The Big Freeze

No, I’m not talking about Boston’s weather this winter.   I’m talking about the much discussed new employee benefit that Apple and Facebook just introduced.   Egg freezing.

Just so everyone understands what it is --- the scientific name is Oocyte Cryopreservation.  It allows women to freeze and store their eggs until they want to start their families. Egg freezing effectively suspends the ticking of a woman’s biological clock.

Although egg freezing has been available in the U.S. for nearly a decade, it has mostly been used with cancer patients facing infertility from the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation.

Facebook and Apple have now made it a benefit --- paying $20,000 for the procedure to any female employee who wants it.  Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase also offer it but have kept it very low key.  Microsoft offers a variation of it, and Google is weighing it as an option.

The fact is that the years when women dedicate time and energy to their educations and careers are also the time of peak fertility.  The career battle is most intense when employees are in their 20’s and 30’s. Having a high-powered career and children at that age is a very hard thing for women to do.  Proponents therefore say that by offering this benefit, companies are investing in women and supporting them in carving out the lives they want.  They are, in effect, helping to level the playing field.

The idea that there might be a way for women to build their careers and their personal lives on a timetable of their own choice is so intriguing that single women are filling informational sessions at clinics and holding “Let’s Chill” egg freezing “parties” to hear about it.

But let’s look at the flip side of this.  After all there’s something a little creepy about an employer taking an interest in your ovaries. It blurs the line between professional and private life.

In the future could having this benefit negatively affect those females who choose not to freeze their eggs and instead have children in their 20's or 30's? Could they be viewed as not as committed to their jobs or as loyal to the company as their egg-freezing colleagues?  Could they be less likely to be considered for promotion?   Would companies ever say: "We offered you the benefit, so why aren't you taking advantage of it? Don't tell me that you want to have a child right now. That is what we have the egg freezing plan for."

Reasons to be cynical:

In typical high tech, engineer fashion Facebook and Apple believe that there must be a solution to every problem if only the right “code” can be found.   High tech employers are already doing a lot to ensure that their workforce’s primary focus is on productivity --- not distractions.  And having babies is definitely a distraction. 

They provide free haircuts, on-site medical centers, dry cleaners and shuttle buses to take employees to/from work.  Facebook is even building an apartment complex for employees within biking distance to encourage minimal time away from work.   So is egg freezing just another way to remove a distraction?

Reasons not to be cynical:

In all fairness Facebook and Apple also offer female employees help when they leave work in favor of having children.   Facebook gives new parents (male or female) four months of paid leave. They also give them $4,000 in "baby cash”.  In addition they subsidize day care when a mother returns to work. Apple offers expectant mothers four weeks of paid leave before birth, and fourteen weeks after birth. 

Benefits are social indicators. They reveal what we value, as a culture. While being included as a health benefit is new and may just be part of the Valley's perks arms race now, egg-freezing could eventually become a cultural norm.

What’s next?  Well, how about vasectomies for young male employees that can be reversed once they hit a pay level of $100,000 or age 40?   Hmmm . . .  something tells me a benefit like that wouldn’t be received with the same amount of enthusiasm.

What do you think about all of this?   Let’s hear from our female readership!

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel. Her expertise encompasses many areas of HR --- compensation, benefits and wellness, learning/development, strategic workforce planning and mergers and acquisitions. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expatriate twice during her career. She has certifications from HCRI, World at Work and Human Capital Institute as well as a B.S. and M.S. in Psychology and an MBA.  Jacque has been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications.

Comments

[Trevor Norcross]

Hi Jacque,
It's not about the perk, it's about the philosophy. The first companies to implement something like this will usually have a well thought out philosophy. As you mention they also have great benefits when having a child so employees have a choice. You could say if they didn't have a "freezing" perk they would be encouraging employees to have kids during normal age range. One could look at this one sided approach just as cynically

It's the companies that follow with a "me too" approach that may be of bigger concern. They may not take a balanced approach or have an overall philosophy.

As far as your vasectomy example, I don't think anyone is suggesting pay level or age requirements before women un-freeze their eggs. I'm also not sure how a vasectomy perk would play in the media. It would likely play into the male dominated culture story line (reality). The goal with the perks they are implementing should be about attracting an under represented population.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Whatever is valued by your workers is appropriate to consider as a perk. Or is the employer sending a chilling message? No evidence so far about who initiated this idea, whether requested by ees or imposed by management. It might be construed (and sued) as pressure to defer childbearing in order to continue working without "inconvenient" interruptions.

[Trevor Norcross]

I know this is all men commenting but at the same time they are offering rich new child perks to off set the "chilling" message.

[Jacque Vilet]

There are conflicting opinions about this offering --- from women. I tried to present both viewpoints.

As far as the vasectomies ---- it was tongue in cheek. Don't think would ever be offered.

Where are the comments from the women? How do you feel about it?

[Dan Walter]

So...What would THAT Total Reward Statement look like?????

[Jacque Vilet]

Hmmm. . . good question Dan. For egg freezing maybe the value could be $$$ lost on the job if the woman gets pregnant ---- time away from job, etc. Sort of like using "value" for benefits instead of actual cost to employee.

For vasectomy? Well ---- I'll let you men decide on that one!

Where are the women?

[Katherine Macrone]

I think it is a sad commentary on how we view work and family in this country. If we had a support network AND realized that success can occur without 24/7 focus on work, all would be better off. Why do you think so many women are opting out of "corporate" life and starting their own business? They are tired of playing by the rules of 1950 that still exist today. They want to own their own lives.

[Jacque Vilet]

Katherine and other women --- do you see/think that with Gen Y beginning to dominate the workforce with Boomers retiring --- that the gender issue will subside? I've heard that younger men (and therefore management) don't view women the same way.

[Jules]

I am all for it. I wish I had an option to postpone having children until I have reached the peak of my career, whatever/whenever that maybe. Sadly, I don't work for Facebook or related companies which offers this perk.

Wanting children, not wanting children, delaying children are great options to offer. I don't see why this have to be a judgement issue where we judge people for making a choice and companies for giving people the option to make the choice. Now, if they had given an option of freeze eggs and take away the generous maternity perks, I would find it suspicious. This is merely opening another door for women to live their life as they see fit. Why not?

[Jacque Vilet]

Hi Jules and thanks for your comment. Apparently companies are sensitive to criticism. Seven years ago the head of an egg-freezing clinic reached out to some large companies and asked if they would consider it for their female employees.

She says: “We got a lot of pushback from them, saying, ‘Well, we don’t want to seem Machiavellian, that we’re paying to freeze a woman’s eggs so she just keeps working harder". So companies have been sensitive to potential criticism.

Perhaps if companies with great maternity benefits (like Facebook) offer egg freezing it will be viewed as OK because either choice offers a rich benefit.

But companies with poor maternity benefits? They may get a different reaction. Poor benefits if you get pregnant -- rich benefit if you freeze your eggs and keep working. I can see how this might be interpreted differently.