Apple and Facebook offer employees egg freezing benefit

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/egg-freezing-as-a-work-benefit-some-women-see-darker-message.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

News broke that Apple and Facebook provide a new benefit to female employees: they will cover the costs of egg freezing up to $20K. Bloomberg Businessweek says this is the "great equalizer" to "liberate" women, but I call BS. It is pretty disturbing to me for several reasons.

We know that tech is fairly misogynist and gender-unequal, especially in leadership and technical roles. Despite Sanberg's "Lean In" evangelism, most FB leaders are male (the major female execs are her, and in the HR dept). Apple and Google are similar. I don't know if the egg freezing benefit is the most crucial thing that women in tech (or prospective women) need now. In this 2011 list, Apple-FB-Google did not make the top 100 best companies to work for as a mom, despite offering great mat-leave, health care, and subsidized onsite day care. Why? Because the stress and workloads are not worth it. You can set up massage and watering stations at each mile of a Marathon course, but it's still a painful grueling Marathon.

What is the egg freezing signaling? A cynic (like me) would conclude that Apple/FB wants its women to fully focus on work (and work super hard) during their fertile younger years (~25-35). Just like their concierge and commute benefits, this is another way that workers don't have to be bothered by "real life", and can just stay in the work bubble thinking about company goals and their career growth all the time (you know, the truly important things in life). They are all about hacking and disrupting everything, so why can't they disrupt family planning too? Who says you can't have it all as a working mom?

But here's the thing, we know that it's illegal for employers to ask about or discriminate based on family. When a worker decides to start a family, often their career trajectory changes permanently, and managers may subtly or overtly perceive them differently from then on. It's only natural. So the egg freezing is a form of insurance, if you will. Those firms hired supposedly child-less younger women. They may be in relationships, but they will mostly be available for the firm 50-80 hrs/week and ~49 weeks/year. That is what the company expects when it hires. So the egg benefit prolongs that arrangement, for a measly sum of $20K (compare that to 1-6 months mat-leave, and all the lost productivity from childcare responsibilities, illnesses, etc. thereafter). And later when the egg freezer decides to finally start a family, the company can marginalize her to a lesser role, eventually replacing her with a man/new young woman. She's already contributed her value to the firm, now she can "go to pasture" and be a mom at Yahoo or Intel.

I could be underestimating Si Valley snobbery, but I think the # of women who will use this benefit will be small, and the # of women thawing their eggs later to start a family even smaller. Biologically, it's more likely they will have kids naturally. But for those who do choose to freeze and have a family via IVF, it won't be a cake walk either. Success rates are under 20% per egg. The mom might be 35-45 at that point. The older you get, the harder it is to deal with the physical strains of motherhood (unless they plan to nanny everything like Marisa Meyer). And by then they would be mid-career, with even more responsibilities and stress vs. their 20's. So is that a better time to start a family? Sure they'll be richer, but it may also be harder to transition from office rock-star to working mommy. So is the egg benefit just a scam from Apple and FB, tricking talented younger women to postpone their family plans to their detriment? And I don't know if there is data on it, but I wonder if child outcomes are different when the parents are older or younger. Of course teen parents are not preferable either, but I wonder if there is such a thing as "too old". Kids will still need their parents when they are 20-30, and it's just harder when they are geriatric by then. 

Lastly, what about the whole cryo-egg/IVF approach? Obviously it is not an option for most women, and is generally monopolized by wealthier white/Asian people (which tech is too). Will this further the rich-poor & racial gaps? Older pregnancies are a larger health risk for both mother and child. One option is a surrogate mom (pay a younger, poorer lady to carry your fetus - she's just renting out her excess capacity like AirBnB, right?). That is such a First World Problem: build vs. buy right? Outsource the non-value-add stuff, so you can focus on making money. Never compromise, innovate to have your cake and eat it too.

But it also reeks of exploitation. It's kind of sick - search for "surrogate mother" and you get a bunch of ads and sites trying to recruit wombs. Obviously demand > supply, especially with the rise of the Chinese upper class. And older couples who want to conceive will often pay any price. Those with medical need should have access to IVF, but what about those who elected to delay parenthood for their careers? That is kind of like paying to jump the line at Disneyland, or for organ donation. Clearly such procedures like IVF are not equal-opportunity, but the poor have the opposite problem - they sometime have too many kids because of lack of education and access to affordable contraception (as we discussed previously during the Hobby Lobby ruling).

There is even "surrogacy tourism" where Western couples lease a Third World womb (really, are they that cheap that they have to offshore it?). A case in Thailand made the headlines because an AUS couple may have "abandoned" one of their twins after discovering he had Down's (they left him with the surrogate Thai mom and returned home with the "desirable" twin). This is just one incident, but you can imagine the ethical and legal minefield that surrogacy presents.

All the sci-fi stuff from our childhood like Brave New World and Gattaca seem to be getting too close for comfort. Those in the "elite" class get all the privileges and get to lead charmed lives (yes, you can have it all when you work for Apple/FB!), and the rest of humanity just serves them, with the narrow/false hope of joining their ranks some day.

-----

This may also be a symptom of the competitiveness of silicon valley.  What else can you offer once money, food, on site massage, etc is covered?  The incentives are only going to get weirder at this point.

-----

I agree that there is an "arms race" re: employee benefits to attract good talent, but remember that Google, Apple, and maybe some others got sued for anti-competitive practices (no engineer poaching collusion to keep comp in check), but FB was not involved. So I guess several forces are affecting benefits. Supposedly US raises are being depressed by the rising costs of health coverage too.

If you took a poll at Apple on what new/enhanced benefits the workforce really wants, I doubt that egg freezing would be high on the list. I think it was a pet project by some HR person to "be innovative" and make some news. I assume the workforce really wants (1) more pay, (2) more vacation (true vacation, as in totally unplugged time), (3) more flex time, and (4) more coaching/training/career dev, not necessarily in that order. But most employers won't budge on that stuff. Speaking of vacation, some companies like Netflix offer unlimited paid vacation. But as you can imagine, this could have the opposite effect (workers scared to ask for a lot of time off, and without a vacation stipend, the firm saves money by not paying out unused balance).

There are some "nefarious benefits" that actually benefit the firm more than the worker. Like offering free dinner - that could encourage workers to stay later (with no OT pay) and the company gets a little more productivity out of them (even if they goof off much of that time). It got so bad at EA that workers sued to reclaim OT and become hourly workers, so at least they get comped for their longer hours. So I think the egg freezing is part of that - it delays family life, which benefits the company possibly at the expense of the worker. 

Obama considering McCain health care reform

I am not qualified to evaluate the utility of taxing employer-provided health benefits, but what I do know is that it sucks to slam your campaign opponent for advocating a certain idea, then after you've won, find yourself compelled by circumstance to consider adopting that very proposal. But I guess when Congress is unreceptive to curbing tax deductions for the rich to pay for expanded health care, you have to consider even a revenue generation plan that is "so radical, so out of touch with what you're facing, and so out of line with our basic values" (BO, speech in Virginia, 10/08).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=2&hp
Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits
By JACKIE CALMES and ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

At the time, even some Obama supporters said privately that he might come to regret his position if he won the election; in effect, they said, he was potentially giving up an important option to help finance his ambitious health care agenda to reduce medical costs and to expand coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. Now that Mr. Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”

Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.

They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits encourage what Mr. McCain called “gold-plated” policies, resulting in inefficient and costly demands for health care and pressure on employers to hold down workers’ pay as insurance expenses rise. And, they say, the policy discriminates against those — many of whom are low-income workers — who do not have employer-provided coverage.

When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.

The administration’s receptivity to the idea is owed partly to the advocacy of Mr. Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over tax policy and health programs, and to support from Republicans. There is less enthusiasm among Democrats in the House, though the health debate is at an early stage and no comprehensive plans are on the table.

Also, Mr. Obama’s own idea for raising revenues for health care — limiting the income tax deductions that the most affluent taxpayers claim — has run into opposition not only from Mr. Baucus but also from his counterpart in the House, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Obama’s proposed limit on deductions would raise an estimated $318 billion over 10 years, or half of his proposed “health care reserve fund.” That is a fraction of the revenues that could be raised from taxing employer-provided health benefits.

In the campaign, Mr. McCain estimated that taxing all health benefits would raise $3.6 trillion over a decade — “a multitrillion-dollar tax hike,” one Obama advertisement said.

The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.

The latest government figures, for 2007, show that 70 percent of the 253 million people with health insurance received at least some of their coverage through employers. Employment-based insurance covers three-fifths of the population under 65.

Those who want to tax benefits in whole or in part make two main arguments. They say the tax exclusion is a generous subsidy that insulates employees from the true costs of health care, leading them to demand more of it and driving up overall costs. Critics also say the policy is unfair because it favors higher-income people. “It’s too regressive,” Mr. Baucus said. “It just skews the system.”

But in a blueprint for health legislation that he issued last November, Mr. Baucus said taking the exclusion on health benefits out of the tax code would go “too far” and “cause widespread disruption in employer-based health benefits.” Mr. Obama has also said he wants to preserve employer-provided coverage. Mr. Baucus, in his paper, cited other options, like taxing benefits above some value, taxing only wealthy employees or both.

However the proposal is devised, advocates will not have an easy time selling it.

Republicans, like Mr. McCain and former President George W. Bush before him, tend to favor taxing the benefits to finance other incentives for people to buy their own insurance. But given Mr. Obama’s use of the issue in his campaign, Republicans are unlikely to support a change unless the president himself proposes it, a senior adviser to Senate Republicans said.

Many Democrats, especially House liberals, are opposed. “It’s a dumb idea,” said Representative Pete Stark of California, chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. “We have to maintain as much as we can of the employer payments.”

Administration officials often say they will not repeat the mistakes of former President Bill Clinton, whose plan for universal health insurance collapsed in 1994. But Frank B. McArdle, a health policy expert at Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm, said, “If President Obama agrees to cut back the tax break for employee health benefits, he will risk repeating one of Mr. Clinton’s errors by disrupting health insurance for people who have it and like it.”

Some big businesses consider nontaxable employment benefits a tool for recruiting and retaining workers. The United States Chamber of Commerce opposes eliminating the exclusion on health benefits, but James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy, said the group had not taken a position on limiting it.

Organized labor, a pillar of the Democratic Party base, considers the benefits among the union movement’s historic achievements for the middle class. But a split could be developing between the manufacturing unions, which have negotiated rich benefit packages, and the growing service employees unions, which include many low-wage workers without generous benefits.

Alan V. Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, said: “These proposals would represent a tax increase on working families. They would undermine good health care coverage.”

But at the Service Employees International Union, which was an early supporter of Mr. Obama, Dennis Rivera, the coordinator of the union’s health care campaign, said that while his organization was “predisposed not to agree to the taxing of health benefits,” he would wait to pass judgment. The union, Mr. Rivera said, wants to see how any tax changes fit into the overall effort to revamp the health care system. “We need to see the total picture,” he said.