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

431–440 of 494 posts

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

#431

Post by rahimnathwani »

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…

I'm not doubting what happened in your wife's situation, but it strikes me as strange that this would happen at a company where both men and women are given longer parental / bonding leave than is required by US law (and, in China, more than is required by Chinese law). The obvious reason why the company would offer this, is because it helps with employee recruitment, retention and productivity over the long term.

And, given how hard it is for large companies in the bay area to hire enough people who fit their needs, it seems irrational to let someone go for only this reason.

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

#433

Post by rahimnathwani »

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.

According to this web page (https://www.californiaemployeerightslawyer.com/family-respon...), using that information as part of the decision-making process would be against the law if it happened in California.

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

#434

Post by mbrameld »

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.

You left off a pretty important qualifier. If you're willing to entertain the fact that tech jobs exist outside of Silicon Valley, finding another equivalent job after winning a discrimination lawsuit against a former employer is no problem.

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

#435

Post by tptacek »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #433
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.

According to this web page ( https://www.californiaemployeerightslawyer.com/family-respon... ), using that information as part of the decision-making process would be against the law if it happened in California.

I don't think there's much controversy about that.

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

#436

Post by mbrameld »

fabatka wrote: post #370
eps wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with them saying that?

Because the timeliness of paternity/maternity leave is determined by the childbirth's date, not by anything else.

What is the childbirth's date roughly determined by? There's an event that must occur before childbirth is even possible.

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

#437

Post by emilfihlman »

chii wrote: post #354
paxys wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between a few weeks of vacation a year (probably taken in 1-2 week chunks) and multiple continuous months of parental leave. The latter can absolutely kill a startup, especially when the person leaving is a subject matter expert in a critical area.

> probably taken in 1-2 week chunks if that wasn't mentioned in the employment agreement, then you (the boss) just lied about the conditions of employment. I think a startup deserves the right to not hire somebody who plans to take multiple months off (without telling the boss), but a startup also needs to be upfront about it. I think a bit of transparency goes a long way towards making the market more efficient.

Almost all contracts require you to agree on the vacation schedule beforehand with your boss.

If your contract does't have that either the company is very, very lax or their lawyer is incompetent.

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

#438

Post by rahimnathwani »

tptacek wrote: post #435
rahimnathwani wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this web page ( https://www.californiaemployeerightslawyer.com/family-respon... ), using that information as part of the decision-making process would be against the law if it happened in California.

I don't think there's much controversy about that.

I'm curious to know whether she reported it, either to the company or to the relevant branch of law enforcement, or whether she considered reporting it.

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

#439

Post by slipjack »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #321
MattLaroche wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Childc…

I looked it up, the stat is 43% of mothers leave the work force after having a baby. Yeah, 90% is an exaggeration, but 43% is a huge chunk of women. This isn't intended to debate you, just to put a real number on it. The article I got this stat from talks about some of the things you mentioned. I'm far from an expert so I could be totally wrong but the little bit of literature I've read on outcomes for children sugge…

If 43% of women leave the workforce after having a child, it’s still more likely than not that your employee is coming back. And my guess is that the number of women who plan to come back and then don’t is much smaller than 43%, because - to the surprise of many - women often know what they want in life. (That snark is not aimed at you, btw, just that this thread is full of people second-guessing women.)

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

#440

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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…

You look at workplace performance directly, that's how. Employers fundamentally aren't entitled to the residual value of workplace performance above and beyond the standards they demand for the renumeration they provide.

Possibly you can create an option that allows employees to self-discriminate. Say, "drop down to 30 hrs/wk with some work-from-home flexibility" for a significant drop in pay. You'll get roughly the same level of performance in many creative arts like programming, but since it's the employee's choice to take the company isn't responsible for "discriminating".

Post reply on HN