8 ms·

Egg Freezing: A Sign Your Workplace Is a Dystopian HellHole

67 points by rubikscube 12y ago

marak830 12y ago
Mandate that men as well as women get x amount of time off for the birth of a child. No more negative effect for women vs men in this regard( and personally i dont see any reason for a sex based bias for hiring. At all). Edit: for fat thumbs and mobile device.
brandonmenc 12y ago
It's not like they're offering egg freezing in lieu of maternity leave, of which Apple offers around 5 months.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Apple's benefits appear not to be as generous as google's; most of that leave is unpaid according to http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-young-smith-announces-major-enhancements-to-employee-benefits/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-youn...
jonchang 12y ago
So Facebook is paying for egg freezing to discourage young, productive employees from starting a family. But then it also offers 4 months paid paternal and maternal leave, as well as a $4k cash bonus to new parents, and subsidized childcare. Seems like a bad strategy on their part if that's their ultimate goal.
- kashkhan 12y ago
  If the freezing option is available, the system will tag the women who start families as not seriously committed to the job. That's the real intent. In my previous job the manager liked to say that he needed to find out who of us were the chickens and who were the pigs. That is to make breakfast breakfast the chicken contributes and pig commits. Anything less than full commitment results in retribution from the company.
  - marak830 12y ago
    How have we gone from an employment systerm where you are performing an action either unable(due to time or skills) or unwilling todo in return for money, to a system of slaving yourself for a company? Id almost understand from a business poibt of view (which i have been in for the record), but also the people you are hiring are humans, and have a life to live and are trading one commodity for another (their time, your required work). Now the article doesnt specificly target this(i am going off on a tangent i realise), but the amount of, disconnectrd with reality(for want of a better term) lately strikes me a lot, (also puts me atop my high horse as it were). TLDR: Why are we treating staff as a commodity, not a valuable resource while realising it might not be forever and that they also have a life to live.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- GolfyMcG 12y ago
  This response highlights exactly what I was thinking but leaves out a question I was asking myself. The original author appears to be angry that they are offering this benefit. How did this benefit come about though? My guess, for what it's worth, is that some women working at Facebook or Google were driven enough (perhaps to a fault) that they were willing to go to extremes to ensure they could work now and focus on a family later. How would it have played out if a particularly vocal employee asked for this benefit and was rejected? New headline, "Facebook says, 'Female Employees Must Choose between Eggs or Career'" Damned if you do and damn if you don't. Facebook and Google are giving them the freedom to choose. Just because it might be a good business decision doesn't mean it's as cold-blooded and cynical as the author would like to believe. Edit: Original reply was deleted for whatever reason. My last paragraph is more or less a summary of that same post. Edit 2: Added a couple works to first paragraph, last sentence - "(perhaps to fault)"
reuven 12y ago
I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work harder and put their family plans on hold, in favor of the company. I can easily imagine a situation in which this benefit will be used to force women to choose between advancing their careers ("why not freeze your eggs, and have children later?") and starting or expanding a family. Part of the problem here would seem to be that the US still lags behind the rest of the world in maternity leave. If the government were to mandate that companies let women take off from work, and then return to their jobs without penalty, it would result in a level playing field, and a sense (among women) that they don't have to choose. Actually, that's not entirely true: In Israel, where I live, there is government-mandated maternity leave with decent benefits, and women still find it hard to compete. It's not unusual for potential employers to (illegally) ask women how old they are, when they plan to have children, or how many children they plan to have. So even with such a benefit in place, things are still tough for women in the workplace. I should add that I'm male and the owner of a small (currently 3-person) company. I have hired women before, and see having children as something to be encouraged and integrated into the business lifecycle, rather than ignored.
- myhf 12y ago
  Maternity leave makes it more expensive for a company to hire a woman than a man with equivalent family plans. Paternity leave is also necessary to make progress against sexism.
  - reuven 12y ago
    Israeli law says that men may take paternity leave. My brother-in-law did so when his youngest daughter was born. I wish all countries had such laws. That said, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that maternity leave is a "special privilege" for women. Women are the only ones (so far as I know) who can have children, and we do (I think) want to encourage employees to have them. Maternity leave isn't a special privilege. It's an acknowledgment that women give birth, and that they also can contribute to a company's success, and that they shouldn't have to choose between the two.
anonymoushn 12y ago
I recently learned that a certain tech company will delay your vesting while you are on maternity leave.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Why should you vest when you aren't working?
  - anonymoushn 12y ago
    Is this a common practice?
    - x0x0 12y ago
      at all companies I've worked for, vesting freezes during leaves of absence I'm also not sure if I can elucidate exactly why, but while I think leave -- and paid leave for medical emergencies or parental leave -- is great, something about a coworker peacing out for 3-6 months and vesting stock while I'm at work busting my ass would really bother me.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
raquo 12y ago
Having children when it's least risky (before 30) should be possible without career suicide. To accomplish that, government must mandate more generous maternity leave policies. Companies aren't going to be nice by themselves. They have competitors to undercut and work to be done.
- fleitz 12y ago
  It is, I had kids at 22. Protip: Don't work at companies where they can't get their shit together enough to accomplish a days work in 8 hours, preferably 6.
  - raquo 12y ago
    I'm not very familiar with mandated maternity leave rules in the US, but I believe it's less generous than in other developed countries, similar to how vacation time is not mandated in the US. For reference, mandated minimum in the EU is 4 weeks of paid vacation per year. What I'm saying is, good for you that you found a decent employer, but most employers are not that nice, and have no reason to be, given current regulations.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with Henry Ford. Also, there are tonnes of stupid companies in Vancouver that want you to work insane hours, by law they don't even have to pay the tech industry overtime, yet every company that tries to pull this shit ends up with the shittiest developers imaginable.
      - raquo 12y ago
        What about Henry Ford? Capitalist ideology in general, or something relevant to maternity leaves? Your Vancouver companies story just shows why such benefits must be mandated. Then "shittiest developers" wouldn't be a problem, because the benefits they're apparently flocking to would be the same everywhere.
- deleted 12y ago
jeangenie 12y ago
Remarkably lucid analysis of one potential motive behind such programs. To play devil's advocate, programs like this could arguably lead to higher earning power for women as they get older by keeping them engaged in competitive labor markets for longer periods (years, potentially more than a decade) without gaps necessitated by childbirth. It's totally plausible this is a confounding variable in the gender wage gap phenomenon. This isn't an endorsement of the argument but a sleazy person could easily mount that defense and immediately have a parade thrown in their honor.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Which wage gap? The 30% one from 30 years ago that doesn't account for job type? The 2% one from a few years ago that accounts for job type? Or the -2% from last year that shows that women under 30 actually make more than men when you account for job type?
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    You are arguing with the facetious reasoning in a cynical and hypothetical example of a perverse argument for a program I acknowledge I disagree with. That's a long way of saying I'm already aware of what you're saying. That was the point.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
swartkrans 12y ago
I flagged this article not because of the actual article, but because of the discussion here which has turned pretty negative and sordid. The anti-american comments and politics are a huge turn off.
goombastic 12y ago
Spot on. When companies indirectly demand that you put your personal life on hold for them, you know they have gone too far. What next? Employment contracts that stipulate no pregnancy because they offer egg freezing? This kind of contract creep and rights erosion is already happening for things like non-compete agreements where employees sign off the right to get gainful employment elsewhere when it makes sense to do so. It just feels like slavery is creeping back up on us. We live about 80-90 years, I don't think the present culture of slaving your ass off for an app while missing out on all of life is worth it.
- GolfyMcG 12y ago
  Could you please find somewhere that includes "companies indirectly demanding that you put your personal life on hold for them" in writing? I might be missing it but appears they just have the option to do this procedure.
  - goombastic 12y ago
    Wont be long before they mandate it.
throwack 12y ago
This is actually a smart solution to a huge biological problem. 1) Women have huge downtimes in their child-rearing years. This equates as women being more expensive for the same amount of work for that (short) period of time. This cannot be ignored. 2) Companies wont hire more expensive people just of good will if not forced to do so. 3) Companies won't hire women after child-rearing age. Also they won't hire old men, because they are more expensive and work less. No sexism here, we all get fucked equally. 4) Playing field cannot be made equal for both sexes. Men cannot be given the same paternity leave rights as women, because a man can easily abuse the paternity leave by simply fathering childrens very often, or claiming a child is theirs, something a woman cannot easily do as a pregnancy is very hard to fake. Maybe Google can do it, or Facebook. But think of a blue-collar factory. Can't do it. You can protest for social justice all you want. It won't happen anytime soon.
notacoward 12y ago
If somebody developed a drug that allowed people to go without sleep indefinitely, without immediate cognitive impairment, these companies would offer that too. It would be "voluntary" of course, but people who went without would have a hard time advancing or even getting good reviews when they're compared vs. the sleepless. Then we'd probably hear ten years down the road about how the companies were quietly finding excuses to let people go before the long-term health effects kicked in. Isn't it great that these cutting-edge companies can offer such empowering choices to their workers?
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  I think you're the only person who didn't incorrectly identify the egg freezing thing as sexist.
mikepalmer 12y ago
How about difficult teenagers? Can we freeze them until we have time to deal with them??

67 points by rubikscube 12y ago

Mandate that men as well as women get x amount of time off for the birth of a child. No more negative effect for women vs men in this regard( and personally i dont see any reason for a sex based bias for hiring. At all). Edit: for fat thumbs and mobile device.

brandonmenc 12y ago

It's not like they're offering egg freezing in lieu of maternity leave, of which Apple offers around 5 months.

x0x0 12y ago
Apple's benefits appear not to be as generous as google's; most of that leave is unpaid according to http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-young-smith-announces-major-enhancements-to-employee-benefits/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-youn...

jonchang 12y ago

So Facebook is paying for egg freezing to discourage young, productive employees from starting a family. But then it also offers 4 months paid paternal and maternal leave, as well as a $4k cash bonus to new parents, and subsidized childcare. Seems like a bad strategy on their part if that's their ultimate goal.

kashkhan 12y ago
If the freezing option is available, the system will tag the women who start families as not seriously committed to the job. That's the real intent. In my previous job the manager liked to say that he needed to find out who of us were the chickens and who were the pigs. That is to make breakfast breakfast the chicken contributes and pig commits. Anything less than full commitment results in retribution from the company.
- marak830 12y ago
  How have we gone from an employment systerm where you are performing an action either unable(due to time or skills) or unwilling todo in return for money, to a system of slaving yourself for a company? Id almost understand from a business poibt of view (which i have been in for the record), but also the people you are hiring are humans, and have a life to live and are trading one commodity for another (their time, your required work). Now the article doesnt specificly target this(i am going off on a tangent i realise), but the amount of, disconnectrd with reality(for want of a better term) lately strikes me a lot, (also puts me atop my high horse as it were). TLDR: Why are we treating staff as a commodity, not a valuable resource while realising it might not be forever and that they also have a life to live.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

GolfyMcG 12y ago
This response highlights exactly what I was thinking but leaves out a question I was asking myself. The original author appears to be angry that they are offering this benefit. How did this benefit come about though? My guess, for what it's worth, is that some women working at Facebook or Google were driven enough (perhaps to a fault) that they were willing to go to extremes to ensure they could work now and focus on a family later. How would it have played out if a particularly vocal employee asked for this benefit and was rejected? New headline, "Facebook says, 'Female Employees Must Choose between Eggs or Career'" Damned if you do and damn if you don't. Facebook and Google are giving them the freedom to choose. Just because it might be a good business decision doesn't mean it's as cold-blooded and cynical as the author would like to believe. Edit: Original reply was deleted for whatever reason. My last paragraph is more or less a summary of that same post. Edit 2: Added a couple works to first paragraph, last sentence - "(perhaps to fault)"

reuven 12y ago

I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work harder and put their family plans on hold, in favor of the company. I can easily imagine a situation in which this benefit will be used to force women to choose between advancing their careers ("why not freeze your eggs, and have children later?") and starting or expanding a family. Part of the problem here would seem to be that the US still lags behind the rest of the world in maternity leave. If the government were to mandate that companies let women take off from work, and then return to their jobs without penalty, it would result in a level playing field, and a sense (among women) that they don't have to choose. Actually, that's not entirely true: In Israel, where I live, there is government-mandated maternity leave with decent benefits, and women still find it hard to compete. It's not unusual for potential employers to (illegally) ask women how old they are, when they plan to have children, or how many children they plan to have. So even with such a benefit in place, things are still tough for women in the workplace. I should add that I'm male and the owner of a small (currently 3-person) company. I have hired women before, and see having children as something to be encouraged and integrated into the business lifecycle, rather than ignored.

myhf 12y ago
Maternity leave makes it more expensive for a company to hire a woman than a man with equivalent family plans. Paternity leave is also necessary to make progress against sexism.
- reuven 12y ago
  Israeli law says that men may take paternity leave. My brother-in-law did so when his youngest daughter was born. I wish all countries had such laws. That said, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that maternity leave is a "special privilege" for women. Women are the only ones (so far as I know) who can have children, and we do (I think) want to encourage employees to have them. Maternity leave isn't a special privilege. It's an acknowledgment that women give birth, and that they also can contribute to a company's success, and that they shouldn't have to choose between the two.

anonymoushn 12y ago

I recently learned that a certain tech company will delay your vesting while you are on maternity leave.

x0x0 12y ago
Why should you vest when you aren't working?
- anonymoushn 12y ago
  Is this a common practice?
  - x0x0 12y ago
    at all companies I've worked for, vesting freezes during leaves of absence I'm also not sure if I can elucidate exactly why, but while I think leave -- and paid leave for medical emergencies or parental leave -- is great, something about a coworker peacing out for 3-6 months and vesting stock while I'm at work busting my ass would really bother me.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

raquo 12y ago

Having children when it's least risky (before 30) should be possible without career suicide. To accomplish that, government must mandate more generous maternity leave policies. Companies aren't going to be nice by themselves. They have competitors to undercut and work to be done.

fleitz 12y ago
It is, I had kids at 22. Protip: Don't work at companies where they can't get their shit together enough to accomplish a days work in 8 hours, preferably 6.
- raquo 12y ago
  I'm not very familiar with mandated maternity leave rules in the US, but I believe it's less generous than in other developed countries, similar to how vacation time is not mandated in the US. For reference, mandated minimum in the EU is 4 weeks of paid vacation per year. What I'm saying is, good for you that you found a decent employer, but most employers are not that nice, and have no reason to be, given current regulations.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with Henry Ford. Also, there are tonnes of stupid companies in Vancouver that want you to work insane hours, by law they don't even have to pay the tech industry overtime, yet every company that tries to pull this shit ends up with the shittiest developers imaginable.
    - raquo 12y ago
      What about Henry Ford? Capitalist ideology in general, or something relevant to maternity leaves? Your Vancouver companies story just shows why such benefits must be mandated. Then "shittiest developers" wouldn't be a problem, because the benefits they're apparently flocking to would be the same everywhere.
deleted 12y ago

jeangenie 12y ago

Remarkably lucid analysis of one potential motive behind such programs. To play devil's advocate, programs like this could arguably lead to higher earning power for women as they get older by keeping them engaged in competitive labor markets for longer periods (years, potentially more than a decade) without gaps necessitated by childbirth. It's totally plausible this is a confounding variable in the gender wage gap phenomenon. This isn't an endorsement of the argument but a sleazy person could easily mount that defense and immediately have a parade thrown in their honor.

fleitz 12y ago
Which wage gap? The 30% one from 30 years ago that doesn't account for job type? The 2% one from a few years ago that accounts for job type? Or the -2% from last year that shows that women under 30 actually make more than men when you account for job type?
- jeangenie 12y ago
  You are arguing with the facetious reasoning in a cynical and hypothetical example of a perverse argument for a program I acknowledge I disagree with. That's a long way of saying I'm already aware of what you're saying. That was the point.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

swartkrans 12y ago

I flagged this article not because of the actual article, but because of the discussion here which has turned pretty negative and sordid. The anti-american comments and politics are a huge turn off.

goombastic 12y ago

Spot on. When companies indirectly demand that you put your personal life on hold for them, you know they have gone too far. What next? Employment contracts that stipulate no pregnancy because they offer egg freezing? This kind of contract creep and rights erosion is already happening for things like non-compete agreements where employees sign off the right to get gainful employment elsewhere when it makes sense to do so. It just feels like slavery is creeping back up on us. We live about 80-90 years, I don't think the present culture of slaving your ass off for an app while missing out on all of life is worth it.

GolfyMcG 12y ago
Could you please find somewhere that includes "companies indirectly demanding that you put your personal life on hold for them" in writing? I might be missing it but appears they just have the option to do this procedure.
- goombastic 12y ago
  Wont be long before they mandate it.

throwack 12y ago

This is actually a smart solution to a huge biological problem. 1) Women have huge downtimes in their child-rearing years. This equates as women being more expensive for the same amount of work for that (short) period of time. This cannot be ignored. 2) Companies wont hire more expensive people just of good will if not forced to do so. 3) Companies won't hire women after child-rearing age. Also they won't hire old men, because they are more expensive and work less. No sexism here, we all get fucked equally. 4) Playing field cannot be made equal for both sexes. Men cannot be given the same paternity leave rights as women, because a man can easily abuse the paternity leave by simply fathering childrens very often, or claiming a child is theirs, something a woman cannot easily do as a pregnancy is very hard to fake. Maybe Google can do it, or Facebook. But think of a blue-collar factory. Can't do it. You can protest for social justice all you want. It won't happen anytime soon.

notacoward 12y ago

If somebody developed a drug that allowed people to go without sleep indefinitely, without immediate cognitive impairment, these companies would offer that too. It would be "voluntary" of course, but people who went without would have a hard time advancing or even getting good reviews when they're compared vs. the sleepless. Then we'd probably hear ten years down the road about how the companies were quietly finding excuses to let people go before the long-term health effects kicked in. Isn't it great that these cutting-edge companies can offer such empowering choices to their workers?

ASneakyFox 12y ago
I think you're the only person who didn't incorrectly identify the egg freezing thing as sexist.

mikepalmer 12y ago

How about difficult teenagers? Can we freeze them until we have time to deal with them??