I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work harder and put their family plans on hold, in favor of the company. I can easily imagine a situation in which this benefit will be used to force women to choose between advancing their careers ("why not freeze your eggs, and have children later?") and starting or expanding a family.<p>Part of the problem here would seem to be that the US still lags behind the rest of the world in maternity leave. If the government were to mandate that companies let women take off from work, and then return to their jobs without penalty, it would result in a level playing field, and a sense (among women) that they don't have to choose.<p>Actually, that's not entirely true: In Israel, where I live, there is government-mandated maternity leave with decent benefits, and women still find it hard to compete. It's not unusual for potential employers to (illegally) ask women how old they are, when they plan to have children, or how many children they plan to have. So even with such a benefit in place, things are still tough for women in the workplace.<p>I should add that I'm male and the owner of a small (currently 3-person) company. I have hired women before, and see having children as something to be encouraged and integrated into the business lifecycle, rather than ignored.
Spot on.<p>When companies indirectly demand that you put your personal life on hold for them, you know they have gone too far. What next? Employment contracts that stipulate no pregnancy because they offer egg freezing?<p>This kind of contract creep and rights erosion is already happening for things like non-compete agreements where employees sign off the right to get gainful employment elsewhere when it makes sense to do so. It just feels like slavery is creeping back up on us.<p>We live about 80-90 years, I don't think the present culture of slaving your ass off for an app while missing out on all of life is worth it.
So Facebook is paying for egg freezing to discourage young, productive employees from starting a family. But then it also offers 4 months paid paternal and maternal leave, as well as a $4k cash bonus to new parents, and subsidized childcare. Seems like a bad strategy on their part if that's their ultimate goal.
Having children when it's least risky (before 30) should be possible without career suicide. To accomplish that, government must mandate more generous maternity leave policies. Companies aren't going to be nice by themselves. They have competitors to undercut and work to be done.
If somebody developed a drug that allowed people to go without sleep indefinitely, without immediate cognitive impairment, these companies would offer that too. It would be "voluntary" of course, but people who went without would have a hard time advancing or even getting good reviews when they're compared vs. the sleepless. Then we'd probably hear ten years down the road about how the companies were quietly finding excuses to let people go before the long-term health effects kicked in.<p>Isn't it great that these cutting-edge companies can offer such empowering choices to their workers?
Mandate that men as well as women get x amount of time off for the birth of a child. No more negative effect for women vs men in this regard( and personally i dont see any reason for a sex based bias for hiring. At all).<p>Edit: for fat thumbs and mobile device.
Remarkably lucid analysis of one potential motive behind such programs.<p>To play devil's advocate, programs like this could arguably lead to higher earning power for women as they get older by keeping them engaged in competitive labor markets for longer periods (years, potentially more than a decade) without gaps necessitated by childbirth. It's totally plausible this is a confounding variable in the gender wage gap phenomenon.<p>This isn't an endorsement of the argument but a sleazy person could easily mount that defense and immediately have a parade thrown in their honor.
This is actually a smart solution to a huge biological problem.<p>1) Women have huge downtimes in their child-rearing years. This equates as women being more expensive for the same amount of work for that (short) period of time. This cannot be ignored.<p>2) Companies wont hire more expensive people just of good will if not forced to do so.<p>3) Companies won't hire women after child-rearing age. Also they won't hire old men, because they are more expensive and work less. No sexism here, we all get fucked equally.<p>4) Playing field cannot be made equal for both sexes. Men cannot be given the same paternity leave rights as women, because a man can easily abuse the paternity leave by simply fathering childrens very often, or claiming a child is theirs, something a woman cannot easily do as a pregnancy is very hard to fake. Maybe Google can do it, or Facebook. But think of a blue-collar factory. Can't do it.<p>You can protest for social justice all you want. It won't happen anytime soon.
I flagged this article not because of the actual article, but because of the discussion here which has turned pretty negative and sordid. The anti-american comments and politics are a huge turn off.