Fertility treatment as a "family forming perk"

[FannyCann]

City law firm offers staff £45k fertility treatment as a ‘family forming perk’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b9b2c570-cd25-11eb-9bfa-a3bc386e6928?shareToken=fb4606ec4c66d08a38a6f5dd1d884c399_


One of the comments on the article:

"Ex-City female lawyer here. My firm offered us egg freezing so we’d be able to delay children until after we made partner. When I objected to the initiative, the senior (female) partner promoting egg freezing to women was incredulous. They also offers us a worldwide breast milk courier service so that if we were nursing an infant, we could still be called on the travel for meetings and conferences at short notice. I left soon afterwards."

I'm not convinced this is much of a perk for women who would be better served by having the opportunity to have children during their fertile years and having decent maternity leave.

But to me this reeks of so called "fertility equality" offering single men women and gay couples the chance to become parents with financial support from their employer. How's that IVF treatment going to work for gay couples and single men then? Oh yes. Hire a surrogate mother. Firms like this should just cut out the middle man (surrogacy agency) and get a load of breeders on their books. Then they could offer them decent employment perks like a generous life insurance and critical illness insurance. (The death of another surrogate mother in the USA has recently become public as a result of the go fund me the surrogacy agency started to raise a derisory sum for her family).

Also I wonder how employees who remain childless, perhaps through choice, think about this. I know some single people feel they miss out on the opportunity for maternity leave for instance - why can't they have a year long sabbatical if they aren't having children? Where is the £45k perk package for them?

[FannyCann]

Oh and don't get me started on the carbon footprint of flying tiny bottles of breast milk around the world! One bonus of the pandemic must surely be that those sorts of practices are hopefully a thing of the past! I'd love to know how many women actually took advantage of that offer - I've seen it mentioned elsewhere so it won't be just the one firm offering that.

[FannyCann]

Article about the most recent death of a surrogate mother.

www.theepochtimes.com/surrogacy-can-be-an-orphan-maker_3850137.html

[OvaHere]

I just read this in the Mail and came to see if it was posted. I'm horrified that it's seen as a 'perk' of employment to offer up the body of a woman for personal use.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9686469/Law-firm-offers-fund-surrogate-mothers-IVF-treatment-staff-fertility-care-package.html

[BrownTableMat]

Yes, it’s bad. As a childless person, however, I take issue with the idea that the childless are in any great number arguing for a year’s sabbatical in place of maternity leave. I find that pretty offensive, tbh, and as a manager would give pretty short shrift to anyone who raised it with me (they never have). I do think that offering everyone the chance for regular career breaks/sabbaticals is a good thing and an idea I would support, but the envious “women get time off to have babies so I need time off to travel” is nonsense.

[FannyCann]

Apologies @BrownTableMat I was being perhaps somewhat flippant. I have no evidence that childless people are demanding a year's sabbatical and take back that remark. I just pulled it out of the air. But some people getting a £45k benefit package must surely make others ruminate about what sort of £45 k package they'd like?
I simply threw that in as I'm interested to know if others feel that they should be offered similar deals. Maybe £45 k family care package to allow for problems dealing with ageing parents for instance?
I'm absolutely not being goady, just thinking that others might like a similar but different deal?

[Ozanj]

Unless you work in a city based law firm you can’t hope to understand how important this is, and who uses it. In practice the £45k will be used predominately by low level female employees (not grads or the highly paid solicitors / barristers) such as apprentices or risk managers who may face similar barriers but might not be able to afford IVF.

[FannyCann]

Thanks to the DM for honesty @OvaHere - The Times doesn't mention surrogacy though of course it is the only option for a gay couple.

Interestingly they have offered the same amount for London and California employees. The London employee could reasonably expect the whole surrogacy package to be covered by the £45k, what with free maternity care on the NHS and those generous altruistic women doing it for free for expenses only. Whereas in California they'd be lucky to get the whole deal for under $100k, (I think $150k is nearer the mark) with huge medical fees, agency and legal fees and commercial surrogate mothers commanding a higher price than in the U.K. (albeit a tiny fraction of the overall costs, fertility doctors in the USA are extremely highly paid and will probably make much more out of the deal than the woman who risked her life for a modest pay package).

I have said it before and now I'm going to SHOUT IT but if the law commission proposals go through there will be an influx of international baby buyers looking for a cheap deal with the advantage of excellent free health care. I could see Californian employees doing a one or two year secondment to London offices to have a surrogate baby over here, and no doubt the firm will smooth the legal issues regarding citizenship etc.

[Tibtom]

It is quite surprising on a feminist board to see someone suggestion the work of motherhood, or the strain of fertility treatment is comparable to having a sabbatical.

[SapphosRock]

It would be an amazing perk for lesbian employees. It costs a fortune for lesbians to have kids.

Agree that for straight women better maternity pay and leave would be preferable.

[Helleofabore]

The aspect of providing a package to support surrogacy (the use of a woman's body to 'form' a family) is offensive.

It says much about the way they view women really.

Many other aspects of the pack look good, but even hinting that young women can put off the family and use stored eggs/embryos is really not the best advice to give. There needs to be constant warning about the cons of doing this, ie. that it may not actually work.

[FannyCann]

As I said @Tibtom I was being a little bit flippant. But I could sympathise with employees who don't want children who might feel they could make use of a £45k package for other purposes. Supporting a parent through cancer treatment or a hip replacement for instance? Why shouldn't they get some help to support their own family life?

[Tibtom]

You would feel worse if you were an expat without kids and saw your colleagues get £100k+ of school fees paid every year. But then you wouldn't be incurring that cost.

[Wanttocry]

It says in the article they’ll fund surrogacy, but since as far as I know, the only costs a surrogate mother can receive (in this country) are expenses, does the firm also pay pregnancy expenses for pregnant women employed by them?

[OhHolyJesus]

That's a good point. Wanttocry , does the woman who is pregnant with an employee's genetic child become a sub-contractor with the same benefits like insurance for example?

On the point on childless employees not being treated on the same way as working parents, I have friends who are assumed to work the Christmas holidays because they don't have children but they have family. I think in general there is a disparity between employees that have kids and those who don't.

In practice the £45k will be used predominately by low level female employees (not grads or the highly paid solicitors / barristers) such as apprentices or risk managers who may face similar barriers but might not be able to afford IVF.

This is a good point but I'd be worried that this would be a sold as a USP for the role and end up being a way to exploit young female juniors. Egg freezing would be a way to get more out of them, keep them working long hours for longer periods and to put their work before personal relationships and family. It would be presented as a 'insurance policy for future motherhood' so they can develop their careers, earn more and rise to senior positions, but there is no guarantee that freezing your eggs will result in pregnancy, let alone a baby.

[334bu]

Having IVF and undergoing egg removal surgery is not without health risks. Could these companies then find themselves in the courts being sued for perhaps even manslaughter , for coercing indirectly their female employees to undergo such treatments?

[OhHolyJesus]

@334bu

Having IVF and undergoing egg removal surgery is not without health risks. Could these companies then find themselves in the courts being sued for perhaps even manslaughter , for coercing indirectly their female employees to undergo such treatments?

Another good question, I think if there was an element of coercion and it didn't work there could be a claim of some kind in the future, whether it would hold up or not is another matter.

I think cases like this are more likely, where freezers fail and eggs and embryos are lost and then the claim for compensation is against the provider, not the employer.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9677699/15-million-rewarded-five-people-embryos-lost-freezer-tank-malfunction.html

As employee benefits extend to fertility/family isn't there a line being crossed? Either to make employees more like robots/slaves as they are 'owned' and their personal lives become company property or interest. I've seen this becoming more common in countries like Israel and the US and As it's sold as an attractive employee benefit, especially for those who know they would want IFV or surrogacy, it blurs the line on responsibility. I'm wondering what else would be provided by your work.

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

This seems like an arse about face way of improving diversity stats for a firm.

"City law companies have a reputation for demanding long hours of their highly paid lawyers, which has left them vulnerable to suggestions that women who start families are put at a disadvantage in the practices, especially in relation to promotion to partner level."

As a women working in the city the issue is clear - it's not women leaving these careers because they won't fund IVF. It's because they have children and the work attitude isn't compatible with family life. An expectation that you go back asap and 100% committed and never leave early for nursery pick up or child sickness and continue to work through weekends.

Paying women to delay or outsource child rearing seems to be the capitalist answer to fixing the issue but I don't see how it's best for anyone.

These women will still face the issues of crap maternity pay and work life balance when they have kids later, it'll just be coupled with the additional complications of IVF and potential for it to fail.

It reminds me of the "free food" perks that get talked about at Google et al. They provide free meals in their canteen e.g. breakfast up till 7am etc. But that's just because they want you to stay in the office and not go outside and to extract that extra work from you while you're eating in the office instead of at home with your family. It's not actually a net benefit to the employees, it's to the employer and that's why they fund it.

I'm sure most parents would want well paid parental leave coupled with a supportive and flexible work environment. Not an implicit expectation that you hold off having kids another decade because work will just bung you the cash to have them later and not interrupt the year end performance.

[Helen8220]

I was being perhaps somewhat flippant. I have no evidence that childless people are demanding a year's sabbatical and take back that remark. I just pulled it out of the air. But some people getting a £45k benefit package must surely make others ruminate about what sort of £45 k package they'd like?
I simply threw that in as I'm interested to know if others feel that they should be offered similar deals. Maybe £45 k family care package to allow for problems dealing with ageing parents for instance?
I'm absolutely not being goady, just thinking that others might like a similar but different deal?

In your defence, this is something my partner complains about quite a lot, and I’m sure is something I’ve heard other friends who are older and never had children say; ie ‘these people choose to have children, and get six months off on full pay; if I choose not to have children why can I not have six months off on full pay to eg volunteer or study?’ My partner took a six month unpaid career break in order to complete her undergraduate degree (having done most of it while working full time).

I do make the point in response that in practice, with the way things generally are currently in terms of women being much more likely than men to take significant periods of time out of their career for child caring purposes, parental leave is an issue of importance to equality between men and women more generally.

[Angelica789]

Egg freezing isn’t that successful as a means to pregnancy. A typical cycle would collect 10 eggs but usually only 2-3 blastocysts would result - the highest quality embryos. These then have about a 1 in 3 chance of resulting in pregnancy. These are averages so a lot of women won’t do as well as this.

So this is potentially pretty damaging as it’s selling a false hope that by freezing your eggs you are basically guaranteeing a future pregnancy whenever you feel like it.

[FannyCann]

Definitely Angelica789
Meanwhile long hours at the office means less time to nurture relationships and find a partner to have children with.

Also totally agree Helen maternity benefits are hugely important.
But I have heard similar complaints to you.

[sharksarecool]

To me, this "perk" betrays the law firm's intention of demanding an unhealthy amount of work and commitment of employees. It's like saying "We expect you'll be working so late that you miss the last train, but It's okay because we'll pay for your taxi"