The 'big tech' calculus to suddenly antagonize their workforce to eek out marginal 'efficiency' gains is going to backfire. People may not leave right away but a demoralized fearful workforce isn't going to innovate, or really even give a shit about the work. Teams basically haven't done anything for three months because all the work needs to be reprioritized and that can't even be done when teams still don't know who is walking dead and who isn't.
In Scandinavia this is regulated by law. Being on leave does not protect against dismissal in Norway. But the Working Environment Act states that the notice period does not start to run until the leave period has expired. And, the fact that you are on leave cannot in itself be used by the employer as a reason for dismissal.
So, if Google had laid off a worker in Norway who was on leave, they wouldn't have much choice but to stand by their obligations.
Not only that. I'm assuming that in Norway you have a notice period which is tied to how long you work there.
Not the case here.
I could sign a mortgage Monday and be laid off Tuesday.
So then my income and insurance just stop.
Companies have no obligation to give you notice. Anything they do is literally out of the good of their PR people.
Some states require payout of accrued vacation days (notice the government doesn't mandate any amount of vacation days, it's all up to negotiation).
Then you can go on unemployment, but for some reason it's capped in amount per month, so even if I make $200,000/year, which after taxes becomes $11,000/month. I live in a HCOL, my unemployment would be ~$450/week, so ~ $2,000/month. Which is less than my rent.
And I pay A LOT of taxes.
Isn’t the whole point of severance compensation for terminating your employment and other prior agreements, given that you are not at fault?
It doesn’t really make sense for one to demand both severance and their leave.
From my understanding the Google severance effectively pays you more than maternity leave anyways unless you were at Google for less than 3 years. I wonder how many are in that situation.
One example in the article involved a person who had been at Google for 10 years. They would receive 36 weeks severance. More than the 24 weeks they would receive as maternity leave.
It seems that person is arguing they should receive 60 weeks severance.
Most of the folks laid off aren't on any sort of maternity leave. Of the tiny fraction on maternity leave few logically will have just gone on leave the day they get laid of. Statistically if you pick a random time in a 24 week period the average remaining duration is 12 weeks. Its also meaningless to add the severance that google already agreed to pay and maternity together to decide if the total is reasonable, even more so when you are picking the edge case on an edge case of a long term worker laid off right after going on leave. It's not even clear more than one person in the whole cadre actually meets those criteria.
We are talking about presumably a fraction of 1% of laid off workers receiving an average of 12 additional weeks of pay which for google is a rounding error. Most wont be receiving this benefit and of those that will the majority will have closer to 30 than 60 weeks of pay total.
This is the kind of petty behavior that shows there is no leadership at the helm. The CEO should be fired, not because of these specific actions, that are likely to be legal according to the US almost non existing labor laws. Instead, because of the lack of management skills and smart company leadership expected from company executives handsomely paid. As a leader, manager or CEO, you choose your wars, and your battles. This shows incompetent execution at the minimum and at worst, a hands off type of leadership only seen in the times of WeWork.
OK, I'll take a stab at defending Google's policy here. Not necessarily because I believe they're 100% in the right, but because I see so many of the arguments on the other side completely failing to address some issues of fairness, and of leaning solely into the emotional aspects of this issue ("Person <in heart-tugging situation X> was laid off!"), or just spitting out lazy comebacks ("Google is evil now!!!")
I don't really see this as "Google won't honor medical leave" any more than I see this as "Google won't honor employment agreement". That is, people on medical leave get paid while they're not working but still employed (and, mind you, this is not something that's a legal requirement, but something Google does with their largess - the vast majority of companies, in the US at least, without monopolistic businesses are way less generous), and I'm not sure why being on medical leave should automatically put you in the "you can't be laid off until your leave is over" bucket. After all, tons of people who were laid off who were not on leave had plenty of important reasons they shouldn't be laid off (e.g. I'm sure lots of people had spouses or dependents on Google's health plan who were wholly dependent on it). I just see some fundamental fairness issues that aren't even commented on by people insisting Google is evil.
More importantly, the root cause issue (in the US) is that so many critical benefits are linked to employment. I know that other countries have stricter laws around this (e.g. you can't be laid off on maternity leave), but that's kinda the point - with a broad legal framework of what's required, and especially with many benefits being ensured by the state (especially healthcare), it means that the individuals are not dependent on the generosity (and huge profit margins) of their particular company. I mean, the FAANGs especially like to talk about how generous they are with things like unusually long parental leave (again, relatively in the US), but that's only because they make so much money. There is a reason that restaurants, for example, could never begin to offer this level of leave, and it's not because restaurant owners are inherently more cruel.
If we believe the benefits are important for societal function and fairness, we should pay for them at the societal level, instead of depending on the whims of individual employers to guarantee them.
Yes, the root cause is that the U.S. barely has any labor laws, and this puts people in cruel situations that are inconsistent with the level of economic development achieved by this nation.
Many knowledge workers expect stronger guarantees for earned benefits, out of an intuitive sense of ethics and commitment, but those expectations are more in line with labor laws found in European countries. In the U.S., workers often have no recourse or leverage against even small companies, let alone Google. "Earned" benefits evaporate once the employment contract is void.
Agreed. All this talk on how Google was supposed to be different, not evil etc etc. Well, are they breaking any US law? No? Okay then, when push comes to shove it won't matter.
So, can someone clarify: if a laid off Googler is in hospital bed and they stay there after the deadline, they might go into debt (due to hospital prices)?
1. Google is continuing to pay full health care for 6 months, for all laid off employees, as part of their severance.
2. In addition, in the US, workers at decent-sized companies have the option to get COBRA for up to 18 months. COBRA basically says you can stay on your employer's group health plan, but you have to pay the full premiums out of pocket (usually companies pay most or all of the premium). This can be particularly expensive for a family (e.g. $1500 a month or so).
3. After that, if you haven't gotten another job that offers insurance, you can get an individual plan through Obamacare. Again, the cost of these plans can be expensive depending on your circumstances and level of coverage.
realistically the googler will have the option to continue their health coverage (at the FULL price) using what we call COBRA. So no, they won’t go bankrupt unless they are in the hospital for many months. But it would still be stressful because COBRA doesn’t last forever, and they will want to eventually get another job. good employers like google pay for most of the insurance cost each month, and the employee pays a small “premium” that is deducted from each paycheck.
You can stay on the existing healthcare plan you had from your former employer, switch to your spouse's plan, or start a new individual plan. By default, Cobra is automatic and retroactive, so you could continue your hospital stay unchanged and then at the end of the following month pay the monthly premium to stay on the plan.
Technically of course anyone could "go into debt" for any purchase, so in a certain pedantic sense, sure you could go into debt for healthcare costs, but it's not like anyone is suddenly becoming uninsured. You have weeks to figure out which health insurance plan going forward is the best option for you. The severance payments should be enough to cover the gap until new employment begins, even for the most irresponsible people who had no savings despite drawing a Google salary.
That's one of key differences between Europe and the USA. What a big company advertises as a big privilege (that you can lose at their whim) is just one of basic human rights here.
Why should Google pay maternity leave for laid off workers? They are no longer employees once they're laid off. At the very most they deserve a severence.
Because while you are on a medical leave or a maternity leave it’s especially difficult for you to sort out things, or to find another job? “I laid you off while you’re lactating, please find another job in 60 days or leave US”.
In most places in EU it would be illegal to layoff people in those situations, that’s not a US thing of course, but just asking the already-approved deal to be honored seems just obvious.
- Laying off somebody on maternity leave and then not paying them for that leave is exactly what you would expect from a company laying somebody off _because_ they're on maternity leave, which would be strikingly illegal (IMO not immoral per se -- that burden should be averaged across all of society rather than localized to each employer -- definitely illegal though). At a minimum they'd want their ducks in a row to ensure those layoffs were legitimate.
- Promising a person a particular thing (approving maternity leave, for example) goes above and beyond the ordinary employment contract, and cutting the duration of that promise short doesn't sit well.
- Google offers (offered?) a variety of specialized healthcare plans that you can choose _instead of_ a standard PPO or whatever, and those require you to move to doctors in a very small network. Cutting off those services and saying "LOL, have fun with finding new doctors on top of figuring out Cobra" with less than a day of warning is a bigger inconvenience than you'd expect from comparable layoffs elsewhere.
G attracted workers by offering this baby bonding leave and increased it recently from 12 weeks to 18 weeks. Even amazon is letting people on leave finish it before their severance starts according to the article. This whole layoff round at G looks extremely rushed and someone probably didn't think through all the edge cases, such as people already on leave. For 20 years, G's main advantage was top of market perks and culture (comp was good, but not the top). These layoff rounds have permanently hurt Google's reputation IMO. When the tech hiring market gets competitive again, they will either have to raise comp significantly once everyone realizes the culture has changed or they won't be competitive to attract the top talent.
The blame of the recent layoffs lay not with the employees but with the managers who had miscalculated their prospects in the midst of the covidic plague.
Yes, if the worker was on maternity leave when laid off. What I have noticed about American culture, despite having money they are extreme penny pitches in the oddest of places.
because people plan their family around things like maternity leave and rely on these actually being honored. what should they do now, get un-pregnant?
This is one of the reasons why maternity leave compensation is paid by the government in Germany. But to American ears that's socialism or something, I guess.
This comment is probably the best explanation of how American capitalism is effective at self-propagate its tenets through the confidence of those it screws over the most.
I think I would be upset if I was laid off but those on medical or baby leave were specifically given a pass. It kind of feels like a slap on the face for those whom are unable to have kids.
Layoffs should be focused on performance, cost of salary, team business utility, etc.
That said, if layoffs disproportionately hit those on that are on medical leave, that would be pretty cruel.
Moreover, I think those laid off during leave should be given additional severance due to the incredible imposition.
Everywhere I've worked has stipulated that leave, sabbaticals, etc. were still subject to layoffs.
Where I am, a long time ago, it was a unwritten rule to leave people on medical leave employed. Then I suspect when they are back at work maybe they would be let go. Back then I never knew anyone in this situation. I do know a few that were fired while on leave in the past few years.
But with how the US medical system has pretty much transitioned from non-profits to profits, I doubt there can be any argument saying doing this is OK. Money now talks more than it did years ago.
Medical leave is heavily abused at companies like Google, to the point where people use it as an easy way to rest and vest while not actually being sick
"It's just a tiny tiny change. We just dropped the "Don't ". The shorter phrase better reflects our new streamlined business practices to better suck shareholder d*ck."
Snark is not really welcome on this, the situation can be much more complex than you state. The article makes it clear that there are different categories "parents" and "birth parents". Also, "parents" is plural. (in your example that might include "fathers")
My cousin is a parent by adoption to two and is a very good mother to a family. The children also have birth parents and while they have never been in contact, the children are in contact with their siblings who were adopted by other families and meet up regularly. They also know their birth-grandparents.
I am a Google shareholder and an American. I would love if my country provided this kind of care, but it doesn't, and Google's public image profits from being able to step in when our government does not. Obviously, it because difficult for that image to perpetuate itself if it does things like this, so I wish for it to not do that.
siliconc0w|3 years ago
rejectfinite|3 years ago
Manheim|3 years ago
So, if Google had laid off a worker in Norway who was on leave, they wouldn't have much choice but to stand by their obligations.
WirelessGigabit|3 years ago
Not the case here.
I could sign a mortgage Monday and be laid off Tuesday.
So then my income and insurance just stop.
Companies have no obligation to give you notice. Anything they do is literally out of the good of their PR people. Some states require payout of accrued vacation days (notice the government doesn't mandate any amount of vacation days, it's all up to negotiation).
Then you can go on unemployment, but for some reason it's capped in amount per month, so even if I make $200,000/year, which after taxes becomes $11,000/month. I live in a HCOL, my unemployment would be ~$450/week, so ~ $2,000/month. Which is less than my rent. And I pay A LOT of taxes.
yooloo|3 years ago
endisneigh|3 years ago
It doesn’t really make sense for one to demand both severance and their leave.
From my understanding the Google severance effectively pays you more than maternity leave anyways unless you were at Google for less than 3 years. I wonder how many are in that situation.
One example in the article involved a person who had been at Google for 10 years. They would receive 36 weeks severance. More than the 24 weeks they would receive as maternity leave.
It seems that person is arguing they should receive 60 weeks severance.
michaelmrose|3 years ago
We are talking about presumably a fraction of 1% of laid off workers receiving an average of 12 additional weeks of pay which for google is a rounding error. Most wont be receiving this benefit and of those that will the majority will have closer to 30 than 60 weeks of pay total.
belter|3 years ago
Shareholders, take notice.
hn_throwaway_99|3 years ago
I don't really see this as "Google won't honor medical leave" any more than I see this as "Google won't honor employment agreement". That is, people on medical leave get paid while they're not working but still employed (and, mind you, this is not something that's a legal requirement, but something Google does with their largess - the vast majority of companies, in the US at least, without monopolistic businesses are way less generous), and I'm not sure why being on medical leave should automatically put you in the "you can't be laid off until your leave is over" bucket. After all, tons of people who were laid off who were not on leave had plenty of important reasons they shouldn't be laid off (e.g. I'm sure lots of people had spouses or dependents on Google's health plan who were wholly dependent on it). I just see some fundamental fairness issues that aren't even commented on by people insisting Google is evil.
More importantly, the root cause issue (in the US) is that so many critical benefits are linked to employment. I know that other countries have stricter laws around this (e.g. you can't be laid off on maternity leave), but that's kinda the point - with a broad legal framework of what's required, and especially with many benefits being ensured by the state (especially healthcare), it means that the individuals are not dependent on the generosity (and huge profit margins) of their particular company. I mean, the FAANGs especially like to talk about how generous they are with things like unusually long parental leave (again, relatively in the US), but that's only because they make so much money. There is a reason that restaurants, for example, could never begin to offer this level of leave, and it's not because restaurant owners are inherently more cruel.
If we believe the benefits are important for societal function and fairness, we should pay for them at the societal level, instead of depending on the whims of individual employers to guarantee them.
protastus|3 years ago
Many knowledge workers expect stronger guarantees for earned benefits, out of an intuitive sense of ethics and commitment, but those expectations are more in line with labor laws found in European countries. In the U.S., workers often have no recourse or leverage against even small companies, let alone Google. "Earned" benefits evaporate once the employment contract is void.
rejectfinite|3 years ago
USA needs some laws lol
Related (may break american minds): https://imgur.com/a/dAo1D6Q
pfoof|3 years ago
hn_throwaway_99|3 years ago
1. Google is continuing to pay full health care for 6 months, for all laid off employees, as part of their severance.
2. In addition, in the US, workers at decent-sized companies have the option to get COBRA for up to 18 months. COBRA basically says you can stay on your employer's group health plan, but you have to pay the full premiums out of pocket (usually companies pay most or all of the premium). This can be particularly expensive for a family (e.g. $1500 a month or so).
3. After that, if you haven't gotten another job that offers insurance, you can get an individual plan through Obamacare. Again, the cost of these plans can be expensive depending on your circumstances and level of coverage.
sacnoradhq|3 years ago
In America, illness, including terminal illness, are a leading cause of bankruptcy.
America is a win-lose rat race scam where the rats are too docile.
lurking_swe|3 years ago
houseinthesky|3 years ago
Here is a direct, reliable source of truth straight from the official government website in case my comment gets buried by downvotes: https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/cobra-coverage/
You can stay on the existing healthcare plan you had from your former employer, switch to your spouse's plan, or start a new individual plan. By default, Cobra is automatic and retroactive, so you could continue your hospital stay unchanged and then at the end of the following month pay the monthly premium to stay on the plan.
Technically of course anyone could "go into debt" for any purchase, so in a certain pedantic sense, sure you could go into debt for healthcare costs, but it's not like anyone is suddenly becoming uninsured. You have weeks to figure out which health insurance plan going forward is the best option for you. The severance payments should be enough to cover the gap until new employment begins, even for the most irresponsible people who had no savings despite drawing a Google salary.
dumpster_fire|3 years ago
[deleted]
DanHulton|3 years ago
kenjackson|3 years ago
The only possible way I’d think this is justified is if Google would have to file bankruptcy if they didn’t do this.
hdjjhhvvhga|3 years ago
m348e912|3 years ago
alanfranz|3 years ago
In most places in EU it would be illegal to layoff people in those situations, that’s not a US thing of course, but just asking the already-approved deal to be honored seems just obvious.
hansvm|3 years ago
- Promising a person a particular thing (approving maternity leave, for example) goes above and beyond the ordinary employment contract, and cutting the duration of that promise short doesn't sit well.
- Google offers (offered?) a variety of specialized healthcare plans that you can choose _instead of_ a standard PPO or whatever, and those require you to move to doctors in a very small network. Cutting off those services and saying "LOL, have fun with finding new doctors on top of figuring out Cobra" with less than a day of warning is a bigger inconvenience than you'd expect from comparable layoffs elsewhere.
temp20160423|3 years ago
aaronbrethorst|3 years ago
Optimistically, because it's the right thing to do.
MagicMoonlight|3 years ago
AraceliHarker|3 years ago
wesleywt|3 years ago
black_puppydog|3 years ago
whitemary|3 years ago
foepys|3 years ago
camillomiller|3 years ago
AndrewKemendo|3 years ago
echelon|3 years ago
I think I would be upset if I was laid off but those on medical or baby leave were specifically given a pass. It kind of feels like a slap on the face for those whom are unable to have kids.
Layoffs should be focused on performance, cost of salary, team business utility, etc.
That said, if layoffs disproportionately hit those on that are on medical leave, that would be pretty cruel.
Moreover, I think those laid off during leave should be given additional severance due to the incredible imposition.
Everywhere I've worked has stipulated that leave, sabbaticals, etc. were still subject to layoffs.
peyton|3 years ago
jmclnx|3 years ago
But with how the US medical system has pretty much transitioned from non-profits to profits, I doubt there can be any argument saying doing this is OK. Money now talks more than it did years ago.
Ancalagon|3 years ago
thehappypm|3 years ago
paxys|3 years ago
rejectfinite|3 years ago
falcolas|3 years ago
/s (for me at least)
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
sacnoradhq|3 years ago
They laid off senior GCP techs because they didn't want to promote them.
djbusby|3 years ago
Basically, going back on your word. No honour.
dumpster_fire|3 years ago
[deleted]
redleggedfrog|3 years ago
ta1243|3 years ago
Don't!
Be Evil
AllegedAlec|3 years ago
[deleted]
procinct|3 years ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent
clort|3 years ago
My cousin is a parent by adoption to two and is a very good mother to a family. The children also have birth parents and while they have never been in contact, the children are in contact with their siblings who were adopted by other families and meet up regularly. They also know their birth-grandparents.
azinman2|3 years ago
camillomiller|3 years ago
awestroke|3 years ago
Takennickname|3 years ago
[deleted]
lpapez|3 years ago
saagarjha|3 years ago
davesque|3 years ago
dumpster_fire|3 years ago
[deleted]