41–50 of 229 posts
Well this may be a controversial stance, but her baby passed at birth. There was no maternity leave to take any more. What there was to take maybe was a bereavement leave.
Well this may be a controversial stance, but her baby passed at birth. There was no maternity leave to take any more. What there was to take maybe was a bereavement leave.
Sure, but the bereavement leave for a child should be much more than 8 weeks. And it costs so little to provide since it is relatively rare in the developed world.
Well this may be a controversial stance, but her baby passed at birth. There was no maternity leave to take any more. What there was to take maybe was a bereavement leave.
She got six weeks instead of eight. How dare they. She could've applied for more days based on her psychological state. Also how dare they not pay her commissions earned by her team while she was away. I think the tone is all wrong here. Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women, so the discussion should be more "Here's why you shouldn't do it" and less "How dare you do it!". Just my $0.02…
> Economically, it makes sense to "discriminate" against pregnant women. I've heard this repeated a lot but I don't get it (I'm an employer). I mean I can't think of many things that would hurt team morale and hiring reputation more than treating a young female employee like shit just because she got pregnant (let alone went through something as horrific as losing a child). What kind of short-sighted psychopath boss…
Anecdote time based on my experience in SV and tech, and second-hand anecdotes from friends in NYC finance:
Curiousgal's viewpoint isn't uncommon. The harshest judgment in these situations comes from other women. Men are generally more sympathetic, and if they're not, they're too scared to say anything.
Women in competitive & high-paying fields like tech and finance can be brutal, especially if they feel like holding off on having children was a sacrifice that they had to make in order to establish themselves in their career.
I would not be surprised if this decision came all the way down from a female manager, with men lower on the chain voicing opposition and being overruled.
Her maternity leave was cut from 8 to 6 WEEKS I had to do a double take there, I read it as months first time. How can a woman give birth and be back at work in eight weeks? Six weeks seems impossible baby or not, the recovery time for pregnancy and birth can be many months. If I were a woman living in a society like that I think I’d either not have children or not work at all.
Well this may be a controversial stance, but her baby passed at birth. There was no maternity leave to take any more. What there was to take maybe was a bereavement leave.
Her maternity leave was cut from 8 to 6 WEEKS I had to do a double take there, I read it as months first time. How can a woman give birth and be back at work in eight weeks? Six weeks seems impossible baby or not, the recovery time for pregnancy and birth can be many months. If I were a woman living in a society like that I think I’d either not have children or not work at all.
Pretty normal in the United States.
She needs to make name of the company known, and was the person who made this decision. The internet will do the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the company's standpoint, any employee that quits is simply a cash giveaway and a huge loss.
Some more than others.
> Some companies have policies that can discriminate against people who are on protected leaves by denying them commissions they have already earned Wtf? How can that possibly be a thing?
Do these people just sit around and spend time coming up with ways to screw others over? How the fuck is this thing even legal, let alone ethical? Makes me so mad