Amazon, Meta, Google and more will pay for abortion, but not birth
31 comments
It's a cost/benefit win for many companies in the U.S. where maternity leave, let alone universal health care, is not the norm. The optics of such a policy cast a favorable light on the employer, while the cost is minimal, and much less than maternity leave. Since most Americans are in favor of Roe v Wade, the employer is not taking much of a risk by taking a side here. If you haven't guessed by now, business in the U.S. is not about having a happy workforce, it is about the bottom line. Only when competition for that workforce intensifies do the employers consider adding perks. And yes, it's insane.
There’s no need to pay for birth travel and all of these companies provide health insurance to pay for births. Parental leave, not so much, but the pre and post partum health coverage should be fine. Careful if they eliminate ACA as being preggers goes back to being a pre-existing condition requiring cobra coverage when changing jobs.
You're going to have elaborate about what these policies are and also what you think they should be doing.
> but won’t pay you more money if you decide to keep the baby.
It sounds like you think they should give people pay increases if they have children. Of course, they also offer parental leave, and arguably lose money every time one of their employees has a baby, so if that's what you want them to do, it makes no sense.
To be clear, I'm not proposing they have some nefarious economic purpose in paying employees to fly to get abortions. I think the companies genuinely view it as a healthcare benefit, and most of their employees genuinely feel that it should be a fundamental Federal right.
> Where are the people in tech that are fighting back against this?
Who would bother, aside from people with serious moral qualms about abortion?
> but won’t pay you more money if you decide to keep the baby.
It sounds like you think they should give people pay increases if they have children. Of course, they also offer parental leave, and arguably lose money every time one of their employees has a baby, so if that's what you want them to do, it makes no sense.
To be clear, I'm not proposing they have some nefarious economic purpose in paying employees to fly to get abortions. I think the companies genuinely view it as a healthcare benefit, and most of their employees genuinely feel that it should be a fundamental Federal right.
> Where are the people in tech that are fighting back against this?
Who would bother, aside from people with serious moral qualms about abortion?
This is all true -- as a parent at a big high-tech company, we get excellent benefits for our kids. There's health insurance, dental insurance, paid parental leave for both parents, subsidized day care, and more.
I mean this isn’t just some majority that would be okay with this. Surely there are professionals at big tech companies who will speak out against this, just like Google’s liberal bias etc.
> I mean this isn’t just some majority that would be okay with this.
Says who, based on what data?
I feel like it's pretty clear that most educated people in the US of working age are either centrist or left of center politically, and that, accordingly, for the most part, groups of educated people in the US tend to have a "liberal bias".
I don't see what basis there is to argue that these companies should not provide a perk that a significant percentage of its workforce wants. I also think the term "bias" is misplaced; there is no duty on the part of these companies to resist culturally skewing as their employees skew. We can speak of biased media because, ideally, journalists should be as objective as possible, but that logic doesn't apply to, e.g., Amazon.
Says who, based on what data?
I feel like it's pretty clear that most educated people in the US of working age are either centrist or left of center politically, and that, accordingly, for the most part, groups of educated people in the US tend to have a "liberal bias".
I don't see what basis there is to argue that these companies should not provide a perk that a significant percentage of its workforce wants. I also think the term "bias" is misplaced; there is no duty on the part of these companies to resist culturally skewing as their employees skew. We can speak of biased media because, ideally, journalists should be as objective as possible, but that logic doesn't apply to, e.g., Amazon.
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nikolqy
"Male, 19 and living in Missouri right now."
LOL.
"Male, 19 and living in Missouri right now."
LOL.
Oh, shit, did you read back a few pages for his comments on the Russian invasion, Jan 6th, his trusted news sources, and whatnot? Ffffuuuuuu…
AFP, Reuters, WSJ, Fox etc.
The ones who aren't actually accused of spreading disinformation, unlike NYT, NPR, WAPO etc. who have to retract lies on the daily.
I’m sad for you. You know what would likely do you a world of good? Travel. Go spend some time in Canada, Europe, New Zealand. Clear your head of the brainwashing.
So, great coincidence, I was coming back to this thread to ask you if you support mandatory vaccination.
So, great coincidence, I was coming back to this thread to ask you if you support mandatory vaccination.
If you’re implying that AFP, Reuters, WSJ, and Fox News spread disinformation on their sites, then it’s you who’s been brainwashed.
Given that Reuters and WSJ inevitably conflict with the propaganda engine that is Fox, what you're saying isn't tenable.
Christ, dude, you just can not keep saying Fox doesn’t spread disinformation. That’s a bug-fuck crazy statement.
Like I said, you desperately need to get out of the bassackwards fishbowl you’re swimming in. Go visit Europe. Go learn what a modern civilized society is like.
Anyhoo, back to my question: you demand mandatory vaccination, right?
Like I said, you desperately need to get out of the bassackwards fishbowl you’re swimming in. Go visit Europe. Go learn what a modern civilized society is like.
Anyhoo, back to my question: you demand mandatory vaccination, right?
Shit, he doesn't need to go that far to learn what civilized society is like lol
Do they not already pay for maternity leave?
Why is this ‘insane’?
A woman’s body is her property. A fetus is part of the woman’s body. Whatever medical procedure she does with her body is her right. And companies are willing to provide for her medical care.
A woman’s body is her property. A fetus is part of the woman’s body. Whatever medical procedure she does with her body is her right. And companies are willing to provide for her medical care.
nikolqy(5)
Why would anyone fight against companies providing health care benefits to their employees?
Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?