4 ms·

What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? Women have baby and when this happens she is going to be out for a month probably longer

What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? Women have baby and when this happens she is going to be out for a month probably longer. Her family will encounter medical cost along with whatever expences existed before and she will not be able to work to pay for this. We point the finger at whatever company happens to be her employeer and act like it is there responsibility to pay the bills. I feel like society through the government should either pay this bill or be willing to accept what a company does in its financial interest.

HelloMcFly 11y ago
> What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? At the very least, they should do what they are required to do. What they are required to do is something that society has required of them through the government, even if the FMLA is weaker than it should be. Alternatively, they should honor any additional commitments made (publicly and privately) to candidates and employees that go beyond the bare minimum legal requirement.
- wehadfun 11y ago
  Amazon did what they were required to do, which is give her 12 weeks before giving away her job. Obviously that was not good enough so I ask again what should the company have done? No one has answered that question
  - bonaldi 11y ago
    Ahem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123800
  - mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
    One thing they could do is not make up lies (the PIP) about her performance to cover their intention to fire her.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    While 'glitching' her out of her insurance. And then instead of re-instating her insurance once the 'glitch' was discovered, offering her COBRA (ha, you're kidding, right? "Hey, -we- fucked up. But you can keep the insurance you are entitled to... if -you pay $1,000+ a month").
mindcrime 11y ago
What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? Offer a nice, lengthy maternity/paternity leave policy and give the new parents plenty of time to adjust to their new lives, and then make sure their jobs are still available to them (barring some crazy circumstance) when they return. OTOH, for a parent returning from leave, I don't think it's necessarily the case that you should expect everything to be as it was, when you return. The company, and the world, don't just go "on pause" while you're out. The business has to continue to adjust and adapt the reality it operates in, so if your direct reports have been moved, your project cancelled, shuffled, re-budgeted, your responsibilities re-distributed, etc., then I think you just have to accept that. But the company obviously should make an effort to get you back into a productive position as soon as possible. I feel like society through the government should either pay this bill or be willing to accept what a company does in its financial interest. Having a baby is a choice, unlike cancer (excepting rape cases or whatever). How about people just don't have babies unless they are able to handle the financial implications of doing so? Why should somebody else be on the hook to pay because you decided to have a baby?
- mindcrime 11y ago
  Perhaps you downvoters would care to actually share your opinion? Do you disagree with my assertion that having a baby is a choice? If so, I'd like to hear your justification for that. Or do you disagree that the ethical thing for companies to do, is to offer a generous maternity/paternity leave policy?
  - bonaldi 11y ago
    Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those. It protects them in some cases by putting obligations onto employers. That's why "someone else should be on the hook". A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those. I think we have different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book, is "something you don't need to ask permission to do". So yeah, I agree that having a baby, in and of itself, is a right. But, I disagree that the exercise of that right then automatically creates a burden on me, or you, or anybody else, to support the new baby. That doesn't mean that you, or I, or anyone else in particular, won't sometimes - if the means are available - help a less fortunate person who is struggling to feed their child or what-have-you. And I personally am FAR more sensitive to the needs of children than I am to adults. But there's a big difference between what someone will do, if asked, because they believe it is right, and the idea that they are obligated to do those things. A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society. As far as I'm concerned, your rights are your rights, and profit doesn't even enter into the equation. But, again, we probably have a different idea of what a "right" is. To put it a different way, I do not believe in so-called "positive rights" as discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
yarper 11y ago
How about not chuck away a talented employee that they've spent possibly years training up with domain specific knowledge and assuming they are replaceable without (fiscal?) impediment

HelloMcFly 11y ago

> What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? At the very least, they should do what they are required to do. What they are required to do is something that society has required of them through the government, even if the FMLA is weaker than it should be. Alternatively, they should honor any additional commitments made (publicly and privately) to candidates and employees that go beyond the bare minimum legal requirement.

wehadfun 11y ago
Amazon did what they were required to do, which is give her 12 weeks before giving away her job. Obviously that was not good enough so I ask again what should the company have done? No one has answered that question
- bonaldi 11y ago
  Ahem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10123800
- mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
  One thing they could do is not make up lies (the PIP) about her performance to cover their intention to fire her.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  While 'glitching' her out of her insurance. And then instead of re-instating her insurance once the 'glitch' was discovered, offering her COBRA (ha, you're kidding, right? "Hey, -we- fucked up. But you can keep the insurance you are entitled to... if -you pay $1,000+ a month").

mindcrime 11y ago

What are companies supposed to do when their employees become mothers? Offer a nice, lengthy maternity/paternity leave policy and give the new parents plenty of time to adjust to their new lives, and then make sure their jobs are still available to them (barring some crazy circumstance) when they return. OTOH, for a parent returning from leave, I don't think it's necessarily the case that you should expect everything to be as it was, when you return. The company, and the world, don't just go "on pause" while you're out. The business has to continue to adjust and adapt the reality it operates in, so if your direct reports have been moved, your project cancelled, shuffled, re-budgeted, your responsibilities re-distributed, etc., then I think you just have to accept that. But the company obviously should make an effort to get you back into a productive position as soon as possible. I feel like society through the government should either pay this bill or be willing to accept what a company does in its financial interest. Having a baby is a choice, unlike cancer (excepting rape cases or whatever). How about people just don't have babies unless they are able to handle the financial implications of doing so? Why should somebody else be on the hook to pay because you decided to have a baby?

mindcrime 11y ago
Perhaps you downvoters would care to actually share your opinion? Do you disagree with my assertion that having a baby is a choice? If so, I'd like to hear your justification for that. Or do you disagree that the ethical thing for companies to do, is to offer a generous maternity/paternity leave policy?
- bonaldi 11y ago
  Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those. It protects them in some cases by putting obligations onto employers. That's why "someone else should be on the hook". A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Sure, having a baby is a choice, but it's also a universal human right -- and like the other rights, society needs to protect those. I think we have different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book, is "something you don't need to ask permission to do". So yeah, I agree that having a baby, in and of itself, is a right. But, I disagree that the exercise of that right then automatically creates a burden on me, or you, or anybody else, to support the new baby. That doesn't mean that you, or I, or anyone else in particular, won't sometimes - if the means are available - help a less fortunate person who is struggling to feed their child or what-have-you. And I personally am FAR more sensitive to the needs of children than I am to adults. But there's a big difference between what someone will do, if asked, because they believe it is right, and the idea that they are obligated to do those things. A society where rights become secondary to the unrestricted pursuit of profit is not a good society. As far as I'm concerned, your rights are your rights, and profit doesn't even enter into the equation. But, again, we probably have a different idea of what a "right" is. To put it a different way, I do not believe in so-called "positive rights" as discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

yarper 11y ago

How about not chuck away a talented employee that they've spent possibly years training up with domain specific knowledge and assuming they are replaceable without (fiscal?) impediment