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

261–270 of 494 posts

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

#261

Post by ldp01 »

tomp wrote: post #136
jschwartzi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

You're referring to a timescale of days which a woman will likely need to spend in hospital. I believe jschwartzi is referring to the weeks/months of maternity/paternity leave following the initial birth. There isn't a hard biological reason not to evenly share the load after the immediate medical concerns are completed.

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

#262

Post by rayiner »

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…

It's a "choice" in the same sense that eating or drinking water is a choice. You can choose not to do it, but at a societal level if you do that everything quickly ceases to exist.

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

#263

Post by lhorie »

giantsloth wrote: post #215
lhorie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When people say corporation they clearly mean the board, the C level execs and regulations need to be put in place that promotes a culture of morality for the people that comprise and make these businesses function. You're blaming the individual for a cultural context that has been set by poor and morally bankrupt leadership.

There's obviously room for C-level execs to improve just as well as there is room for the engineers conducting interviews. It's not an either-or situation.

Perhaps ironically, I currently work at Uber (you know, the media darling). Here, I (and many others) feel strongly that the responsibility of fixing things is on everyone at every level, rather than something that comes exclusively from above.

Somehow after people lost faith in the old leadership, and gained faith in the new leadership, they built up the awareness and courage to speak up.

There has been some stuff coming from above (mandatory training about harassment, for example), but for the most part, initiatives to fix recruiting (and other aspects that have been in limbo) are self-organized by the engineers via interest groups, with awareness efforts in guild meetings, etc, and then those efforts bubble up the org chart sort of as an FYI. We tie these into what we call citizenship goals, which essentially work as an organizationally-blessed reason to do good.

Obviously I don't wish for other companies to go through the mud like Uber did, but it would great if the ethically-minded employees at other companies could find some other catalyst to take matters into their own hands. Even here, there's still a lot to do, and it has to be an ongoing effort, but I'm hopeful.

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

#264

Post by home_boi »

Spooky23 wrote: post #236
metiscus wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you work in an incestuous industry like tech, you will be blacklisted in many circles for going down this path.

Will it?

Women who have made public, unproven accusations of sexual harassment seem to be doing just fine

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

#265

Post by randyrand »

AchieveLife wrote: post #115
lsd5you wrote: 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…

The system that you are proposing is anti-human. We are not machines and time does not directly equal productivity. Diversity is a proven cultural milestone that increases the efficacy of organizations. I'm curious what you would say to this. What about individuals who have mental or physical disorders and need a reduced work schedule?

People have very different goals for society. Solving inequality is not everyone's top priority and it is weighed against many others.

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

#266

Post by greesil »

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…

Google doesn't offer 12 month paid leave. Are you thinking of a different company? Edit: sorry, this is a U.S. centered viewpoint. Other countries will mandate different leave policies.

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

#267

Post by cortesoft »

wincy wrote: post #37
rednerrus wrote: post #2

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.

My wife thinks this is a terrible idea, why should she suffer through my depressed wages to pay for two income families to be subsidized to having dual leave for children? This leave doesn’t come for free. Why should she pay for that when she chooses not to work?

What about if non-working moms also got the paid leave? Basically get a wage for the first six months?

We could cap it to only 2 or 3 times per person, to prevent someone just having a bunch of kids for money (although, as a parent, the idea that six months of salary would make having a kid financially beneficial is laughable)

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

#268

Post by cortesoft »

Buge wrote: post #200
Alex3917 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it regressive that compensation during parental leave depends on salary? People who make more money for working make more money for not working. That's literally the definition of regressive. To quote Wikipedia: "In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and th…

If it's a fixed based on your salary, it would be neither regressive, nor progressive. It would be flat. And that's assuming the government takes the money from thin air. If the government gets the money via a progressive tax, then distributes it in a flat manner, it's overall a progressive tax.

I think you are misunderstanding what a regressive tax is. A tax can be flat AND regressive (in fact, those are usually the kind that are). It is about the BURDEN of the tax being unequal, not the dollar amount.

For example, a speeding ticket is a regressive system, because a $200 dollar ticket is a lot more damaging to a poor person than a rich person.

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

#269

Post by home_boi »

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…

> optional things people choose (having children)

Note that having children is something that only women choose.

Men and women choose to have sex. Women choose to abort or have a child.

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

#270

Post by kurthr »

Spooky23 wrote: post #241
kurthr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's... "hey Joe's got young kids and needs to be 9-5 now, you're single so can't you pick up the slack?" Or "you're not married, can't you be on the pager during Xmas/Turkey-day/weekend". They are two abusive sides of the same coin.

The abuse is the compulsory, unpaid pager, and the expectation that you’re working 7a-9p. “Joe” with the young kids pushes back because he has to. You’re the sucker saying yes. The fix for this is easy. You pay for on-call, and have a understood system for assigning it. My brother in law is a fireman... he misses many holidays, but can plan around it because there is such a system.

I think you're agreeing with me but, actually it's not clear that Joe pushed back or that "I'm a sucker"... it's that boss Fred has kids too and gives some slack to people like himself.

And the reason your brother-in-law has such a system with paid overtime is a union... which is unlikely to affect IT until AIs organize and demand work-life balance.

Post reply on HN