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

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 494 posts

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

#201

Post by ubernostrum »

JungleGymSam wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the only reason to tell a prospective employer about your pregnancy status is to enable them to unlawfully discriminate against you based on that status.

OK but why should a company hire someone if they are almost "immediately" going to be put on paid leave? edit: Yes, downvotes will change my mind. You're all doing a wonderful job and are definitely morally superior to me and I'm unworthy of your keystrokes.

Let's try a re-frame. This isn't necessarily how I'd prefer to argue, but it might be a more productive way to explain the point to some people.

In the United States, there are many people who are in the reserve of the military, or in the National Guard. They often need to take some amount of time away from work for regular training and refresher sessions with the rest of their unit, in order to stay ready for wartime or domestic-emergency (since they also play a large role in responses to natural disasters) duty.

As a society, we've decided this is important enough to our future security to make it illegal to discriminate in hiring against someone who has obligations as a member of the reserves or National Guard, illegal to fire them for taking time away from work to fulfill those obligations, and illegal to force them to use their ordinary vacation time to cover that time away. And even if a reservist or Guard is called to extended active service, they have the right to return to their previous employer so long as that service does not exceed five years.

We've made that choice because, for each individual employer, the temptation is strong to let some other sucker hold a spot for a Guard or reservist, and not waste any of your business' money on them. Which is a tragedy of the commons situation.

Children are similarly an issue of security for our society. There is significantly less point to building things today, if nobody will be around tomorrow. So we, as a society, have also decided that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of choosing to have children.

You seem to have a problem with the second of these. Do you also have a problem with the first? If so, how do you find a consistent position that reaches those two different conclusions?

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

#202

Post by metiscus »

nostrademons wrote: post #184
rayiner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, we don't live in a world where a business is spared the cost incurred by that. We also live in a world where the stock market ceases to exist if there isn’t a new generation of consumers and workers. (Facebook’s stock price is predicated on the idea that 1 years from now there will still be young people to advertise to.) Children create internalized costs (to parents, to businesses that hire parents), but…

So here's a concrete example of the types of problems existencebox is highlighting: My sister was laid off from her employer of 8 years 3 months after her first child was born. She was a top performer, and they'd been throwing raises and bonuses at her before she got pregnant. Over the same year or so (there were 3-4 rounds of layoffs), every single pregnant woman or mother with kids under 2 that she knew at the comp…

It is free to file a discrimination complaint with the EEOC if you are in the US. They will investigate your claims and attempt to settle them with your employer. If your employer is unwilling to settle they can and do often sue on your behalf to ensure an equitable outcome. Additionally the Department of Labor will investigate your claims and can bring enforcement actions on your behalf. Additionally pregnancy is considered disability therefore you can also lodge an ADA complaint with the DOJ who will investigate your claims and bring enforcement actions on your behalf.

To say you have no options is incorrect. Bona fide violations of law are routinely handled by these agencies at no cost to the victim and are very often successful.

https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/filing_complaint....

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/conciliation_litigat...

https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/fmla/13.aspx

Edit: ADA to DOJ

https://www.ada.gov/filing_complaint.htm

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

#203

Post by threatofrain »

giantsloth wrote: post #191
existencebox wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually; that (From the business) is the part I don't agree with. (You're right that the US is comparatively lacking, however) As Rayiner accurately points out, children are clearly necessary from a societal point of view. Thus, it seems "most fair" for the whole society to bear that, and for it to not be unevenly distributed such that it generates perverse incentives for business owners.

Large businesses do not pay their fair share to society and therefore should incur the cost of helping pay for the people that maintain and build their business.

I also agree that larger businesses should shoulder higher burden than smaller ones, but if we make any business pay in a headcount sensitive way, then we are creating disincentives which may be explored in opaque ways.

I also think that some industries, such as education, have substantially more women than men and thus will shoulder disproportionate burden. I also think that richer areas will shoulder the burden more easily.

I think these things point to a collective model of burden. I think bigger companies should shoulder uneven burden, but I'm not sure if different industries or areas should shoulder substantially different burden.

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

#204

Post by banku_brougham »

existencebox wrote: post #142
tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife interviewed at Google and was asked how she'd be able to meet the requirements of the job while taking care of young children; the discrimination persists even after pregnancy.

There's something that has always nagged at me in these discussions, and I've always been somewhat afraid to bring it up lest I misconstrue, but I want to try and figure this out. What's a state of affairs we can reach such that people don't become preemptively discriminatory for lack of being able to examine factors that would impact workplace performance? We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against…

The world must be peopled!

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

#205

Post by giantsloth »

ensignavenger wrote: post #178
existencebox wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something that has always nagged at me in these discussions, and I've always been somewhat afraid to bring it up lest I misconstrue, but I want to try and figure this out. What's a state of affairs we can reach such that people don't become preemptively discriminatory for lack of being able to examine factors that would impact workplace performance? We agree, societally, that we shouldn't discriminate against…

Everyone has to juggle various demands on their time. You could just as easily make the question more generic, and ask everyone "do you have a good track record or gameplan for keeping up with personal obligations and balancing them with your professional obligations as an employee?" Of course my answer to that question would be 'yes'.

This is an awful suggestion. Next you're going to be suggesting employers ask where on the Andre Walker Hair Typing System potential recruits fall so they don't have to ask whether or not they are black.

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

#206

Post by lhorie »

R_haterade wrote: post #173
lhorie wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it has money in the bank, and it wants to invest it into growth. Let's put it this way: if 9 people can only produce enough revenue to pay for themselves, it would be risky to take on a new large client if doing so required an upfront investment that completely depleted your cash reserves. If things went south and you couldn't capitalize on your investment, you'd have no way to fund a pivot or a recovery stra…

You obviously live in inflated-margin land. I'm going to guess NY, SF, CS, or greater Denver (maybe austin) or worse, Academia. Startups don't work this way in heavy industry, especially when jobs are on the line. I envy you, actually.

This is finance management 101. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, don't bet money that you can't lose, etc.

> Startups don't work this way

Just because it's common nowadays to offload risks to early employees in startups doesn't make it less scummy. It's one thing to operate in guerrilla mode when it's two dudes in a garage struggling to get ramen profitable, but it's an entirely different ball game when one's hiding their inability to deliver with angel money and cruising on the back of a dozen employees.

My wife was let go from a startup shortly after returning from mat leave. The company went belly up a while later. It was already clear to me from her descriptions they were toying w/ people's expectations given there was no path to profitability, and a completely illogical hiring spree.

That's simply not how the vast majority of successful companies survive.

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

#207

Post by giantsloth »

giantsloth wrote: post #191
existencebox wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually; that (From the business) is the part I don't agree with. (You're right that the US is comparatively lacking, however) As Rayiner accurately points out, children are clearly necessary from a societal point of view. Thus, it seems "most fair" for the whole society to bear that, and for it to not be unevenly distributed such that it generates perverse incentives for business owners.

Large businesses do not pay their fair share to society and therefore should incur the cost of helping pay for the people that maintain and build their business.

I also agree that larger businesses should shoulder higher burden than smaller ones, but if we make any business pay in a headcount sensitive way, then we are creating disincentives which may be explored in opaque ways.

Your third paragraph you say that this points to collective burden, so you actually don't agree that larger businesses should shoulder higher burden. You are more worried about the actions of the company then the moral implications to actual human beings, so you are highly immoral, noted.

I also think that some industries, such as education, have substantially more women than men and thus will shoulder disproportionate burden. I also think that richer areas will shoulder the burden more easily.

Your third paragraph you say that this points to a collective burden, yet in this one you say richer areas will shoulder the burden more easily. Aside from this being a statement as vacuous as "the sky is blue", you are also completely missing the fact that higher education is already highly subsidized by alumni, government and corporations. If you are talking about k-12, yeah they are funded by local property taxes already, and are completely irrelevant to this conversation, as this conversation is about corporations.

I think these things point to a collective model of burden.

It's hard to tell what you actually think.

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

#208

Post by dgacmu »

star-castle wrote: post #139
vkou wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens if you are in an abusive relationship, or a relationship that turns abusive, and your sole employable skills are ten years of home-making.

"Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!" "Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!" ... not quite good enough. "Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one para…

I think you've misread the comment you're replying to.

Someone in an abusive relationship is well-served by getting _out_ of that relationship. If they have no job skills, they're subject to crippling financial pressure to remain in a situation that's harmful to them, in addition to all the other pressure they're already under.

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

#209

Post by not_kurt_godel »

lhorie wrote: post #119
habosa wrote: post #55

This area is really tough. I feel terrible for women who experience this bias, but the solution is not nearly as obvious as with race/gender/age/religious/etc discrimination. In those cases the answer is: stop being biased. Let's say you're a small company and you can really only afford to have Even if they both plan to have 2 kids in the next 4 years, it's a biological reality that it will take the woman away from w…

If you can only afford 10 people, you can usually also get by with 9. Even a healthy male full-time employee is a much bigger commitment financially to a company than just the salary number (i.e. you need to pay payroll taxes, insurance, benefits, equipment, recruiter fees, etc) If you're going to be stretched thin financially after hiring a single new person, you probably shouldn't be hiring.

Here's an equally logical statement: If you only have 10 fingers, you can usually also get by with 9. Even a healthy finger consumes a non-trivial amount of oxygen from your blood and has a nail that must be trimmed so it's not a big deal if you accidentally chop one of them off. If the loss of a finger would endanger your livelihood, you probably shouldn't be in that profession in the first place.

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

#210

Post by lhorie »

R_haterade wrote: post #172
lhorie wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can only afford 10 people, you can usually also get by with 9. Even a healthy male full-time employee is a much bigger commitment financially to a company than just the salary number (i.e. you need to pay payroll taxes, insurance, benefits, equipment, recruiter fees, etc) If you're going to be stretched thin financially after hiring a single new person, you probably shouldn't be hiring.

[flagged]

You don't know me or my political inclinations. Why the ad-hominem?

> why should it be my duty to?

If you own the effing company, you take responsibility. If you're the type that spends your last dollar to make paychecks because you overhired and think "things will get better", and then screw over your employees when revenue falls short the following month, that's on you.

Company finances don't collapse because your employees had to take the kids to the doctor, or went on mat leave or vacation, or whatever.

Post reply on HN