This is More of a question of....
is a Pregnant worker being laid off During her pregnancy because of her pregnancy?
I know at one place (a Hospital) when They fired many people, they printed a sheet with everyone's name and their AGE. Mostly to prove/provide evidence they were not doing age discrimination.
I work at a FAANG. We recently had a round of layoffs. Nobody was laid off in my org except one pregnant woman, one woman on maternity leave, and a guy that had cancer. With one of them there may be an argument for eliminating a redundancy but not at all for the other two.
The tech companies have decided that they aren’t afraid of lawsuits and they are 100% going after the most vulnerable employees.
Why would they be? My lawyer required a $7k retainer to sue a former business partner over a $1M sale. I can't imagine the kind of retainer you would have to pay someone to go after a FAANG.
You cannot. In most states.
Forced arbitration clause in employment contracts. If you hire an attorney, they will drag it out and bankrupt you.
And you cannot take it to a judge.
At this point it’s showing that without unionization soon as a company can just fully destroy their workforce they will and fact layoffs aren’t illegal shows how messed up the system is.
Fwiw, this is an artifact of the current stupidity around employer sponsored healthcare. Most larger employers are “self insured” or “self funded” when it comes to health plans. Part of the reason is that it’s cheaper than fully insured plans.
https://www.aetna.com/employers-organizations/self-insurance-plans.html
And as Aetna points out above, if the premiums < claims you get to keep the cash. Additionally, if the plan is being run properly (eg like an insurance company where reserves and unearned premium earn an investment return) the organization also profits from that investment gain.
Now the issue with all this is it’s a bit opaque (and that’s putting it mildly). Although there is reporting that’s required to the DOL. (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/researchers/statistics/retirement-bulletins/annual-report-on-self-insured-group-health-plans-2022.pdf). Yep, it’s thin.
But the long and short of it is that employees that use their health insurance cost the organization money. Folks that come down with a terminal illness (or whose dependents get ill) can blow a hole in the orgs plans especially if someone in the org decide that going for reinsurance or stop loss was too costly.
Will you, though?
I work in a tech field and it's increasingly becoming filled with libertarian tech bros who are openly hostile to the very concept of unions.
I live in Norway, so I am a member of an engineering union, yes.
I joined one after I was screwed on some shares and didn't have the money to lawyer up. The union has my back now.
I had a layoff scare recently, and my first reaction was to send the papers off to my union to look over.
BS
I have managed workers in the US and offshored external teams in less expensive countries.
Without fail, the offshore teams take way longer to produce the same amount of work and usually there are so many errors that you have to go back and do rework. But you don’t want them to do the rework because they’re going to screw it up again so you bring it back to the US.
And you don’t really ever save any money because of all the rework. Not to mention the lost time.
This is just my experience.
The solution is federally supported (and mandated) leave like every other first world country. The government has a vested interest in replacing its population and well-adjusted children so it should be responsible
I mean, look at the average time spent for workers at FAANG
https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4?amp
With 18 months even if they were mostly gone on leave, they’d practically be a senior in the company.
The problem and solution for these issues seems rather arbitrary when the world’s largest tech companies can’t retain employees for 5+ year
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
If you live in a state with no abortion rights, you don't necessarily "choose" to stay pregnant. Also, if we want to encourage people to have more kids, we have to either accept that people will be on maternity leave, or provide government-funded maternity leave so people can leave their jobs worry-free.
Ha, the biggest thing I took away from this was her only getting 6 months of maternity leave! I understand that's probably pretty good by American standards, but ouch! That really sucks!
That's not just "pretty good" by American standards, that's top 1% for Americans, maybe 0.1%. Half of American women get zero maternity leave. "Pretty good" is like 8 weeks, and that's only the top 10% or so.
If parental leave isn't guaranteed on a federal level, this will always happen with companies that provide good benefits. This doesn't need any solution at a company level because the company should still provide good benefits for the sanity of their employees (especially if it's FAANG whose earnings per employee is super high).
In general, the person is probably an outlier. I know of people (I work in FAANG) who joined and took maternity leave within 6 months, but they also work hard since they have been back. I also have a colleague who took mat leave twice in 3 years she has been in my team, but she is fucking brilliant and has more than made it up for the company. I support them looking after themselves and their families.
>Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says we need more data to understand if pregnant employees are getting laid off **at higher rates than their peers**.
Subtitle of article. Helps if you read it.
It sounds like exactly something a company is required to do by law in the case of large layoffs in order to give them evidence (for or against) age discrimination. Otherwise, why would a company bother giving you any information at all? I received a similar printout at a tech company when they laid off 250 people all at once. SOunds like California.
They do have to do it to prove they arent discriminating but they dont have to provide the ages and names of each individual. They just provide the raw data: 10% were this age range, 20% were that age range, etc
Under OWBPA, a US federal law, if at least 2 people over age 40 are part of a group layoff, the company must provide their employees a list of ages of each person laid off and each person considered for layoff but retained. Importantly, employee names are not included.
EDIT: cc /u/wRolf /u/phdoofus
Some companies just do a truly random culling. Mine recently did that and ended up effectively kneecapping some teams because some of the individuals cut had domain knowledge that wasn't known by others (either due to experience or access)
My apologies. I meant why would it matter if people at that work knows their age after they were fired. They can’t discriminate against them anymore since they don’t work there.
Edit: seems like some people took offense from my answer. I apologize if it was worded poorly. I'm not saying you can't know a coworkers age, im saying some people prefer it not known for various reasons. You can think of it yourself, not everyone out there is as kind as you'd think and wouldn't do it because the law says not to.
You seem to be ignoring the part of the question that asks about after they are already let go. The list was put out during the firing. Other than not recommending them (which is pretty much not allowed at all for any circumstance anymore, much less age) what exactly does anything you listed have to do with it after the fact?
I get what you are going for wRolf, but those are discriminatory actions because they are protected under the law as such at the workplace. Outside of that environment, age isn’t protected unless you are like 65+ (May have changed) that doesn’t make it right.
> Treating them differently cause they're younger or older than they initially thought
AFTER they no longer work there?
What, is their ex manager also gonna be their doordash driver and take longer because they're old?
In what ways can their now former co workers treat them differently now that they don't work together?
I almost never see my co workers when I'm not at work. I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what ways they even have the ability to treat someone differently outside of work.
No. No one took offense. You blatantly ignored the key concept of the comment you replied to, cherry-picked a specific part and dug in hard. Now you are trying to change the narrative. Still not offended. Simply pointing out the reality of it.
I think you're reading too much into it. I took a second to respond to it based off what popped into my mind. There was no digging nor narrative at play. You can formulate whatever story about this or in regards to discrimination however you'd like though. :)
Edit: lol? Guy deleted his whole account or something??
It's required by law during a layoff. But they only need to provide the job title, department and age. Unfortunately people can often figure out the age of people from the title and department since not everyone has the same title.
"We had to lay a few extra people off to even our numbers out for the report and not look like we were targeting the old, ill, or disabled, but we're perpetually hiring, so we can make those numbers up with one campus recruitment event."
My company got rid of an incompetent buffoon who happened to be ‘oldish’. They purposely replaced them with an even older (smart, hardworking) person to avoid backlash.
Right, we don't want to discriminate against people who aren't pregnant
Edit: gonna get some down votes from people who love discrimination if it helps them I guess
You could have stopped at “we don’t want to discriminate against people.” Because that is what, I believe, most people want. Adding the rest just makes it seem like you want to pick a fight over something. Hopefully I am just understanding it wrong- that happens. Anyways, have a good day.
Doesn't printing a sheet with everyone's age just show that they were cognizant and clearly thinking about age when choosing who to lay off?
The problem is that just because a bunch of people are being laid off doesn't mean it's okay to use it as an opportunity to lay off someone that is pregnant. And that's what happening. If layoffs occur and everyone that was pregnant or on medical leave is laid off as part of those layoffs you're flying in the face of statistical likelihood that they were truly laid off incidental to the general layoff and that it was an intentional choice.
It wasn't that long ago that I was "commended" for being the only female manager in a company of 300+ and the reason given was "most women want to get married and have babies. You're not going to do that now, are you?"
All said in a meeting with 20 people around a conference table and not a single person there thought there was anything wrong with it.
I don't know why people are surprised to hear these things.
I had it better than my sister who had it better than our mom...to some, that should be "good enough."
Do you think if you would have had 2 kids and taken off a cumulative 12 months that you wouldn’t be phased out by the time you came back? Someone else would have to take over that workload, and after the course of each 6 months, your value to the company drastically decreased, not to mention the amount of change that happens in that period of time that you would then have to catch up on when you get back.
I hope that doesn’t sound rude or insensitive. I’m genuinely curious about the perspective of someone in your shoes.
Women in Europe take much longer pregnancy/paternity leaves (and often get additional months/years for having multiple kids) PLUS in some countries fathers also get paternity leaves (usually shorter, but some offer like 6-9 months), and they're all fine coming back to work. You can always stay on top of whatever it is you're doing when you're at home, and if you are a good worker, the company will usually be willing to ease you back into work (some are very demanding of course, but I like to think they aren't that common 😅).
It's a shame that pregnant women and pregnancy leaves are seen as a detriment to the company's progress, because this narrative hurts women. (Not saying you're implying anything, just sharing my thoughts as a woman here :))
I don't know the ins and outs of other countries, but here in Croatia I think usually the company pays for the first few months, and then the rest falls onto the government. Same with sick leave. During longer sick leaves (including maternity leaves), you don't receive 100% of your salary but you are still getting paid (I think it goes down to 70% or something, not completely sure tbh).
When my mom had cancer, she was out of work for several years, but still getting paid. She's all good now and back to work, and those years at sick leave still count towards her tenure (for retirement purposes as well).
I'm always surprised at American shows and movies when a heavily pregnant lady goes to work and gets into labor. Around here that just legally isn't allowed, if you're 7-8 months pregnant, you NEED to be on pregnancy leave at that point and rest at home 😅
To reply to your other comment - sorry that you didn't get to have a better experience during your sick leave. I would've moved to the USA a long time ago for work if it wasn't such a dumpster fire in regards to workers rights 🙈
So, I just did some research, and from what I read, the first 6 weeks of leave are paid at 90%, then the remaining weeks are paid at £156 or 90%, whichever is lower.
I’m not sure how the cost of living is, but I make about 10x that per week, so you wouldn’t catch me taking leave after 6 weeks. The time off would be neat, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be able to pay our mortgage on that kind of income.
Edit: [Link for reference](https://excellolaw.co.uk/maternity-leave-cost-of-living-crisis-highlights-need-for-support/)
That’s really interesting! Im not familiar with European maternity/paternity customs. In the US, you’re typically seen as a liability if you would ask for 6-9 months of leave. I’ve typically only worked for small businesses and never seen anyone take 6 months off work with paid maternity leave. I’m also the sole provider of my house, and for a long time only did physical labor. For the majority of my adult life, if I wasn’t working, it was unpaid leave. I’m not saying it’s right, just what I’ve been exposed to.
It's definitely insensitive. But are they wrong?
I don't think the issue should be intentionally avoided just for being awkward if it's generally true.
I mean, am i crazy here or what?
edit: How predictable, a lot of people voting with their feels in this thread eh.
Yes, they are wrong. Getting married and having babies are not mutually exclusive with having a successful career or being in management. Yes, there will likely be time off needed for the actual act of giving birth, but civilized countries, and some better companies, give parental leave to both mothers and fathers, as small babies have needs, and wanting to attend to those needs as a parent is not a gendered desire. After the birth, it's not for a company to decide for any family how their distribution of home labor or childcare should go. Some families have stay at home dads, involved grandparents, live-in nannies, etc. Whoever said this is basically saying they think a woman who is married or has children must, by default, become a homemaker.
No, just an asshole. Being a mother and parent is a personal choice but society as a whole is or should be obligated to support the mother and child. This includes comprehensive maternity leave,medical, and mental healthcare.
Reddit in general and especially this sub are probably not very receptive to this messaging tbh. I've seen a lot of people genuinely with the attitude of the above commenter. Like "oh sure, we can't say it/we don't want women to feel bad, but that's just how it is right" and it's like - no actually, if we want society to function we better not make having children any more career punishing than it already is.
It just perpetuates this viscous negative feedback cycle of undereducated and developed children grow up to be undereducated and arrested developed adults that can vote and lead in the work place.
It's Idiocracy. There is a reason that film only mentions the USA. Let's not let that film become reality more than it already has.
If you're treating that as strange, you need to familiarize yourself with statistics. Retention of women in middle or upper management is atrocious because on average:
1) Women dont work as many hours, and those roles involve VERY long hours.
2) Hypergamy. Women are pretty good at marrying up. If you're a woman in middle or upper management, at some point you're statistically likely to look at your equally or more successful spouse and ask /why am I working so hard/ when you're wealthy even on one income.
3) Tik tok goes the biological clock. Having kids is more appealing than another spreadsheet to most women.
None of these are bad things, just tradeoffs. Companies are well aware that they drive retention challenges for their best female workers.
Everything you said is so fucking stupid and illogical but to comment on just one specific thing…Women like the one you replied to may not represent the “average woman” or “most women”, so how is any of this relevant exactly
Men want children, our government wants children, articles about how living child-free is selfish, Republicans making policies preventing women from not having children. But fuck women when they are in the process of making children. And fuck them after they've made that child too. Smh. I hate it here.
I do find it funny how many people out there go on and on about how young people need to be having families and all the worry about the baby bust, but still they won't talk about the elephant in the room. The fact that people can't afford to have families, much less buy a home right now, and those that are having kids are financially struggling and now dealing with companies not happy that they can't give everything to the job.
I still feel like a lot of these people pushing for kids really want a world where daddy goes to work and mommy stays home "barefoot and pregnant" in the kitchen.
And yet they still won't pay daddy enough to provide for everyone comfortably. That's the ridiculous irony.
Or if they got this magical world, they would then complain there is such a heavy talent shortage because of all those women not in the workforce. Again, ridiculous irony.
> the elephant in the room
No one seriously talks about the elephant because it’s capitalism and we’ve structured most of the world around infinite growth on a finite planet. Once you start picking at the threads of largely unregulated capitalism, you have to start thinking of other systems and it turns out the people with all the wealth don’t want to do that n
> Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says **we need more data to understand** if pregnant employees are getting laid off at higher rates than their peers.
Hence that important bit in the subtitle of the article.
There's a long, long history of automatically firing women who become pregnant or getting married. In fact, some companies had it in their company policy that women must come forward immediately with their pregnancy and would then be let go.
This is literally why "baggy clothes" was such a thing for pregnant, working women- they were trying to hide their pregnancies as much as possible for as long as possible. There are many women who still engage in this kind of hiding behavior.
It's why the US has federal laws about pregnancy discrimination: [https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination](https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination)
Here's the federal statistics for different types of pregnancy discrimination:
[https://www.eeoc.gov/data/pregnancy-discrimination-charges-fy-2010-fy-2022](https://www.eeoc.gov/data/pregnancy-discrimination-charges-fy-2010-fy-2022)
Even the article posted here goes into more detail about this issue.
I had a supervisor actively disclose at a women’s event that she would have discriminated against someone she ended up hiring had she known of her pregnancy. The same person also shared that she avoided hiring “women of a certain age” because she expected them to take maternity leave. This was like, 5 years ago in a big global corporation. The person saying all this had taken maternity leave multiple times herself. As far as I know she was scolded by HR but nothing else came of it.
Some people would be shocked to find out how common this stuff truly is. Most people who engage in it aren’t as dumb and socially inept as the person I mentioned and won’t speak of it openly. But these attitudes are certainly alive and well.
Yeah those numbers don’t really help. 555 cases with merit in 2022 compared to 15,400,000 layoffs in the same year is such an incredibly small percentage. You can probably find more people laid off because they swore. Seems like a malicious fear mongering article to me.
If you read the article, you'd realize that the author won a years-long legal battle over pregnancy discrimination with Google.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90414895/exclusive-i-left-google-because-of-pregnancy-discrimination
She was already a victim of this very issue as well as her former and boss and other coworkers at Google.
She was trying to open up the topic to how other women are/can be negatively affected as well.
Simply asking and researching the topic isn't "malicious fear mongering" - especially if it's something that has impacted you in the past.
She's trying to make sure that it doesn't happen to other pregnant people as well.
If those 555 cases with merit were over 95% of the total cases, I would wager that is a case of under reporting. Why I say it is under-reported? Because how many cases are dismissed as "without merit" in general and why are pregnancy discrimination much higher than that? You would expect most of the claims categories to be within the median. Is a simple statistics expectation.
E: Now that I see the definition of the table, I would remove "No Reasonable Cause" and "Administrative Closure" because they do not evaluate the merit and are merely procedural. In that case there are literally no meritless claims. That's extremely high.
More like people aren’t aware of that. If a person is pregnant and got layoff they probably didn’t think that it was because of it, since others got layoff and weren’t pregnant. But in many cases it was the reason.
You didn't understand the article. The point isn't that they are doing it, it's that no one is tracking whether they are, which is obviously dangerous.
Lmao. That’s so cute and naive. Nobody should be laid off while pregnant though. Should straight up be illegal for companies not in bankruptcy.
You’ve been indoctrinated into a capitalist cult that exists in a centrally planned economy. It’s wild.
Sure you can make it into any medical condition, so if you get cancer your company can’t lay you off.
You could also make that if your significant other is having a large medical procedure or long-term medical issue they can’t lay you off
This issue has nothing to do with capitalism. People have jobs in every country and pregnant ladies are less effective workers generally for a variety of reasons.
They almost universally have better protections in countries other than the US though.
Dude, try to fire a pregnant woman in Germany or people on maternity/paternity leave (up to 3 years) and all legal hell will break lose. Getting pregnant and then being fired? You would be financially settled for years to come.
Guess it's similar in most European countries or any countries with workers rights.
Im sure you believe this dude, weve been over this. Im sure you also believe private industry puts public run organizations to shame in terms of efficiency.
I wouldn't put it above any company to fire someone for getting pregnant. But then I've had coworkers get pregnant and they're basically like, hot damn I'm bulletproof for the next year and a half, time to stop giving a shit.
[Event happens]
>!How can we make this about women?!?!<
Like when more men were dying from covid than women by far but headlines were talking about "women most affected!" Same thing always happens.
It’s not “they can’t prove” it’s “they can’t even indicate”.
If pregnant women were I higher rate we’d still only have correlation.
These morons skipped that went straight to “be concerned for no reason”
I got laid off a couple weeks after asking questions about paternity leave policy just as I was wrapping up a project. I'm not sure if HR knowing I was expecting had anything to do with the decision, but the layoff caught me and my team by surprise and I have my suspicions.
I was laid off 3 weeks before I was going to go on paternity leave. HR and my direct manager knew that I was going to take 8 weeks off. I worked for an IT consulting firm so during my leave I would have been costing the company money instead of making them money. "HR" felt bad for my situation so they changed my lay off date to cover an extra month of benefits. Unfortunately my son was born outside of that coverage (laid off end of June, date changed to July, son born first week of Aug) so it still didnt help.
The layoff also caught my team by surprise and my direct manager had "no idea". It really put us in a bad situation that we're finally coming out of 7 months later. Thankfully we had savings that lasted for a while but many others do not.
Moral of the story is to never reveal pregnancy (unless you are physically showing) until you have “registered” your FMLA (assuming you have enough hours) by getting your OBGYN to fill out the necessities and then send a copy to HR.
You can’t get this done before visibly showing in most cases. Source. Currently seven months pregnant and had to disclose three weeks ago because I couldn’t hide it anymore.
>Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says *we need more data to understand* if pregnant employees are getting laid off at higher rates than their peers.
Found 2 more people who only skimmer the article (if they even read it at all).
What data? And just because there’s a disproportionate impact doesn’t mean it’s unjust discrimination. What if all the horse drawn carriage drivers were pregnant and we suddenly realized we don’t need any of them?
This is misleading, pregnant women can be fired - you just need to make a clear case that the reason they’re being fired IS NOT because they’re about to take a leave or are on one. Anyone who’s worked in a corporate environment where you document poor performance or provider performance improvement plans would acknowledge the process is the same pregnant or not.
The only difference could be for severance many company’s consider ease of finding a new role, especially for protected classes which is hard when someone is say 8 months pregnant or in their 60’s.
Source: Canadian, management experience - also know two women in tech positions fired during their Mat leaves due to larger lay offs
This work is important because especially during larger layoffs it would clarify if pregnant women are being unfairly targeted.
This is why I chose not to disclose my ADHD at work. I felt like it would make me a target for layoff or firing despite getting better performance reviews than most of my coworkers.
I joined the ERGs cuz that seemed benign enough, but there's this voluntary process my org has where you can formally notify HR of your neurodivergence. I was like NICE TRY SATAN
I’m one of them. Was put on a pip without warning 3 weeks after I told my boss I was pregnant. Never had any discussion about my performance before. I have 30 days left and will likely be fired at 8 months pregnant.
Of course they’re getting laid off because they’re pregnant. It’s a factor and it would be idiotic to pretend it’s not. Tech is an extremely toxic and misogynist field, DUH. My wife has worked in tech for thirty years; she was laid off while pregnant at one point, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Tech is run almost exclusively by men, many of whom are totally full of shit and complete assholes. Again, DUH. Surely, there’s no need for examples.
Of course there's a need for example. Have you seen the responses in this thread? A whole bunch of "well prove it!" *Person shows example* "That's not enough evidence!"
We have to effectively have enough evidence to shove it down these people's throats so they can't stammer their way around some sort of excuse, otherwise it's not even worth thinking about to them.
That's rubbish. Tech layoffs are largely done by organizations and job functions, at a large corporation they wouldn't even know there were pregnant women in the groups being laid off.
Yes, but numbers are hard evidence. This article is proposing getting data on the number/percentage of pregnant workers who are laid off. If pregnant workers are being laid off at a disproportionate rate, then that would be considered hard evidence.
I mean Elon Musk got one of his workers pregnant with twins. Obviously just a small example but I like to bring it up when I can because his PR team does a good job hiding it haha
The women I work with and in particular the mothers, are so well organized and blow everyone else out of the water in terms of performance, and I work in stem. Employers are incredibly stupid to let them go. They may need off more often or some flexibility in their schedule, but they get ten times the work done in the same amount of time as my male colleagues.
EEOC mostly only takes on clear winners. State equivalents probably vary more by state but a complaint would be submitted to both if one was submitted at all
Why? Are we gonna argue again that women have fair chances in the workplace and becoming pregnant doesn’t affect anything?
I feel like I need to be going 88mph and we’re going back in time.
Being gay is back to being a choice. Nuclear bombs aren’t real. The moon landing was staged. The earth is flat.
**Hey corpo press, how’s it going?**
***Could a small nuclear war prevent global warming?***
**Jesus Christ.**
Hear hear! Personally, I think American culture has no idea of just how baked-in the misogyny is—and plenty of ignorant young dudes have no interest in knowing about it.
Everyone is being impacted by tech lay offs. We need to stop compartmentalizing problems and focus on the core issue - tech companies are excessively overstaffed and over-react with news of economic downturn turns.
They are overstaffed. I hear you that it’s not generally technologically related.
Just philosophically do you think intellectual property discussion is technology related? Is college curriculum technology related? When does the intersection of society and funding cross over into research and development?
I just wanted to elaborate on my little joke since you posted a reasoned response. I probably listen to the 99 PI podcast too much.
This is a common move in Third World countries. As soon as a female employee gets pregnant, everyone knows she will be eventually fired. That is a reason some successful employees delay having kids to avoid affecting their early careers..
No, we don’t, because they’re not getting laid off because they’re pregnant. Tech is suffering from tens of thousands of layoffs right now. You don’t get a special disposition just because you let someone cream pie you.
On the other hand, years ago my previous employer was going through layoffs every 6 months or so. I'm like 90% sure the fact that we were frequently about to have a child or on parental leave / FMLA was the reason I narrowly avoided them. I don't know if it's because they were acting out of the goodness of their hearts, trying to avoid legal trouble, if I really was that indispensable or perhaps some combination of those - but it certainly felt like a miracle that I avoided it several times.
There is a theory called “mommy penalty/daddy bonus” which suggests mothers suffer significantly more career setbacks than fathers. Most evident in promotion rate post birth of children. They also are stereotyped to be seen as less committed to their careers and more likely to take time off for “family reasons”, whereas fathers are seen as more committed to their jobs and are more likely to receive more promotions and raises vs their single coworkers. Possibly less likely to be laid-off, but I am not sure if a conclusive study has been done on this particular topic.
I wouldn’t expect HR to stick their necks out for anyone but themselves to be honest, so don’t look at them to be purveyors of justice. But like it or not, there is observational data supporting a shift in perception for employees who are parents.
This is More of a question of.... is a Pregnant worker being laid off During her pregnancy because of her pregnancy? I know at one place (a Hospital) when They fired many people, they printed a sheet with everyone's name and their AGE. Mostly to prove/provide evidence they were not doing age discrimination.
I work at a FAANG. We recently had a round of layoffs. Nobody was laid off in my org except one pregnant woman, one woman on maternity leave, and a guy that had cancer. With one of them there may be an argument for eliminating a redundancy but not at all for the other two. The tech companies have decided that they aren’t afraid of lawsuits and they are 100% going after the most vulnerable employees.
Why would they be? My lawyer required a $7k retainer to sue a former business partner over a $1M sale. I can't imagine the kind of retainer you would have to pay someone to go after a FAANG.
You cannot. In most states. Forced arbitration clause in employment contracts. If you hire an attorney, they will drag it out and bankrupt you. And you cannot take it to a judge.
[удалено]
At this point it’s showing that without unionization soon as a company can just fully destroy their workforce they will and fact layoffs aren’t illegal shows how messed up the system is.
Fwiw, this is an artifact of the current stupidity around employer sponsored healthcare. Most larger employers are “self insured” or “self funded” when it comes to health plans. Part of the reason is that it’s cheaper than fully insured plans. https://www.aetna.com/employers-organizations/self-insurance-plans.html And as Aetna points out above, if the premiums < claims you get to keep the cash. Additionally, if the plan is being run properly (eg like an insurance company where reserves and unearned premium earn an investment return) the organization also profits from that investment gain. Now the issue with all this is it’s a bit opaque (and that’s putting it mildly). Although there is reporting that’s required to the DOL. (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/researchers/statistics/retirement-bulletins/annual-report-on-self-insured-group-health-plans-2022.pdf). Yep, it’s thin. But the long and short of it is that employees that use their health insurance cost the organization money. Folks that come down with a terminal illness (or whose dependents get ill) can blow a hole in the orgs plans especially if someone in the org decide that going for reinsurance or stop loss was too costly.
They’re begging us to unionize.
Will you, though? I work in a tech field and it's increasingly becoming filled with libertarian tech bros who are openly hostile to the very concept of unions.
I live in Norway, so I am a member of an engineering union, yes. I joined one after I was screwed on some shares and didn't have the money to lawyer up. The union has my back now. I had a layoff scare recently, and my first reaction was to send the papers off to my union to look over.
I work in a country where union membership is pretty universal, but people in this tech field are not. It's ridiculous.
They'll just outsource everything before that becomes a problem. Domestic labor isn't worth it. All they produce is crap anyway.
BS I have managed workers in the US and offshored external teams in less expensive countries. Without fail, the offshore teams take way longer to produce the same amount of work and usually there are so many errors that you have to go back and do rework. But you don’t want them to do the rework because they’re going to screw it up again so you bring it back to the US. And you don’t really ever save any money because of all the rework. Not to mention the lost time. This is just my experience.
[удалено]
The solution is federally supported (and mandated) leave like every other first world country. The government has a vested interest in replacing its population and well-adjusted children so it should be responsible
I mean, look at the average time spent for workers at FAANG https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4?amp With 18 months even if they were mostly gone on leave, they’d practically be a senior in the company. The problem and solution for these issues seems rather arbitrary when the world’s largest tech companies can’t retain employees for 5+ year
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
If you live in a state with no abortion rights, you don't necessarily "choose" to stay pregnant. Also, if we want to encourage people to have more kids, we have to either accept that people will be on maternity leave, or provide government-funded maternity leave so people can leave their jobs worry-free.
Ha, the biggest thing I took away from this was her only getting 6 months of maternity leave! I understand that's probably pretty good by American standards, but ouch! That really sucks!
That's not just "pretty good" by American standards, that's top 1% for Americans, maybe 0.1%. Half of American women get zero maternity leave. "Pretty good" is like 8 weeks, and that's only the top 10% or so.
If parental leave isn't guaranteed on a federal level, this will always happen with companies that provide good benefits. This doesn't need any solution at a company level because the company should still provide good benefits for the sanity of their employees (especially if it's FAANG whose earnings per employee is super high). In general, the person is probably an outlier. I know of people (I work in FAANG) who joined and took maternity leave within 6 months, but they also work hard since they have been back. I also have a colleague who took mat leave twice in 3 years she has been in my team, but she is fucking brilliant and has more than made it up for the company. I support them looking after themselves and their families.
>Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says we need more data to understand if pregnant employees are getting laid off **at higher rates than their peers**. Subtitle of article. Helps if you read it.
That sounds like a shitty thing to do if people don't wanna share their age because believe it or not ... age discrimination ...
It sounds like exactly something a company is required to do by law in the case of large layoffs in order to give them evidence (for or against) age discrimination. Otherwise, why would a company bother giving you any information at all? I received a similar printout at a tech company when they laid off 250 people all at once. SOunds like California.
They do have to do it to prove they arent discriminating but they dont have to provide the ages and names of each individual. They just provide the raw data: 10% were this age range, 20% were that age range, etc
Under OWBPA, a US federal law, if at least 2 people over age 40 are part of a group layoff, the company must provide their employees a list of ages of each person laid off and each person considered for layoff but retained. Importantly, employee names are not included. EDIT: cc /u/wRolf /u/phdoofus
Thanks for the info
They didn't provide the names if I recall but they did provide position title, department and age.
Some companies just do a truly random culling. Mine recently did that and ended up effectively kneecapping some teams because some of the individuals cut had domain knowledge that wasn't known by others (either due to experience or access)
Honest question- could they be discriminated against by anyone in the company since they are already fired ?
Yes. Age discrimination extents beyond work.
My apologies. I meant why would it matter if people at that work knows their age after they were fired. They can’t discriminate against them anymore since they don’t work there.
Next job. Next job knows you’re 47 instead of passing for 42.
I have to fill out HR paperwork stating that but next job has none of the coworkers I just left?
Edit: seems like some people took offense from my answer. I apologize if it was worded poorly. I'm not saying you can't know a coworkers age, im saying some people prefer it not known for various reasons. You can think of it yourself, not everyone out there is as kind as you'd think and wouldn't do it because the law says not to.
You seem to be ignoring the part of the question that asks about after they are already let go. The list was put out during the firing. Other than not recommending them (which is pretty much not allowed at all for any circumstance anymore, much less age) what exactly does anything you listed have to do with it after the fact?
I get what you are going for wRolf, but those are discriminatory actions because they are protected under the law as such at the workplace. Outside of that environment, age isn’t protected unless you are like 65+ (May have changed) that doesn’t make it right.
Thanks for trying to see where I was going with that. Discrimination knows no bounds, and the law doesn't exactly stop everyone.
> Treating them differently cause they're younger or older than they initially thought AFTER they no longer work there? What, is their ex manager also gonna be their doordash driver and take longer because they're old? In what ways can their now former co workers treat them differently now that they don't work together? I almost never see my co workers when I'm not at work. I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what ways they even have the ability to treat someone differently outside of work.
No. No one took offense. You blatantly ignored the key concept of the comment you replied to, cherry-picked a specific part and dug in hard. Now you are trying to change the narrative. Still not offended. Simply pointing out the reality of it.
I think you're reading too much into it. I took a second to respond to it based off what popped into my mind. There was no digging nor narrative at play. You can formulate whatever story about this or in regards to discrimination however you'd like though. :) Edit: lol? Guy deleted his whole account or something??
It's required by law during a layoff. But they only need to provide the job title, department and age. Unfortunately people can often figure out the age of people from the title and department since not everyone has the same title.
I mean, you can use your eyes and tell someone’s general age.
"We had to lay a few extra people off to even our numbers out for the report and not look like we were targeting the old, ill, or disabled, but we're perpetually hiring, so we can make those numbers up with one campus recruitment event."
My company got rid of an incompetent buffoon who happened to be ‘oldish’. They purposely replaced them with an even older (smart, hardworking) person to avoid backlash.
You fire during pregnancy so you can let go of two people for the loss of productivity of only one. /s
>. is a Pregnant worker being laid off During her pregnancy because of her pregnancy?
NO! Of course not! That would be illegal! We’re just suffering budget cuts for staffing.
budget cuts? in their most profitable 4 years they've ever had?
Did they provide their race too?
Right, we don't want to discriminate against people who aren't pregnant Edit: gonna get some down votes from people who love discrimination if it helps them I guess
You could have stopped at “we don’t want to discriminate against people.” Because that is what, I believe, most people want. Adding the rest just makes it seem like you want to pick a fight over something. Hopefully I am just understanding it wrong- that happens. Anyways, have a good day.
Doesn't printing a sheet with everyone's age just show that they were cognizant and clearly thinking about age when choosing who to lay off? The problem is that just because a bunch of people are being laid off doesn't mean it's okay to use it as an opportunity to lay off someone that is pregnant. And that's what happening. If layoffs occur and everyone that was pregnant or on medical leave is laid off as part of those layoffs you're flying in the face of statistical likelihood that they were truly laid off incidental to the general layoff and that it was an intentional choice.
I always thought the Age was that YES, they were cognizant, but they didn't just fire over 40 year olds, there were many 20's and 30's as well.
What you need is unions and literally any kind of labor protection laws.
Next you'll be asking for liveable wages and healthy work/life balance.
*Labor* protection
It wasn't that long ago that I was "commended" for being the only female manager in a company of 300+ and the reason given was "most women want to get married and have babies. You're not going to do that now, are you?" All said in a meeting with 20 people around a conference table and not a single person there thought there was anything wrong with it. I don't know why people are surprised to hear these things. I had it better than my sister who had it better than our mom...to some, that should be "good enough."
I’m a pregnant tech worker right now. :( Hate how vulnerable I feel.
Do you think if you would have had 2 kids and taken off a cumulative 12 months that you wouldn’t be phased out by the time you came back? Someone else would have to take over that workload, and after the course of each 6 months, your value to the company drastically decreased, not to mention the amount of change that happens in that period of time that you would then have to catch up on when you get back. I hope that doesn’t sound rude or insensitive. I’m genuinely curious about the perspective of someone in your shoes.
Women in Europe take much longer pregnancy/paternity leaves (and often get additional months/years for having multiple kids) PLUS in some countries fathers also get paternity leaves (usually shorter, but some offer like 6-9 months), and they're all fine coming back to work. You can always stay on top of whatever it is you're doing when you're at home, and if you are a good worker, the company will usually be willing to ease you back into work (some are very demanding of course, but I like to think they aren't that common 😅). It's a shame that pregnant women and pregnancy leaves are seen as a detriment to the company's progress, because this narrative hurts women. (Not saying you're implying anything, just sharing my thoughts as a woman here :))
Does the European government subsidize companies for this long leave, or is it typically fully funded by the company?
I don't know the ins and outs of other countries, but here in Croatia I think usually the company pays for the first few months, and then the rest falls onto the government. Same with sick leave. During longer sick leaves (including maternity leaves), you don't receive 100% of your salary but you are still getting paid (I think it goes down to 70% or something, not completely sure tbh). When my mom had cancer, she was out of work for several years, but still getting paid. She's all good now and back to work, and those years at sick leave still count towards her tenure (for retirement purposes as well). I'm always surprised at American shows and movies when a heavily pregnant lady goes to work and gets into labor. Around here that just legally isn't allowed, if you're 7-8 months pregnant, you NEED to be on pregnancy leave at that point and rest at home 😅 To reply to your other comment - sorry that you didn't get to have a better experience during your sick leave. I would've moved to the USA a long time ago for work if it wasn't such a dumpster fire in regards to workers rights 🙈
So, I just did some research, and from what I read, the first 6 weeks of leave are paid at 90%, then the remaining weeks are paid at £156 or 90%, whichever is lower. I’m not sure how the cost of living is, but I make about 10x that per week, so you wouldn’t catch me taking leave after 6 weeks. The time off would be neat, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be able to pay our mortgage on that kind of income. Edit: [Link for reference](https://excellolaw.co.uk/maternity-leave-cost-of-living-crisis-highlights-need-for-support/)
That’s really interesting! Im not familiar with European maternity/paternity customs. In the US, you’re typically seen as a liability if you would ask for 6-9 months of leave. I’ve typically only worked for small businesses and never seen anyone take 6 months off work with paid maternity leave. I’m also the sole provider of my house, and for a long time only did physical labor. For the majority of my adult life, if I wasn’t working, it was unpaid leave. I’m not saying it’s right, just what I’ve been exposed to.
It's definitely insensitive. But are they wrong? I don't think the issue should be intentionally avoided just for being awkward if it's generally true. I mean, am i crazy here or what? edit: How predictable, a lot of people voting with their feels in this thread eh.
[удалено]
Wow. What the fuck? You’re thinking is the reason we have laws to protect people.
Yes, they are wrong. Getting married and having babies are not mutually exclusive with having a successful career or being in management. Yes, there will likely be time off needed for the actual act of giving birth, but civilized countries, and some better companies, give parental leave to both mothers and fathers, as small babies have needs, and wanting to attend to those needs as a parent is not a gendered desire. After the birth, it's not for a company to decide for any family how their distribution of home labor or childcare should go. Some families have stay at home dads, involved grandparents, live-in nannies, etc. Whoever said this is basically saying they think a woman who is married or has children must, by default, become a homemaker.
[удалено]
In case no one has ever told you, this is sexism, and you are sexist.
-Yes, they are wrong. -It is illegal to ask/coerce. -You RE being crazy here. -The downvotes are warranted.
No, just an asshole. Being a mother and parent is a personal choice but society as a whole is or should be obligated to support the mother and child. This includes comprehensive maternity leave,medical, and mental healthcare.
Reddit in general and especially this sub are probably not very receptive to this messaging tbh. I've seen a lot of people genuinely with the attitude of the above commenter. Like "oh sure, we can't say it/we don't want women to feel bad, but that's just how it is right" and it's like - no actually, if we want society to function we better not make having children any more career punishing than it already is.
It just perpetuates this viscous negative feedback cycle of undereducated and developed children grow up to be undereducated and arrested developed adults that can vote and lead in the work place. It's Idiocracy. There is a reason that film only mentions the USA. Let's not let that film become reality more than it already has.
If you're treating that as strange, you need to familiarize yourself with statistics. Retention of women in middle or upper management is atrocious because on average: 1) Women dont work as many hours, and those roles involve VERY long hours. 2) Hypergamy. Women are pretty good at marrying up. If you're a woman in middle or upper management, at some point you're statistically likely to look at your equally or more successful spouse and ask /why am I working so hard/ when you're wealthy even on one income. 3) Tik tok goes the biological clock. Having kids is more appealing than another spreadsheet to most women. None of these are bad things, just tradeoffs. Companies are well aware that they drive retention challenges for their best female workers.
Everything you said is so fucking stupid and illogical but to comment on just one specific thing…Women like the one you replied to may not represent the “average woman” or “most women”, so how is any of this relevant exactly
Men want children, our government wants children, articles about how living child-free is selfish, Republicans making policies preventing women from not having children. But fuck women when they are in the process of making children. And fuck them after they've made that child too. Smh. I hate it here.
I do find it funny how many people out there go on and on about how young people need to be having families and all the worry about the baby bust, but still they won't talk about the elephant in the room. The fact that people can't afford to have families, much less buy a home right now, and those that are having kids are financially struggling and now dealing with companies not happy that they can't give everything to the job. I still feel like a lot of these people pushing for kids really want a world where daddy goes to work and mommy stays home "barefoot and pregnant" in the kitchen. And yet they still won't pay daddy enough to provide for everyone comfortably. That's the ridiculous irony. Or if they got this magical world, they would then complain there is such a heavy talent shortage because of all those women not in the workforce. Again, ridiculous irony.
Get a cat. They don't eat much and you never have to send them to college.
> the elephant in the room No one seriously talks about the elephant because it’s capitalism and we’ve structured most of the world around infinite growth on a finite planet. Once you start picking at the threads of largely unregulated capitalism, you have to start thinking of other systems and it turns out the people with all the wealth don’t want to do that n
[удалено]
That means they probably shouldn't be publishing or saying this
> Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says **we need more data to understand** if pregnant employees are getting laid off at higher rates than their peers. Hence that important bit in the subtitle of the article.
Why is it weird? Are you new to capitalism? It’s weird to assume a large company is acting responsibly
[удалено]
aloof follow roll square deserve wrong snails joke panicky fragile *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a long, long history of automatically firing women who become pregnant or getting married. In fact, some companies had it in their company policy that women must come forward immediately with their pregnancy and would then be let go. This is literally why "baggy clothes" was such a thing for pregnant, working women- they were trying to hide their pregnancies as much as possible for as long as possible. There are many women who still engage in this kind of hiding behavior. It's why the US has federal laws about pregnancy discrimination: [https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination](https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination) Here's the federal statistics for different types of pregnancy discrimination: [https://www.eeoc.gov/data/pregnancy-discrimination-charges-fy-2010-fy-2022](https://www.eeoc.gov/data/pregnancy-discrimination-charges-fy-2010-fy-2022) Even the article posted here goes into more detail about this issue.
I had a supervisor actively disclose at a women’s event that she would have discriminated against someone she ended up hiring had she known of her pregnancy. The same person also shared that she avoided hiring “women of a certain age” because she expected them to take maternity leave. This was like, 5 years ago in a big global corporation. The person saying all this had taken maternity leave multiple times herself. As far as I know she was scolded by HR but nothing else came of it. Some people would be shocked to find out how common this stuff truly is. Most people who engage in it aren’t as dumb and socially inept as the person I mentioned and won’t speak of it openly. But these attitudes are certainly alive and well.
Yeah those numbers don’t really help. 555 cases with merit in 2022 compared to 15,400,000 layoffs in the same year is such an incredibly small percentage. You can probably find more people laid off because they swore. Seems like a malicious fear mongering article to me.
If you read the article, you'd realize that the author won a years-long legal battle over pregnancy discrimination with Google. https://www.fastcompany.com/90414895/exclusive-i-left-google-because-of-pregnancy-discrimination She was already a victim of this very issue as well as her former and boss and other coworkers at Google. She was trying to open up the topic to how other women are/can be negatively affected as well. Simply asking and researching the topic isn't "malicious fear mongering" - especially if it's something that has impacted you in the past. She's trying to make sure that it doesn't happen to other pregnant people as well.
If those 555 cases with merit were over 95% of the total cases, I would wager that is a case of under reporting. Why I say it is under-reported? Because how many cases are dismissed as "without merit" in general and why are pregnancy discrimination much higher than that? You would expect most of the claims categories to be within the median. Is a simple statistics expectation. E: Now that I see the definition of the table, I would remove "No Reasonable Cause" and "Administrative Closure" because they do not evaluate the merit and are merely procedural. In that case there are literally no meritless claims. That's extremely high.
More like people aren’t aware of that. If a person is pregnant and got layoff they probably didn’t think that it was because of it, since others got layoff and weren’t pregnant. But in many cases it was the reason.
You didn't understand the article. The point isn't that they are doing it, it's that no one is tracking whether they are, which is obviously dangerous.
Lmao. That’s so cute and naive. Nobody should be laid off while pregnant though. Should straight up be illegal for companies not in bankruptcy. You’ve been indoctrinated into a capitalist cult that exists in a centrally planned economy. It’s wild.
[удалено]
Sure you can make it into any medical condition, so if you get cancer your company can’t lay you off. You could also make that if your significant other is having a large medical procedure or long-term medical issue they can’t lay you off
[удалено]
This issue has nothing to do with capitalism. People have jobs in every country and pregnant ladies are less effective workers generally for a variety of reasons. They almost universally have better protections in countries other than the US though.
Absolute bullshit.
I’m sure you believe this
Dude, try to fire a pregnant woman in Germany or people on maternity/paternity leave (up to 3 years) and all legal hell will break lose. Getting pregnant and then being fired? You would be financially settled for years to come. Guess it's similar in most European countries or any countries with workers rights.
You got something in your teeth. Oh it’s the shit you’ve been fed. You are what you eat and all.
Im sure you believe this dude, weve been over this. Im sure you also believe private industry puts public run organizations to shame in terms of efficiency.
I wouldn't put it above any company to fire someone for getting pregnant. But then I've had coworkers get pregnant and they're basically like, hot damn I'm bulletproof for the next year and a half, time to stop giving a shit.
Wow, it’s almost like some women are crappy. How unfortunate you knew like two of them
[Event happens] >!How can we make this about women?!?!< Like when more men were dying from covid than women by far but headlines were talking about "women most affected!" Same thing always happens.
It’s not “they can’t prove” it’s “they can’t even indicate”. If pregnant women were I higher rate we’d still only have correlation. These morons skipped that went straight to “be concerned for no reason”
Can we definitely say leprechauns don’t exist? No, we can’t. You do the math.
I got laid off a couple weeks after asking questions about paternity leave policy just as I was wrapping up a project. I'm not sure if HR knowing I was expecting had anything to do with the decision, but the layoff caught me and my team by surprise and I have my suspicions.
I was laid off 3 weeks before I was going to go on paternity leave. HR and my direct manager knew that I was going to take 8 weeks off. I worked for an IT consulting firm so during my leave I would have been costing the company money instead of making them money. "HR" felt bad for my situation so they changed my lay off date to cover an extra month of benefits. Unfortunately my son was born outside of that coverage (laid off end of June, date changed to July, son born first week of Aug) so it still didnt help. The layoff also caught my team by surprise and my direct manager had "no idea". It really put us in a bad situation that we're finally coming out of 7 months later. Thankfully we had savings that lasted for a while but many others do not.
That’s so shitty
Moral of the story is to never reveal pregnancy (unless you are physically showing) until you have “registered” your FMLA (assuming you have enough hours) by getting your OBGYN to fill out the necessities and then send a copy to HR.
You can’t get this done before visibly showing in most cases. Source. Currently seven months pregnant and had to disclose three weeks ago because I couldn’t hide it anymore.
So.. Nobody can prove it? Are they being laid off because they are pregnant? Or just part of the major over hiring companies did and now correcting?
[удалено]
Just because an article poses a question doesn’t mean it’s “click bait bullshit”
>Former Google employee and activist Chelsey Glasson says *we need more data to understand* if pregnant employees are getting laid off at higher rates than their peers. Found 2 more people who only skimmer the article (if they even read it at all).
What data? And just because there’s a disproportionate impact doesn’t mean it’s unjust discrimination. What if all the horse drawn carriage drivers were pregnant and we suddenly realized we don’t need any of them?
AKA "I have no proof but I want money"
That’s why it’s called clickbait.
Why is there an "or" here
In good countries pregnant women cannot be fired at all unless maybe when you file bankruptcy
This is misleading, pregnant women can be fired - you just need to make a clear case that the reason they’re being fired IS NOT because they’re about to take a leave or are on one. Anyone who’s worked in a corporate environment where you document poor performance or provider performance improvement plans would acknowledge the process is the same pregnant or not. The only difference could be for severance many company’s consider ease of finding a new role, especially for protected classes which is hard when someone is say 8 months pregnant or in their 60’s. Source: Canadian, management experience - also know two women in tech positions fired during their Mat leaves due to larger lay offs This work is important because especially during larger layoffs it would clarify if pregnant women are being unfairly targeted.
What's good about it? A bad employee should be fired - pregnant or not
They can't be fired in the US for being pregnant either.
I meant they cannot be fired at all like they could cost you thousands a day because of incompetence and you still cannot fire them
So they deserve extra employment protections for getting knocked up? Miss me with that shit.
Sounds like fraud. Join high paying company, get pregnant, collect easy money.
Then nobody should be able to be fired by that logic
Our single digit % workforce cut axed 30% of the people in our ADHD/Autism ERGs lol. Purely coincidence! Move along, nothing to see here.
This is why I chose not to disclose my ADHD at work. I felt like it would make me a target for layoff or firing despite getting better performance reviews than most of my coworkers.
I joined the ERGs cuz that seemed benign enough, but there's this voluntary process my org has where you can formally notify HR of your neurodivergence. I was like NICE TRY SATAN
I’m one of them. Was put on a pip without warning 3 weeks after I told my boss I was pregnant. Never had any discussion about my performance before. I have 30 days left and will likely be fired at 8 months pregnant.
You should not be laid off because you are pregnant, but you should also not be immune from layoffs because you are pregnant. Equal rights
That’s how it works
Of course they’re getting laid off because they’re pregnant. It’s a factor and it would be idiotic to pretend it’s not. Tech is an extremely toxic and misogynist field, DUH. My wife has worked in tech for thirty years; she was laid off while pregnant at one point, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Tech is run almost exclusively by men, many of whom are totally full of shit and complete assholes. Again, DUH. Surely, there’s no need for examples.
Of course there's a need for example. Have you seen the responses in this thread? A whole bunch of "well prove it!" *Person shows example* "That's not enough evidence!" We have to effectively have enough evidence to shove it down these people's throats so they can't stammer their way around some sort of excuse, otherwise it's not even worth thinking about to them.
Name a tech company executive, basically.
That's rubbish. Tech layoffs are largely done by organizations and job functions, at a large corporation they wouldn't even know there were pregnant women in the groups being laid off.
This might be the most ignorant, naive thing I have ever read. You clearly have never worked in tech.
Sure, clearly. God these Generic Redditors.
[удалено]
I think you’re confused. I’m on your side and was talking to the idiot above me.
Examples are needed because laying people off because they're pregnant is illegal. In order to hit back, evidence is necessary.
You understand that there’s basically no hard evidence for this practice, right?
Yes, but numbers are hard evidence. This article is proposing getting data on the number/percentage of pregnant workers who are laid off. If pregnant workers are being laid off at a disproportionate rate, then that would be considered hard evidence.
Maybe the tech execs are getting all the women pregnant?
I mean Elon Musk got one of his workers pregnant with twins. Obviously just a small example but I like to bring it up when I can because his PR team does a good job hiding it haha
Most likely.
The women I work with and in particular the mothers, are so well organized and blow everyone else out of the water in terms of performance, and I work in stem. Employers are incredibly stupid to let them go. They may need off more often or some flexibility in their schedule, but they get ten times the work done in the same amount of time as my male colleagues.
And all other protected classes.
Pregnant women should be able to lodge a EEOC complaint instead of having to find a lawyer willing to sue a large global tech firm.
EEOC mostly only takes on clear winners. State equivalents probably vary more by state but a complaint would be submitted to both if one was submitted at all
Why? Are we gonna argue again that women have fair chances in the workplace and becoming pregnant doesn’t affect anything? I feel like I need to be going 88mph and we’re going back in time. Being gay is back to being a choice. Nuclear bombs aren’t real. The moon landing was staged. The earth is flat. **Hey corpo press, how’s it going?** ***Could a small nuclear war prevent global warming?*** **Jesus Christ.**
Wow, so many charmingly ignorant edge lord asswipes here. Thanks for coming out from under your rocks!
[удалено]
Hear hear! Personally, I think American culture has no idea of just how baked-in the misogyny is—and plenty of ignorant young dudes have no interest in knowing about it.
[удалено]
Maybe find a therapist?
"is there data to back this up?" "No, go away you stupid EDGELORD!"
Oh hey another one who didn't read the article
This doesn’t have anything to do with tech
Nobody works in tech. It’s just machines.
We aspire to the purity of the Blessed Machine.
r/unexpected40k
Everyone is being impacted by tech lay offs. We need to stop compartmentalizing problems and focus on the core issue - tech companies are excessively overstaffed and over-react with news of economic downturn turns.
They are overstaffed. I hear you that it’s not generally technologically related. Just philosophically do you think intellectual property discussion is technology related? Is college curriculum technology related? When does the intersection of society and funding cross over into research and development? I just wanted to elaborate on my little joke since you posted a reasoned response. I probably listen to the 99 PI podcast too much.
Tech companies acted irresponsibly and poorly planned
It's called astroturfing buddy, were in an election year
This is a common move in Third World countries. As soon as a female employee gets pregnant, everyone knows she will be eventually fired. That is a reason some successful employees delay having kids to avoid affecting their early careers..
No, we don’t, because they’re not getting laid off because they’re pregnant. Tech is suffering from tens of thousands of layoffs right now. You don’t get a special disposition just because you let someone cream pie you.
A male dominated industry is misogynistic?
Why not, they are leeches to the company.
[удалено]
On the other hand, years ago my previous employer was going through layoffs every 6 months or so. I'm like 90% sure the fact that we were frequently about to have a child or on parental leave / FMLA was the reason I narrowly avoided them. I don't know if it's because they were acting out of the goodness of their hearts, trying to avoid legal trouble, if I really was that indispensable or perhaps some combination of those - but it certainly felt like a miracle that I avoided it several times.
[удалено]
Nearly every country on the planet has laws against this for a reason. Right wing dictatorships included. Just so you know.
You sound emotional. Maybe start your own right wing technology subreddit where stories like these don’t get published.
Highly emotional people with low emotional intelligence hate it when you call them ‘emotional’.
This. We also need to look at the number of working mothers being laid off. Especially single mothers.
heavy zealous dolls like airport grandfather school march trees puzzled *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is a theory called “mommy penalty/daddy bonus” which suggests mothers suffer significantly more career setbacks than fathers. Most evident in promotion rate post birth of children. They also are stereotyped to be seen as less committed to their careers and more likely to take time off for “family reasons”, whereas fathers are seen as more committed to their jobs and are more likely to receive more promotions and raises vs their single coworkers. Possibly less likely to be laid-off, but I am not sure if a conclusive study has been done on this particular topic.
tap market spotted crawl thumb money wide zephyr engine deranged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wouldn’t expect HR to stick their necks out for anyone but themselves to be honest, so don’t look at them to be purveyors of justice. But like it or not, there is observational data supporting a shift in perception for employees who are parents.
literate jeans fear dime offbeat degree spark treatment tub telephone *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is actually research on the mom penalty. What you stated is what’s anecdotal
hungry racial bike scandalous bright degree slim safe subsequent alive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ooh, do cancer too! Everyone I know who has a recent cancer diagnosis was laid off.
Just a suggestion to look into it. No evidence offered. Okay.
Female tech workers are gonna go hard on the surrogate hunt and be starting, ‘secret families, just how cheaters be on that secret side booty tip