That's what I'm thinking but I am not knowledgeable enough about laws vs policies to say for sure. If nothing else, he needs to report it to HR so there's a trail of abuse. NOT ok.
Cool, thanks. We were PISSED when we read his reply but also I just wanted some input from people who work in the real world in case I was somehow missing something. Some very cursory googling turned up shockingly negative articles about men taking paternity leave and it was making me question my initial response.
Well, if he actually wrote/emailed that, I'd be really tempted to take it, present it to HR, and ask them if that was their stance, and explain to them the pressure such a response has put hubby under. If his company genuinely gives a shit, I have to think that they'll stand by him and try to make it right. If not, well, not sure what to say.
He is planning to talk to his direct supervisor about it, but ultimately that particular PM doesn't have THAT much control, and if he doesn't want husband on future projects, I don't think it will be any great loss. I was just worried that this was somehow a commonly held sentiment and this one dude just didn't have the tact to pretend to be happy for us. Another PM (his favorite) is already talking about taking him out for congratulatory dinner and whiskey once the pandemic is less... pandmic-y. I just had this wild swing of I AM MAD to Did we not actually do this the right way? So now I am going to comfortably go back to being a bit mad and more confident in the fact that this is just an asshole and not some secret tech bro code that you don't take all your paternity leave.
I'd say forget the supervisor, paternity is an HR thing... go to them. That PM is opening them up to some potentially serious legal issues, and I tend to think that HR will descend on that PM with a fury as a result.
Yeah HR is the way to go. I'm sure it will vary a little from company to company, but at hub's tech corporation he had an HR person assigned to him for all steps of this leave situatio. His manager didn't even sign off on anything. The managers are not in the loop on this at all as far as the company is concerned.
Makes sense. His company has a lot of government contracts so the way they allocate hours is super rigid and unnecessarily complicated, which is why he was going to all of his project leads to make sure that the time could be accounted for ASAP. I'll encourage him to think about going directly to HR instead of his supervisor, and I do really appreciate both of you reinforcing how inappropriate the PM was.
Definitely go to HR, but I would also let my supervisor know whats going on as well to keep him informed and if he's as supportive as you indicate its additional top cover to in case the shitty PM attempts shenanigans. Is his supervisor also the shitty PM's supervisor? Also, how involved is the shitty PM with interaction with government personnel? The government won't get involved in an internal company issue, but if he has regular interaction with the government client, he can poison the well for your husband. The government won't get involved in an internal company issue, but if the PM is bad mouthing your husband, it could become a problem. In my experiences, the government usually can dictate to remove someone from a project/contract with little reason. I've seen good contractors walked out purely because someone in the right position on the government side didn't like them. I once saw it happen to a guy on his 1st day and the govie that forced the removal wasn't working with/over him. He wasn't even in the same division...he knew him from a prior unrelated contract and happened to see the contractor walking through the building.
It’s not someone in a specific government role they work with. They get contracts on projects that come from a variety of places. No one is individually submitting proposals, and they don’t all go to the same place, so I think poisoning the well on that end would be difficult. I’m sure I’m not explaining it well. But that doesn’t worry me as much. I think as long as he addresses it within the company it should be ok. He’s been there longer (though in a more junior role) and gets along with pretty much everyone. This is the first time he’s worked directly with this project manager and they don’t report to the same person. Husband was clearly shocked enough by the email to share it with me, which is not something he would usually do, and my response was similar. I just know that a lot of you guys here work in the tech world and would have better insight about whether that was just the general (shitty) cultural expectation, or whether this is just a specific shitty incident.
I'd definitely chat with HR and get it on the record in a "gentle" way... "so, I would like to clarify the company's position on pat leave, because I'm really confused and a bit shocked having heard the reaction from the PM..." That gets him the official statement, and gets it on HR's radar that they have to go adjust the PM's take on it.
Hah, this was my exact suggestion to him! Bring it up gently in a way that is also tinged with false naïveté.
Don't forget to drop suspiciously apt legal terms. "I'm worried that I'll be retaliated against for taking this approved leave. The last thing I want is to get in a situation where [PM] has done something actionable. I just want to spend time with my new baby, whom we named Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, after my grandfather."
You laugh, but key words have big impacts sometimes. I was an Oracle consultant who did work for big government for a while, and if we ever had to call in to the support line for help, there was a pre-printed sheet laminated and taped to the wall right over the phone, for the exact paragraph to state on the recorded call. It included such phrases as "time is of the essence", "complete loss of service", "essential service", "top tier escalation", "federal government", and so on. That statement was the secret key to getting immediate, top-tier support within an hour, if not "hold while I transfer you", without having to fuck around for 6 hours capturing information and then wait 2 days for a call back.
So, I'm selling my motorcycle on Ebay, and the buyer wants it shipped even though it's listed as "local pick up only". I'm not desperate to sell it, but I don't mind helping someone out. Thus far, they want a video walkaround, and the transaction is being pushed through Escrow.com, which is new to me. Should I scrap this and re-sell, or is this something that folks have done before?
Why don’t you offer to FaceTime with the dude? Have you figured out how much it might cost to ship? Don’t eat any costs if you don’t have to.
Yeah, that's the first step. I'm not eating any costs beyond the listing price, which was $25 (fuck ebay, never doing that again...CL was $5, Facebook is free). I'm a little concerned with putting this thing on a random truck, waving goodbye and expecting to get paid....
Escrow service requests are a common scam tactic on expensive items. I had about 10 people try it on me when I was trying to sell a MacBook. Be really careful when using them and make sure any email you get from them is not spoofed or something along those lines. That doesn’t necessarily mean this guy in particular is running a scam, but I would stick to local pickup if I were you.
I thought escrow was supposed to be the end run around this type of situation? How is it used by scammers? I thought about using it when I was thinking of buying a car across country. Forget how my brother did it when he sold his Ducati but the buyer paid for the shipping and had the truck pick it up. At some point he had me fed ex the dude the a key and title. If I remember correctly the shipper checked the bike out and contacted the guy before loading it. I think thats when the guy paid my brother but my memory is hazy.