Apple And Facebook Are Paying Employees To Freeze Their Eggs

[DealForTheKids]

nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=4&articleid=30317141&m=d

Just that really.

Are we in a Margaret Atwood novel? Is this supposed to help womens' career prospects?

What happens when you're newly married and your boss 'implies' that your career prospects might take an upturn if you take up the programme they offer? Or even that they might take a downturn if you don't?

I checked the date already, it's not April 1 :(

Wha...?

How would employees having their career break at 40 rather than 25 help Apple /Facebook?

Surely the only thing that works for them is their employees not having a break at all? Are they hoping that's what'll end up happening?

how completely arsewise

Was just coming on to post this! It's insane.

The guardian also highlights the 18 weeks maternity leave which is significant in America, but just lousy compared to European countries.

Why aren't they encouraging whole family benefits instead of incentivising women to wait?

Staggered really.

Hey, if the new trade agreement takes place, women working for US companies in Europe won't be entitled to that country's maternity leave anyway.....

But, yeah, Apple... wuh?

Ahh, is that the infamous TIPP? If your country's laws cost us more to do business there... we'll take you to court.

Sovereignty? Democracy? Who they?

Yeah, scary scary stuff. And happening under the radar.

The news article just says that egg-freezing is now being covered by the company medical insurance. Am I missing something?

Are we reading the same article? The one linked at the top doesn't mention insurance coverage.

"Apple and Facebook will pay female employees up to $20,000 to help cover the cost of freezing their eggs. The idea is to enable women who want to continue focusing on their careers without sacrificing their chance to have children later on. NBC News reports that Facebook recently began its program and that Apple will start paying employees who want to freeze their eggs in January."

Of course, the story might be wrong.

Holy cow, have you clicked through to NBC report?

'But the emotional and cultural payoff may be more valuable, said Jones: Offering this benefit “can help women be more productive human beings.'"

Unproductive human beings, huh? Because women gestate and give birth to small human beings. Right ho.

Yes, it's referred to in all the articles - the companies will cover the costs of egg freezing as part of their employee benefits for up to $20,000. They aren't paying women to freeze their eggs, they are covering the costs of it (I doubt 20k goes far in the US for fertility treatment) as part of their benefits package (it might not be via health insurance coverage but a separate benefit though - apologies if so)

Basically it's a sensationalist spin on a non-story.

I think the key line in both articles is "freezing for non-medical reasons".

So this isn't about dealing with a medical problem or infertility. This is (very explicitly) about persuading women not to have children when younger.

I wonder how is this primarily an employee benefit? Sounds more like an employer benefit. Especially the way it's being sold by the companies doing the freezing.

It's certainly a rather different way of looking at employment than providing decent maternity leave, childcare, parental leave for emergencies or return-to-work packages for parents after a career break. Instead, use up people's younger, more energetic years on the company, and when you've finished with them, they can go off and be "unproductive" raising children...

"'Having a high-powered career and children is still a very hard thing to do,' said Brigitte Adams, an egg-freezing advocate and founder of the patient forum Eggsurance.com. By offering this benefit, companies are investing in women, she said, and supporting them in carving out the lives they want."

But only a hard thing to do if you're female...

"Hey, if the new trade agreement takes place, women working for US companies in Europe won't be entitled to that country's maternity leave anyway....."

Can you provide a link for that? I've not been able to find anything which suggests that employee rights will be affected (other than mutual market access possibly leading to relocations to the places with the least).

The companies offer egg-freezing coverage under slightly different terms: Apple covers costs under its fertility benefit, and Facebook under its surrogacy benefit, both up to $20,000. Women at Facebook began taking advantage of the coverage this year.

from here

So yes, very much sounds like an insurance addition rather than saying to Kate in admin "You're thinking of having a baby!! Don't have a baby yet, here have $20.000 to keep your job & freeze your eggs"

So as TondelayoSchwarzkopf pointed out,

Basically it's a sensationalist spin on a non-story.

I heard this in the radio this morning and had a little rant to myself in the car. How on earth have we come to the point where this is seem as the right answer to combining career and motherhood?

And indeed to the idea that producing more human beings is 'unproductive', particularly when the vast majority of women do this as well as making a significant economic contribution.

Right, so instead of correcting the social wrong of women having to take far, far, far more time out for having children and the subsequent childcare and child-rearing, than do men, thus affecting women's careers, Facebook and Apple have decided to just throw money at the problem??? Really???

I'm kind of insulted at the idea that raising my children to be decent human beings and members of society makes me less productive. Women are caught in such a bind. If you WOHM, you are a horrible neglectful mother leaving your children to be raised by strangers, and if you SAHM, you are unproductive and probably dim as well as being a helicopter parent. You can't win. Or at least I can't.

And I don't think Apple/Facebook covering freezing eggs is helping with that. I think thet are making it worse.

"I'm kind of insulted at the idea that raising my children to be decent human beings and members of society makes me less productive." I know. Surely that makes women the ultimate 'producers'?

Of course it does. Hence patriarchy, oppression etc.

differentnameforthis, can you explain how non-medical freezing of eggs is an appropriate insurance addition?

It's not the payment mechanism that's at issue here. It's the very clear statement by the company that they think this is a good thing for their female staff to do.

If they added boob jobs to the package, would you still be comfortable with that - as long as it was done as an insurance addition?

Or for those who need an ungendered eg, how would one feel if a company added free amphetamines to the benefits package? To help staff pull all-nighters? It's a "benefit" for the staff because the company is more likely to promote those who do.

Or the company could just manage its staffing levels and workflow better so that all-nighters are a rarity.

I have death-in-service coverage through my work. I don't think it's because they want me to die.

There are several non medical reasons why a woman might freeze her eggs. I can imagine that career progression may be a part of it but that doesn't mean the company is pressuring their employees to do so.
In pure business terms, it is easier and cheaper to provide maternity cover for a younger woman with less experience and a lower salary than a senior employee. As this is in America the medical costs are likely far higher for a woman who is pregnant in her forties via fertility treatment than a younger woman who conceived naturally. I'm really not seeing a conspiracy among Apple and Facebook directors to tie young women to their desks here. If anything those companies are likely to be among the more family friendly employers out there. (Hollow laughter)

The comments by the fertility company spokesman provide plenty to unpack as does the unfair burden on women in child rearing, the corporate view of childcare as a woman's issue, the myriad reasons why women are delaying conception including the impact on wage earning and the costs of childcare and the fact that having children have no effect on a mans career.

Also, it looks to me like it has been the fertility companies that have been lobbying big corporations to add coverage for their services to their insurance packages. That's the subtext I got from the articles which admittedly I read late last night.

Oh I completely agree, there's a very strong smell of lobbying in that coverage.

I also agree completely with your third paragraph.

I'm disagreeing with your statement that this is a "non-story". Unless one is so resigned to the view that having children is only a women's issue, that another brick in the wall is nothing to write home about.

(I'm ignoring your death-in-service facetiousness, as I don't think you're genuinely unable to tell the difference between stuff one chooses and stuff thrust upon one.)