Why would firing someone who's on paternity leave be an issue at all? We're talking multi-millionaires who will get multi-million dollar severance.
It's pretty hilarious to see the pearl clutching of techno-bourgeoisie over something like this, pretending other tech-lords are getting mistreated over some supposed breach of decorum. The mere fact that he gets to take parental leave puts him head and shoulders above most workers in the country.
Parental leave, high salary, severance... where do I sign up for some of this "truly awful" treatment?
HN: "Firing a millionaire on paternity leave—and by "firing" I mean continuing to pay for the rest of their leave, plus probably a bunch of severance—is horrible!"
99% of the rest of the US: "WTF is paternity leave? Is that when your boss generously lets you use some of your annual leave for part of the week in which your kid is born?"
Many states in the US have family leave (including paternity leave). California is more than 10% of the US population and the rules for paternity leave are extremely broad:
- Welcomed a new child into the family in the past 12 months through birth.
- Paid into State Disability Insurance (noted as "CASDI" on most paystubs) in the past 5 to 18 months.
- Not taken the maximum eight weeks of PFL in the past 12 months
Insinuating that 99% of the US lacks paternity leave is disingenuous.
Nice, didn't know about that. Expanded-qualification FMLA-like unpaid leave and more limited provisions for paid leave, for some workers, is pretty good compared to most of the country.
I think the issue is more that firing someone during paternity leave discourages others at your company from taking paternity leave, not that this person is in some way financially devastated from the firing.
It's only through birth? I didn't know that and would have expected CA to do better. E.g. adopting a young child or baby. And does surrogacy count as birth?
Lack of empathy between wage workers, pitted against other wage workers, perpetuates this.
These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california income + top federal income + additional taxes). Not the ones with multiple orders of magnitude more money that get taxed at 4%.
Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to fall for the division.
> These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california income + top federal income + additional taxes).
Since income taxes are graduated, there is literally no one that pays 55%. Instead, you just approach that rate as your income rises (and never reach it since your front income is taxed at lower rates).
> Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to fall for the division.
Sticks, stones. I'm rubber, you're glue. Et c.
I'm well aware of the problem of false divisions distracting from the very real and much more important class war, but the level of concern on this one's still kinda silly, considering the broader context. Besides, I'm with the faction that'd rather get this news during paternal leave, than on the first week, or even month, back. Provided any pay for the leave—assuming at least some portion of it was paid—continued, anyway, which I expect it will unless they really want to risk a lawsuit for little benefit.
Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security. It's part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation. I never really feel bad for executives who are fired, even for unfair reasons -- it's just part of what they sign up for.
>Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security.
I would say that in the US labor market having no job security is the norm rather than the exception, so it seems peculiar to couch it as "part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation".
I don't see the issue either. In a fancy job like this it seems much better to get fired now so he can calmly plan his next move, instead of them waiting for him to return and then firing him, which would just waste everyone's time.
That there is high compensation attached to this job is unrelated to the principal of firing an employee on family leave.
Companies are having to hold the line on what we value in this country, as legislation from environmental to health is not keeping up.
Twitter is specifically of note because the CEO recently had a child and rightfully took paid leave himself.
Whatever your personal opinions are on Elon Musk, he is very influential.
The man has six children and a varying track record on how he has communicated his views and personal use of parental leave and the role of the father following the birth of a child.
I thought they paid him something in the 10's of millions range to bring him on through periscope?
I thought the comp packages were more in the single digit millions range for these folks, and stock oriented. My guess is they've taken bigger losses on just the general stock market decline than most, though for those who hold twitter I personally think Elon is wildly overpaying (as usual, see solar city) and they will make out like bandits as a result there.
Assuming that being fired while on paternity leave is even notable as a tragedy is a very 2022 thing.
People can disagree on whether paternity leave is a good, bad, or indifferent thing, but it didn't even exist as a concept for most of humanity's existence in an official capacity. It went from being an idea, to a right, to something roughly comparable to "fired while undergoing chemotherapy" in a generation. It's odd.
There's a very weird strain of culty utopian-maximalism in our culture right now. It'd bother me less if the entire last century wasn't filled with horror stories about what can happen if this sort of childishness festers too much.
I assume it's yet another consequence of social media's effect on culture: being as hysterical as possible has suddenly become heavily rewarded. The downstream effects on broader political culture (and culture in general) are utterly fascinating to me.
"Fired while on paternity leave" hurts a hell of a lot less when you're a mega millionaire who will be able to walk into a leadership position anywhere he likes, but it still sucks.
Does it really suck? His leave is getting paid and he's getting severance, which is essentially more paid leave. He can spend more time with his child. He might actually find it preferable. Having recently went on paternity leave myself, I would love to have more paid time with my child.
My point is there's never a "good time" to get fired from a job you don't want to leave. GP doesn't like that this guy was fired on parental leave. OK so fire him on his first day back? There's never a time that won't "suck."
When you have enough money to stop working and still be able to comfortably feed and shelter the next few branches of your family tree I'd say it doesn't suck so bad
The only positive change I can remember in the last 5 or so years (besides maybe extending the character count which I'm neutral about) is the toggle to go back to chronological tweets. You used to have to use lists of Tweetdeck, then they added an option but was hidden away or didn't stay default.
For all the hype AI/recommendations algorithms get I don't think it works well on a platform where you already choose who to follow.
Otherwise I've always wondered what the thousand Twitter employees do besides keeping the site running and advertising sales/development. Although I've never worked at a giant tech company before.
Yes. It was once somewhat pleasant to use and less algo reliant, and now it is very unpleasant to use and reading a tweet's thread has become difficult.
Presumably he presided over the only new features added to Twitter, which is more censorship and "adding context" to tweets that have a certain political slant. In any case, it's clear he did almost nothing.
Firing while on paternity leave isn't really that bad as long as they give you severance to cover paternity leave plus some extra - which I'm guessing they did since severance packages for higher ups tend to be pretty good. (As compared to no severance or two weeks that many ICs get)
I strongly disagree. Firing someone while they’re on leave sends a direct signal to anyone else considering taking leave: “watch out, you won’t be able to defend yourself if you aren’t here.”
ICs follow the lead that executives set. A chilling effect like this will cause folks who most _need_ the leave — single parents, people with family in need of care, or those struggling with their own health issues — to second-guess their choice, while those who can just walk away w/o any real risk can go ahead and try taking time away.
It also puts the lie to the idea that employer-subsidized leave beyond the federally-protected time window is an entitlement rather than an easily-canceled perk. We all know that rationally, but a BigCo obviously exploiting that trust is a good reminder that the company (any company) is not there to help you, they are not your family, and you have to be ready for this kind of “switcharoo” whenever the numbers (or politics) justify it.
If you are being fired, you generally do not "defend" yourself. Also, people at this level are very well-compensated, and the comp generally prices in the risk of things like this. Whether you are on leave or not scarcely matters unless you can show that you are fired because you are a parent (and that's an employment law issue).
It is my experience that people taking time off to be parents also take time off from the machinations that will lead getting promoted (at certain levels), thus hampering their advancement, but they are usually not fired, in tech anyway. Now the treatment of women, who already get a pretty bad deal even if they aren't mothers, is another matter altogether...
Totally disagree, primarily because Twitter offers nearly 5 months of paternity leave. I don't know when the Twitter's Head of Product originally left for paternity leave, but if it was a couple months ago, obviously the world has changed under Twitter's feet in that time.
A business can't just stop because someone is on leave. I would expect them to be treated fairly, and the same as if they were not on leave when it comes to personnel decisions. What would not be fair, to both the employee and all of their colleagues, is to say that when someone goes on leave that there is a moratorium on any changes to their status for 5 months.
The ENTIRE point of parental leave benefit is to ensure that your employment status doesn’t change while you are using it. The business doesn’t have to stop in it’s tracks, but the legal expectation is generally that you will come back to the same job you left.
So if the company has widespread layoffs (not saying that's what happened in this case), then anyone on paternal/maternal leave is automatically immune?
> This sends a horrifying message to employees.
Yeah, as someone without kids, your proposal certainly sends a horrifying message to me.
It’s not a proposal. It’s how the law works. If there are layoffs, then yes you can lose your job on parental leave, technically as long as the elimination of your position is unrelated to taking leave. I’m not saying that there is no way to do it. I’m saying that it’s a dumb thing to do.
The message should be just as horrifying whether or not you have kids. The message is: “We made a commitment about your terms of employment. We are willing to break that promise openly and publicly with one of our leaders. Do you think we won’t do it to you?”
Anyone at twitter right now should see this as a red flag at a time when everything is in flux.
Management is in chaos in the middle of a politically contentious buyout, and doing things like firing people on parental leave that will necessarily read badly in the press.
If I were at twitter right now I would be getting everything in writing, and lining up a new job that starts the day my RSUs go liquid.
You have very odd ideas about what this "commitment about your terms of employment" is.
Yes, its true, legally you can not, and should not, be penalized for taking parental leave (a point I made in my original post). At the same time, you should not get some guarantee that because you are on leave you can't be treated the same as if you were working.
If this guy would have been fired had he been working, a parental leave doesn't act like some sort of "get out of jail free" card.
From looking at his tweets, he left just over a month ago. So if he had four months left in his leave, it would have been absolutely unreasonable to wait that long.
This my feeling as well. Maybe I’m thinking too logically about all this:
A) spend paternity leave enjoying your newborn, but in the second half gearing up and remotivating to go back to work, getting back to work and being let go with a “we didn’t want to dismiss you while you were gone, thanks for coming back, here’s the door”
vs
B) you’re on paternity leave and the company lets you go, but still your leave is fulfilled (I.e you get the payout and time off). Now, instead of investing energy on the return to work, you can just move on with a “best to quit while your having fun” attitude.
I fully support paternal leave. As a father of four who despairs at a fatherless world around me, anything we can do to strengthen fathers (and equally mothers) is a great thing.
But there is a sad reality to extended leaves as well. We hire people with 6 month probationary periods, but rarely are people filtered by this. But I have been in meetings where a person on extended leave (medical, parental, whatever) and it becomes group apparent that the individual hasn’t been missed for a variety of reasons, and the consensus emerges that this “individual not being here” is actually a net win for the company and its aspirations. Do we know that that’s not what happened in this case?
I feel like you’re missing the part where I said I was father of four. I failed to mention I recently helped my oldest with newborn twins (if you’re thinking 2 is twice is hard as one, you’re wrong, it’s more like 4x).
I’ve accrued some experience with newborns. It’s a very tired time at times. It’s a time of wonderment. Especially with your first, it’s surreal, after 2 weeks you can barely remember “what was life like before this again?” But despite its otherworldliness, it’s also a lot of downtime. It’s different than normal downtime, because you’re tied to this growing little life, but it’s there. And I did indicate that it is in the latter half where having this project to work on would be ideal. Guess that’s just me and apologies if that seems insensitive. It worked for me.
He's very high up. He's not going to be suffering like the serfs below him. I've seen many let go with no severance or two weeks in a worse recession - including those who don't have a 8+ figure NW...
I mean, he apparently sold $1.5M worth of Twitter stock last week, and is estimated to hold (based on some super basic internet research) ~500k more shares, which is ~$25M in stock[0].
I think he'll be able to weather the financial impact of a recession and having a kid.
[0] Note that this is Twitter only, and wouldn't include any other form of diversified holdings.
The sheer amount of equity, cash and packaging going into Kayvon's severance is going to be princely. Additionally, he's a founder of periscopeco, so he's not without direction.
That he can take tough/unpopular calls and do what is asked or need be done. Just like being popular among techies is good thing in some circles. Being unpopular can be good in other places.
In the enterprise, if someone high ranking is going to be replaced, they're never fired unless there was company-hostile bad behavior.
If the organization is trying to move in another direction, they reorganize and reduce the role of that high ranking leader- maybe to a position where they're alone! and give that high ranking person time to make their next move comfortably.
> In the enterprise, if someone high ranking is going to be replaced, they're never fired unless there was company-hostile bad behavior.
What? Perhaps in shitty companies that are incapable of making tough decisions, but this is definitely not my experience.
On the contrary, for most cases I don't think there is much "shame" for being fired as a senior exec because a lot of times it's just that there are disagreements among senior leadership about where to take the company, and so it's better to have people leave who aren't on board with the company direction than to have those disagreements fester.
You're thinking firing for cause. These two were probably told that they would no longer run their divisions, here's a nice severance package if you want to leave. What are they gonna do, stick around in a lower role?
Pretty laughable, considering Parag as CTO presided over the slowest product velocity at pretty much any major tech company. The product is almost unchanged, except additional censorship, since he started as CTO in October 2017.
With that track record, one must assume his head will be one of the first on the chopping block.
I don't see slow change as a net negative. It's not necessarily positive, either, but not trying to fix things that work perfectly well is a good mantra (looking at you, Google).
Also, he was recently promoted to CEO, which would be strange if the common opinion at Twitter was that he failed as a CTO.
Top management taking Paternity leave, and returning to work as though nothing changed after a few weeks is nothing short of great privilege.
I've seen normal employees take such leave, only return to find others have taken over their work, and by all means they are no longer needed and they have start working their way into the team all over again.
Paternity leave is more or less a kind of paid short term temporary severance already. Sometimes the company does make it permanent.
If you are gone for weeks/months and no one feels any difference, then sometimes its an indication you were never needed at the first place.
If parental leave should legally be counted as "working" (which it is, in many jurisdictions), with pay increase, bonus and promotions being based on virtual work, then why shouldn't firing be just fine too?
Obviously not fire in any way related to parental leave, but if it's to be counted as work then it should be consistent.
100% agree. I think it's bizarre that folks think there is some kind of moratorium on getting laid off or fired if you're on leave, especially since Twitter offers 5 months of paternity leave. So everyone that is not on leave is at risk, but everyone that's on leave is magically protected?
You can't, and shouldn't, be fired for taking leave, bit obviously there are a million and 1 reasons for there to be changes in Twitter's exec leadership given what's happened over the past month.
Firing for someone for taking leave is definitely illegal.
Firing them for unrelated reasons while on leave is not.
This is true even in very progressive places like california.
Fairly specific anti-American jibe gets translated into "you hate America".
Seems you could do with a little more George Carlin in your system.
He fucking loved America....apart from the shitty bits that the rest of the world agrees with him about.
It's so lazy to hate America with a jab that is literally not true. If I get fired for going on paternity leave, I'm suing my company, and I will win - even in cRaZy America.
> Parag is on his way out too. Why is he firing his product leaders during his lame-duck period?
https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1524790595968901122