Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


Places not to work: those that outsource fertility as a perk

Posted by yurble 
Places not to work: those that outsource fertility as a perk
October 08, 2019
Of all the ridiculous perks to offer, some companies are now paying for surrogacy.

I would not want to work for a company that paid for egg/sperm freezing, IVF, or surrogacy. I find these things so revolting from a moral perspective. In the case of surrogacy there's the disgusting commodification of a woman's body and the formalization of a class system (women who are used as brood mares tend not to be suffering from a surplus of economic alternatives). I hate the fertility industry's insistence that everyone can have what they want, regardless of whether it is beneficial for society as a whole - and it is hardly beneficial to society to perpetuate genes that lack the capacity for natural reproduction. But worst of all is what all of these 'treatments' have in common, which is the outrageous use of resources for a potential person made in the image of the entitled person who commissions it, while poor people starve and suffer disease, and the world groans under the burden of our consumption.


Whatever their exact policies, these companies are no longer outliers in the US. Fertility packages are spreading quickly, and are more likely to be offered by large companies.

According to the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP), 31% of US employers with at least 500 employees offered fertility benefits in 2018, compared to 24% in 2016 (although not all of these will include support with surrogacy). Fertility plans have been described as the latest offerings in a “benefit arms race” among tech companies competing for talent. But other types of companies are running in this race.

Analysis by fertility website FertilityIQ suggests that the US workplaces with the most generous IVF policies include, yes, tech companies like Pinterest, but also Unilever and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Even more so than other employee benefits, it's available only to a small proportion of employees, in this case not only because not everyone wants it, but because many local laws prevent it:


The surrogacy coverage can’t be inclusive in terms of geography, because laws on commercial surrogacy vary widely. It’s illegal in much of Europe and some US states, for instance. In some jurisdictions it’s limited to heterosexual or married couples. And in the UK, only altruistic (unpaid) surrogacy is legal. Thus, at an international company like Samsara, with offices in the Bay Area, Atlanta and London, not all employees can benefit. (In general, of course, few employee benefits are truly universal.)

...and this is why I hate employee benefits in general. They always benefit some, while others don't benefit at all. Just pay more and let people sort out their own arrangements for what they want. (But of course it is all about appearing "generous" while not actually having to pay that much.) What companies always forget is that every benefit is an entitlement for some and therefore a disadvantage for others. I hope some of the people who are getting screwed over by these "benefits" will vote with their feet, especially in the case of such morally dubious practices as paying for pregnancy prostitution.

The article does mention moral concerns (although not the misuse of resources), but says that employees tend to take a positive view on the perks. Well, what a surprise: people who are benefiting like their benefits. I bet they'd get a different impression if they asked the minimum wage janitor what they think about it.
Re: Places not to work: those that outsource fertility as a perk
October 08, 2019
the New York Post had an appalling (at least to me) pull outmidsection on infertility.

pages and pages (PAGES!!) of goddam frigging crap about myrakuls and these whining infertile myrtles and the medical profession rallying to help these poor women who are SUFFERING THE WORST POSSIBLE MEDICAL CONDITION to have their very own cumstain.

perhaps, but it won't be soon enough, we'll end up with a species that will be incapable of breeding without outside help.

two cents ¢¢


people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children
and I defy anyone to prove me wrong:

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

If I want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet I'll put shoes on my pets.

Mankind and its needs (wants) are like unto a black hole. It devours all available resources and it never is full: it merely grows larger and demands more.

Definition of 'wealthy': Anyone who makes more/has more than you do.

Someone pointed out that I'm a realist. And all along I thought I was just a pessimist crossed with a cynic.

Entitlement, thy name is mooooooooooooooo

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
Add to this that, many of those who refuse or are unable to prove they are
citizens, will receive free insurance paid for by those who are.""

I am confused enough already. I do not need outside help.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login