Engineer Says Software Firm Cut Her Maternity Leave Short After Her Baby Died

Post by cjbprime » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #150

cjbprime wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 12 weeks of unpaid leave is only for companies who employ more than 50 people, too. I expect most Americans work for companies smaller than that (and so don't get the leave) but I haven't checked.

Your expectation is wrong: https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-profes... "Since 2014...34.3 percent worked at small companies." And this is for "small" defined as It's also important to note that it's wrong to say that employees of small businesses "don't get the leave." Many small businesses will ofter leave to their employees without a federal mandate.

Post by QuinnyPig » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

eloff wrote: post #180

Please excuse my insensitivity for Paul, but hearing the story I wonder if the baby suffocated in its sleep, e.g. By rolling into a bad position as is not uncommon in young infants. Is it possible to tell the difference? Don't ever intimate such a thing to Paul of course. The only thing worse than losing a child is losing a child to something preventable by the parent.

Post by lotsofpulp » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:41 AM UTC

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #124

We're in an odd state of paralysis as a society. On the one hand, we acknowledge that there are birth rate / population-related issues coming rapidly down the pipeline at us, problems we acknowledge can only be solved by either supporting existing citizens/families in having more children or mass migration. Through exhaustion with unaccountable corruption and reckless, ineffective public spending by all parties on th…

Post by jldugger » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 12:44 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #33

curiousgal wrote: post #10

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…

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 1:03 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #148

qndreoi wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women everywhere agree with you. Capitalism relies on women to create, raise and see to the education of new consumers and workers with little to no help. They are opting out. People everywhere see that the childless have a higher standard of living than parents. In many places there are more people 65+ than those under 18, and that will soon enough be common in most places. The example cited in the article is just a…

The issue is simply, how do we incentivize people to have more kids? Some countries have figured out...you can use this thing called "government" to create the incentives to solve the problem. Mandatory leave for both new mothers and fathers, massive tax benefits, subsidized childcare, etc. Countries who have done this, while still being market-based economies (capitalist), have been successful in increasing their bi…