231–240 of 494 posts
Pregnant employees are undoubtably less of an investment for the company when you consider paid leave. In fact the company might actually lose money on you. This is a lot different than racial, sex, or age discrimination as a result of social bias or stereotypes. So it makes sense there is discrimination from companies and managers - especially competitive companies where the managers are paid based on their team per…
Then you'd just be discriminating against the youngish, the married and a bunch of other factors. I just think these kind of answers are the first logical steps in trying to address the problem. With more thought and experience people will arrive at the realisation that there may actually not be a good mechanism to socially engineer the desired outcome. Devolving decision making to the business owners and managers, a…
I wonder if this discrimination is exacerbated in silicon valley where job tenures are so short and perks are so good. If on average, you keep employees for two years and offer 6-12 month parental leave, then an employee who uses it gets paid for two years while actively working for 12-18 months. That's 30-100% higher cost to you the employer per month of active output from the employee. The shorter the tenures and t…
6-20 weeks is the range I saw. Twitter at 20, Square (and I think Facebook) at 16, Google at 12, and most at 6.
I'm totally onboard with it being government funded instead of employer funded. I think tying it to salary (and what people pay in) makes sense, as many people are less likely to take it if it's significantly under their normal income.
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…
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…
When we were 8 people we had 2 parents go on 4 months of leave (with 3 month overlap). We missed them and vacation time was a little limited, but everything was fine.
Companies need to account for the fact that they're comprised of human beings that reproduce. In terms of humanity you can't get much more fundamental than reproduction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So here's a concrete example of the types of problems existencebox is highlighting: My sister was laid off from her employer of 8 years 3 months after her first child was born. She was a top performer, and they'd been throwing raises and bonuses at her before she got pregnant. Over the same year or so (there were 3-4 rounds of layoffs), every single pregnant woman or mother with kids under 2 that she knew at the comp…
It is free to file a discrimination complaint with the EEOC if you are in the US. They will investigate your claims and attempt to settle them with your employer. If your employer is unwilling to settle they can and do often sue on your behalf to ensure an equitable outcome. Additionally the Department of Labor will investigate your claims and can bring enforcement actions on your behalf. Additionally pregnancy is co…
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…
On a personal level, children are optional; on a societal level they really aren't.
It's a common trope in cartoons that the bad guys want the opposite - to destroy the world.
I think you make an important point though, and I have no good argument to it.
The best I can do is point out that having children does not fall on the responsibility of every woman. Not every woman needs to reproduce for society to continue.
So the question is, is it okay for people to judge others for their personal choices, even if it is societally necessary? I think there are countless examples where no one bats at an eye this category of discrimination - for some definition of necessary.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One interpretation of existencebox is that he has already assumed the moral position that shielding pregnancies is wholesome for society, but he's asking the policy question of where the money should come from, or if government should get involved in evening out the burden. On a tangential matter, I think many people would agree that society should consider financial help for children in poverty. But who should pay?…
>but he's asking the policy question of where the money should come from, or if government should get involved in evening out the burden. From the businesses. Paid paternal leave is already a legal mandate in just about every country. The US is very lacking in this regard.
Yes, and in those other countries, the vast portion of the cost (just like the cost of health insurance) is borne by the government, not the business.
For example, in the UK, 92% of the mandated parental leave costs are paid by the government (technically it's a refund but you can get an advance on it). Employers can (and often do) offer more if they wish.
source: https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay-employer-gu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Obviously companies have all the power, and we need to fight a guerrilla style war against corporate hegemony, and we obviously have to take strategic consideration of these facts. virtually no one who posts on this website will be better off after the revolution. why dedicate your life to screwing yourself?
Major corporations may have a lot. The random corner shop with two employees certainly doesn't.