34 ms·

Technology across the board is not family or parenting friendly -- in my experience. It seems like it would be, given the technology tools that make remote work

Technology across the board is not family or parenting friendly -- in my experience. It seems like it would be, given the technology tools that make remote working and flexible work environments possible. I recently was let go from my director of engineering position when I was 9 months pregnant. They said they were outsourcing their operations, but I was the only team-member let go. I also would be on maternity leave during a critical release... I can't say they let me go since I was going to have a baby, -- I think their decision to outsource made sense. I just think it was a catalyst as there was zero transition plan and probably would have been too hard to let me go during or right after maternity leave, which would have made more strategic sense. I seriously consider leaving technology for good after dealing with the challenges of being a woman, mother and engineer for so many years. I'm not alone, its pretty common for women to leave technology after having kids. There is such a push to have more women become technologists, but if we leave once we become parents, what's the gain? The struggles of culture and technology are far deeper than getting more young women to be interested in engineering. Women aren't the only ones to suffer. It's hard for men too. The culture also seeps into the quality of products we create -- in both design and code. Unfortunately, I have only seen the culture become more toxic as time goes on, not less. Maybe I'm jaded. I'm certainly sick of it.

guyzero 12y ago
Hopefully you don't work for my employer, but even if you do, please sue them into the bottom of a very deep pit.
dreamdu5t 12y ago
I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children. Unless that is their choice as well. I would like to spend many hours of the day on my art. I don't want children. Should my employer be forced to continue to pay me if I want to go spend a year focusing on my art? Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life?
- leothekim 12y ago
  Employers don't have to, at least in the U.S. Lots of people I know have used up their PTO and sick days for maternity leave. There is also FMLA, which is unpaid but guarantees you'll still have a job after 12 weeks. In some cases, like in the parent comment, they'll figure out a way to cut you loose.
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    My wife took FMLA for six weeks. Law or no law, HCA happily told her she had the right to apply for another job at another center when she got back. With no guarantee of the same pay. Of course, she ignored them and didn't go back, but we didn't sue either, as that wasn't feasible. Big companies can get away with a lot that isn't legal or ethical.
  - dreamdu5t 12y ago
    Oh, for some reason I was under the impression they were. Thanks for clarifying. A quick Google search seems to show that a few states require paid leave for a short period at a discounted wage.
- dmm 12y ago
  Women are the only people who get pregnant. If you force people to choose between a family and a job some people would see that as discriminatory against women.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - rayiner 12y ago
      In Western welfare states, where public services are paid-for by deferring burdens into the future, childfree people are essentially freeloading.
      - deleted 12y ago
srdev 12y ago
I really hope you looked into suing them, because that was transparently unethical and illegal.
- bequanna 12y ago
  Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.
  - ryguytilidie 12y ago
    No one is "rushing to judgement". The response wasn't "you win your lawsuit, here is lots of money". The person simply encouraged them to look into a lawsuit, which in itself just means you take your case before a judge and the judge decides who should win the case. You really did your best to create a strawman and beat the crap out of it here. If you are saying things like "You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future." to discourage a woman from considering a lawsuit when she got fired over maternity leave than YOU are the problem, plain and simple.
  - srdev 12y ago
    They should fire someone for well-documented causes, in which case there is no issue. I happen to think that it should be non-trivial to fire someone. If they are a poor performer then it shouldn't be hard to actually document that. If you're going to outsource a division, then lay off your pregnant women along with the rest of the workers that are going to be part of that lay off. Singling out a single pregnant woman for a pre-emptive firing, separate from the rest of her coworkers, reeks of discrimination and should rightly be cause for lawsuit. > You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. I wouldn't be, actually, because people in general tend to hold onto unfounded ideas. I find that its pretty simple to fire someone in a protected class in practice if you are actually professional about it and document the reasons. Its just not trivial, which is what bad employers tend to want. > Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. Lawsuits are how facts in disputes are established. The question is whether there is enough doubt here to warrant a lawsuit, and it really seems like there is.
poorlywrittin 12y ago
If you're interested in a more family friendly workplace when you are done cocooning with your new little one, please drop me a line. My contact info is in my profile.
- ekanes 12y ago
  Agreed. If you're in the Phoenix area mindfulgeek, we'd also love to talk to you. Enjoy the little one!
cubano 12y ago
Interesting...you should definately consider a lawsuit. My ex-wife was "let go" from a national home improvement chain when she was 8 months pregnant with my daughter and suffering a difficult pregnancy. It was obviously a move to simply save money by the scumbag management and put my ex-wife and my unborn daughters health in pretty serious jeopardy. It was a comedy-of-errors (without the humor, of course) for the management, and they broke so many laws the lawyer we eventually retained told us it was the most open and shut case he had ever seen. My ex eventually settled for a decent settlement 18 months later, although I basically begged her to take it trial and make as much noise as possible about it to put pressure on the corporation to never do it to anyone else. In the end, of course, it was her decision and she took the money and moved on. IMO, you have every right to be jaded, and hope you do what you feel is right for you to do.
- erentz 12y ago
  Assuming her contract was at-will employment what right would she have to sue?
  - avalaunch 12y ago
    Employers may not fire even at-will employees for illegal reasons, and firing someone because they are pregnant is illegal.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    If they are evil and stupid, such having put something discriminatory in writing then it is a winable suit. The other way is to look for patterns over a longer period of time and maybe say "look all 10 last employees who were let go were women who got pregnant, there is something here". But unfortunately if they are not too stupid they would use convenient double-speak euphemisms between themselves. Like say they'd call it "restructuring". Or due to "culture fit". Or just "business reasons". They could be winking to each other when saying that but you'd really need of the people in charge to turn on others and testify.
  - cubano 12y ago
    The firing illegally cancelled her health insurance even though she had worked more than the amount of hours necessary to earn the insurance benefits. I forget the details...its been 13 years...but that was one of the more open-and-shut points our attorney used to easily force a settlement. You do know there are federal employment laws that make it illegal to fire women just for being pregnant, don't you? Also, there was no documented reason why they were firing her...her work record was spotless and in fact, she was the new store trainer for her position due to her hard work and skill. One of the more egregious things I remember was the manager actually called her and told her, while she was in the hospital no less, that they would rehire her after my daughter was born, even thought they just cancelled her insurance and left us both in a huge financial bind and put her health and her baby's health is serious risk. Do you really think that women should be fired and have their health insurance cancelled for no reason besides being pregnant? If so, that is truly disgusting.
samstave 12y ago
You seriously need to get in touch ASAP with EEOC. My wife was let go from her position for being pregnant and although it took 2.5 years - she won a case against them and got a big settlement. Many of the typical settlements (depending on the size of the company) are in the several hundreds of thousands range. Google typical settlements for this...
sjg007 12y ago
Please sue.
PhilipA 12y ago
It really depends where you work at (regarding to technology != family). I have worked at both different places both where there was place for a family and places which didn't. Not very surprisingly the company where you could actually function with a family had a lot fewer employees leave - which again saves a lot of money for the company.

guyzero 12y ago

Hopefully you don't work for my employer, but even if you do, please sue them into the bottom of a very deep pit.

dreamdu5t 12y ago

I mean well and this is not directed at you personally, but I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children. Unless that is their choice as well. I would like to spend many hours of the day on my art. I don't want children. Should my employer be forced to continue to pay me if I want to go spend a year focusing on my art? Why is a couple's (or a mothers) choice to have children more important than what I choose to do in life?

leothekim 12y ago
Employers don't have to, at least in the U.S. Lots of people I know have used up their PTO and sick days for maternity leave. There is also FMLA, which is unpaid but guarantees you'll still have a job after 12 weeks. In some cases, like in the parent comment, they'll figure out a way to cut you loose.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  My wife took FMLA for six weeks. Law or no law, HCA happily told her she had the right to apply for another job at another center when she got back. With no guarantee of the same pay. Of course, she ignored them and didn't go back, but we didn't sue either, as that wasn't feasible. Big companies can get away with a lot that isn't legal or ethical.
- dreamdu5t 12y ago
  Oh, for some reason I was under the impression they were. Thanks for clarifying. A quick Google search seems to show that a few states require paid leave for a short period at a discounted wage.
dmm 12y ago
Women are the only people who get pregnant. If you force people to choose between a family and a job some people would see that as discriminatory against women.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    In Western welfare states, where public services are paid-for by deferring burdens into the future, childfree people are essentially freeloading.
    - deleted 12y ago

srdev 12y ago

I really hope you looked into suing them, because that was transparently unethical and illegal.

bequanna 12y ago
Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.
- ryguytilidie 12y ago
  No one is "rushing to judgement". The response wasn't "you win your lawsuit, here is lots of money". The person simply encouraged them to look into a lawsuit, which in itself just means you take your case before a judge and the judge decides who should win the case. You really did your best to create a strawman and beat the crap out of it here. If you are saying things like "You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future." to discourage a woman from considering a lawsuit when she got fired over maternity leave than YOU are the problem, plain and simple.
- srdev 12y ago
  They should fire someone for well-documented causes, in which case there is no issue. I happen to think that it should be non-trivial to fire someone. If they are a poor performer then it shouldn't be hard to actually document that. If you're going to outsource a division, then lay off your pregnant women along with the rest of the workers that are going to be part of that lay off. Singling out a single pregnant woman for a pre-emptive firing, separate from the rest of her coworkers, reeks of discrimination and should rightly be cause for lawsuit. > You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. I wouldn't be, actually, because people in general tend to hold onto unfounded ideas. I find that its pretty simple to fire someone in a protected class in practice if you are actually professional about it and document the reasons. Its just not trivial, which is what bad employers tend to want. > Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. Lawsuits are how facts in disputes are established. The question is whether there is enough doubt here to warrant a lawsuit, and it really seems like there is.

poorlywrittin 12y ago

If you're interested in a more family friendly workplace when you are done cocooning with your new little one, please drop me a line. My contact info is in my profile.

ekanes 12y ago
Agreed. If you're in the Phoenix area mindfulgeek, we'd also love to talk to you. Enjoy the little one!

cubano 12y ago

Interesting...you should definately consider a lawsuit. My ex-wife was "let go" from a national home improvement chain when she was 8 months pregnant with my daughter and suffering a difficult pregnancy. It was obviously a move to simply save money by the scumbag management and put my ex-wife and my unborn daughters health in pretty serious jeopardy. It was a comedy-of-errors (without the humor, of course) for the management, and they broke so many laws the lawyer we eventually retained told us it was the most open and shut case he had ever seen. My ex eventually settled for a decent settlement 18 months later, although I basically begged her to take it trial and make as much noise as possible about it to put pressure on the corporation to never do it to anyone else. In the end, of course, it was her decision and she took the money and moved on. IMO, you have every right to be jaded, and hope you do what you feel is right for you to do.

erentz 12y ago
Assuming her contract was at-will employment what right would she have to sue?
- avalaunch 12y ago
  Employers may not fire even at-will employees for illegal reasons, and firing someone because they are pregnant is illegal.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  If they are evil and stupid, such having put something discriminatory in writing then it is a winable suit. The other way is to look for patterns over a longer period of time and maybe say "look all 10 last employees who were let go were women who got pregnant, there is something here". But unfortunately if they are not too stupid they would use convenient double-speak euphemisms between themselves. Like say they'd call it "restructuring". Or due to "culture fit". Or just "business reasons". They could be winking to each other when saying that but you'd really need of the people in charge to turn on others and testify.
- cubano 12y ago
  The firing illegally cancelled her health insurance even though she had worked more than the amount of hours necessary to earn the insurance benefits. I forget the details...its been 13 years...but that was one of the more open-and-shut points our attorney used to easily force a settlement. You do know there are federal employment laws that make it illegal to fire women just for being pregnant, don't you? Also, there was no documented reason why they were firing her...her work record was spotless and in fact, she was the new store trainer for her position due to her hard work and skill. One of the more egregious things I remember was the manager actually called her and told her, while she was in the hospital no less, that they would rehire her after my daughter was born, even thought they just cancelled her insurance and left us both in a huge financial bind and put her health and her baby's health is serious risk. Do you really think that women should be fired and have their health insurance cancelled for no reason besides being pregnant? If so, that is truly disgusting.

samstave 12y ago

You seriously need to get in touch ASAP with EEOC. My wife was let go from her position for being pregnant and although it took 2.5 years - she won a case against them and got a big settlement. Many of the typical settlements (depending on the size of the company) are in the several hundreds of thousands range. Google typical settlements for this...

sjg007 12y ago

Please sue.

PhilipA 12y ago

It really depends where you work at (regarding to technology != family). I have worked at both different places both where there was place for a family and places which didn't. Not very surprisingly the company where you could actually function with a family had a lot fewer employees leave - which again saves a lot of money for the company.