If you knew you were going to quit after maternity leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I let my company know during my pregnancy that I would not be coming back. I thought about who in the company might be a good choice to replace me. We got them onboard and I trained them.

Same, except company had a re-org right before I left and dragged their feet on hiring process so I didn’t get to train but was willing. It’s unethical and sets feminism and all women back to do what OP is proposing. We want more maternity leave and to show society it’s good for everyone. Doing this bait and switch just gives bitter misogynists another reason to hate women and be stingy with benefits.

Agreed. I have a low opinion of women who do this.

I returned from maternity leave and was laid off within a month. What's your opinion of employers who do that?

Ultimately, you have to put your family first because your employer won't put you first.

I think they are crap and should be exposed and, when possible, taken to court.

I don’t care about employers. I care about all women and the perception of women and how that perception affects all of us and our opportunities. Becoming a mom to a daughter made feminism feel very urgent to me, and I act on that when I can.

Yawn.

Maternity leave is a joke in the U.S. I think women like you who are invested in pretending that 6 weeks or 12 weeks is anywhere near humane are setting women back. Go be a corporate bootlicker in a feminist costume somewhere else.

Congratulations on being happy with scraps, the rest of us are not.

Your employer did not hire you to have a child and, frankly, only owes you a paycheck if you perform the job you were hired to do. If you are on anything other than earned PTO then whatever maternity leave you get it as a gift. Show some appreciation!

What venom do you have for moms who stay out of the rat race to begin with: SAHMs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I let my company know during my pregnancy that I would not be coming back. I thought about who in the company might be a good choice to replace me. We got them onboard and I trained them.

Same, except company had a re-org right before I left and dragged their feet on hiring process so I didn’t get to train but was willing. It’s unethical and sets feminism and all women back to do what OP is proposing. We want more maternity leave and to show society it’s good for everyone. Doing this bait and switch just gives bitter misogynists another reason to hate women and be stingy with benefits.

Agreed. I have a low opinion of women who do this.

I returned from maternity leave and was laid off within a month. What's your opinion of employers who do that?

Ultimately, you have to put your family first because your employer won't put you first.

I think they are crap and should be exposed and, when possible, taken to court.

I don’t care about employers. I care about all women and the perception of women and how that perception affects all of us and our opportunities. Becoming a mom to a daughter made feminism feel very urgent to me, and I act on that when I can.

Yawn.

Maternity leave is a joke in the U.S. I think women like you who are invested in pretending that 6 weeks or 12 weeks is anywhere near humane are setting women back. Go be a corporate bootlicker in a feminist costume somewhere else.

Congratulations on being happy with scraps, the rest of us are not.

Your employer did not hire you to have a child and, frankly, only owes you a paycheck if you perform the job you were hired to do. If you are on anything other than earned PTO then whatever maternity leave you get it as a gift. Show some appreciation!

This is why feminism is still relevant and why it’s best for us to be strategic and not gives misogynists like this an excuse to hate and penalize us more. I’m the pp who said leaving like OP is doing is unethical and bad for feminism.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy, I need to take a break from this board.

You die in childbirth on Monday, your company will have your job posted by Friday for a replacement.

OP, you owe them nothing. Go back long enough to vest and then quit on a post it note if you feel like it unless you’ll need a reference. If your company can lay you off a week before you vest to make more money, they will.

And for the poster who only embraced feminism when you became a mom and had a daughter….ugh.

[Anonymous]

You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I let my company know during my pregnancy that I would not be coming back. I thought about who in the company might be a good choice to replace me. We got them onboard and I trained them.

Same, except company had a re-org right before I left and dragged their feet on hiring process so I didn’t get to train but was willing. It’s unethical and sets feminism and all women back to do what OP is proposing. We want more maternity leave and to show society it’s good for everyone. Doing this bait and switch just gives bitter misogynists another reason to hate women and be stingy with benefits.

Agreed. I have a low opinion of women who do this.

I returned from maternity leave and was laid off within a month. What's your opinion of employers who do that?

Ultimately, you have to put your family first because your employer won't put you first.

I think they are crap and should be exposed and, when possible, taken to court.

I don’t care about employers. I care about all women and the perception of women and how that perception affects all of us and our opportunities. Becoming a mom to a daughter made feminism feel very urgent to me, and I act on that when I can.

Yawn.

Maternity leave is a joke in the U.S. I think women like you who are invested in pretending that 6 weeks or 12 weeks is anywhere near humane are setting women back. Go be a corporate bootlicker in a feminist costume somewhere else.

Congratulations on being happy with scraps, the rest of us are not.

Your employer did not hire you to have a child and, frankly, only owes you a paycheck if you perform the job you were hired to do. If you are on anything other than earned PTO then whatever maternity leave you get it as a gift. Show some appreciation!

What venom do you have for moms who stay out of the rat race to begin with: SAHMs?

No venom. As a small employer, I simply want an employee to perform the job they were hired to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

THANK YOU. This is what I was trying to say, but instead people decided to interpret it as me saying women deserve no maternity leave or that I only discovered feminism after having kids. Eye roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re at Amazon, sure hit Bezos for what he’s worth. If you’re at a mom and pop this is disgusting behavior period. Don’t do this to small businesses, they like, actually cannot afford your maternity leave and are doing it because they actually care.

If you can’t afford basic benefits you can’t afford to run a business. A small mom and pop business isn’t giving people a year of paid leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

THANK YOU. And no, nobody would ever say that to a man in that situation, they would say "good for him for negotiating a bonus at the current company and a higher salary at the next."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

NP

This is different. Men and women equally can do the scenario you stated, so no one is biased against men or women because of this reason. But leaving after having a baby? That's a 99% female response. How many men do you know that quit their job after their first kid?

The solution is to get men to stay home as often as women so that anyone of childbearing age is an equally risky employee, but that's not easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

NP

This is different. Men and women equally can do the scenario you stated, so no one is biased against men or women because of this reason. But leaving after having a baby? That's a 99% female response. How many men do you know that quit their job after their first kid?

The solution is to get men to stay home as often as women so that anyone of childbearing age is an equally risky employee, but that's not easy.

No it’s really not different, people want you to think it is and that you’re held to some kind of a special moral standard to represent all working women.

It is 2024. A company that treats a woman differently because she may become pregnant is breaking the law. That’s all. Women don’t need to behave differently or tiptoe around making the best choices for our families to protect literal criminals thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re at Amazon, sure hit Bezos for what he’s worth. If you’re at a mom and pop this is disgusting behavior period. Don’t do this to small businesses, they like, actually cannot afford your maternity leave and are doing it because they actually care.

If you can’t afford basic benefits you can’t afford to run a business. A small mom and pop business isn’t giving people a year of paid leave.

Let me guess, you’re on federal and state benefits and have never walked into a small business that isn’t a fast food chain in your life. Let the grown-ups talk, honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are missing the point of the posters who say it sucks for women to do what OP is doing. No one is saying OP shouldn't take her maternity leave or quit if that's what's best for her family. OF COURSE women have every right to do that. Without question. What sucks is that this impacts all women of child-bearing age in the workforce. EVERY employer is wondering if a woman is going to have kids and quit. They wonder about it during the interview, they wonder about if the woman gets married, and they wonder about it the second the woman discloses that she's pregnant. It would be foolish of employers NOT to take that possibility seriously because it happens so often. That means that women who do plan on returning, or who never plan to have kids, have to deal with these assumptions. You get treated as though you're not serious about your job because it's assumed you won't stick around for the long haul. You aren't viewed as a team player. It can take a lot to overcome that thinking. For those women who want to continue working, it can be difficult. This is not to say that women shouldn't be given maternity leave or be prevented from quitting once the leave ends but there is a cost to be paid for it--and the women who stay in the workforce are paying it.

This is such a dumb, crabs in a bucket argument and I do not understand why people keep rolling it out.

Say you have a super high achieving man on your team. Superstar. Rainmaker. And then he quits and gives no notice and goes to the higher paid firm down the street— right after banking his big bonus.

Does literally ANYONE say to him “hey you shouldn’t do that because it makes people more wary about hiring men and it makes it harder on men here in the office so I’m not saying you shouldn’t quit just that there’s “a cost to be paid” and other men are paying it”

Of course not. Because that’s stupid.

All that is is misogyny wrapped up in the language of capitalism. Ignore everything about it. The economy cannot function without women in the workplace. You are not doing anyone any harm no matter how much better it is for company x’s bottom line if you believe otherwise.

THANK YOU. And no, nobody would ever say that to a man in that situation, they would say "good for him for negotiating a bonus at the current company and a higher salary at the next."

You both are delusional. Your scenario has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. But here’s an apt comparison: a guy I work with got a raise/promo and then immediately took advantage of my company’s sabbatical leave and he’s now jotting around East Asia for 6 months. Literally everyone said WTF to him, and are still saying it about him. It’ll be tough for him to come back honestly because most people hate him. I guess we are all just man-haters though! Has nothing to do with what he did, just his gender!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re at Amazon, sure hit Bezos for what he’s worth. If you’re at a mom and pop this is disgusting behavior period. Don’t do this to small businesses, they like, actually cannot afford your maternity leave and are doing it because they actually care.

If you can’t afford basic benefits you can’t afford to run a business. A small mom and pop business isn’t giving people a year of paid leave.

Let me guess, you’re on federal and state benefits and have never walked into a small business that isn’t a fast food chain in your life. Let the grown-ups talk, honey.

Nice try but my father owned a business until he sold it in retirement. The “if you can’t afford benefits you can’t afford to be a business owner” philosophy was his. He gave 6 weeks off paid for a new baby, but unlike what people would have you think, that happens 2-3 times tops in a career.

The guy he kept on the payroll for eighteen months while he was undergoing chemo was a much more costly decision and no one ever told the guy to worry about how it reflected on cancer patients.