October 16, 2014
Freezing employees’ eggs becomes new benefit to attract/keep talent
Employers have used all different types of perks to attract and retain top talent. A new benefit currently offered by Facebook and soon to be offered by Apple, however, is attracting a lot of attention. The companies are offering to cover the cost for female employees to freeze their eggs for non-medical reasons.
The rationale for the program is pretty straightforward: freezing eggs enables younger women to focus on their careers and put off becoming pregnant. In the past, coverage for egg freezing has only been approved in cases where a woman has a medical reason, such as a cancer diagnosis.
Costs for the procedure, according to reports, is quite steep at $10,000 for every round that eggs are frozen and $500 or more a year to store them. Facebook covers treatments up to a maximum of $20,000.
While women may welcome the benefit offered, there is some concern it could be used as subtle pressure to influence female workers to delay starting families.
Kellye Sheehan, president of the Women in Technology industry group, called the benefit "a nice perk," but told USA Today, "Is the employer trying to tell us something? Agreed, working mothers have a lot to juggle. But you can’t let your employer force you into something that doesn’t fit your values or personal choices."
According to NBC News, there has been a marked increase in demand by women seeking to freeze their eggs ever since the procedure was no longer deemed experimental in 2012.
Tech companies have taken heat in recent years for the small percentage of women that make up the ranks of the industry’s workforce. Seventy percent of Facebook and Apple’s worldwide workforces are male.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
What is your reaction to Facebook and Apple paying for female workers to freeze their eggs as a benefit of employment? Are the companies sending the right signal to women employees and employee prospects?
Poll
This is easily the strangest retail story of the past few days.
I’m sure there are people who’ll appreciate this benefit. But for those of us who are older, who experienced real gender discrimination, there’s a whiff of “don’t get pregnant now if you want to keep your job” to this. I can only speak for Boomers here. What will younger women think?
It is a different world today and allowing female workers to freeze their eggs may be a benefit for some. I do wonder what message are they sending to workers who do want to start a family early in their lives. As long as it does not create two classes of workers it should be a true benefit. I do not think a number of employers would see it that way and so it may just be for technology companies!
What a nice and thoughtful thing Facebook and Apple are doing for their employees! Apparently plans are also in the works for both companies to have institutions where they will raise your children and your dog for you so you are almost totally unencumbered when it comes to your dream of working longer hours. However there is no truth to the rumor that a premium will be paid to employees who remain totally friendless and have no life outside of work.
Perhaps the mother of all understatements is “it could be used as subtle pressure.” That wins over “Someone hitting you on the head with a hammer may be a sign they don’t like you.”
First, God bless all working mothers. Fathers too but mothers a lot more. If you want to have children and want to delay doing so, wonderful. But to do so (outside of a medical reason) beyond when natural fertilization is possible seems a little strange. Apparently that happens in the late 40s or so. Will Facebook or Apple be “done with you” by then and give you your frozen eggs back? Of course you’d better hope your health plan will cover the installation, I doubt the company will.
I am not sure what to think about this benefit. Will it attract better qualified women to the company? Does it say that women who take advantage of it have a better chance for advancement over women who don’t? Is the cost worth the investment that a company makes? Do male employees feel threatened or discriminated against by the practice? All questions that can only be answered over time.
It is a “nice perk,” but I don’t know how really valuable it is in terms of women taking advantage of it. And yes, as Cathy says, “there is a whiff of ‘don’t get pregnant.’”
But it does send a message of trying to meet the needs of women and I believe that is where the value of the decision is. It is in the message, not necessarily in the action.
I have no problem as long as Facebook and Apple offer a program to ALL employees which allows them to spend the $20,000 on a service of their choice. If not, then this nothing more than reverse discrimination.
Will the eggs remain the property of the women? Will the company require some commitment or tenure before retrieving the eggs? Sounds like rules and regulations needs to be confirmed. Like employers require a committed length of employment before they help pay for getting an advanced degree.
Yes, I am a boomer too and, likewise to Cathy, experienced a lot of gender discrimination but…knowing the millennials in my life, I think they would see this as giving them options.
I also have friends who waited until late in life to have children and boy, don’t kid yourself, 50 is not the new 20!
And that’s my 2 cents!
My first reaction: “Ick.” And indeed if this is being offered/promoted as a stand alone benefit, then that would remain my reaction, but it appears to simply be a medical benefit offered along with others, so I’ll upgrade that reaction to a shrug. My second reaction: what has this to do with retail…is it likely a retailer will offer a similar benefit? Probably not.
Regardless of the subtle message, I think employees will appreciate the benefit. While it might not have any benefit for older women, it might be extremely attractive for a new generation of employees, particularly young talented senior level rainmakers that both employer and employee would hate to see their career disrupted. Too often we have seen women’s careers get sidetracked due to family responsibilities. This can cost the employee not only lost wages but seniority as well being out of the picture for an extended period of time. This puts some power back into the hands of women, improving their chances of promotion.
This seems like a good deal for both the employer and employee. The employer gets a more focused, happier employee who may put off pregnancy in the early part of her career when she is climbing the ladder. The employee gets a benefit that she may or may not use, but she has the option. I am sure someone can see a coercive anti female ploy here somehow, but I cannot. This seems like optionality for an employee, and that seems like a good thing.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
This is easily the strangest retail story of the past few days.
I’m sure there are people who’ll appreciate this benefit. But for those of us who are older, who experienced real gender discrimination, there’s a whiff of “don’t get pregnant now if you want to keep your job” to this. I can only speak for Boomers here. What will younger women think?
It is a different world today and allowing female workers to freeze their eggs may be a benefit for some. I do wonder what message are they sending to workers who do want to start a family early in their lives. As long as it does not create two classes of workers it should be a true benefit. I do not think a number of employers would see it that way and so it may just be for technology companies!
What a nice and thoughtful thing Facebook and Apple are doing for their employees! Apparently plans are also in the works for both companies to have institutions where they will raise your children and your dog for you so you are almost totally unencumbered when it comes to your dream of working longer hours. However there is no truth to the rumor that a premium will be paid to employees who remain totally friendless and have no life outside of work.
Perhaps the mother of all understatements is “it could be used as subtle pressure.” That wins over “Someone hitting you on the head with a hammer may be a sign they don’t like you.”
First, God bless all working mothers. Fathers too but mothers a lot more. If you want to have children and want to delay doing so, wonderful. But to do so (outside of a medical reason) beyond when natural fertilization is possible seems a little strange. Apparently that happens in the late 40s or so. Will Facebook or Apple be “done with you” by then and give you your frozen eggs back? Of course you’d better hope your health plan will cover the installation, I doubt the company will.
I am not sure what to think about this benefit. Will it attract better qualified women to the company? Does it say that women who take advantage of it have a better chance for advancement over women who don’t? Is the cost worth the investment that a company makes? Do male employees feel threatened or discriminated against by the practice? All questions that can only be answered over time.
It is a “nice perk,” but I don’t know how really valuable it is in terms of women taking advantage of it. And yes, as Cathy says, “there is a whiff of ‘don’t get pregnant.’”
But it does send a message of trying to meet the needs of women and I believe that is where the value of the decision is. It is in the message, not necessarily in the action.
I have no problem as long as Facebook and Apple offer a program to ALL employees which allows them to spend the $20,000 on a service of their choice. If not, then this nothing more than reverse discrimination.
Will the eggs remain the property of the women? Will the company require some commitment or tenure before retrieving the eggs? Sounds like rules and regulations needs to be confirmed. Like employers require a committed length of employment before they help pay for getting an advanced degree.
Yes, I am a boomer too and, likewise to Cathy, experienced a lot of gender discrimination but…knowing the millennials in my life, I think they would see this as giving them options.
I also have friends who waited until late in life to have children and boy, don’t kid yourself, 50 is not the new 20!
And that’s my 2 cents!
My first reaction: “Ick.” And indeed if this is being offered/promoted as a stand alone benefit, then that would remain my reaction, but it appears to simply be a medical benefit offered along with others, so I’ll upgrade that reaction to a shrug. My second reaction: what has this to do with retail…is it likely a retailer will offer a similar benefit? Probably not.
Regardless of the subtle message, I think employees will appreciate the benefit. While it might not have any benefit for older women, it might be extremely attractive for a new generation of employees, particularly young talented senior level rainmakers that both employer and employee would hate to see their career disrupted. Too often we have seen women’s careers get sidetracked due to family responsibilities. This can cost the employee not only lost wages but seniority as well being out of the picture for an extended period of time. This puts some power back into the hands of women, improving their chances of promotion.
This seems like a good deal for both the employer and employee. The employer gets a more focused, happier employee who may put off pregnancy in the early part of her career when she is climbing the ladder. The employee gets a benefit that she may or may not use, but she has the option. I am sure someone can see a coercive anti female ploy here somehow, but I cannot. This seems like optionality for an employee, and that seems like a good thing.