91–100 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FUCK yes. Kids cost money. Jobs are how you get money. And I say this as someone who hired a woman who then told us she would give birth in two months, and we were fine.
Wow, that sounds like straight up fraud to me. Do companies in America get financial support from the government for employees on pregnancy leave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please excuse me if I'm being too flippant, but I'm trying to make a point here: Another way of making quick money is by robbing a bank. Just making the point here that your logic is lacking, not that pregnant women are bank robbbers.
What you seem to be saying is that instead of looking for a job, pregnant women should rob a bank? Honestly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The logic of: "Babies are expensive, therefor I cannot stay unemployed for 6 months before I find a job" seems completely sound and reasonable to me. Where is that logic lacking? What practical alternative would you propose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have to make it mandatory leave. How do you accomplish that without violating the right to privacy? If a man keeps coming into work and his partner is pregnant, nobody has to know.
Birth records are public records, and if they aren't together, many states will require the father to pay child support once they figure out who he is. Sure, no one would have to know, but they can find out. If the non-pregnant partner carries the health insurance, they will probably want the pregnancy covered and the baby once it is born. An intelligent non-pregnant partner would change his tax exemptions to mirror…
I would hope a reasonable person would never advocate for such intrusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) 2 years, b) ~4 months in And yeah, I would understand it better if she had just joined or it was a smaller company. We we're in extra shock because the company goes out of their way to publicly promote these benefits and the work-life balance blabla.
Ok, gotcha. I'm also kind of shocked by that kind of behavior by Google. This goes against so much of their employer branding that they've spent so much on. (Was it in Ad sales? - I guess I could see that unit being run in a more "rough" way - sales teams tend to be super macho.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have to make it mandatory leave. The social pressure is still tilted towards women as care givers and men as providers so more men will end up not using the leave. If it becomes mandatory then it's just a baked in rising to every employee, _and_ will probably do better for society to have both parents get time with their children. I believe some European states solve this by having the state cover ~60% of your…
Thereby encouraging discrimination against people in committed relationships. Perhaps increasing the scope of the worse hire will make discrimination impractical, but it is still going on while it's at roughly 50%. You can somehow make companies unable to discriminate by relationship status, and that would push it into "age bracket" discrimation. I believe the problem is more fundamental and a cultural solution is re…
Personally experienced it. Wife worked at Google, had always positive performance reviews. Come pregnancy time she informed her manager, 3 days later they put her on a performance improvement plan. It didn't take long for them to realize they were making a big mistake, risking an expensive lawsuit so they let it go and let her have her paid 12 month leave. After returning she got the choice to do the PIP or take seve…
As a society, it seems like a no brainer to want to allow new parents to spend lots of time with their kids, but it does incur a way higher cost to the employer, many of whom can't afford to pay employees 30-100% more. The most immediate answer seems to be to make society pay and not the employer. Something like a government funded regional cost-of-living adjusted stipend, or a capped wage matching?
Is this really surprising? We cannot have meritocracy and a system where some people will go missing for a year at a time (and perhaps come back with completely different motivations). There is a fundamental mismatch, and as much as some people want to frame careers as lifestyle and entitlement, the primary purpose is to get things done and produce value. The situation is even more stark for smaller companies, many o…
Rather than merely downvoting perhaps people can actually try to argue the point and answer the difficult questions. What are the unintended consequences of this kind of legislation? Should the domain of women just be in big companies and government? What is the relative cost of losing jobs due to pregnancy (with some compensation from the government) vs not being hired for certain jobs in the first place. Do we end…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FUCK yes. Kids cost money. Jobs are how you get money. And I say this as someone who hired a woman who then told us she would give birth in two months, and we were fine.
Wow, that sounds like straight up fraud to me. Do companies in America get financial support from the government for employees on pregnancy leave?
Guess what, in our industry the people that are planning to have kids are also very likely to be senior and experienced. They're hard to recruit. Consider leave as part of the cost of hiring good people.
If you're not doing things like this, you're not actually competing for top talent.