Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

41–50 of 155 posts

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

#41

"Don't be evil."

Google has done a lot of less than good things recently. This is honestly probably the first thing I’d classify as evil with no nuance. The only possible way I’d think this is justified is if Google would have to file bankruptcy if they didn’t do this.

Why do you think Brin and Page put Sundar Pichai as front man of Google _with an additional layer of discrepancy_; Alphabet.

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

#42
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business is not your friend, it's not your family. The only goal of business is to make profit. If they can make something good along the way - great, but don't expect them to do it. At this scale it seems very hard to make good decisions. It looks like a lot of companies overestimated their long term needs. Also, they might have hired those employees to prevent competition from hiring them,and it might have been a g…

> Business is not your friend, it's not your family. The only goal of business is to make profit. If they can make something good along the way - great, but don't expect them to do it. Yep, this is what the robber baron capitalists of the USA also used to believe - profit at the expense of human life. You are simply proving the point here that the only way to win is civil dis-obedience. Boycott, blockade, unionize an…

Comments like yours is why I'm afraid to hire anyone to begin with. The moment I do I'm automatically an enemy.

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

#43

[flagged]

What? Fathers are also birth parents. As opposed to step parents or adoptive parents. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent

Biological parents already described that.

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

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Fathers are also birth parents. As opposed to step parents or adoptive parents. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent

Biological parents already described that.

Yes, they are generally synonyms. It’s not a new term.

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@procinct posted a definition that disagrees with you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent This seems to be a problem with these new "woke" words or however you'd like to describe them. They seem unnatural and sudden which is why everyone is confused.

From that link: “ the natural father or mother of a child who has been adopted” How does that disagree with me?

Actually at closer look would you say that the definition is wrong?

Or is it being used wrong?

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a term for the natural mother of a child who is later adopted. You could also consider surrogacy. There are many ways families are constructed.

@procinct posted a definition that disagrees with you. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent This seems to be a problem with these new "woke" words or however you'd like to describe them. They seem unnatural and sudden which is why everyone is confused.

That term has existed since before “woke” was a term. There’s nothing woke about it.

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biological parents already described that.

Yes, they are generally synonyms. It’s not a new term.

As another user pointed out, why does the definition you posted qualify it with:

"who has been adopted"

> It's not a new term

I see, it's somewhat new to me, when did the term come to popular usage? When was it "invented"?

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

#48
post #42
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Business is not your friend, it's not your family. The only goal of business is to make profit. If they can make something good along the way - great, but don't expect them to do it. Yep, this is what the robber baron capitalists of the USA also used to believe - profit at the expense of human life. You are simply proving the point here that the only way to win is civil dis-obedience. Boycott, blockade, unionize an…

Comments like yours is why I'm afraid to hire anyone to begin with. The moment I do I'm automatically an enemy.

Once an employer has explicitly approved an employee's maternity leave, then the notice period of termination should begin from when the leave has expired. This is basic, common sense and is also law in many European nations.

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

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Fathers are also birth parents. As opposed to step parents or adoptive parents. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent

Biological parents already described that.

“birth parents” and “biological parents” are synonyms, and have been as long as I’ve been alive (well, at least using language.) This is not some novel usage.

Adopted, so kind of forced to be aware of things like that.

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

#50
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.

G attracted workers by offering this baby bonding leave and increased it recently from 12 weeks to 18 weeks. Even amazon is letting people on leave finish it before their severance starts according to the article. This whole layoff round at G looks extremely rushed and someone probably didn't think through all the edge cases, such as people already on leave. For 20 years, G's main advantage was top of market perks an…

I see a recurring pattern of chief people officers and their minions totally destroying company brands and internal morale. This isn't traditional HR nonsense but pure Peter Principle. It really must be too much run plans and messaging through a comms or marketing team first. As a manager, this stuff pisses me off to no end because it seeds worry in the minds of team members that are in no way at risk.
Post reply on HN