Support NeoGAF

[DCharlie]

not some woman in the work place hater man. I don't know how the law deals with these type of things. If you look at these type of situations a lot of things can happen. What if the person that took over for her was doing a far better job?

it doesn't matter - the provision isn't you go back to you old job per se, you go to an equivalent position. Could be in a completely differnet part of the firm, but they HAVE to offer you that. I am not sure of the legal text, but the idea is the role is equivalent in terms of salary, seniority, career path etc.

"not some woman in the work place hater man"

I'm not saying you are.

 

[schuelma]

Interesting. Wonder if the Japanese LAD laws are similar to the U.S, which can be quite complicated.

 

[DCharlie]

Sure, but I doubt that it dropped to $1,000. So it may be higher than $5,000. That's quite high, even for japanese standards, unless she had a top job or something. In which case she probably has an influent position. But it doesn't seem like it's the case.

Games company salaries are pretty low. Mrs Ace was offered a roll in the industry at a very very large company. However, the pay cut would have meant she would have been taking home 1/3 of the salary she was getting in her current job.

As much as she quite liked the idea of the job, no one is going to take those sort of offers.

but yeah, takin the 5000$ thing - 5-7 million pre tax would still be towards the high end of the game industry. Possibly a little more for management style/bilingual roles i guess?

 

[Gokurakumaru]

It is called FMLA. Use it.

It doesn't exist in Australia. Paid maternity leave is only just becoming legislated in 2010, up until now it was driven by enterprise bargaining agreements, i.e. included in your package or not. So forget about paternity leave.

Lots of people who are getting indignant about this are measuring things based on the U.S. or Sweden or wherever. She's in Japan. What happened to her isn't right, but it has nothing to do with maternity leave.

I've seen plenty of US companies - my own included - that give "bonding leave" to the father of a new child. For me, I think it's two weeks paid.

Can you leave for a year, get paid for 3+ months of it, and then expect your job to be waiting for you on your return though?

The fuck is wrong with some of you guys. Friendly reminder: men can't get pregnant and give birth. Think about that for a minute.

Friendly reminder: in some countries women are out working the field the day after giving birth. Long term maternity leave is a social construct which has little to do with the act of giving birth. Most women I know work up to two weeks before giving birth. Pregnancy and recovery play a role, but very shortly after leaving hospital it's all about being around to take care of the child.

She shouldn't be getting demoted she should be getting a raise (in which most countries would and should do).

What planet do you live on where you get paid higher than the person next to you based on how many children are in the photo on your desk?

 

[justchris]

Can you leave for a year, get paid for 3+ months of it, and then expect your job to be waiting for you on your return though?

Actually, I work at a company with fantastic benefits, so depending on the reason I probably could.

Friendly reminder: in some countries women are out working the field the day after giving birth. Long term maternity leave is a social construct which has little to do with the act of giving birth. Most women I know work up to two weeks before giving birth. Pregnancy and recovery play a role, but very shortly after leaving hospital it's all about being around to take care of the child.

True, but a couple of things. First, Maternity leave is not long term, not for most companies. 60-90 days at best, so around the same amount of time as Short Term Disability. Also, while it is a social construct, it exists because the society has grown and changed. As a society develops to a point where the number of manual laborers decreases, it will naturally gravitate towards a gentler work schedule overall. I mean, minimum wage, paid holidays, vacation time and weekends are all social constructs as well, but they're also all good ideas. Over time it is possible to, you know, improve society and our quality of life.

 

[Lightning]

:She shouldn't be getting demoted she should be getting a raise (in which most countries would and should do). I mean seriously if this okay than where in the hell does this line end? Would you have problem with disabling minimum wage? Or working young adults to a near full day? I mean this is an "economic matter" right?

What crap is this? A raise because she has a child that has nothing to do with the company? While I do not agree with what Konami have done here, there is no way she should be getting any raises or special treatment because she just had a child. Things should have just carried on as normal once she returned to work after maternity leave and things should have only changed if the child started to get in the way of her work, at which point Konami are well within their rights to take action, imo.

In what countries do you get a raise at work because you have a child (You certainly do not get any raises for that here)? The mere thought of that is laughable. Ones pay should be based on merit, performance, work ethic etc... but nothing to do with how many children one has or happens to have during employment. You will end up with women deliberately getting pregnant just so they could get a pay rise. It's nonsense.

 

[Jonnyram]

In what countries do you get a raise at work because you have a child (You certainly do not get any raises for that here)? The mere thought of that is laughable. Ones pay should be based on merit, performance, work ethic etc... but nothing to do with how many children one has or happens to have during employment. You will end up with women deliberately getting pregnant just so they could get a pay rise. It's nonsense.

You get a bonus for having children at many places actually. Why? Because your cost of living increases by a significant amount, and you go to work to support your living. If, all of a sudden, your cost of living increases, you need more money. If your company doesn't give you more cash, you look for another job.

 

[DCharlie]

You will end up with women deliberately getting pregnant just so they could get a pay rise. It's nonsense.

... now, i know women (actually : girls) in my home town who deliberately get pregnant to get up the housing chain, trap a man, and never have to work, but ... they're allowed to operate that way as that's the arse of the universe.

However, most SANE people aren't going to deliberately get pregnant for a payrise (or the baby bonus). Come on now.

 

[Slavik81]

This is always a tough issue for me. If you're paid $X to do job Y and, by an act of your choice, you are now unable or unwilling to do job Y, should you still be equally compensated for doing job Z instead? Presumably, the job you had was the one you were more effective in. Otherwise you should have been doing job Z to begin with.

If you should retain the same pay, despite decreased performance, that subsedy is going to have to be paid for by somebody. Those who are net contributors would be anyone who isn't receiving it. The question then becomes, do we want to force those who do not raise children to help pay for those who do? The answer, almost universally, is 'yes'.

It would be interesting to see if that were not the case, though. I could imagine a study finding that there were long-term knock-on effects of a good leave policy. Perhaps you'd make your workforce happier increasing productivity and quality of life, offsetting its cost? Or maybe guarenteed re-integration would help keep more effective people in the workforce in the long run, helping over all?

It's a pretty deep issue, and I wish there could be some legitimate debate over it without the pitchforks coming out.

What crap is this? A raise because she has a child that has nothing to do with the company? While I do not agree with what Konami have done here, there is no way she should be getting any raises or special treatment because she just had a child. Things should have just carried on as normal once she returned to work after maternity leave and things should have only changed if the child started to get in the way of her work, at which point Konami are well within their rights to take action, imo.

In what countries do you get a raise at work because you have a child (You certainly do not get any raises for that here)? The mere thought of that is laughable. Ones pay should be based on merit, performance, work ethic etc... but nothing to do with how many children one has or happens to have during employment. You will end up with women deliberately getting pregnant just so they could get a pay rise. It's nonsense.

Yeah, I'd say it would be rather silly to give a raise to someone for having a child. Having children is a choice, and if you don't want to pay for raising them, you shouldn't have them.

However, it seems rather unlikely that people would have children to get raises. A child would probably still be a net drain on their money, even if their pay did increase

You get a bonus for having children at many places actually. Why? Because your cost of living increases by a significant amount, and you go to work to support your living. If, all of a sudden, your cost of living increases, you need more money. If your company doesn't give you more cash, you look for another job.

If I choose to buy a bunch of TVs, my cost of living also increases, but my company doesn't pay me any more money.

Only if the cost of living increases to an amount at which a reasonable standard of living isn't possible should there be that sort of intervention.

 

[DCharlie]

If I choose to buy a bunch of TVs, my cost of living also increases, but my company doesn't pay me any more money.

Only if the cost of living increases to an amount at which a reasonable standard of living isn't possible should there be that sort of intervention.

yeah, as a new parent, i think some of you might not have a decent grasp on how much of a hit having a child really is.

Anyways, that's an aside - buying tv's etc. Those are luxury items. Raising a child (i.e. another tax paying, pension risk offsetting individual and general long term future of it's captive country) is a WHOLE different ball game. People don't buy Tv's then maybe Panasonic have to lay off a few people, people stop having kids ? Pension system trouble, social service reductions/ceases, health care suffers, infra goes down the pan, potential loss of native expertese etc etc. all VERY BAD things for all of us.

That is why JAPAN is trying to make big steps to raise the birth rate - it's to do with social sustainability , not that it would be nice to have some babies around the place to offset the neon/Godzilla. Hence the TV analogy doesn't really work.

 

[Lightning]

You get a bonus for having children at many places actually. Why? Because your cost of living increases by a significant amount, and you go to work to support your living. If, all of a sudden, your cost of living increases, you need more money. If your company doesn't give you more cash, you look for another job.

This is true, and the employee has every right to do that. However, one should only be paid to how much they are worth to the company and not to how many children they have. If the employee is worth enough to the company that they don't want to lose her then by all means provide incentives to stay but the company should not be forced to do that.

... now, i know women (actually : girls) in my home town who deliberately get pregnant to get up the housing chain, trap a man, and never have to work, but ... they're allowed to operate that way as that's the arse of the universe.

However, most SANE people aren't going to deliberately get pregnant for a payrise (or the baby bonus). Come on now.

My point is that it can be abused and it shouldn't be the companies problem. If certain companies are prepared to do that if the employee is worth it in their eyes, then no problem, but it should be a case to case scenario and no way should the company feel obligated to.

 

[Slavik81]

yeah, as a new parent, i think some of you might not have a decent grasp on how much of a hit having a child really is.

Anyways, that's an aside - buying tv's etc. Those are luxury items. Raising a child (i.e. another tax paying, pension risk offsetting individual and general long term future of it's captive country) is a WHOLE different ball game. People don't buy Tv's then maybe Panasonic have to lay off a few people, people stop having kids ? Pension system trouble, social service reductions/ceases, health care suffers, infra goes down the pan, potential loss of native expertese etc etc. all VERY BAD things for all of us.

That is why JAPAN is trying to make big steps to raise the birth rate - it's to do with social sustainability , not that it would be nice to have some babies around the place to offset the neon/Godzilla. Hence the TV analogy doesn't really work.

You act as if a child brings you nothing of value. A child might be expensive, but they're priceless. Do children just suck so much they can't justify themselves on their own without a raise?

I mean, it's not like you'd die without that raise. You just might have to forgo buying a new TV every few years. Maybe you'll only be able to afford to go on vacation once every few years. It's a price to pay for a son or daughter.

Spoiler

PS. A solution that depends on continuous population growth is NOT a sustainable solution.

 

[DCharlie]

My point is that it can be abused and it shouldn't be the companies problem. If certain companies are prepared to do that if the employee is worth it in their eyes, then no problem, but it should be a case to case scenario and no way should the company feel obligated to.

no it cannot
and ESPECIALLY not in JAPAN.

Here - i'll give you MY example :

we get 50,000 yen bonus from work for having our kid.

To date, we've spent WAY in excess of 3 MILLION yen on hospital fees, check ups (that are 12,000 a shot and you need ONE every week during pregnancy!), etc...

so there is NO WAY this is abusable.

of course, the 9 months of labour was a hoot, and i just dream of what i can buy with my nice $500 bonus i got!

You act as if a child brings you nothing of value. A child might be expensive, but they're priceless. Do children just suck so much they can't justify themselves on their own without a raise?

huh? i do?
EVERYTHING has a cost, and the cost of having a child in Japan is HUGE. Is it worth it? yes. Is the raise or bonus going to help? not really, no. Would a MANDATORY PAYCUT (the subject of this) help? ABSOLUTELY not.

I mean, it's not like you'd die without that raise. You just might have to forgo buying a new TV every few years. Maybe you'll only be able to afford to go on vacation once every few years. It's a price to pay for a son or daughter.

Yes, and it's all doable on my salary (and Mrs Ace's salary) and i have absolutely no problems giving up my hobbies, my free time, spending time with my friends, and my cash. Yes, it's all part of life - however, JAPAN'S SITUATION is that they want to increase the birth rate so situations like this one (pay cut/forced out) aren't acceptable.

PS. A solution that depends on continuous population growth is NOT a sustainable solution.

it doesn't have to be continous groth, you have to have an equilibrium in births for the deck of cards to sit right. We are past the point of no return on this solution.

 

[Aeana]

Are you people fucking kidding? Having a child to get a pay raise? Seriously? Are you retarded? Have you any idea how much raising a child costs?

Wait...

If I choose to buy a bunch of TVs, my cost of living also increases, but my company doesn't pay me any more money.

Apparently not.

 

[Slavik81]

Are you people fucking kidding? Having a child to get a pay raise? Seriously? Are you retarded? Have you any idea how much raising a child costs?

Wait...

Apparently not.

I'm guessing a little under half a million dollars.

 

[justchris]

You get a bonus for having children at many places actually. Why? Because your cost of living increases by a significant amount, and you go to work to support your living. If, all of a sudden, your cost of living increases, you need more money. If your company doesn't give you more cash, you look for another job.

What businesses are these, in what countries? I've never heard of this in my field, and it seems unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Lightning]

no it cannot
and ESPECIALLY not in JAPAN.

Here - i'll give you MY example :

we get 50,000 yen bonus from work for having our kid.

To date, we've spent WAY in excess of 3 MILLION yen on hospital fees, check ups (that are 12,000 a shot and you need ONE every week during pregnancy!), etc...

so there is NO WAY this is abusable.

of course, the 9 months of labour was a hoot, and i just dream of what i can buy with my nice $500 bonus i got!

Dude, I'm the father to a newly born child (few months old now), so I am getting a taste of the costs. However, why should my company fork over a bonus to me for having a baby? They shouldn't. It's not their problem. One needs to have calculated the costs required to raise a child in healthy and safe conditions before the decision to have one.

If one is in great stead with their company and they choose to help, then GREAT, but no way should it be an obligation.


It cannot be abused in the sense that you can make money but I still stand in my opinion that one should not receive anything extra from the company unless it is freely given by the company.

 

[DCharlie]

What businesses are these, in what countries? I've never heard of this in my field, and it seems unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

in the three companies i've spent any time with, all three had childbirth bonuses.

Music industry - UK
Petrochemical industry - UK
Finanace - Japan

It cannot be abused in the sense that you can make money but I still stand in my opinion that one should not receive anything extra from the company unless it is freely given by the company.

there's a few components to the company bonus - goodwill being one of them and it's not dictated by the government/law. However, we're getting a little off track , looping back to the point that a pay CUT/demotion because you had a child is -not- acceptable.

However, why should my company fork over a bonus to me for having a baby? They shouldn't. It's not their problem.

as mentioned elsewhere, employment should be seen as a two way street not a relationship where you owe the company a living. that's not how it should work. If my career stagnats because i have a child, then i go to a company who won't punish me for it. A $500 bonus is a small token, but it's worth ti for the goodwill alone.

 

[justchris]

no it cannot
and ESPECIALLY not in JAPAN.

Here - i'll give you MY example :

we get 50,000 yen bonus from work for having our kid.

To date, we've spent WAY in excess of 3 MILLION yen on hospital fees, check ups (that are 12,000 a shot and you need ONE every week during pregnancy!), etc...

so there is NO WAY this is abusable.

of course, the 9 months of labour was a hoot, and i just dream of what i can buy with my nice $500 bonus i got!

Are you people fucking kidding? Having a child to get a pay raise? Seriously? Are you retarded? Have you any idea how much raising a child costs?

I'm guessing a little under half a million dollars.

It might be important to note that bonus and raise are not the same thing. I very much agree with Lightning's statement that a child based bonus/raise should be voluntary on the part of the company, not mandatory. The cost of having a baby is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child (except, apparently in Japan, seriously a check up every week?), but that cost doesn't come all at once. A one-time bonus might help defray cost, a raise to your base pay weekly/monthly/yearly is something else entirely.

Now, obviously the situation is different in Japan where they desperately need to foster population growth or the society suffers, and with it the economy suffers, and no business wants an economy primarily composed of people who will die before they get to spend any of their money, so a bonus in that situation sounds like a good idea. An opposing situation would be China, where you get a bonus if you don't have more than one child, because they have the completely opposite population issue (although that's a government thing, not a business one).

 

[Gokurakumaru]

it doesn't have to be continous groth, you have to have an equilibrium in births for the deck of cards to sit right. We are past the point of no return on this solution.

The problem is that doesn't stop a population aging because people are living longer with every generation but still retiring at the same age. Human rights like the right to food and shelter -- even if you can't provide it for yourself -- are illusions. Societies have established unsustainable multi-billion dollar social welfare systems that while egalitarian are fundamentally unfair. The solution is to change the system, not throw babies at it. If I can't afford to take care of myself and my own family won't look after me, why the heck should complete strangers pick up the slack?

Welfare systems are just legislated pity and while I'm very grateful to live in a society where they exist the idea that these are rights and cannot change is a joke. When the world population tips 10 billion you'll see social change and/or breakdown in a big way and the perceived human rights of today will go right out the window.