Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by randyrand » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 6:33 AM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #301

randyrand wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As crazy as it sounds, it still is a clear choice. 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…

I mean come on, your argument is just weird and makes no sense. We are talking about the 2nd most powerful biological drive after survival. You wouldn't say "as crazy as this sounds, continued existence is a clear choice" - even though it is, because anyone could decide to kill themselves at any time. And therefore they're choosing not to at every moment they don't. But you don't say that because that makes no sense.…

To address your last point, my first comment was not really specific to children, none of my comments really have been.

I enjoy thinking about these things. So indulge me.

Life objectively is a choice. There is no denying that.

The question I asked above is, should it be morally okay to negatively judge/discriminate people based on their choices, even for a choice that is societally necessary in aggregate?

At first it might seem like the answer is no - but counter examples are easy to think of. Take drinking water. Producing it is societally necessary. Would it be okay to negatively judge an intelligent software developer for pivoting and becoming a pipe repairman for the local water utility? many would think so! You might think it is a waste of his potential. It would not be considered taboo to negatively judge him for making that choice.

Of course there are differences with child birth, but they aren't relevant to the question I've asked above - which is sufficiently answered. The answer is yes, it's okay to judge/discriminate even for societally necessary things.

Of course, the next step is to take the reasoning farther, and ask more questions. Perhaps I shouldn't lump judging and discrimination together. But I'm satisfied here.

Just to circle back and explain how we got here:

1. I started by pointing out that child birth is a choice and that we commonly discriminate people for their choices

2. Someone responded that it is societally necessary in aggregate and not a choice

3. I showed a simple counter example that it is okay to discriminate against people even when that choice is societally necessary in aggregate

Have a good weekend!

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

#332

Post by deltateam » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 6:41 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…

> That's just not the pragmatic reality of employment in the US at this time

Correct, look at the German approach.

I'm not sure if the government subsidizes the companies for the lack of production, but the state mandates 1 year paid leave, and up to 3 and ability to get the same job back.

Now I know that is totally impractical for the tech sector, taken verbatim.

The US can learn from it anyway.

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

#333

Post by ndesaulniers » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

throwaway81818 wrote: post #122

It's not just women that experience discrimination. When my wife was pregnant and I let our CEO and co-founder know (small company, Not long after letting them know about the pregnancy/birth, I found a suspicious/hidden hiring post from the CEO for a position that mirrored mine although we were "not hiring". Within the next month or two I had a few suspicious interactions with the cofounder over things he'd like to s…

> didn't like how I used branches for feature development (why don't you just commit to master?)

Jesus I just threw up. s/commit/force push/

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

#334

Post by victor106 » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 6:51 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…

The corporate tax rate has been reduced to something like 20%. Most companies in the US pay much less than that. The state is already subsidizing a lot for big corporations.

Companies are nothing but made up of people. The irony is at one time or another these same people would have wanted the exact same benefits for themselves but they don’t like extending those same benefits to others.

If they can’t act in the larger national interest on a few of these occasions then they won’t have a population to sell to.

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

#335

Post by eps » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:07 AM UTC

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.

It's a fair question. Though it needs to be asked regardless of candidate's gender.

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

#336

Post by porjo » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:10 AM UTC

To play devil's advocate - a personal anecdote: in a previous job, a newly hired manager announced she was pregnant and going on maternity leave in 6 months - threw our department into chaos. To me it seemed clear that in her mind, getting the job was a green light for getting pregnant - at the expense of the company! I can't blame companies for being nervous about these kinds of scenarios.

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

#337

Post by fulafel » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #158

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…

> However, we don't live in a world where a business is spared the cost incurred by that. We also live in a world where the stock market ceases to exist if there isn’t a new generation of consumers and workers. (Facebook’s stock price is predicated on the idea that 1 years from now there will still be young people to advertise to.) Children create internalized costs (to parents, to businesses that hire parents), but…

From general interest POV, FB stock price is peanuts compared to problems arising from to many people and overconsumption.

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

#338

Post by eps » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #211

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 manager at said company once said to me that my planned paternity leave "is untimely" with a straight face.

What's wrong with them saying that?

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

#339

Post by p9j23flawkjf » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:18 AM UTC

I interviewed at Segment and had a recruiter ask me whether, "there was anyone in my life who I would have to take into consideration when deciding whether I would change work places?" I asked for clarification several times before he finally followed up with, "Are you married? Do you have any children?"

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

#340

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 7:24 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…

> 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?

Make the penalties for such discrimination large enough that, even when factoring in the uncertainty that they will be applied in each case, they outweigh any conceivable benefit.