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

71–80 of 155 posts

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

#71

Post by clort »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #30

[flagged]

Snark is not really welcome on this, the situation can be much more complex than you state. The article makes it clear that there are different categories "parents" and "birth parents". Also, "parents" is plural. (in your example that might include "fathers")

My cousin is a parent by adoption to two and is a very good mother to a family. The children also have birth parents and while they have never been in contact, the children are in contact with their siblings who were adopted by other families and meet up regularly. They also know their birth-grandparents.

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

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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).

> what’s the % of how often you have heard “biological” vs “birth” parents and has the rate changed any?

Biological has always had a notable edge, but it seems subjectively to have eroded slowly over time over the last 40+ years that I’ve been exposed to it (thinking mostly of print, its been near parity in what I’ve heard, but “birth” is what I favor and what my [adoptive] parents favored so…)

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

#74

Post by lenkite »

Kiro wrote: post #68
lenkite wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Responded to who? I don't believe that and I also don't plan to treat any employee badly. My point is that it doesn't matter. Once your proposed civil war happens I will automatically be the bourgeoisie class that needs to be crushed, tortured and killed.

> Responded to who?

The guy with a throwaway account who supports Google's policy. You have responded to his objectors several times but not to him which indirectly states where you actually stand.

A civil disobedience movement becomes utterly necessary when employers cross the line of human dignity again and again. It is in everyone's interest to make sure that doesn't degrade to a civil war of-course. It will not just be the bourgeoisie class that is effected here. I will correct my post.

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

#75

Post by MrOwnPut »

dragonwriter wrote: post #72
MrOwnPut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> what’s the % of how often you have heard “biological” vs “birth” parents and has the rate changed any? Biological has always had a notable edge, but it seems subjectively to have eroded slowly over time over the last 40+ years that I’ve been exposed to it (thinking mostly of print, its been near parity in what I’ve heard , but “birth” is what I favor and what my [adoptive] parents favored so…)

Thinking about it more wouldn't biological more relate to those who are linked biologically (the egg & sperm).

The birth parents would be the mother who actually gave birth (and if existing, the spouse who is in the relationship with the birth mother).

This is would be much more prevalent of a distinction due to surrogacy.

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

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

procinct wrote: post #62
MrOwnPut wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s been a common term in my country for as long as I can remember so it might be cultural. I’d say “biological parents” has a more clinical connotation to it but would be just as easily interpreted. Most commonly used by people who are adopted to refer to their biological parents (especially I would say if they have a relationship with them). I definitely wouldn’t view it as a woke term (I wouldn’t see how it would…

> Reading the article it might have a new meaning which potentially refers to the parent who actually performs the birth?

I don’t think its a real new meaning in any kind of general use, it is just bad writing trying to condense the terminology used in the earlier article. The early article it references on the leave policy uses “parents who give birth”. Aside from gender identity issues, this also addresses the fact that the Google policy (as I understand it) applies to adoptive parents as well, so even leaving aside gender identity “mothers” and “parents who give birth” would not be identical groups. “Birth parents” is a writer making a misguided and overzealous attempt at making that more terse.

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

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

It’s being used wrong in the instant article by a clumsy writer triyng to condense the phrase “parents who give birth” used in the referenced earlier article on the leave policy.

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

#79

Post by dragonwriter »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #75
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what’s the % of how often you have heard “biological” vs “birth” parents and has the rate changed any? Biological has always had a notable edge, but it seems subjectively to have eroded slowly over time over the last 40+ years that I’ve been exposed to it (thinking mostly of print, its been near parity in what I’ve heard , but “birth” is what I favor and what my [adoptive] parents favored so…)

Thinking about it more wouldn't biological more relate to those who are linked biologically (the egg & sperm). The birth parents would be the mother who actually gave birth (and if existing, the spouse who is in the relationship with the birth mother). This is would be much more prevalent of a distinction due to surrogacy.

I mean, the whole process of carrying a child is biological, so, I probably wouldn’t distinguish them that way. The general case in surrogacy (and exceptions to this usually involve someone who is identified as a “donor” of some material, rather than a parent) involve the suppliers of genetic material being the caretaking parties after birth, so typically the terms “parents” and “surrogate” suffice.

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

#80

Post by MrOwnPut »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
MrOwnPut wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about it more wouldn't biological more relate to those who are linked biologically (the egg & sperm). The birth parents would be the mother who actually gave birth (and if existing, the spouse who is in the relationship with the birth mother). This is would be much more prevalent of a distinction due to surrogacy.

I mean, the whole process of carrying a child is biological, so, I probably wouldn’t distinguish them that way. The general case in surrogacy (and exceptions to this usually involve someone who is identified as a “donor” of some material, rather than a parent) involve the suppliers of genetic material being the caretaking parties after birth, so typically the terms “parents” and “surrogate” suffice.

So if a family provided eggs & sperm and had a surrogate to give birth on their behalf, then later gave the child up for adoption, how would you identify everyone?

Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.

Post reply on HN