Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 494 posts

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

#251

Post by randyrand »

somecontext wrote: post #221
randyrand wrote: post #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…

The phenomenon you describe is not new. Discrimination law differs by jurisdiction, but there are various protected classes that may be seen as " optional things people choose ". People will not agree on precisely which such classes truly reflect choice, but some examples may include religion, familial/marital status (and related), political activity/affiliation (and related), pregnancy (and related), military/vetera…

This is a good comment.

I'm less concerned with the law and more curiou what people actually think about those various types of discrimination, and why. Its a fascinating moral question.

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

#252

Post by gnicholas »

AFNobody wrote: post #195
existencebox wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against parents. However, we don't live in a world where a business is spared the cost incurred by that. The policy solution is: - A per-child negative income tax sufficient to cover the risk/impact of employer discrimination. - Give mothers and fathers equal leave. - Limit the compulsory work week to 50 hours for salaried (or overtime hourly) employees. - Penalt…

> A per-child negative income tax sufficient to cover the risk/impact of employer discrimination.

Wouldn't this just lead to employers discriminating, on the grounds that "hey, you already got your tax benefit to make up for it"?

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

#253

Post by xvf22 »

tinbad wrote: post #14

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…

Same thing happened to my wife at Facebook. They waited a few weeks and then tried to dredge up anything they thought would stick before relenting.

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

#255

Post by MattLaroche »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #249
MattLaroche wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good argument for parental leave not being tied to employer, and instead being tied paid by the state. I've heard of moms before who would rather tell the truth that they're not coming back after leave, but there's little upside and a lot of risk.

I'm not sure the paid leave and severance is really the primary issue. Sure, money is money, but it's very expensive to find a good employee. When someone goes on leave like that you can't fill the position. Since they can't fill your position your team is stuck having to work extra to pick up the slack, and then if 90% of women don't wind up coming back it's just that much longer before you can find someone decent t…

90% of moms not coming back is an exaggeration for the bay area.

Part of what we're not talking about here (in this whole thread) is the cost of child care. Child care in SF is over $1700 a month, and hard to find for 3 month olds, which is why a lot of parents quit after leave.

I reckon we'll get a lot more parents staying in the workforce if the government helped more with childcare across all income ranges. Childcare comes at a lower income time of life, often when around when people have recently purchased a home.

We're also likely to have fewer parents drop out of the workforce if they can get their infants to 6+ months with a parent. Childcare is easier to find for 6 month olds than 3 month olds.

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

#256

Post by cortesoft »

tptacek wrote: post #151
existencebox wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am very much the wrong person for you to recruit in an attempt to apply the axiomatic method to discrimination laws. Discriminating against pregnant women is wrong because it's wrong, full stop.

I don’t think the person you are arguing with is disagreeing that discrimination against pregnant women (or mothers) is wrong. I got the sense they are trying to figure out how we combat it.

Yes, we can make it illegal, and enforce strictly, and yes we should do that. However, as long as their is a cost to companies when women take maternity leave, you are going to have to keep fighting the battle because companies will find new and creative ways to discriminate to save money.

What we need to do, in addition to enforcing anti-discrimination laws, is to have maternity and paternity leave mandated by law, and paid for with taxpayer dollars. The cost of having and raising the next generation should be shared.

We can all agree that the discrimination is wrong, full stop, but we need to be pragmatic and realistic in how we combat it.

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

#257

Post by halflings »

tptacek wrote: post #75
tinbad wrote: post #14

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…

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.

Can guarantee you that all large (tech) companies have mandatory interview training whose main goal is to avoid these issues... unfortunately when you have a company this large, there's always going to be that-one-guy that will still act like a jerk.

Questions about race, age, religion, pregnancy, civil status, disability are all off-limit. This interviewer was out of line, and should be reported to the recruiter.

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

#258

Post by falcolas »

icelancer wrote: post #199
to_bpr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a society, we've decided that being able to continue the population is more important than the fortunes of any particular startup. Err no. It wasn't long ago that a family could survive well on a single income with the mother at home, cars paid, schooling sorted and food on the table. Not even remotely feasible on a single income now, unless you're talking executive pay. Society has by and large chosen to abandon…

>> Not even remotely feasible on a single income now, unless you're talking executive pay. Yes it is. Just not if you want to live in really nice cities and have a ton of stuff. If you want to live in a suburb, commute, not own much in the way of technology, and own a house 30% of the size of what people live in now, then yeah, that's doable. Housing costs have inflated and that's worthy of note. But so have our expe…

My parents had a 2,500 sq. ft. house on 5 acres of land. They've replaced their vehicles about every 5 years. I remember twice-yearly vacations where we flew out to Mexico or the eastern seaboard. I was, by current standards, spoiled rotten when it comes to the money my parents spent on tech for me. They've both been able to retire (including snowbird trips to AZ) without worries about money due to a pension and investments.

All of this from a single, blue collar worker's income. The same job that pays $13 an hour today. I, working in the tech industry with a great paying job in a rural city, with a working wife, couldn't begin to reproduce their lifestyle without incurring absurd amounts of debt.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that it's our expectations which have changed the most.

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

#259

Post by randyrand »

pertymcpert wrote: post #121

I'm really surprised by the number of comments here that support this kind of discrimination. I thought we were better than this.

It's not so clear cut. The arguments for this type of discrimination also make logical sense. Morality is pretty subjective, and peoples goals for society are very different.

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

#260

Post by partiallypro »

to_bpr wrote: post #103
partiallypro wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could simply make it mandatory time off. But either way, he has a point. A company doesn't want to risk hiring someone that might miss a huge swath of time, for any reason. Not in every job but in many jobs, an employee isn't just an employee, they are an investment. If it was mandatory for both sexes though, it would level the playing field.

>You could simply make it mandatory time off. Then I won't notify the company when I've had a child. Simple as. Don't consider going down the road of "you must declare what is happening in your private life to your private employer" as someone else did either, without at least considering what an absolute breach of privacy that would involve.

It wouldn't matter, because in the end the company would hire you or promote you with the same expectation as women. It would start to make less and less sense to not take the paternity leave because the opportunity cost would diminish. If you didn't take off, it would be your loss. The system wouldn't be perfect, but it would -help-
Post reply on HN