Google nixes paying out rest of medical leave for laid-off employees

OK, I'll take a stab at defending Google's policy here. Not necessarily because I believe they're 100% in the right, but because I see so many of the arguments on the other side completely failing to address some issues of fairness, and of leaning solely into the emotional aspects of this issue ("Person was laid off!"), or just spitting out lazy comebacks ("Google is evil now!!!")

I don't really see this as "Google won't honor medical leave" any more than I see this as "Google won't honor employment agreement". That is, people on medical leave get paid while they're not working but still employed (and, mind you, this is not something that's a legal requirement, but something Google does with their largess - the vast majority of companies, in the US at least, without monopolistic businesses are way less generous), and I'm not sure why being on medical leave should automatically put you in the "you can't be laid off until your leave is over" bucket. After all, tons of people who were laid off who were not on leave had plenty of important reasons they shouldn't be laid off (e.g. I'm sure lots of people had spouses or dependents on Google's health plan who were wholly dependent on it). I just see some fundamental fairness issues that aren't even commented on by people insisting Google is evil.

More importantly, the root cause issue (in the US) is that so many critical benefits are linked to employment. I know that other countries have stricter laws around this (e.g. you can't be laid off on maternity leave), but that's kinda the point - with a broad legal framework of what's required, and especially with many benefits being ensured by the state (especially healthcare), it means that the individuals are not dependent on the generosity (and huge profit margins) of their particular company. I mean, the FAANGs especially like to talk about how generous they are with things like unusually long parental leave (again, relatively in the US), but that's only because they make so much money. There is a reason that restaurants, for example, could never begin to offer this level of leave, and it's not because restaurant owners are inherently more cruel.

If we believe the benefits are important for societal function and fairness, we should pay for them at the societal level, instead of depending on the whims of individual employers to guarantee them.

If you ever find yourself wishing for A not to have more than B in order to be "fair" to B wherein what is given to A doesn't directly detract from B you are practicing childish emotional thinking and should strive to be more rational. This is made blindingly obvious when you use emotional language like a "slap in the face".

If a company must select whom to layout it would seem logical to pick those who presently aren't contributing because they just had a kid and are on leave and yet we don't really want to live in a society where people are worried about having kids because they might be punished for it by being fired not least of which because we need a next generation and don't want the entirety of it to come from less intelligent people in lower performing households.

To take away the incentive and ensure at least the appearance of objectivity—different from emotional nonsensical fairness—its wise to decouple layoffs from maternity by dealing with any change in employment status after the end of maternity leave. If it still makes sense to lay them off or fire them after the end of their leave.

Yes, the root cause is that the U.S. barely has any labor laws, and this puts people in cruel situations that are inconsistent with the level of economic development achieved by this nation.

Many knowledge workers expect stronger guarantees for earned benefits, out of an intuitive sense of ethics and commitment, but those expectations are more in line with labor laws found in European countries. In the U.S., workers often have no recourse or leverage against even small companies, let alone Google. "Earned" benefits evaporate once the employment contract is void.

Generally no. That's misinformation that's frustratingly persistent.

Here is a direct, reliable source of truth straight from the official government website in case my comment gets buried by downvotes: https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/cobra-coverage/

You can stay on the existing healthcare plan you had from your former employer, switch to your spouse's plan, or start a new individual plan. By default, Cobra is automatic and retroactive, so you could continue your hospital stay unchanged and then at the end of the following month pay the monthly premium to stay on the plan.

Technically of course anyone could "go into debt" for any purchase, so in a certain pedantic sense, sure you could go into debt for healthcare costs, but it's not like anyone is suddenly becoming uninsured. You have weeks to figure out which health insurance plan going forward is the best option for you. The severance payments should be enough to cover the gap until new employment begins, even for the most irresponsible people who had no savings despite drawing a Google salary.

This is the kind of petty behavior that shows there is no leadership at the helm. The CEO should be fired, not because of these specific actions, that are likely to be legal according to the US almost non existing labor laws. Instead, because of the lack of management skills and smart company leadership expected from company executives handsomely paid. As a leader, manager or CEO, you choose your wars, and your battles. This shows incompetent execution at the minimum and at worst, a hands off type of leadership only seen in the times of WeWork.

Shareholders, take notice.