Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:24 AM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #79

Alex3917 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the solutions to this is matching paternity leave. A better solution would just unpaid parental leave for both sexes, with a stipend paid for by the government. The idea of paying people some percentage of their salary while on parental leave is an incredibly regressive policy and should be banned.

How is it regressive that compensation during parental leave depends on salary? Without that, women higher in the career ladder are disincentivized from taking maternity leave. Moreover, you might even get women who earn more on leave than during the job, which is simply weird.

Post by dlp211 » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:26 AM UTC

narag wrote: post #41

untog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people's children will be paying for your social security payments when you retire. You're welcome!

The only reason other people will pay for my social security is that my contribution is used to pay for previous generation's SS. The scam is that I'm paying for their much better retirement that I will have, considering how population evolves.

Post by bitwize » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #111

knuththetruth wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that Google, famous for their participation in an illegal wage fixing cartel and with its literal army of high-paid attorneys, isn’t too afraid of the legal consequences of discriminating against one woman. Well, so long as the NYTimes doesn’t write about it at least.

Google isn't a person and high-paid attorneys aren't antibodies. It's much more likely that people doing the interviews don't have a clue how to do it (likely because their expertise is software engineering, not recruiting) The sooner we stop blaming faceless corporations and start acknowledging that each person involved in recruiting (including you and me) needs to take training and ethics more seriously, the better…

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:34 AM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #142

tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife interviewed at Google and was asked how she'd be able to meet the requirements of the job while taking care of young children; the discrimination persists even after pregnancy.

There's something that has always nagged at me in these discussions, and I've always been somewhat afraid to bring it up lest I misconstrue, but I want to try and figure this out. What's a state of affairs we can reach such that people don't become preemptively discriminatory for lack of being able to examine factors that would impact workplace performance? We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against…

Post by ryanobjc » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #153

tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife interviewed at Google and was asked how she'd be able to meet the requirements of the job while taking care of young children; the discrimination persists even after pregnancy.

It's amazing to me that a single company can be simultaneously fending off the recently-sealed Damore suit and still be discriminating against women. It's as if it's lip service on both sides, while all actions are just made in the company's interest (rolling over employee's interests whenever they contradict it, discrimination or not).