's the going re-training strategy these days for those with minimal technical skills.

 

Same reason I resented the fact an intern once made more per hour than I did as a full-time worker. (although I obviously made more overall). I didn't have anything against her personally, but my feelings were certainly hurt and I lost all respect for management when I found out. (I also didn't respect the fact I was told in the first place)

 

In my first job on the tenure track, about a month in I learned that they'd paid another guy, like me in his first full-time gig, about $3K a year more than me. Unlike me, however, he had yet to complete his doctorate (he wound up needing four more years to do so) and had published 'nary a paper (I already had a couple of good ones). I resented the hell out of that, even though I had been THRILLED with the gig to begin with. To this day I am ashamed at how much it bothered me.

 

Well, the full story is a lot less sensational. The gist of it was our paper was bought by a larger chain so all new "hires" were paid under their payscale while the old guard was under the old scale. Everyone (or at least me and the other person I asked) was brought up to the larger paper's scale. Second of two pay raises I ever received in this business (the first being my first year). But for about 3-4 months, the intern made more than me (don't get me started on the fact the "internship" last over two semesters, something I didn't notice until years later.

 

Why be ashamed?

That's how women feel all the time, except they get paid even less for the same job.

Wear pink tomorrow as a show of solidarity.

 

Because: 1) the salary was by far the biggest I'd ever had; and b) I was thrilled with it until I found out someone else got more.

Not one of the prouder periods of my life.

 

I wouldn't be proud of it but I wouldn't be ashamed, either. I mean, money is the way your employer shows how much it values you. If it values someone else with lesser credentials more than you, damn right you should resent it.

 

This should work out well:

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.


We want employees to have the flexibility and confidence to balance the needs of their growing families without worrying about work or finances. Parents can return part-time, full-time, or return and then go back out as needed. We’ll just keep paying them normally, eliminating the headache of switching to state or disability pay. Each employee gets to figure out what’s best for them and their family, and then works with their managers for coverage during their absences.

Netflix US & Canada Blog: Starting Now at Netflix: Unlimited Maternity and Paternity Leave

Slate is already worried:

In practice, though, companies that have instituted unlimited vacation often find that employees end up taking less time off than they did when they had well-defined vacation allowances. What's more, employees feel guilty for the time they do take off. When you add in the resentment that parents often face—or fear facing—when they take time off or embrace a flexible schedule to tend to their families, unlimited parental leave could make life more stressful for new parents. If that new mom down the hall came back full-time after only six weeks of leave, will you look like a slacker if you take four months and ramp back up with a three-day-a-week schedule?

Netflix unlimited parental leave: It's nice, and also a terrible idea.

 

Not sure. Millenials might take the whole year off and feel zero remorse.

 

I interviewed at a place about 5 years ago that gave unlimited vacation. And they meant it. I know someone who works there, and it's apparently great. But she also said that people took way fewer vacation days than they have at previous jobs, as the Slate article mentions. Not that it has anything to do with Netflix's new policy, but yeah. That's true.

 

Yeah, Vox sees it for that trap it is as well:

But Netflix is also engaging in a trend that's at best silly and at worst actively harmful to workers: the idea of "unlimited" leave or vacation.

Obviously no leave is truly unlimited. That's what it means to have a job. So in practice there are limits. Netflix, for example, gives its supposedly "unlimited" benefits "during the 1st year." Giving employees a full year off is good! But it's not what the word "unlimited" means.

It's also not the same thing as Netflix saying explicitly, "new parents aren't supposed to work the first year after the birth or adoption of their child." It's still optional. While you could, in theory, take the whole year off, are Netflix employees actually going to do that? Or are they going to feel pressure to get back on the job sooner, lest they fall behind their childless colleagues?

This is the basic problem with "unlimited" leave: it replaces clear, predictable limits with limits imposed by vague and arbitrary social pressure to work more.

The problem with Netflix's new "unlimited" parental leave - Vox

 

That will never be limited to a single generation.