Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

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

#141

Post by yooloo »

Manheim wrote: post #27

In Scandinavia this is regulated by law. Being on leave does not protect against dismissal in Norway. But the Working Environment Act states that the notice period does not start to run until the leave period has expired. And, the fact that you are on leave cannot in itself be used by the employer as a reason for dismissal. So, if Google had laid off a worker in Norway who was on leave, they wouldn't have much choice…

OTOH, the pay in US is 2 to 3 times than in Norway. Does that mean the risk is taken into account in pay?

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

#142

Post by sokoloff »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139
sokoloff wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My PTO is an earned benefit (legally). I’m sure Google is paying those out. Free meals or free office printing are not earned benefits (legally). I’m sure Google is not paying for 30 weeks of meals or printing for laid off workers. If you agree with the above, the challenge becomes figuring out whether a benefit is more like the legally earned or more like those provided as a courtesy and convenience.

But it should seem pretty obvious that something like maternity leave couldn't, and shouldn't, be an "earned benefit" - should everyone except to accrue a month of "maternity leave benefit" through the ages of 20 and 40 or something? It's good that we do have benefits that only apply to subclasses of people (i.e. parents), but how those benefits are structured shouldn't be at the whims of a company if we feel, as a s…

I think it would be reasonable for an employer to make some benefits, including certain paid leaves, subject to some minimum tenure. How an employer chooses among those options tells you something about them, but I don’t think a blanket “you cannot offer any benefits subject to tenure” makes a better world.

I do agree with you that if society thinks a benefit is important, society can pay for it directly. Or pass a law to mandate employers (or certain employers) to provide it.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

echelon wrote: post #112
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #105

Can someone argue convincingly that this is ethical?

Layoffs suck. I think I would be upset if I was laid off but those on medical or baby leave were specifically given a pass. It kind of feels like a slap on the face for those whom are unable to have kids. Layoffs should be focused on performance, cost of salary, team business utility, etc. That said, if layoffs disproportionately hit those on that are on medical leave, that would be pretty cruel. Moreover, I think th…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by winrid »

alanfranz wrote: post #13
m348e912 wrote: post #2

Why should Google pay maternity leave for laid off workers? They are no longer employees once they're laid off. At the very most they deserve a severence.

Because while you are on a medical leave or a maternity leave it’s especially difficult for you to sort out things, or to find another job? “I laid you off while you’re lactating, please find another job in 60 days or leave US”. In most places in EU it would be illegal to layoff people in those situations, that’s not a US thing of course, but just asking the already-approved deal to be honored seems just obvious.

It's even illegal in China...

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

#145

Post by echelon »

michaelmrose wrote: post #123
echelon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Layoffs suck. I think I would be upset if I was laid off but those on medical or baby leave were specifically given a pass. It kind of feels like a slap on the face for those whom are unable to have kids. Layoffs should be focused on performance, cost of salary, team business utility, etc. That said, if layoffs disproportionately hit those on that are on medical leave, that would be pretty cruel. Moreover, I think th…

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 are…

We're only human.

I think it would be incredibly difficult not to feel slighted and go through a whole range of emotions when laid off.

Furthermore, most people will naturally compare themselves against others. It's how we navigate society.

It's one thing to live and let go, but it's another to understand why things are happening and why certain treatments or gradients exist. It's logical to recognize and perfectly natural to have feelings about.

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

#147

Post by hansvm »

sokoloff wrote: post #136
hansvm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Laying off somebody on maternity leave and then not paying them for that leave is exactly what you would expect from a company laying somebody off _because_ they're on maternity leave, which would be strikingly illegal (IMO not immoral per se -- that burden should be averaged across all of society rather than localized to each employer -- definitely illegal though). At a minimum they'd want their ducks in a row to…

Isn’t the entire point of Cobra that you can keep your previous healthcare plan?

Yep. That didn't stop Google from denying that coverage to the people laid off in the article though, and the fact that it's some sort of custom/in-house thing means they probably have the power to cause that sort of disruption regardless of any eventual legal outcomes.

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

#148

Post by zamnos »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #97
Manheim wrote: post #27

In Scandinavia this is regulated by law. Being on leave does not protect against dismissal in Norway. But the Working Environment Act states that the notice period does not start to run until the leave period has expired. And, the fact that you are on leave cannot in itself be used by the employer as a reason for dismissal. So, if Google had laid off a worker in Norway who was on leave, they wouldn't have much choice…

Not only that. I'm assuming that in Norway you have a notice period which is tied to how long you work there. Not the case here. I could sign a mortgage Monday and be laid off Tuesday. So then my income and insurance just stop. Companies have no obligation to give you notice. Anything they do is literally out of the good of their PR people. Some states require payout of accrued vacation days (notice the government do…

California, where Google is headquartered, has the WARN act, which kicks in in for big layoffs (> 10%), which requires 60 days notice to affected employees. So sign mortgage on Monday, laid off 2 months from Tuesday.

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

#149

Post by zamnos »

protastus wrote: post #140
sokoloff wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My PTO is an earned benefit (legally). I’m sure Google is paying those out. Free meals or free office printing are not earned benefits (legally). I’m sure Google is not paying for 30 weeks of meals or printing for laid off workers. If you agree with the above, the challenge becomes figuring out whether a benefit is more like the legally earned or more like those provided as a courtesy and convenience.

> My PTO is an earned benefit (legally) Your case does not generalize. In the U.S., there is no federal law requiring the payout of unused PTO.

Absolutely correct, though Google is headquartered in California which does have such a law.

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

#150

Post by Manheim »

zamnos wrote: post #148
WirelessGigabit wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that. I'm assuming that in Norway you have a notice period which is tied to how long you work there. Not the case here. I could sign a mortgage Monday and be laid off Tuesday. So then my income and insurance just stop. Companies have no obligation to give you notice. Anything they do is literally out of the good of their PR people. Some states require payout of accrued vacation days (notice the government do…

California, where Google is headquartered, has the WARN act, which kicks in in for big layoffs (> 10%), which requires 60 days notice to affected employees. So sign mortgage on Monday, laid off 2 months from Tuesday.

I think that's a reasonable act, but it should be a general act not only for big layoffs. Loosing your job is the same whether you are alone or part of a larger group.

Laws are relative to the society they regulate, but I believe the important thing is to give employees at least a minimum of time to get a new job. I also like the mutual obligation connected to the notice requirements we have in Norway. Also companies needs time to replace people when someone quits.

Post reply on HN