Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Apple and Facebook offer to freeze eggs for female staf


freebuddy

Recommended Posts

They still have the kids though. Something that is far safer for the mother at a younger age. All this might due is help delay the "problem" (as it's apparently viewed) and then you've lost someone even more talented/experienced who you've invested even further money in. (Albeit you've gotten more out of as well).

I don't see how this really "helps".

If they really wanted to help, they encourage things like flexible/reduced work hours, on site free daycare, better maternity leave. Actually give tools to parents to *gasp* have kids AND work.

This is what they should really be focusing on. If they want women to keep working after having kids make it so that they can and not feel guilty about it. Making it so that if your kid is sick today, you won't be guilt tripped by people in your office to find someone else to look after him/her. Or if your kid is involved in a sport or performance and you want to go see it, you can. I would also say that men should be getting this same kind of flexiblity at work too. Freezing eggs is one thing but I don't think it's the solution to having more women working at your company or staying for longer. Being understanding/flexible and having quality free on site daycare is more important to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still have the kids though. Something that is far safer for the mother at a younger age. All this might due is help delay the "problem" (as it's apparently viewed) and then you've lost someone even more talented/experienced who you've invested even further money in. (Albeit you've gotten more out of as well).

I don't see how this really "helps".

If they really wanted to help, they encourage things like flexible/reduced work hours, on site free daycare, better maternity leave. Actually give tools to parents to *gasp* have kids AND work.

safer for the mother AND less likely that the child will have birth defects. i completely agree with you on this. it's complete crap. if they REALLY wanted to attract talent then then should encourage them to have children now with the promise of a job waiting for them afterwards, and not just the 3 months federally mandated time that is in the us, but a full year per pregnancy, like in canada. that way they would come back and join the company in time for them to "hit their stride"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lip service? It's called marketing. They want to:

1) Have more women in their work force, and

2) Retain them for longer.

It was shown that women tend to quit the force upon having children.

This not only benefits women who would want to put off a child for later, but the company in having an employee working with them for longer.

This is Business 101, not Conspiracy 101.

Certainly it is their money, and they are free to give it away any way they like. I think what J.R. and Luci are saying is that, if you're going to give your money away, why not think about the best way to do it? Isn't that an important element in successful business (using your money efficiently)? The idea is that it will create incentive for women to work there, but the incentive they offered seemingly is not as attractive as other, and quite frankly less expensive, options (e.g., providing day care at work, extra time off, etc.).

And from a financial side, it would seem more cost-effective if your female staff were having children younger rather than older. A 27-28 year old is going to be less expensive to replace while they are on mat leave than someone whose thirty, has worked at the company for 5+ years, is more relevant, and earns a higher wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you're obsession is with the word "innovative" in this thread, but for someone who's not even in the target demographic for this incentive, you're showing an awful lot of butthurt.

Does the word frighten you?

I may not be the target demographic but I'm married to someone who is.

No butthurt and at least I'm actually contributing to thread ;) Just tired of corporations passing off marketing gimmicks as progress and innovation. It insults people's intelligence and does very little to actually advance issues like the very subject we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

safer for the mother AND less likely that the child will have birth defects. i completely agree with you on this. it's complete crap. if they REALLY wanted to attract talent then then should encourage them to have children now with the promise of a job waiting for them afterwards, and not just the 3 months federally mandated time that is in the us, but a full year per pregnancy, like in canada. that way they would come back and join the company in time for them to "hit their stride"

Certainly it is their money, and they are free to give it away any way they like. I think what J.R. and Luci are saying is that, if you're going to give your money away, why not think about the best way to do it? Isn't that an important element in successful business (using your money efficiently)? The idea is that it will create incentive for women to work there, but the incentive they offered seemingly is not as attractive as other, and quite frankly less expensive, options (e.g., providing day care at work, extra time off, etc.).

And from a financial side, it would seem more cost-effective if your female staff were having children younger rather than older. A 27-28 year old is going to be less expensive to replace while they are on mat leave than someone whose thirty, has worked at the company for 5+ years, is more relevant, and earns a higher wage.

Does the word frighten you?

I may not be the target demographic but I'm married to someone who is.

No butthurt and at least I'm actually contributing to thread ;) Just tired of corporations passing off marketing gimmicks as progress and innovation. It insults people's intelligence and does very little to actually advance issues like the very subject we're talking about.

While I enjoyed the perks of working for Google in Mountain View, one of which was complimentary on-site daycare, Facebook and Apple already give generous amounts of money for their employees toward daycare costs. This is not their first and only effort toward women, as is confusingly, often humorously, being spread about in this topic (and that's ignoring the standard anti-corporate whining).

Down by the River, you're wrong on what's cost-effective. Having higher turnover, replacing people sooner, rather than later, is less cost-effective, not more. I have no idea where this belief derives.

avelanch, the problem is not firing or getting rid of women who have kids, as stated in the OP, it's women extensively exiting the workforce upon bearing children, if not for good.

JR, there's no intelligence in your posts to insult. Your posts are more akin go the type of fanatical corporate-bashing that regularly goes on here. Hence why corporations don't listen to your demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I enjoyed the perks of working for Google in Mountain View, one of which was complimentary on-site daycare, Facebook and Apple already give generous amounts of money for their employees toward daycare costs. This is not their first and only effort toward women, as is confusingly, often humorously, being spread about in this topic (and that's ignoring the standard anti-corporate whining).

Down by the River, you're wrong on what's cost-effective. Having higher turnover, replacing people sooner, rather than later, is less cost-effective, not more. I have no idea where this belief derives.

avelanch, the problem is not firing or getting rid of women who have kids, as stated in the OP, it's women extensively exiting the workforce upon bearing children, if not for good.

JR, there's no intelligence in your posts to insult. Your posts are more akin go the type of fanatical corporate-bashing that regularly goes on here. Hence why corporations don't listen to your demographic.

High turn-over and replacing people soon rather than later is certainly less cost-effective. If this were some crappy job, you'd be concerned about employee retention/turn-over/replacement.

However, if you have one employee who you know is going to return to work at your company after an extended leave, finding someone to temporarily fill their shoes will be less expensive if the person leaving was in a less-central/vital role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pathetic middle age male managers with fat bellies fantasizing about office affairs with young (and yes, to be fair, talented) female employees.

Most programmers are men. Young men with the knowledge and education are eager to work.

But no, they go out of their way to find female employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High turn-over and replacing people soon rather than later is certainly less cost-effective. If this were some crappy job, you'd be concerned about employee retention/turn-over/replacement.

However, if you have one employee who you know is going to return to work at your company after an extended leave, finding someone to temporarily fill their shoes will be less expensive if the person leaving was in a less-central/vital role.

This presumption is based on information that conflicts with data cited in the OP.

The perk is the result of a problem of women leaving the company after bearing a child. Clearly perks already dedicated toward daycare costs or extended mat leave were not sufficient.

While this is by no means any guarantee to work, I think offering even more free things toward employees as incentive to stay is not in the least bit a bad thing, especially when it parallels the trend of women putting off child bearing until later. It's mind boggling that anyone in their right mind would have a problem with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This presumption is based on information that conflicts with data cited in the OP.

The perk is the result of a problem of women leaving the company after bearing a child. Clearly perks already dedicated toward daycare costs or extended mat leave were not sufficient.

While this is by no means any guarantee to work, I think offering even more free things toward employees as incentive to stay is not in the least bit a bad thing, especially when it parallels the trend of women putting off child bearing until later. It's mind boggling that anyone in their right mind would have a problem with this.

Are you referring to this:

many women having children end up dropping out of the workforce, leading to a loss of experienced talent.

You are right, but perhaps the reason for dropping out of the workforce altogether is due to not having enough external support. If having sufficient support means increased employee retention, encouraging employees to have children at a younger (healthier) age may become less costly in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you referring to this:

You are right, but perhaps the reason for dropping out of the workforce altogether is due to not having enough external support. If having sufficient support means increased employee retention, encouraging employees to have children at a younger (healthier) age may become less costly in the long run.

If we get down to the specifics, I'd have to see the metrics their upper management are looking at to make decisions. All we'd be arguing at this point is pure speculation, or simple business sense.

Such perks increase operating expenses (for a company like Facebook and Apple with many employees, this is significant) and thus affect the company's bottom line. Just from pure logic, a company wouldn't spend money on retaining women for longer if it thought it wasn't necessary -- and clearly the benefits they already have aimed toward child bearing women already address the younger childbearing demographic. This particular one is aimed at women who are putting off child bearing until later. So if anything they're addressing a different niche to make staying with the company more desirable.

This, to me, is a more logical discussion though, compared with the one that suggests they should go further out of their way to cater to younger child bearing women. Not only would that impact the rest of the company's workforce, with such lopsided benefits to a specific demographic, but if their issue is that these women already tend to leave, why cater more to people who voluntarily leave despite benefits already existing? That obviously is the wrong demographic to waste the resources going after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...