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

51–60 of 155 posts

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

#51

Post by MrOwnPut »

procinct wrote: post #46
MrOwnPut wrote: post #38

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.

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

I replied to your other comment, but you could clarify here, when did it come to popular usage, when was it "invented", and when did you here about it?

Because I first heard it used about a year ago.

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

#52

Post by azinman2 »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #45
azinman2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

“Early last year, Google announced it would be increasing parental leave for full-time employees to 18 weeks for all parents and 24 weeks for birth parents”

Perhaps they’re widening it to include people giving birth. Some people giving birth may then give up their child for adoption, so they wouldn’t want to be called mothers. Either that or they’re trans in some way but able to give birth.

I think the point being is that there are many ways a family is constructed, and many situations people find themselves in.

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

#53

Post by ryandrake »

throwaway45501 wrote: post #17
foepys wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people wonder why birth rates are falling and people are afraid to make long term commitments. Corporations like this don't deserve any loyalty. If I worked there and anybody offered to pay me even a few percent more, I'd leave in a heartbeat. I probably wouldn't even work hard, only the bare minimum to not get fired, because why should I? In conservative media this this is being spun as "nobody wants to work any…

Do you keep paying a plumber once they complete their job? As employee I enter into mutually beneficial (and in case of IT and FAANG - extremely beneficial) contract knowing that I can be fired once the company deems my services no longer necessary. The backlash comes from highest educated, best skilled people who received high salaries and who have great prospects of being hired again quickly. Why they suffer? Shoul…

[EDIT to remove the pot shot in the first paragraph but I still think OP has got to be trolling. But in case you really aren’t…]

Layoffs are bad because they are deceptive and cruel to those laid off and further erode trust from those not yet laid off. They are deceptive because being hired as an employee traditionally carries with it implied permanence that being hired as a temp or contractor (like your plumber) does not. You have a job unless and until your performance provides cause to fire you. They are cruel because they take advantage of the inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. The employee may be here on a visa, or just moved their family across the country, or has debts and obligations where he requires employment. He is harmed if the company suddenly and unilaterally ends the relationship. The company on the other hand is not materially harmed if the employee unilaterally decides to leave.

You can argue that a company is legally allowed to act in bad faith, but “barely within the law” is not a high ethical bar.

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

#54

Post by Kiro »

lenkite wrote: post #48
Kiro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's regulated by law in my country so yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. Once your revolution kicks off the mob won't care a single bit that I'm a "good" employer. No, I rather keep working on my own even though I could and should employ someone.

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

#55

Post by MrOwnPut »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
MrOwnPut wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. From your perspective, what's the % of how often you have heard "biological" vs "birth" parents and has the rate changed any?

I'm curious as to why the change of what I've heard (biological parents) and in the recent year (birth parents).

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

#56

Post by JamesBarney »

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.

Aren't they getting 16 weeks of severance + 2 weeks per year. Say an average of 2 years of work. Most people at Google are making at least 150k. That's almost 60k. That's more than the median U.S. worker makes in a year. And more than the median household income in almost every EU country.

Not to mention no one Google lays off is going to have any trouble finding a job paying at least the median wage.

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

#57

Post by lenkite »

Kiro wrote: post #54
lenkite wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's regulated by law in my country so yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. Once your revolution kicks off the mob won't care a single bit that I'm a "good" employer. No, I rather keep working on my own even though I could and should employ someone.

And that is your free choice. I am sure they were many employers in the days after the union movement who decided not to hire because they believed in making employees work 20 hours a day and they were afraid of retribution if they pushed the line. And that is fine - these folks would have lost out business to other employers who appeased the "mob" as you call it. There is only so much a single person can scale out to, after all. Other employers will fill the vacuum.

It is interesting you haven't responded to the guy who believes in profit at all costs. If you truly believe that, then yes, its best not to hire people.

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

#58

Post by [deleted] »

azinman2 wrote: post #52
MrOwnPut wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually at closer look would you say that the definition is wrong? Or is it being used wrong?

“Early last year, Google announced it would be increasing parental leave for full-time employees to 18 weeks for all parents and 24 weeks for birth parents” Perhaps they’re widening it to include people giving birth. Some people giving birth may then give up their child for adoption, so they wouldn’t want to be called mothers. Either that or they’re trans in some way but able to give birth. I think the point being is…

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #47
procinct wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

> when did the term come to popular usage? When was it “invented”?

Its always been somewhat less popular than “biological parents”, but its been in wide use since somewhere about the late 1970s, and it (or at least, the narrower form “birth mother”) was in use by the early 1950s at the latest.

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

#60

Post by JamesBarney »

AraceliHarker wrote: post #4
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.

The blame of the recent layoffs lay not with the employees but with the managers who had miscalculated their prospects in the midst of the covidic plague.

It's more than just Covid. When interest rates are 0 it makes sense to spend a lot on R&D that will pay off in 10 years. When interest rates are 7% suddenly that might not make as much sense.

It's true Google management didn't foresee this issue but it's not like Google was an outlier. Everyone in the economy thought the same thing.

Post reply on HN