Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Google

Google Employee Alleges Discrimination Against Pregnant Women In Viral Memo (vice.com) 345

A Google employee has written a memo accusing the company of discriminating and retaliating against her for being pregnant. According to Motherboard, the memo has been seen by more than 10,000 employees. From the report: Last week, the woman posted the memo, titled "I'm Not Returning to Google After Maternity Leave, and Here is Why," to an internal company message board for expecting and new mothers. The memo was reposted to other internal message boards and has since gone viral, multiple current Google employees in different parts of the company have told Motherboard. Since then, employees have been posting memes that have gathered thousands of likes. The memes were made in support of the woman on an internal message board called "Memegen."

In the memo, which is more than 2,300 words long, the woman says that her manager made discriminatory remarks about pregnant women. She says she reported the manager to human resources, which she alleges spurred retaliation. The woman, who was also a manager, says she eventually joined another team, but wasn't allowed to manage anyone on that team until she returned from maternity leave; she claims she was told that her maternity leave might "stress the team" and "rock the boat." She says that she and her baby had potentially life-threatening complications toward the end of her pregnancy, and that she would need to go on maternity leave earlier than expected. "During one conversation with my new manager in which I reiterated an early leave and upcoming bedrest, she told me that she had just listened to an NPR segment that debunked the benefits of bedrest," she wrote. "She also shared that her doctor had ordered her to take bedrest, but that she ignored the order and worked up until the day before she delivered her son via cesarean section. My manager then emphasized in this same meeting that a management role was no longer guaranteed upon my return from maternity leave, and that she supported my interviewing for other roles at Google."
In response, a Google spokesperson sent this statement: "We prohibit retaliation in the workplace and publicly share our very clear policy. To make sure that no complaint raised goes unheard at Google, we give employees multiple channels to report concerns, including anonymously, and investigate all allegations of retaliation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Employee Alleges Discrimination Against Pregnant Women In Viral Memo

Comments Filter:
  • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @06:46PM (#59047262)
    A woman lodging a complaint against another woman? This is bad... I mean really bad! Find some random male there and fire him. The sacrifice must be made to the SJW gods!
  • Parental leave needs to be an right in the USA!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by david-bo ( 578532 )

      Why should a personal decision be a responsibility for someone or something that have no influence whatsoever over that decision?

      https://thepsychologist.bps.or... [bps.org.uk]

      • The EU has rights labor laws suck in the usa!

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by david-bo ( 578532 )

          Negotiate a better employment contract if you think you need it. Government should stay out.

          • You need an union!

      • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:24PM (#59047530) Homepage Journal

        Because people aren't robots owned by the employer.

        Or in more practical terms you might understand, if the worker units don't produce new worker units and raise them with an appropriate worker unit mentality, there will be no more worker units.

      • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:44PM (#59047642) Journal

        Why should a personal decision be a responsibility for someone or something that have no influence whatsoever over that decision?

        The responsibility is very minimal: you only have to hold the job open for the person when they return. Since society needs future generations of workers and consumers it is in everyone's interest to allow maternity leave.

        The other problem is that not all births are a personal decision. Birth control is not 100% effective so how are you going to know whether it was deliberately intended it or it was accidental? ...and before you blame even accidental births as a foreseeable consequence of a voluntary action that also applies to most injuries e.g. sporting injuries or ones sustained as a result of DIY at home.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          The responsibility is very minimal: you only have to hold the job open for the person when they return.

          Yeah, you have to let someone your business depends upon leave and then come back, and if this is disruptive to your business, then suck it.

          We have more than enough people on this planet, we don't need to be encouraging people to make more. Parents shouldn't get special rights. People who don't have kids should get to take time off with guaranteed return, too.

          • Parents shouldn't get special rights. People who don't have kids should get to take time off with guaranteed return, too.

            THIS! Great Bolshy Yarblockos, this!

            My wife and I managed to raise a child without special treatment. She took some time off by quitting, and I worked some extra hours where I was in order to make up for lost money.

            Then when she was ready, she went back to work.

            But to your point, it is incredibly unequal to punish childless couples or individuals by allowing others to take paid time off. The whole setup is going to make an employer less likely to hire young married women since they aren't even allow

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            Yes, the same way you can't just schedule someone to a 96 hour shift without breaks no matter how profitable you think that might be.

        • The responsibility is very minimal: you only have to hold the job open for the person when they return. Since society needs future generations of workers and consumers it is in everyone's interest to allow maternity leave.

          While it is easy to say Just hold her job open, it is more complicated than that. My example is a true work story:

          We have parental leave where I used to work. A woman who becomes pregnant could take something like a year off.

          One woman became pregnant three different times over a 10 year period. So she took 3 years off during that time.

          This meant a few things. The work goes on - it doesn't stop. Someone had to be cleared and trained before she had her babies. Then after she came back, they were let go

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            Her parental leave rights cost three women their jobs.

            Jobs that wouldn't have existed in the first place but for her taking leave? That's a pretty desperate stretch for an argument.

            • Her parental leave rights cost three women their jobs.

              Jobs that wouldn't have existed in the first place but for her taking leave? That's a pretty desperate stretch for an argument.

              Well, it's an actual case, and noted that you don't give a fuck about women losing their employment. You're pretty sexist, and dare I say since you offhandly dismiss good honest women simply trying to get along in the world, you're a tad misogynistic in the real sense.

              Anyhow, next tell me that you would tell a woman fired that if she had a concern, that she is making a desperate stretch, and she should just be glad that she had a job that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Wow - you must really dislike wom

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 )
        Parental leave bothers you because you have no influence over decisions? Wait until you find out about taxes, your mind will explode.
        • Parental leave bothers you because you have no influence over decisions? Wait until you find out about taxes, your mind will explode.

          Wait until they get a job and find out about bosses!

      • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @10:10PM (#59048206)

        Because people becoming parents is incredibly important to the long-term well-being of the country. Specifically: valuable, contributing people, whose children are the most likely to become valuable, contributing people that will continue to carry the country forward.

        We've chosen to create a society where having children is both optional, and extremely expensive, especially for women. That's not a good recipe if you want intelligent, hardworking women, the individuals most likely to pass those traits to their children, to decide to have kids. And there's really only three options that I see:
        - Make it less expensive for individuals to have kids, especially those intelligent hardworking women.
        - make children mandatory (in today's environment, probably by banning birth control and condemning women back to being either nuns or housewives)
        - accept that hardworking, multi-generational Americans will be a perpetually shrinking percentage of the population as they're out-bred by layabouts who can't be bothered to plan for the future, and that we'll need to recruit an ever-increasing number of hardworking, intelligent immigrants to take up the slack.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          It's just variant of old "stay at kitchen" meme. Any sort of backslash against pregnant women is basically aimed at implementing this sort of gender specialization. Though it's irrational now. In this age women give births one time per life, two three tops. Honestly, compared to rest of their carrier this is irrelevant. And pregnancy isn't the only reason a person can become unavailable, far from it. Gender specialization might have worked better in old agrarian societies, where women had to be pregnant nea
          • Yep.
            >Besides, even if cut off from gainful work women still won't return to 100% pregnant cycle. Even those who have husbands that sustain them won't. The cat is outta the bag..

            Well, at least not so long as birth control remains legal - though far too many Republicans for comfort seem to be working against that. Abstinence has never been a practical form of birth control, and there's another big "benefit" to people having lots of kids: it keeps them poor and struggling to survive, without enough leftov

          • It's just variant of old "stay at kitchen" meme. Any sort of backslash against pregnant women is basically aimed at implementing this sort of gender specialization.

            No, it is about YOU being ready to make the sacrifices required to have a child you have decided to have, rather than requiring EVERYONE else to make the sacrifices and work to cater to your decision.

            Parents in the past seemed more than willing to do this, why are they no longer this way?

            When did they think the world 'owes' them? Is this th

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          The problem is that there's a mismatch between who pays (the business), and who receives the benefit (future society). As such it provides a genuine disincentive for the business to hire women, because they see very little of the benefit, while having to bear all of the costs.

          A better solution is to have society pay for maternity leave, so the payer and beneficiary are the same. If society values children a lot, then they can pay more. Businesses should receive part of that payment to make up for the costs

      • If Google wants to take that position...I double dog dare them...

        But if these allegations are true, a question I have no opinion about at this point, what we have here is an egregious failure to follow Google company policy sufficient to warrant dismissal for cause.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

        Why should a personal decision be a responsibility for someone or something that have no influence whatsoever over that decision?

        Pregnancy isn't exactly a personal decision, it's mandatory for the survival of the species. Some might argue overpopulation, but shouldn't we promote births among double-income households given the cost of college tuition these days?

        The question comes down to who should foot the bill, I would support new legislation that offers tax rebates to businesses that offer a 22 week maternity leave to full-time employees. Better families means fewer punk ass kids wrecking havoc in my neighborhood.

      • Utilitarianism to society
      • Because the gestation and rearing of children is a net benefit to society. Since we don't impose that responsibility on anyone, all the can do is mandate that those who do are given special privilege that helps offset the burdens it carries. Since employers in particular are granted favors from the state (in areas such as taxation, contracts, and legal standing) a part of this comes at their expense. None of this is novel, society as a whole functions because its members collectively bear burdens for any nu
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The parental leave wasn't the problem. The problem was what happened before the leave.

      The author's manager (woman1) asked the author (woman2) to discriminate against an employee working under the author (woman3) due to W3 being pregnant. When W2 refused, W1 retaliated against W2. This caused W2 to seek out another position, this time working for a new manager (woman4). The stress was causing problems with W2's pregnancy, requiring bed rest (prompting W4 to say that she was fine ignoring her own doctor's pre

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Was there even a problem, or was this her parting shot having intended to never return.

        I've lost count of the women I've worked with that take maternity leave on full pay then quit their job after they're expected to return to work for that money.

        I respect the ones that come back, and that does happen frequently, but in this case I'm not sure she wanted to return anyway.

    • Parental leave needs to be an right in the USA!

      My first thought was...

      Why?

      Then I thought a bit more....remember that old adage that your rights end where my nose begins?

      Sure, you are free to, and encouraged to have kids.

      BUT....others are NOT obliged to pay for your choices with their time and money.

      How is special treatment for "parents" fair to the rest of the folks out there?

      Do they NOT have the right to not have to work extra hours to cover for you?

      Does the business not have a right to be able to

  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @06:57PM (#59047338)

    In order to identify the employee making the claim so that we may further bully the employee into leaving the company.

    Seriously though this isn't the first time Google has been in the news for retaliation. Or the second. Or the third. Does America not have laws against this kind of thing? In many western countries Google's actions (if true) would cause them to get royally fucked by the regulator.

    • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:05PM (#59047390) Journal

      "Retaliation" is a misleading word here. There are laws with teeth against "retaliation", but that's always used in the context of whistleblowers. This doesn't seem like "retaliation", this seems like Google just being an asshole in general.

      If you're going to brag about your maternity leave program, but the reality is managers pressure employees not to actually use it, that's evil. I don't see how it would be illegal, though, more of a lawsuit thing. And of course it will eventually destroy any goodwill you might have hoped for by having the maternity leave program in the first place, so evil and stupid.

      • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:52PM (#59047686)

        There are laws with teeth against "retaliation", but that's always used in the context of whistleblowers.

        Wrong. If someone is punished because they made some complaint, filed a suit, participated in a strike, etc., that's retaliation. It's almost never discussed in relation to whistle blowers, because whistle blowers are almost always fired and that almost always stands up in court. The company says the employee violated policy by exposing company information publicly, and that the company has a whistle blower policy the employee should have used. (Never mind that their policy exists only to keep whistle blowers pigeon holed internally and scare them off of the idea of blowing the whistle publicly.)

        This doesn't seem like "retaliation"

        It's textbook retaliation. You cannot tell a pregnant woman that her job or duties may not be there for her when she returns. Hell, you can't even directly ask if/when she's leaving or coming back. You have to wait for her to come to you and request leave.

        For the vast majority of people, it's not a problem and people openly discuss it without issue. The woman will tell the employer, there will be a stupid baby shower in the office and the father will attend, making awkward smalltalk with people he does know, scheduling will be discussed, and the employer will eat the cost of hiring a temp and shuffling duties around, while the rest of the employees will handle the actual work (for free). If you're in a decent state or job, the father will have the same type of access to leave, and there might even be an awkward baby shower at his office with the mother attending and making awkward smalltalk.

      • There are laws with teeth against "retaliation", but that's always used in the context of whistleblowers.

        So what you're saying is there's no laws against retaliation, only your very specific subset in-quotation-makes "retaliation" which is a small subset of what actual retaliation consists of in the world.

    • In order to identify the employee making the claim so that we may further bully the employee into leaving the company.

      Seriously though this isn't the first time Google has been in the news for retaliation. Or the second. Or the third. Does America not have laws against this kind of thing? In many western countries Google's actions (if true) would cause them to get royally fucked by the regulator.

      FWIW, the memo contains a lot of things that leave managers at Google scratching their heads. I'm giving the woman the benefit of the doubt, but there are a lot of described actions that are not only serious violations of both the spirit and the letter of company policy, but would also require the participation of multiple layers of management and HR in ways that seem unlikely.

      Given the story as presented, I want to see some heads roll. On the other hand, I really wonder what the other side of the story

  • classic cat fight (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2019 @06:58PM (#59047342)

    Feminists are always complaining about "the patriarchy" but 9 times out of 10 it's women causing problems for other women.

  • I can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @06:58PM (#59047344)

    For all the liberals who didn't give two shits about them discriminating when it was against people they didn't like (conservatives, moderates, and moderate liberals). But now, the same kind of discrimination against womyn, will all of a sudden be shouted from the rooftops as a real issue.

    > The woman, who was also a manager,

    So the women are discriminating against women. Nevermind, nothing to see here. Only evil men with their dicks-of-death are capable of discriminating.

    • So the women are discriminating against women. Nevermind, nothing to see here. Only evil men with their dicks-of-death are capable of discriminating.

      It's kind of funny, kind of sad. The anti-SJW (of which you are a member) are so obsessed with the idea that you're being oppressed and men only are the target of hate they you will stick to it no matter what. So here comes an article about discrimination at google where a woman was the primary problem and you simply can't cope. It's the behaviour and attitude

      • Re:I can't wait (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @03:19AM (#59049042)
        It doesn't require actually thinking you're currently being oppressed to notice that the fight for equality has ended and the clear goal is to continue oppression just with the identity groups flipped. There's been great strides in reducing the oppression of women and minorities... it's by no means completely gone, but now we have people trying to ramp it back up after flipping the groups instead of just trying to get rid of the last vestiges. For revenge, for hate, because they don't like that equality of opportunity doesn't guarantee equality of outcome... it's a problem, and won't end well. For anyone.
        • It doesn't require actually thinking you're currently being oppressed to notice that the fight for equality has ended and the clear goal is to continue oppression just with the identity groups flipped.

          The fuck did I just read? Nowhere in the universe is this actually happening outside your own head.

        • It doesn't require actually thinking you're currently being oppressed to notice that the fight for equality has ended

          Bullshit.

          There's been great strides in reducing the oppression of women and minorities... it's by no means completely gone,

          huh. Turns out you know it's bullshit too. So why make the claim?

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:15PM (#59047480)

    She says that she and her baby had potentially life-threatening complications toward the end of her pregnancy, and that she would need to go on maternity leave earlier than expected. "During one conversation with my new manager in which I reiterated an early leave and upcoming bedrest, she told me that she had just listened to an NPR segment that debunked the benefits of bedrest," she wrote. "She also shared that her doctor had ordered her to take bedrest, but that she ignored the order and worked up until the day before she delivered her son via cesarean section.

    Yes, because what worked for one woman (and/or in the NPR segment) must work for and/or apply to all women, in all cases, all the time. Her new manager is obviously an idiot.

    • by shess ( 31691 )

      She says that she and her baby had potentially life-threatening complications toward the end of her pregnancy, and that she would need to go on maternity leave earlier than expected. "During one conversation with my new manager in which I reiterated an early leave and upcoming bedrest, she told me that she had just listened to an NPR segment that debunked the benefits of bedrest," she wrote. "She also shared that her doctor had ordered her to take bedrest, but that she ignored the order and worked up until the day before she delivered her son via cesarean section.

      Yes, because what worked for one woman (and/or in the NPR segment) must work for and/or apply to all women, in all cases, all the time. Her new manager is obviously an idiot.

      To be fair, trash-talking other people's parenting decisions is literally how new parents survive the first 6 months to 6 years of being a parent. "Oh, we didn't have problems like that because we breastfed for the first 110 months." "Oh, you probably didn't spend enough 'we time' with your husband." "Oh, it's very important for the mother and only the mother to provide 24x7 care for the first 249 weeks after birth." And so on.

      • To be fair, trash-talking other people's parenting decisions is literally how new parents survive the first 6 months to 6 years of being a parent.

        As a non parent, there's no time limit during which I can judge other parents. It's a lifetime's worth of entertainment. Of course I'd do it better and there's no evidence to the contrary!

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:19PM (#59047498)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Feminists by and large only support women when they make decisions they agree with.

      You are slowly approaching an understanding of the subject. Feminism isn't about the superiority of women, it's about the equality of women. So yes if a woman or man acts like a dickhead you treat them as such regardless of their gender.

      • Feminists by and large only support women when they make decisions they agree with.

        You are slowly approaching an understanding of the subject. Feminism isn't about the superiority of women, it's about the equality of women. So yes if a woman or man acts like a dickhead you treat them as such regardless of their gender.

        If feminism is about equality, what are you going to call egalitarianism?

        Face it - there's a reason us egalitarians and you feminists don't get along, and it's because one party is interested in furthering equality while the other party is not.

        If you were at all interested in equality, why aren't you an egalitarian?

        • And you're no true Scotsman!

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Who are these feminists and how come I never come in to contact with them? I'm on Twitter and all that.

      You say they say it "often" so perhaps you could point me to the right venue. I'd like to have a word with them.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In response, a Google spokesman sent this statement: "We expect retaliation in the workplace and publicly share our very clear policy internally. To make sure that no complaint ever gets heard inside or outside of Google, we give employees one option, and that is to shut the fuck up! If that does not get the required results, Google goes all out with extreme retaliation until it does."

  • by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Monday August 05, 2019 @07:37PM (#59047604)

    Google: We don't want to hear your opinion...

    BTW, this is a good example of why hiring experienced (i.e. older) people is an advantage.

  • Google is teh bomb, if you are 8chan

  • HR isn't interested in protecting your rights. If you have the case you describe, only an employment lawyer (retained by YOU) can do that without conflict of interest. HR only exists to mitigate the risk of lawsuits from employment lawyers. So far, HR feels you got nothin'. Maybe they're right, but you need to talk to an attorney.
  • It's not just Google (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RobinH ( 124750 )

    This is a common theme at many employers. In fact when I mentioned that I was thinking of taking paternity leave (it's government protected here) my (female) boss at the time put a lot of pressure on me not to do that, and told me a story about how, after she had her first baby she was at work again the next week.

    The fact is, people having babies is disruptive to companies, managers and teams, but they need to suck it up and shut up about it. Society has, by and large, decided that employers need to treat

  • It was her choice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @03:01AM (#59048992)

    Why should everyone else on the team be expected to take up (without pay) the slack created by someone deciding to have kids? Maternity/paternity leave is a complete pain in the arse for everyone else - managers and workers.

    • It isn't really that big a deal if the team is managed well at all. If it is a disaster if someone is on medical leave because they blew their knee out or they went on a vacation then the business unit is not robust.
      • It isn't really that big a deal if the team is managed well at all.

        In this case the person in question was the manager. It also wasn't a vacation; Google offers something like 20 weeks of maternity leave.

        And if the team is functional for half a year without her... maybe that job function isn't actually needed?

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @04:52AM (#59049280)

    Hire more gay people! You're virtue signaling AND they're way less likely to get pregnant. It's win-win all over!

  • The manager told this woman that one of the workers was pregnant and as a result more emotional and harder to work with.

    Was this untrue? I think it's completely plausible. If the woman is to manage that worker, that's something that I feel is perfectly reasonable to discuss, even important. Instead of talking about what to do, which could make the work environment better, the woman went to complain to HR.

    And then she complains that her manager was cross with her.

  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @06:07AM (#59049458) Homepage

    It's hard to say what really happened, because we are only hearing one side of the story. If you read between the lines, it is perfectly possible that nothing whatsoever inappropriate happened.

    This person's manager was impacted not only with this woman's pregnancy, but apparently also other pregnancies in the group. The rant begins with the manager apparently wanting to vent about the difficulties around one of those other pregnancies. This woman, being pregnant herself, didn't want to hear about the difficulties pregnancies cause. Things went downhill from there.

    Let's be honest: pregnancy and maternity leave are difficult for companies: You have to make special allowances for months. Then the person goes on an extended leave, and you must find some way to replace them, but still guarantee their return to their previous position. And there are decent odds that, at the end of their leave, they won't come back anyway. This is difficult for the team, it's difficult for the "temporary" replacement, it's difficult for everyone involved. Yet, the pregnant women expect all of this and don't want to hear about the difficulties surrounding it.

    In this case, it was even harder, because the woman had a difficult pregnancy, and announced "I'm taking the day off - I may not be back, because I may just start my leave early". What a great handover of responsibilities to her successor! What great management of her team! The medical problems were not her fault, but I totally see why her boss was unhappy with the way she handled the situation.

    • The instant they decided not to offer her an equal position upon returning, they broke the law, plain and simple. That's what the FMLA is for - it guarantees you can't be retaliated against by your company for medical leave items covered under this act, one of which is pregnancy.

  • Before we jump to conclusions or automatically take a side. It'd be good to get some witness accounts too, if possible.
    She might very well be in the right; Google behaves like A-holes anymore. OTOH, just because you're an individual vs. a large corporation doesn't automatically make you an honest angel either.

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Working...