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.
If you ever find yourself wishing for A not to have more than B in order to be "fair" to B wherein what is given to A doesn't directly detract from B you are practicing childish emotional thinking and should strive to be more rational. This is made blindingly obvious when you use emotional language like a "slap in the face".
If a company must select whom to layout it would seem logical to pick those who presently aren't contributing because they just had a kid and are on leave and yet we don't really want to live in a society where people are worried about having kids because they might be punished for it by being fired not least of which because we need a next generation and don't want the entirety of it to come from less intelligent people in lower performing households.
To take away the incentive and ensure at least the appearance of objectivity—different from emotional nonsensical fairness—its wise to decouple layoffs from maternity by dealing with any change in employment status after the end of maternity leave. If it still makes sense to lay them off or fire them after the end of their leave.
I think it would be incredibly difficult not to feel slighted and go through a whole range of emotions when laid off.
Furthermore, most people will naturally compare themselves against others. It's how we navigate society.
It's one thing to live and let go, but it's another to understand why things are happening and why certain treatments or gradients exist. It's logical to recognize and perfectly natural to have feelings about.
Layoffs shouldnt be focused on anything. Corporations shouldnt be at liberty to drop workers as it suits them, their need to be stronger worker protections so that preventative action is mandatory.
It sounds like you're in favor of the types of laws that led to Spain having unemployment rates between 30-50% for young people. If you make it so that hiring someone is entering into a lifelong marriage of responsibility to keep paying them even if doing so is losing the company money, you end up with companies afraid to hire and/or going bankrupt.
Losing a job sucks, but as someone who's lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic, I appreciate a lot of elements of American work setup that few dare acknowledge. Way more opportunities to get jobs in "risky" startups or "risky" expansions of bigger companies than the European companies that are forced to be more conservative about expansion due to their inability to contract. And less likely that your workday involves dealing with deadweight coworkers who are drawing your same salary despite not contributing, or dealing with overly risk-averse management who have an excessive bias towards the status quo.
Keep in mind the laid off folks are getting severance, will get unemployment payments after that runs out if they haven't started a new job, can choose between staying on their existing healthcare plan or switching to a new individual plan or switching to a partner's plan (and can do so retroactively- you're covered for free automatically for the month following layoff, if you need healthcare during that time you can choose to stay on the former employer plan even weeks afterwards). It's not like anyone is going to be homeless and hungry because they got laid off, they have months or years of support to find a new opportunity.
> Corporations shouldnt be at liberty to drop workers as it suits them
Why not? If a business is facing headwinds, should it be forced to pay all its salaries and put everyone at the enterprise at risk? What about the investors, which also include employee shareholders and pension funds?
The economy is large and there are lots of jobs. Unemployment is low. Companies are literally waging a Darwinian battle for survival. Why should they be artificially shackled to past business decisions?
Companies aren't feel good communities. They try to be, but the reality is that it is blood sport that temporarily makes people income and wealth. Employment at lower ranks shields you from the realities of the competition and market dynamics.
I’m not sure how you can conclude that, unless you’re just saying that parental and medical leave is inherently unfair. If that’s your position, feel free to argue it separately (strong “only in America” vibes, but whatever).
The issue here is simply whether Google should honor the commitments Google already made. If Google approved your leave, I’d say you’re entitled to it, no different than if you had accrued paid vacation time per Google’s vacation rules.
Howso? Medical leave wad available to all employees, including those who were laid off.
Especially with modern family planning, it is possible to be strategic about when to use such leave, and natural to include the expectation of continued employment upon return into the decision to use such leave.
I’m not claiming there’s a simple answer - I understand the point that it seems unfair that an employee on leave will “get more” than an employee who wasn’t, but at the same time, this is the commitment that Google made, and I can’t shake the feeling that a mother giving birth and then using the resulting benefit that she was promised should be entirely unrelated to any notions of severance.
If anything, it makes it look like Google is taking advantage of people on leave, not somehow leveling the playing field.
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
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.