IBM to offer breast milk delivery-as-a-service for staff IBM will start a breast-milk-delivery-as-a-service offering for female employees and their kids. IBMers sometimes moan that the company's initial stand for “I've Been Moved”, such is the amount of travel or moves to new locales demanded of some employees. Big Blue's decided domestic travel can be a problem for female employees …
This post has been deleted by its author
Hvaing children is a free choice, and one that requires many years of commitment. Why should a company be expected to pay its staff for time they take off for such a personal choice? If I decided to learn to fly a plane, or to go dig wells for African villages, or any number of things which might be personally important to me, I'd be expected to take vacation and/or an unpaid sabbatical. What makes starting a family so different?
This post has been deleted by its author
Would you care to actually answer my genuine question (if you can) instead of making condescending remarks?
Some of us choose not to have children, for many reasons. Why should those who choose not to have them be discriminated against? If you aren't willing to make the time and commitment to raise a family, you shouldn't start one. That includes ensuring that you can shoulder the financial burden, without expecting concessions from your employer.
"What makes starting a family so different?"
Mainly the fact a lot more people are likely to be interested in doing it than flying a plane or digging a well for an African village.
It's a hard nosed business decision that says making your workplace family friendly is likely to influence a large pool of people who might be choosing to stay or join you.
Whereas a campaign stating they will provide extra paid time off for anyone digging a well in Africa is not likely to affect many people directly - it may however give them a warm and fuzzy PR boost.
Besides, become senior, valued, critical or important enough and organisations do start to offer things like paid MBA's and time off for the CEO to pursue his yacht racing indulgence.
Why should employers give their non-managerial employees holidays at all? Or lunch breaks? Or xmas parties? 100% commitment to the position they were hired in!
Well, at least that's your logic anyway.
Some employers aren't total idiots and want to give concessions to certain people. If you don't want children, boo hoo cry me a river.
This post has been deleted by its author
How on earth are you discriminated against? Providing benefits to other people is not the same as discriminating you, you know. If a mother or father wants to take maternity/paternity leave, or even holidays then it does not have a detrimental effect on you. It may be inconvenient, it may be frustrating, but you are personally not discriminated against - you are conflating the two things.
If, now, a woman, that IBM clearly believes contributes to their business is provided with the opportunity to be at work, but also take a short amount of time to express some milk to send to her child then it has no detrimental impact on you, you are not discriminated against. Being jealous, or being inconvenienced because someone is not immediately available is not the same as being discriminated against.
"That includes ensuring that you can shoulder the financial burden, without expecting concessions from your employer."
That's fine by us parents, just as long as you are happy to take care of your own medical treatment in future and not expect our kids to nurse you, treat you, feed you and wipe your backside when you end up as a lonely dribbling old wreck. After all you wouldn't want concessions from the rest of us would you?
I've worked with enough women to know lots who scratch days off the calendar until they can dump their new born kids on nannies and get back to the real world of work. And it's not because they are short on money. So yes, there are lots of mothers who would rather be at work than stuck at home 24x7 taking care of children. That's what nannies and day care is for.
I've worked with enough women to know lots who scratch days off the calendar until they can dump their new born kids on nannies and get back to the real world of work. And it's not because they are short on money. So yes, there are lots of mothers who would rather be at work than stuck at home 24x7 taking care of children. That's what nannies and day care is for.
I also have meet some women like this (but personally question their reason to have kids). There are also some women who need the money and/or to keep their career on track (the cost of child care is only temporary).
I do think this it probably the wrong solution, and that if the child is still breast feeding the mother should be on maternity level, or working from home (I wonder if a large IT company like IBM has the right resources to make that possible?)
The wife and I often recall a comedians joke about schooling where rather than sending them to boarding school you might as well go the whole hog and have them adopted.
To AC and his free choice of not having kids.
I'm so glad you chose not have children and not want to give paid maternity leave.
In return, can we choose for our kids not to fund your pension and health care when you retire, so you can live your happy, self centred existence living in gutter before you die penniless.
If you think YOU are paying for YOUR future, you may want to go and learn some VERY basic economics.
Seriously this is a non news event that is only a PR Stunt.
Before we talk about motive... lets look at the numbers...
How many employees are women?
Of those employees of women, what percentage of those women are traveling for work on a regular basis? Or travel as part of their work responsibilities? Then what percentage are taking maternity leave? And what percentage of that are breast feeding vs artificial milk?
In short, you'll find that this 'benefit' while it makes great PR, really is a benefit that only a few women will use. But its a line item on a list of the many benefits that IBM offers. ;-)
Imagine though that if IBM were to supply a subsidy for women's birth control, more women would take advantage and it would be a better benefit. (Note: ACA already mandates that Health Insurance must cover this as benefit.) Of course it would also cost more overall...
Why is IBM doing this?
At face value... to show women that IBM is a great place to work... they'll let you pump and ship when they put you on the road for work...
But I suspect that IBM is still in the RIF mode as they retool. Its cheaper to hire new college grads than retrain older more expensive employees. ;-) (And female recent grads are the ones with their biological clock still ticking.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
