Should employees at larger, established firms be able to demand parental benefits? For sure, it's healthy for the organization to help their employees (often the more senior and experienced) achieve their life goals of starting a family.

But should startups be required to do the same? Is it discrimination if they don't? This is where it gets blurry.

Let's say me and a friend start working on something. Someone is being considered as a potential co-founder. During the vetting period, I learn that they are about to become a parent, and will need certain logistical allowances for the next 6-18 months. I decide to pass on this person - at this stage in the company (very early), everyone needs to be able to hustle long hours. I can't risk having a cofounder not put in the sweat. Dead weight kills startups. So to me passing seems fair.

Keep in mind I didn't even mention if the company was incorporated; if it wasn't, surely you can't call this "discrimination" in a legal sense. Two guys just decided not to partner with a third person. If it was just incorporated yesterday and I make this decision, do things realistically change? The company is at pretty much the same point - 2 people who need more that can work long, hard hours.

But what if we're now 5 people and one key employee stops pulling their weight because of family obligations? I don't have the resources to support them in this manner, so I either have to let them go or keep on the dead weight. The first option reads like "discrimination", while the second seriously messes up my startup (imagine I could replace him with a similar skillset person).

And you could think of the same scenario at 10 people, 15, 30, 50, 100, etc.

As final food for thought,

> The American workplace has always prized people who prioritize work over family, and European countries have long had more generous policies for working parents. But in the last two decades, that gap has widened significantly. Other developed countries have expanded benefits like paid parental leave and child care, while the United States has not.

Yes, but who's leading the world in technological growth? Certainly I can't claim causation either way, but simple logic implies that more work means more growth and tech.

Scanning through the comments, it seems like the readership here would rather re-balance this in favor of more benefits and less work (thus meaning less growth and tech). Remember you don't get to have all of both.

So that's great and all, but are you justified in trying to impose this upon Silicon Valley? SV started like this because a bunch of people with the opposite opinions got together so they could work hard and drive progress as much as possible - sacrificing in the process. Should they leave, or should you? I suppose the answer is to vote for the political representatives that support your world view.

However, I'd argue that it'd be a bad thing, on a moral level, to enact policy against the SV hard work culture. I worry that too much lobbying will result in restricted options for employers and entrepreneurs which would ultimately drive progress down. I believe technological progress is a moral issue; we need our high-performers and hard-workers to cure diseases, combat food scarcity, create better hardware, etc. And we need a place where they can congregate.