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

271–280 of 494 posts

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

#271

Post by narag »

dlp211 wrote: post #154
narag wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citation needed that they will have a better retirement.

I was born the year with the most births in my country. We're paying my parents' generation retirement now. But when we will retire in 15..20 years, it's my son's generation (much less people) that should pay for us. Also we live longer and longer.

So unless drastic measures are taken now, crap retirement is waiting for us. No need to be a math genius to see. Some people is confident that the problem can be solved with taxes, but that's just wishful thinking.

Obvious solution: increase people that will pay in the future. Problem is we have a sky high unemployement. Even if we allow more inmigration, there are no jobs for them.

Another one: using a "capitalization" system. Instead of spending, save what we pay for later. Problem is no party will do that. A few weeks ago there was a massive demostration demanding retirement is updated with inflation. Everybody agrees that our elders deserve the best. Even a gradual transition to capitalization (the most reasonable measure) would cause the party defending it to sink.

Edit: in my previous comment there's a "that" where there should be a "than", maybe that caused a misundertanding?

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

#272

Post by jonathankoren »

sokoloff wrote: post #44
jonathankoren wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? It’s paid leave. You get your whole salary, but you don’t come to work.

Yes, and where do you imagine the money comes from?

YOUR SALARY!

Let’s stop pretending that this is some fantastical idea. Good employers in the United States do this today. Employers across the world do much more than this. Or perhaps you’re ignorant of Sweden’s 240 days of paid parental leave per parent?

https://sweden.se/quickfact/parental-leave/

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

#273

Post by metiscus »

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.

Those situations can often be solved in much the same way. If someone is giving out malicious references due to an enforcement action, you report it to the EEOC or other agencies. That is also a violation and can result in further action on your behalf. Many states have statutes on the books against blacklisting and you may be able to engage the state DOL or other agencies to help you. These agencies have the full weight of the federal or state government behind them and are not in the habit of losing enforcement actions.

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

#275

Post by ldp01 »

emptybits wrote: post #132
saagarjha wrote: post #85

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. 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…

> 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.

This. I'm writing from Australia- it looks like we only get $622.10 for 18 weeks, but it seems like a nice middle ground to support new parents. At that low price I would probably agree that 35 weeks is reasonable.

I get confused when people argue strongly against the middle ground position. I don't even want to have kids but I don't begrudge the use of public money in this way- it's a direct investment in the future of society which shields both parents and businesses from undue financial stress without being profligate or forcing too much ideology on the rest of us.

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

#276

Post by Buge »

cortesoft wrote: post #268
Buge wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By "flat" I mean a fixed percent of your income. A fixed $200 isn't a flat tax, because it's not a fixed percent of your income.

Yes, apparently-flat taxes can sometimes be regressive, for example a flat sales tax can be somewhat regressive because poor people spend a higher percent of their income compared to rich people. But this thread isn't about sales tax, so I don't think the flat tax in this situation is regressive.

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

#277

Post by metiscus »

existencebox wrote: post #189
nostrademons wrote: post #184

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…

Thanks for chiming in, as is my way after diving into a "touchy" subject I'm honestly half regretting this thread given the negative reception, and from your greying I see you received the same; but what is HN for if we don't discuss important things. :) It's ironic since your situation is _exactly_ what I worry about, both my wife and I have some phenomenal stories of the side-channels that can be used to ensure "la…

You are right that laws aren't enough. It's the same situation with a school bully. You can complain to the teacher about it and they will make them stop. Often the bully will then recruit other kids to bully you because you are a "snitch" or teachers pet. Similar to the whole blacklisting issue. That person stopped my illegal behavior so I'll show them etc.

What we have to fix is the idea that because someone undertook an enforcement action that they are a risk. If your company treats it's people fairly, you generally have nothing to worry about. If when presented with blacklist info people reported it (especially when it is illegal) the culture around this would improve.

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

#278

Post by SerLava »

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…

Now that you mention it, a government stipend in some form seems like the only good solution. Without it, we're automatically punishing good nondiscriminatory businesses and rewarding discriminatory businesses who do get away with it.

It's spreading out the costs to everyone instead of focusing it on the one company that suddenly happens to have 10% or 30% of its workforce suddenly gone.

It seems much fairer to all parties involved.

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

#279

Post by fixermark »

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.

Not that it doesn't happen, but even asking that question is legally actionable.
Post reply on HN