Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrebbel | Hacker News Reader

> If anyone believes individual cashiers asking for maternity leave is a good way to get it

I recognize that your comment is dripping of cynicism so I'm not entirely sure which parts are true.

You're saying that you can't get maternity leave at Whole Foods (or in the entire USA maybe? I don't know whether this is national or just that Whole Foods is somehow a horrible, terrible, no good employer) when you ask? How about with a doctor's note that says that yes indeed, you're pregnant? Isn't there laws about that sort of stuff? And wasn't Whole Foods supposed to be the upmarket, organic, do-goodery, happy happy joy joy supermarket?

Seriously when I read stuff like this I wonder how it's possible that America functions, well, at all. Do they expect people to just bleep the groceries in-between the contractions? Hey yo don't worry I can breast-feed the little one with a single hand and use the other hand to bag your leek.

View on HN

>I recognize that your comment is dripping of cynicism so I'm not entirely sure which parts are true. You're saying that you can't get maternity leave at Whole Foods (or in the entire USA maybe?

Generally not, unless if you're some hot shit or in a well unionized job. Heck, in tons of jobs people are lucky to get their toiler breaks...

>I don't know whether this is national or just that Whole Foods is somehow a horrible, terrible, no good employer)

Of course it is national.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/05/the-w...

>How about with a doctor's note that says that yes indeed, you're pregnant?

Usually such a leave concerns the period after you've given birth.

>Isn't there laws about that sort of stuff?

In lower paying fire-at-will jobs, laws don't mean much. They can find 100 ways to fire you in ways that don't break the letter of the law if you ask for something the law supposedly guarantees.

https://www.babygaga.com/15-times-bosses-fired-women-on-mat-...

>And wasn't Whole Foods supposed to be the upmarket, organic, do-goodery, happy happy joy joy supermarket?

Public image doesn't mean anything for how a business operates. Apple was supposed to be "in the intersection of fine arts and technology" but has people in horrible working conditions, Google was supposed to "not be evil".

You say that the parent is "dripping of cynicism", but I can't make heads or tails of your questions. Are you from abroad, and have no contact whatsoever with the USA (friends, etc)? Are you from a nordic country and are astonished that such things are possible? Or maybe you're from the US, but have too much wealth to ever be involved in working people's concerns? Because they sound dripping with out-of-touch, and I'm not even American (I just have many friends there).

You should either clarify that you are talking about unpaid leave, or you should read your own articles. Maternity leave is guaranteed for most employees under FMLA.

>They can find 100 ways to fire you in ways that don't break the letter of the law if you ask for something the law supposedly guarantees.

That can be actionable too. If you are pregnant and they fire you, they are opening themselves up to so much liability it outweighs the few dollars they might save.

normal people don't have the time or knowledge to begin those kinds of proceedings.

Or the money to see them through... not to mention in smaller cities they can also be blacklisted (illegal or not, happens all the time to those asking for their rights, suing employees, looking to unionize, etc).

>Maternity leave is guaranteed for most employees under FMLA.

You'd be surprised.

The FMLA only mandates for unpaid leave. That's unlike most western european countries. And even that's under BS conditions and subject to employer power plays as opposed to totally normal and acceptable (and paid).

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/06/what-family-lea...

https://newfoodeconomy.org/giving-kitchen-staplehouse/

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/05/working-mothers-mo...

>That can be actionable too. If you are pregnant and they fire you, they are opening themselves up to so much liability it outweighs the few dollars they might save.

Maternity leave is not just for pregmant people. What about after birth?

Besides, there are lots of ways to make it so it's not actionable.

I just noticed that I never responded to this. @coldtea, I hope you still read this: thanks for your answer.

I am indeed from abroad and my only contact with the USA is through HN. I vaguely know some people who work in the Bay Area but they all have good jobs so which parts of their job benefits are perks and which are law or norm was never clear to me. I truly believed all civilized countries had at least some sort of government mandated paid maternity leave. Basically I imagined that in the US it'd be 2 weeks instead of N months. Thanks for elaborating.

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. This meaning of 'maternity leave' is not a legal requirement of employment in the US, though some employers include it. Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. If maternity leave is important to an employee, it's important to negotiate it when arranging employment, or failing that, negotiate a high enough salary that you can afford to save for a couple months without income.

As of 1993, companies with 50 employees or more must offer unpaid maternity leave.

> If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work.

Well, there's two kinds of mandatory maternity leave:

Job protected leave, in which the employee is entitled to be returned to work after their leave, which may or may not be paid, and

Paid leave, in which the employee is entitled to pay while on leave, whether or not they are entitled to return to work (in principle; in practice, mandated paid leave is usually also job protected.).

The US (for some employees of some employers) has federally-guaranteed job protected maternity (and paternity) leave, but no federal mandate for paid leave for either. Some states have additional job protected leave mandates and/or paid leave mandates.

> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing.

Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights:

So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neither the state nor the employers are obligated to help you, who exactly is?

America is known for practicing social darwinism as though it were a positive thing.

I remember an "ask a conservative" thread on reddit a while ago. What I found remarkable was that a lot of discussions that were ostensibly about "small government" or "promotion of conservative values", when challanged by a few counter-questions, shifted pretty quickly to population control along the lines of "if the poor get too much welfare they'll just have more kids".

Admittedly, this was reddit, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting real-life conservatives here, but that thread got me thinking that a lot of the political discussion might, at the root, actually be about social darwinism.

Yes you most definitely are misrepresenting the conservatives. None of it has to do with family values or anything other than the lack of understand on the left as to why your employer should not be forced to pay for everything you do or want to do.

Hell, most less-developed countries see that differently.

In America it is assumed you will think ahead and financially prepare instead of relying on the government. What actually happens is the more educated will be prepared and relatively unaffected while the less financially educated will go into debt

This doesn't work, for simple economic reasons. Companies will pay the lowest wage they can so they can reduce operating expenses. The lowest wage in many jobs will therefore tend to be the cost of a healthy, independent individual's living. So, anybody who isn't a healthy, independent individual will not be able to negotiate on an individual basis for enough pay, in the typical case. It's always going to be cheaper for a company to only hire people without kids, and without special needs, so unless you force them to do things differently, that's what they'll do - because it's simply not their responsibility to be nice to single mothers.

If you want to live in a socially darwinistic society, that's your bag. But don't pretend the people suffering it are 'uneducated'. You devalue both these people, and education in general.

Ignoring the role of financial literacy is troubling. If we don't teach people to save and invest they will never be prepared no matter how healthy.

It's often the case that victors feel their successes stem from superior characteristics, even in manifestly unfair games. Medieval nobles called themselves 'aristocrats', aristo meaning 'the best', in greek. Modern winners tend to think themselves very talented and financially prudent. The aristocrats, at least, were measurably better in some ways than their serfs: larger, more healthy, generally stronger, and so on.

> Medieval nobles called themselves 'aristocrats', aristo meaning 'the best'

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Sounds suspiciously similar to today's "meritocracy"...

Three men own the majority of wealth in the US by themselves. It's exactly the same kind of thing. Except instead of "ennoblement", we tell ourselves that we can strike it big and join those at the top.

and instead of trying to strike it big we sit on comment boards and make comments about why these supposed 3 individuals aren’t required to divide up their gains.

These are whole foods workers. they are not rocket surgeons, they can be easily replaced by stepping outside and finding the next person that walks by. These are the types of jobs that will be automated away in the near future due to stuff like this. Your average skillless worker won’t have a job to go to if they keep making themselves more and more expensive.

So the solution is that we just all become the next Steve Jobs?

> it's important to negotiate it when arranging employment

I'm going to guess that a very small portion of WFMs employees have the ability to successfully negotiate their employment terms

>I'm going to guess that a very small portion of WFMs employees have the ability to successfully negotiate their employment terms

A very small portion of all employees have that ability, much less an opportunity to attempt to negotiate the terms of their employment. I think a lot of people here overestimate the leverage that the average employee - including tech industry employees - actually have with their employers.

Maybe it’s because those average employees are, well average? if you’re worth a damn in your field you most definitely can define the terms of your employment or find a company that will let you

>if you’re worth a damn in your field you most definitely can define the terms of your employment or find a company that will let you

But this thread is about those average employees, and even exceptional employees in most fields have little to no power to set terms.

> So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neither the state nor the employers are obligated to help you, who exactly is?

Why would anybody be obligated to help you if you've decided to take up a hugely resourceful personal project?

Kids and pregnancy is expensive, and should remain so. How is making a kid is different from taking your time to go on a trip around the world, or recording an album, or doing anything else like that?

If you can't afford it, don't do it. It's that simple. Cases when it's out of your control (medical conditions) are different, of course, but they are not the norm and conversation about pregnancy and kids should not be revolving around them.

"Welfare rights"?!

That's a great neologism. It's now a right to take other people's paychecks?

Yes, that is what a society is; we all work to support one another in one way or another.

The only real question is what that support looks like. For most of the Western world, it includes things like paying women for maternity leave, and not complaining or acting like this is a big controversial idea.

That's what you want it to be. Not everybody wants to live in that world.

If the goal of a society if not to provide security, then what exactly is it?

That's what society is; what I want looks quite different from what we have, but the basic elements are in place.

If you don't want to live in a society, there are certainly places on earth you could go to live out your days in isolation, and you might be happy there. Give it a try, hey, why not? If we miss you, we'll let you know.

getting pregnant or remaining pregnant is a choice. it’s not a disease you just contract without choice. why should an employer be forced to pay for your decision?

Because if not, you end up in a situation where only wealthy people can have kids -> ergo, population control.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I agree. Yet people keep voting for socialism.

The contemporary American conservative's use of the word "socialism" seems so meaning-free, it's a stand-in for "things I don't like" or "whatever libtards want".

Can you elaborate on what socialism you think people are voting for?

Cause right now we don't have free education--we have massive loans we award to children that can never be disposed of.

We don't have free health care--we have the worst of both possible systems, with only now a real national discussion about bringing our horrible health care in line with literally the rest of the western world.

Where's this socialism people keep voting for, and when's it going to start reaching us and affecting our lives in a meaningful way???

Maternity leave policies are a transfer of wealth from people who have fewer children to people who have more children.

They’re also a transfer of wealth from shareholders to employees (who have kids).

Awesome. Transfer that wealth. Shareholders add nothing of value to any economic system. Transfer it all to the people who are making a contribution.

But you said "people are voting for socialism" (in a discussion about some group unionizing) and that's just a bullshit claim. This country is so far from socialist policies, and no one's running on a socialist platform, it's just empty words to say anyone's voting for socialism.

>Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. If maternity leave is important to an employee, it's important to negotiate it when arranging employment, or failing that, negotiate a high enough salary that you can afford to save for a couple months without income.

As if people have any negotiating power without unions, as if there is not a well-documented power imbalance in this country. Your attitude toward the common woman/man = why we can't have nice things. You and people like you labeling any thing that gives people a decent chance socialism = why we can't have nice things. Would you consider Denmark a socialist country?

Or maybe you were just being glib?

"You're saying that ..."

No, that's not what he's saying, and no, a single person does not have the same leverage an entire collective has against a larger company.

But.. You're pregnant! You're entitled to maturity leave right? Isn't that normal? Why do you need "leverage"?

I'm not kidding, so I'll ask again, even clearer. Does America not have the concept of maturity leave by law? Is it like considered a perk or something?

I'm so confused because, well, where I live when you're pregnant, tell the boss is exactly what you'd do! And then you get maturity leave. And the GGP says that that's somehow totally laughably ridiculous, so laughably ridiculous that it warrants sharing imgur gifs, and I really don't get it and I also still don't get how America can function at all when something as basic as this isn't, well, basic.

ps. also you're not being very helpful with "No, that's not what he's saying" without telling me what he is saying.

There's apparently a federally mandated minimum of 12 weeks unpaid leave, with a number of exceptions. From what I can tell, Whole Foods does what it must, and not a lick more.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/pregnancy/101/tip/fmla.aspx

Where are you based? Are you sure unions aren't the reason you have these benefits?

I bet they are (Netherlands). I seriously don't get how anyone can interpret my comments on this thread as sceptical about unionization.

How are you inferring that from GPs comments? He just couldn't believe that the US doesn't have mandated parental leave - you know, like the rest of the world.

He could live almost anywhere in the world:

"The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and several island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Glad to know that North Korea, Guatemala, Sudan, and South Sudan are considerate enough to provide paid maternity leave.

> North Korea

That's not terribly surprising, fascist ideologies are typically very family-centric, to the point of actual Darwinism/eugenics.

It's one more reason why I don't think the rising, bipartisan, hyper-capitalist, reactionary tide in the US can be accurately called fascism. It's a different creature in a lot of ways.

Whilst it's likely that from a historical perspective unions (or other collective action) fought for rights for workers, in many (most?) modern societies there is now legal basis for them.

I have found myself in the same position as the parent as a non-US resident who ended up in discussions where the assumptions made by those from the US and those not from the US about the rights of workers are so wildly different it stalls the conversation.

Likely EU or UK, if I had to guess. Maybe CA.

The UK is in the EU

Not for long.

> ps. also you're not being very helpful with "No, that's not what he's saying" without telling me what he is saying.

> If anyone believes individual cashiers asking for maternity leave is a good way to get it, I've got a bridge you might also be interested in buying.

Sequoia is referring implicitly to the significant difference in power and efficacy of individual vs collective bargaining in the United States. Collective bargaining (e.g. unionization -> union negotiations) has long been a way for workers to effect more change in workplace conditions and compensation than they would otherwise be able to, alone.

Paid maternity leave is a luxury in the United States.

The bridge comment implies gullibility.

it is considered a perk. good tech jobs, for instance, often have paid maternity leave, while cleaning and food contractors at these companies might not get this.

since up to 12 unpaid weeks is mandatory, people find a way to make it work, by saving money and going back to work very soon.

it is a common rhetorical trick in discussions of labor politics in the US to pretend that employers treat everyone the way they treat upper-middle-class salaried professionals (“i’m sure the boss would be reasonable if they just went and asked!”). So people may have assumed you were doing this rather than genuinely thinking things worked differently.

> ps. also you're not being very helpful with "No, that's not what he's saying" without telling me what he is saying.

It's a metaphor.

The implication is that in the absence of a bargaining organization and a written agreement, employees will go to their manager with a situation, and the manager will have to invent an individual policy on the spot, which will be more trouble for all, and probably worse for the employee. Certainly less fair, since not everybody has the same manager, or the same relationship with them.

Pregnancy is the vehicle of this metaphor. Nobody would claim that pregnant women would be better off without a written policy for maternity leave. All other situations are the tenor. There's no reason to believe that individual-serving-sized policies for other situations would work any better than for maternity leave.

sequoia isn't saying anything about maternity leave. They're using maternity leave as an example, to say something about the need for collective bargaining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com