Live data from Hacker News

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

nytimes.com

131–140 of 494 posts

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#131
post #119
post #55

This area is really tough. I feel terrible for women who experience this bias, but the solution is not nearly as obvious as with race/gender/age/religious/etc discrimination. In those cases the answer is: stop being biased. Let's say you're a small company and you can really only afford to have Even if they both plan to have 2 kids in the next 4 years, it's a biological reality that it will take the woman away from w…

If you can only afford 10 people, you can usually also get by with 9. Even a healthy male full-time employee is a much bigger commitment financially to a company than just the salary number (i.e. you need to pay payroll taxes, insurance, benefits, equipment, recruiter fees, etc) If you're going to be stretched thin financially after hiring a single new person, you probably shouldn't be hiring.

> If you can only afford 10 people, you can usually also get by with 9.

With that kind of logic why should the company even bother hiring a 10th person?

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#132
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So while I'd like to force the startup to make the decision without considering this factor, is that always reasonable?" I believe it is. As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup.

> As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Maybe we could take this out of the hands of the startup and have society subsidize it?

Some societies do.

I'm writing from Canada. Mother and/or father can share up to 35 weeks of paid leave under the national insurance program. This maxes out at, I think, approx $500 per week. It's not a lot. But it helps.

Regarding societal values, this the same program that would normally pay you temporarily if you were laid off (not by choice). Normally you wouldn't be eligible to collect benefits if you willingly left a job. Pregnancy is generally considered to be a choice, so I think making these benefits available to parents shows society does value the choice to parent and will subsidize it.

Parents who adopt a child receive significant additional benefits on top of the standard allowance.

Recently there have been changes to the program to improve benefits for self-employed. As we on HN know ... sometimes a startup founder isn't "employed" or receiving salary in the usual sense and historically it was difficult for such professionals to receive employment insurance benefits but it's changing.

Anyways, progress? :-)

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#133
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the only reason to tell a prospective employer about your pregnancy status is to enable them to unlawfully discriminate against you based on that status.

OK but why should a company hire someone if they are almost "immediately" going to be put on paid leave? edit: Yes, downvotes will change my mind. You're all doing a wonderful job and are definitely morally superior to me and I'm unworthy of your keystrokes.

Does the company have a paid leave policy? Does said policy restrict when this paid leave can be taken in respect to hiring date? If people follow company policy, then why are you complaining again?

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#134
post #7

One of the solutions to this is matching paternity leave. If I gave you the choice of two employees, one of whom would take 12 weeks of paid leave and one who would take 2 weeks of paid leave, which would you choose? If you offered both sexes 12 weeks of paid leave, you wouldn't have to make this decision.

I don't think this is practical because many men do not take their full paternity leave. For biological reasons alone, the woman needs to take more.

Biology doesn’t have much to do with it. Being a parent of a newborn is incredibly difficult, no matter if you’re the one bleeding continuously for eight weeks or not.

Women “need” to take more than zero days off. That’s true, at least in our modern conception of child rearing. Both parents should take at least two months off, especially in the current system where people don’t have much community or family support.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#135
post #34

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…

If we can make provisions for permanently disabled people to have jobs, then we can make provisions for temporarily disabled people to also have jobs.

The article you are commenting on largely deals with large employers (Merck, Walmart), so your complaint about small companies is best directed elsewhere. Exceptions for small companies can be codified into law - GDPR does this, for instance, by letting small companies simply update their terms of service and avoid having to do some of the more onerous revisions to data collection.

And there is a simple formula to leveling the playing field for those people who do want to work, regardless of their bodies (if you are female and would like to have children naturally, you have no choice in the matter - your body will need some accommodations).

1. Increased parental leave (not just maternity), which enables gay parents to have equal rights, and which allows working moms and working dads to work out between themselves how they'll adjust to the baby, according to each of their preferences. It also accommodates the cases of single dads, single moms, etc.

2. Federally funded and regulated daycare. We can look to countries that largely required female manpower to get back to speed after WWII (specifically, Germany and Eastern block countries with high male casualty rates). They had no choice but to figure out how to get the highest percentage of women back to work AND producing children or risk economy collapse and a drastic decline in their population further than already suffered. The solution was efficient, state-wide, state-regulated daycare.

Actually, as an aside - such a daycare system used to exist in the United States, as well, but was revoked. Some speculate an aversion to anything vaguely resembling what the "communists" were doing as why. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31051633

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#136
post #55

This area is really tough. I feel terrible for women who experience this bias, but the solution is not nearly as obvious as with race/gender/age/religious/etc discrimination. In those cases the answer is: stop being biased. Let's say you're a small company and you can really only afford to have Even if they both plan to have 2 kids in the next 4 years, it's a biological reality that it will take the woman away from w…

It actually isn't a biological reality that the woman is away from work for longer. What's actually happening is that the man isn't expected to be away as long as the woman, so he doesn't take as much leave. It's a form of discrimination to make it the woman's problem because she's the one laid up in the hospital. Just because women are bearing the physical burden of the pregnancy, it doesn't mean it's solely their b…

How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to.

Obviously, men don't need to work and women don't need to take care of the kids (above and beyond what's biologically required of them), but (1) on average, outcomes will be influenced by underlying biological reality, and (2) it's a fantasy thinking that people can take time off work - e.g. a poor family with a newborn, you really think that any parent will take off more time than they absolutely need to, biologically?

Finally (3) yeah there are possible social levers we can use to counter this biological reality and enforce equality of outcomes, but ultimately, we need to decide what we want - why is women working more better than women spending more time with the children? Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#137

"Wahh why can't I disappear from a company for a year to pursue my personal life goals without any consequences"

We ban accounts that post like this, so please read the guidelines and comment civilly and substantively instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#138
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do companies you work at not hire employees for the long term?

They mainly hire people to replace others that quit/retired or to fill a new position created to support a team with a steadily growing workload. New hires are subject to a 3 month probation period during which both parties can end the contract at will. More than 80% of all positions are long term. I would hope that someone looking for a long term employment at a company would be honest and upfront with something lik…

1 year vacation? ROFL. In America 3 months of paid maternity leave is a good dead. Also, in America both parties can end a job at will at any time. Also also, referring to parental leave as "vacation" is pretty weird.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#139
post #124
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget feminism’s role in this as well. The traditional working father/stay at home mother arrangement has been deemed oppressive and degrading to women.

Consider what happens if you are in an abusive relationship, or a relationship that turns abusive, and your sole employable skills are ten years of home-making.

"Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!"

"Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!"

... not quite good enough.

"Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one parachute just your yourself. That way, when the plane's in its terminal dive, you can abandon your family to their deaths and make it out alive."

Something more like that, although that's absurd.

Your view of the situation is inverted and immoral. A relationship is what might actually make life worth living for you. Your skills are how you get a job, and "ten years of home-making" just means that your lonely, pathetic existence, post-relationship, has a few less luxuries in it.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#140
Being anti discrimination started with not discriminating people for things they can't control. Race, gender, etc.

Now we're moving into territory of not discriminating against optional things people choose (having children).

This is a very significant change, IMO. I wonder how far it can be taken.

I think there's a fair argument that since pregnancy only affects women then it counts as gender discrimination. However, if that line of thinking was applied everywhere then nearly everything would be sexist because few things affect men and women exactly 50/50. So in and of itself, that reason cannot fully explain it.

Post reply on HN