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

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

#481

Post by hectormalot » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 8:37 AM UTC

pimmen wrote: post #472

username90 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees always pays for it one way or another, high skill salaries are very low in Sweden and I'd guess that this is a big reason.

We don't pay for health care or higher education and we have good pension plans that are government subsidized, though. We pay a lot but get a lot.

I agree, I was in talks to move from Amsterdam to NY, including a substantial (think 50%+) pay increase, and realized that after paying 2-3x for housing, 5-10x for healthcare, and substantially higher cost for education of the kids, quality of living would actually go down, even though net income would double.

Numbers for comparison: - full year tuition at a Dutch university is ~2000 euro (and they are all considered about equally good, something that is difficult to explain to people used to the US/UK system) - annual payment for healthcare is about ~1300 euro - living in a good apartment in a nice part of amsterdam will cost you between 1200-1800 euro/month (600sq.ft, 2 beds, yes our buildings are smaller)

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

#482

Post by Yetanfou » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 9:04 AM UTC

eigenstuff wrote: post #410

xienze wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget feminism’s role in this as well. The traditional working father/stay at home mother arrangement has been deemed oppressive and degrading to women.

I'm pretty sure the role of feminism in all this is, "women can do whatever the hell they want, if they wanna be a SAHM, that's fine, and if they don't, that's fine, too."

Modern feminism does not think in terms of freedom but in terms of ideological dogma: women should behave in certain ways to shake of the shackles put on them by the patriarchy. Women who consciously choose to stay at home are seen as deluded victims, not as free agents of their own choice. Take your pick of the wealth of articles written on the subject...

https://www.google.com/search?q=stay+home+mother+feminism

...and you'll find quotes like:

Feminism doesn’t see our child-rearing, much less all that goes with it, as valuable. There is no glory, no glass ceiling in poo-wiping, or mac and cheese cooking, or alphabet-teaching. There isn’t even value in breastfeeding, which you’d think would be vaunted in feminist circles for using the female body for something only women can do. Alas, it’s just a ball-and-chain, as Huffington Post says: “Breastfeeding has become the last legitimate ‘women’s work’ — the only argument remaining for a gendered division of labor that argues that women’s place is at home with the children.”

...

...we should be doing what we want to do, and what we want to do is not take care of someone else. How could we possibly wa ...nt that? The idea of our happiness is absurd to mainstream feminism.*

...

(Simone de Beauvoir) “No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

...

(Sarrah le Marquand) “Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed"

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

#483

Post by mbrameld » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #477

mbrameld wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you legit suggesting that people should do their family planning around their employer's convenience ?

Is that how you read my comment? Odd, because that's not what I wrote at all. The comment I replied to suggested that the timing of a child's birth was completely random and unpredictable. I suggested that's not the case. I don't know how you got from what I wrote to what you read, that's quite a mental leap!

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

#484

Post by falcolas » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #375

falcolas wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inve…

>> You'll have a hard time convincing me that it's our expectations which have changed the most. And all this is because women now have careers, instead of being stay-at-home moms? (Apologies if I misunderstood your comment. I'm trying to connect it to what the GP said.)

The beginning and the end of my comment was "it's not just our expectations that have changed." My comment was merely to help describe why it is not just be that with a personal data point.

That said, it's highly likely there is some correlation between wages (and housing costs) and the doubling the potential labor pool, but that's another topic for another day.

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

#485

Post by bitcoinisqueen » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #453

bitcoinisqueen wrote: post #448

I know many cases where small employers were left paying 100k's after taking on a woman for a position, and just a few months later 'she got pregnant'. - employer had to fork over 12 months of pay - employer had to disrupt their business and hire another person The employer struggled to eek out their own profit to feed their own family and meet their obligations. This is a common scam that some women will get a job,…

Do you have the employers names and any documents or court records to show that this is what was uncovered? Why were your friends not able to determine the quality of employees during the interview and on-boarding process? Have you actually read the FMLA? They would have had to work their for quite a bit of time before requesting leave, and even then there are additional requirements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa…

The world does not revolve around US law. Where I live, you just have to surpass your probationary period to qualify.

My apologies for being biased by sharing a story of how my friends lost 100k's, next time I guess I should bring documentation and court cases before daring to tell you about something that happened. /s

And why the heck would I tell you the name of my friends business to effectively give you my identity?

The scam I outlined is common enough and you will hear it happen if you ask.

A variation is that women will take their 12 months pay from a business, and then a certain percentage decide they do not want to work and then do not go back to their jobs.

Whether it applies to men or women both under FMLA law has no bearing on the morality of executing this scam. I'm not sure why you even pointed it out and what you're trying to say with that information.

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

#486

Post by lhorie » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #358

lhorie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if it's 1.3M Then you do your risk analysis and determine if the risk of the person not working out is something you can stomach. At 1M/yr, the risk is you hire a salesperson who gets you no new accounts after a year, existing revenue drops for other reasons and then you are forced to fire someone productive to make ends meet because you're 100k in the hole. At 1.3M/yr, maybe it'll be extremely stressful, but…

> Then you do your risk analysis and determine if the risk of the person not working out is something you can stomach Yeah, duh. Apparently you do realize this tautologically obvious point despite your churlish and contrarian argumentation against it. The need to do risk analysis as it relates to potential pregnancy was the main thrust of the post that you dismissively replied to by saying that any business can do eq…

I said "get by", not "do equally well". My point is that if you can't handle the risk of a new hire going on mat leave two months into employment, then the reason you're discriminating is likely because you're in no financial shape to hire in the first place, not because the candidate wants to have a family, or has cancer surgery scheduled, or a family sickness or any of N number of reason someone might need to miss work.

Risk analysis is not the same thing as "hire based on pregnancy status". The former is accounting and math. The latter is discrimination and illegal.

In this thread, there seems to be this perverse line of thinking that the ends justify the means ("can't afford to hire a pregnant person but a man will surely help me grow my business!"). If you're one of the people already doing this and trying to make excuses, fine, keep making excuses and doing illegal things, but realize you're part of the problem.

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

#487

Post by cornholio » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

saudioger wrote: post #479

cornholio wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies need to account for the fact that they're comprised of human beings that reproduce. If think that's the point, companies do account for that, by discriminating against women, onto which the bulk of the burden of reproduction falls. Correcting this incentive structure is a prime job for government, else literally nothing can exist in few generations.

I meant that companies need to account for it as an inevitable expense, avoiding it is completely unethical and if someone's party to that decision making process they need to take a good look at themselves.

By the same token, people fall ill, grow old, and eventually die. The ethical company that covers all those expense for an indefinite duration for it's employees will go bankrupt in the face of competitors that do not.

If the government does not intervene to force all companies to shoulder the cost on behalf of the society and distribute the costs to everyone else through prices, then it's hard to say it's unethical for a company not to offer free health care, retirement, disability, life and funeral insurance to each and every current or former employee.

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

#488

Post by ejstronge » Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #462

ejstronge wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're continuing to add variables that disfavor women - but it's feasible to grant breaks so that women can feed their children in the middle of the day. This feels like a problem of will, and maybe male chauvinism, not biology.

I didn't say it isn't. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not an analgous situation between men and women. This is not even mentioning the fact of the pregnancy itself, which ranges from no biggie, to several months of severely reduced capability. My wife basically couldn't function (as in curled up in bed) for almost two months during her pregnancy.

I'm not writing this out of any sort of pique - I just think this is an opportunity to think 'outside the box'.

Your wife's (very unfortunate) experience is not typical - most women won't require two months of bed rest.

Let's consider people with depression: most will perform their jobs normally, while some will require months of medically-mandated time off. Should employers discriminate based on the possibility to develop depression? I'd say it's far more likely than becoming pregnant if one accounts for the entire workforce.

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

#489

Post by saudioger » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

cornholio wrote: post #487

saudioger wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant that companies need to account for it as an inevitable expense, avoiding it is completely unethical and if someone's party to that decision making process they need to take a good look at themselves.

By the same token, people fall ill, grow old, and eventually die. The ethical company that covers all those expense for an indefinite duration for it's employees will go bankrupt in the face of competitors that do not. If the government does not intervene to force all companies to shoulder the cost on behalf of the society and distribute the costs to everyone else through prices, then it's hard to say it's unethical…

Workers comp, retirement funds, health insurance, and life insurance. Our company contributes all of those in some way... to not cover birth seems a bit silly by comparison.

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

#490

Post by daniel_software » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

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…

> Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time.

As a Dutch person: this stereotype needs to stop. The Netherlands is a country like any other, with big problems and defenitely not the happiest people on earth. The Many women work part-time here because the tax is so high due to corruption its not rewarding to actually work. Last year suicide was the most common cause of death among people between 20 and 40 years. The Netherlands is the country where most drugs worldwide are made, transported and used. XTC is the biggest export of this country, which leads to high criminality and assassinations on the streets.