Leave is tied to having children because having children means you can't walk away or take a break. The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything.
In your example, if you were sick or didn't feel like it for the day, you could just choose not to go in. You simply don't get that choice with kids.
> The time off with your child isn't time you get to choose - instead, you're at the beck and call of a helpless human who relies on you for everything.
You chose to have a child. Why should our employer subsidize that choice any more than my choice to go to India for a few months to 'find myself' or whatever.
A co-worker explained it thusly: if you want to attract folks who have (or plan to have) children, you have to offer them a way to do so while working for you... Or they'll go with a different employer who does. Of course, in the past it's been common for NO ONE to offer such benefits, which also works. If you simply don't care about attracting parents, you can not offer these benefits (though nowdays you'll be limited in how much you can cut them by various employment laws).
If you want a job that gives you a few months off every year or so to go on a spiritual journey, then your best bet is to negotiate that up-front, keeping in mind that - like parents - you'll be reducing the number of places willing to hire you by doing so.
Don't like it? I don't blame you. But I can tell you about plenty of folks who lost their jobs when they had kids and didn't like it either.
Negotiate for that benefit. I don't control what benefits my employer provides to my colleagues.
I have a colleague who got a sabbatical that wasn't tied to family leave. This is with a mainstream industrial company, and he was a mid level engineer.
I've noticed something at my workplace. Granted, I don't know what it's like in Silicon Valley, but I work for a fairly large employer in the Midwest. There are certain jobs like Project Manager, that are just grueling -- thankless, boring, stressful, with the potential for long hours. Without exception, the people with those jobs, are parents of kids. I've seen more than one engineer, including myself, apply for one of those jobs upon the birth of a kid. A single colleague was complaining to me about the lack of advancement, and I suggested that he should become a Project Manager. He said: "Are you kidding? I like my evenings and weekends."
People without kids often leave the company in pursuit of jobs that are more fun or risky.
There's a chance that without various family benefits (health insurance is probably the biggie), parents of kids would compete aggressively for jobs with higher pay and better benefits. So the imbalance would materialize anyway.
As for benefits that the employer is required to provide, lobby for them. Vote. Parents are a significant political force. We vote. But in addition, there has historically been a policy argument for encouraging relatively affluent people to have kids. Today's kids are the people who will pay for your retirement, through payroll taxes and working for the companies that comprise your 401(k).
I don't think my employer should give me paid leave to go to India for a couple of months. That's ridiculous. Similarly would-be parents should save up the cash ahead of time and go on unpaid leave or quit their jobs upon the birth of the child.
Same as anyone else that wants to stop working to focus on something expensive and time-consuming in their personal lives.
We don’t know what conditions are sufficient to improve humanity’s lot, but, like it or not, we do know that having and raising children is a necessary one. It is also the only such useful contribution that most people are capable of making. Ergo, enlightened/progressive[1] policies will spend most prescriptive effort in at least encouraging people to raise the children that they already have and at least not discouraging them from having as many as they can raise well.
Basic research and public invention also seem to be necessary conditions for “capital-P” Progress[2], but since far fewer people are capable of such contribution, it would be a mistake to provide equal subsidy. Indeed, given the comical brevity of human lifetimes, it might even be kind of evil.
Finally, it’s easy to forget that the actual purpose of business is to do whatever the owner wants[3]. If I am an enlightened owner, it seems obvious that I should help people raise kids (for the benefit of humanity), even though it makes my individual life marginally less enjoyable. On the other hand, allowing anyone to take off work to go and pursue some personal interest also makes my life marginally less enjoyable, but since there is no clear societal benefit, I should, at best, remain neutral; and that’s why we childless people are usually and justly screwed.
[1] Keep in mind that The Enlightenment was literally about using reason to improve humanity.
If I am an enlightened owner, it seems obvious that I should help people raise kids (for the benefit of humanity), even though it makes my individual life marginally less enjoyable.
Indeed. And I don't think it contradicts what you say, to suggest that it could make your life more enjoyable in the longer term. Those kids are your future customers, employees, and neighbors. And, their parents are an economic and political force to be reckoned with.
Paid leave is actually just a life insurance plan, similar to health insurance. It exists because we don't have government programs in USA, and the economy depends on general social stability and continuity. Social Security is a similar example that is government run in USA. When you get old you might rely on it.
Now I understand, and I noticed that the article is talking about paid leave. Still, paid or unpaid, it's negotiable. A person who wants to stop working could presumably do so, but a lot of workers find it desirable to balance career and family.
Neither my spouse nor I had paid leave. We both banked cash and vacation days. She took unpaid leave, and I burned up my vacation time. I didn't quit my job per se, but did rearrange my job situation to accommodate the needs of an expanded family: I got myself promoted, took a few months off my second job, and designed a new product for my side business.
Because a policy around leave for births is easy to make black and white. Additionally, it's a lifetime commitment for parents so it's not likely people will rack up a bunch of births just for time off. Although I do wonder how some of these companies with generous benefits for parents would handle someone who has 10 babies.
And most of this is an extension of what workers have been fighting for for a long time and already recognized throughout many areas of law.
In your case, I'd recommend taking a job with an "unlimited vacation" company and calling their bluff.
For example, its very difficult (aka impossible) to get equivalent leave as a child-less employee to pursue our passions for a month or two.
Note: I am not talking about taking a vacation. I am talking about taking leave to go volunteer in a literacy program (in my case).
Said another way, why is leave tied to having kids?