Company sponsored egg freezing benefits from a human resources (HR) management perspective

[Angelica Cheng]

The risks of sponsorship of social egg freezing- UCA News

There has been much debate on lifting the ban on social egg freezing in Singapore

www.ucanews.com

The risks of sponsorship of social egg freezing - WORLD CATHOLIC NEWS

The drastic slide in Singapore’s fertility rate over the past few years, further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic, has raised deep concerns over the country’s future economic prospects and social stability. To address this problem, there has been much debate on lifting the current ban on...

www.worldcatholicnews.com

The risks of sponsorship of social egg freezing

The drastic slide in Singapore’s fertility rate over the past few years, further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic, has raised deep concerns over the country’s future economic prospects and social stability.

To address this problem, there has been much debate on lifting the current ban on social egg freezing in Singapore, a procedure whereby an unmarried woman freezes her eggs for future use to counteract the steep decline in female fertility after her mid-30s.

Proponents often point to the increasing societal trend of late marriages and delayed childbearing within the country as necessitating the use of this elective medical procedure by single women. Indeed, both the Youth and Women’s wing of Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party have called on the government to lift its longstanding ban on social egg freezing.

Nevertheless, the high costs of this procedure would be rather challenging to the personal finances of many single women. If social egg freezing is eventually permitted in Singapore, it is very unlikely that the government will subsidize this elective procedure, given that it is not essential for sustenance of life or health but is instead attributed to personal life choices.

However, it is possible that some local companies may follow the example of US tech firms such as Apple, Google and Facebook in sponsoring elective egg freezing for female employees. This has aroused much media hype as a step towards gender equality in the corporate workplace.

There are three major objectives for a company to sponsor egg freezing. Firstly, to attract and retain talented female professionals and executives. Secondly, to enhance the corporate image of the company as having pro-family policies, as well as being supportive of women’s rights and gender equality. Lastly, to covertly encourage or even subtly coerce talented female employees to delay childbearing so that they can devote more of their youth and time to the company.

There may be an unwritten rule that if egg freezing benefits are available, then it should be utilized by female employees to delay having children, or else if they fall pregnant and take maternity leave, then they should expect to be skipped for promotion and be the first to be retrenched when the opportunity arises.

Nevertheless, there are a number of compelling arguments on why company sponsorship of egg freezing could be a bad human resources management practice.

First and foremost, this may contravene the much-cherished maxim of equal pay for equal work (or equal job performance), which is the underlying linchpin of corporate meritocracy. If a high-value or high-performing female employee within a company can be granted sponsorship for this expensive medical procedure, how about male employees of similar rank and equal job performance record? Don’t they deserve to be given other benefits in lieu that are of equivalent monetary value? How about married female employees in similar positions who already have children and no longer have any need for egg freezing?

At the end of the day, corporations are beholden to shareholders and obliged to focus on profitability. They should strictly evaluate and pay for work done by employees, rather than getting involved in personal decisions and broader gender-based social issues.

Second, corporate perks and fringe benefits are being subjected to increasing scrutiny by tax authorities and auditors worldwide due to the rising numbers of corruption and tax evasion cases associated with lavish corporate perks.

As a result of increasingly stringent tax laws and requirement for good accounting standards, there is a growing trend for companies to cut down on employee perks and fringe benefits while placing greater emphasis on direct monetary remuneration in the form of salaries and bonuses to ensure greater fiscal transparency and better corporate governance.

Third, company sponsorship of egg freezing can potentially damage camaraderie and collegiality within the company. As mentioned earlier, male colleagues of similar rank and job performance may resent not being granted other benefits in lieu of egg freezing. Moreover, because companies are likely to restrict egg freezing benefits to only a few selected high-value female employees, this could provoke strong resentment from lower-level female employees who are being denied such benefits.

A clerk or receptionist can easily accept that her female superior is being paid more than her due to simple market economics, but can she also readily accept being denied egg freezing benefits given to her superior which she herself may so desperately want? Certainly, this could cause much resentment and demoralization, thereby disrupting collegiality and camaraderie within the company. According to a proverb: “One eats, another watches; that breeds resentment.”

Last but not least, corporate sponsorship of egg freezing may be sending the wrong signal to both the public and company staff by giving the impression (whether true or not) that the company workplace is not conducive for pregnancy, motherhood and work-life balance, which is why such benefits are being offered to selected female employees in the first place. Hence, this may inadvertently be damaging to the corporate image of the company itself.

In conclusion, corporate sponsorship of egg freezing should be seen as a bad human resources management practice. Companies should think twice before offering egg freezing benefits to selected female employees, given the various potential problems that it might cause.

 

[Angelica Cheng]

Company-sponsored egg freezing: perk or coercion? • PET

Facebook and Apple's recently announced plans make egg-freezing sound like an insurance plan for women wanting to build their careers, but should be viewed as a last resort....

www.bionews.org.uk

Company-sponsored egg freezing: perk or coercion?

Just last week, I argued at a conference on postponed motherhood that speculation about employers pressuring staff to freeze their eggs seemed unrealistic. The next day, Facebook proved me wrong.

Facebook, and now Apple, have taken the initiative to cover the costs of egg freezing for their employees so that they can 'construct the lives they want' (see BioNews 776). More specifically, women can postpone motherhood and dedicate their most fertile and productive years to their professional careers without having to worry about their biological clocks. This idea fits in perfectly with the philosophy of Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg that women should 'lean in' and be more ambitious in building their careers. Young mothers, apparently, do not belong in the board room.

In itself, the idea of highly educated women freezing a reserve of healthy young eggs is quite attractive. The years in which their careers need to be built (say between the ages of 25 and 35) are also the years in which they have to start a family. Both of these objectives are very demanding and thus neither can be achieved perfectly if they are pursued simultaneously. This is for example reflected in the 'wage penalty' for young mothers, especially when they are highly educated (1). Thus, while our gynaecologists may urge us to have children at a young age, it is not the smartest course of action from a socio-economic point of view. Conclusion: company-sponsored egg freezing to counter age-related fertility decline is a blessing for the modern woman, who no longer has to make compromises that men do not need to make. Another battle won in the fight for gender equality. Or not?

The concept of employers offering this technology to their employees is problematic for at least three reasons.

First of all, egg freezing is often misleadingly portrayed as an insurance policy instead of a last resort. Each frozen egg cell represents a small chance of a healthy live birth, and those chances decline fast after a woman's 35th birthday. Rather than an insurance policy, women are instead buying lottery tickets. If they buy a lot of tickets (that is, if they are able to bank a large number of good quality egg cells), they have a reasonable chance of success, but uncertainty is a fundamental feature of the system (2). Facebook and Apple are therefore investing in a false sense of security. They are certain to get a return on that investment, but are their employees?

Secondly, this offer can put pressure on women who previously had no intent to postpone motherhood, to do so against their better judgement. Although Facebook has also introduced a number of family-friendly policies, this one creates the impression that the job is not compatible with motherhood. Whereas company-sponsored egg freezing may be a perk for those women who already wanted to postpone motherhood, it becomes a coercive offer for those who did not.

A third problem with this system is that a situation is created in which women 'owe' their employers. A single woman who freezes her eggs at age 30 and bumps into Mr Right the next day may want to embark on parenthood the year after. Will she be free from outside pressure to go ahead, or will the frozen eggs be regarded by both parties (employer and employee) as an 'addendum' to the employment contract in which the employee has promised not to get pregnant in the first years to follow? Also, what happens when she changes jobs?

Besides these three issues, other ethical problems may arise, for instance on the provision of information. As this is a medical intervention, women should receive information about the risks and success rates from a professional, not from their employer who is neither qualified nor neutral.

In short, this initiative, presented as increasing women's reproductive autonomy, could threaten to undermine it instead.

 

[Angelica Cheng]

Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women’s reproductive autonomy?

A critical ethical analysis of the initiative of several companies to cover the costs of oocyte cryopreservation for their healthy employees. The main research question is whether such policies promote or confine women’s reproductive autonomy.A ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women’s reproductive autonomy?

J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Aug; 32(8): 1205–1209.

Abstract

Purpose
A critical ethical analysis of the initiative of several companies to cover the costs of oocyte cryopreservation for their healthy employees. The main research question is whether such policies promote or confine women’s reproductive autonomy.
Results
A distinction needs to be made between the ethics of AGE banking in itself and the ethics of employers offering it to their employees. Although the utility of the former is expected to be low, there are few persuasive arguments to deny access to oocyte cryopreservation to women who are well informed about the procedure and the success rates. However, it does not automatically follow that it would be ethically unproblematic for employers to offer egg banking to their employees.
Conclusions
For these policies to be truly ‘liberating’, a substantial number of conditions need to be fulfilled, which can be reduced to three categories: (1) women should understand the benefits, risks and limitations, (2) women should feel no pressure to take up the offer; (3) the offer should have no negative effect on other family-friendly policies and should in fact be accompanied by such policies. Fulfilling these conditions may turn out to be impossible. Thus, regardless of companies’ possible good intentions, women’s reproductive autonomy is not well served by offering them company-sponsored AGE banking.
Keywords: Ethics, Oocyte cryopreservation, AGE banking, Social egg freezing

 

[Angelica Cheng]

Employer-sponsored egg freezing: bane or benefit?

A new study by Monash University explores women’s attitudes towards employer-sponsored egg freezing.

www.womensforumaustralia.org

EMPLOYER-SPONSORED EGG FREEZING: BANE OR BENEFIT?

A new study has found that Australian women are divided on whether employers offering egg freezing is a valuable benefit or an inappropriate overstep into women’s private lives.

Around one in five large US companies now offer egg freezing as an employee benefit after it was introduced by Apple and Facebook in 2014.

This week, Monash University published a study examining women’s attitudes towards employer-sponsored egg freezing in Australia.

Less than half of the 656 women interviewed in Victoria (42%) believed it would be appropriate for employers to offer egg freezing as an employee benefit, 27% said it would be inappropriate and nearly a third (31%) were unsure.

“We found that while some women identified risks with employer-sponsored egg freezing, many see it as acceptable if offered under certain conditions - largely protections for their reproductive freedoms and assurances that it is offered alongside other family-friendly benefits that promote career building and family,” the study’s lead author Molly Johnston said.

“Egg freezing methods have advanced greatly in recent times and the process is considered a safe option for women. With employer sponsorship benefits, there is an opportunity to help women overcome financial barriers, increase their reproductive options and reduce the pressure experienced by women to choose between having a career and having children. This may also help women access egg freezing at an age where the procedure is more effective, increasing their chances of future conception if they require their frozen eggs.”

For these reasons, those in favour of employer-sponsored egg freezing consider it to be a step forward towards achieving greater gender equality in the workplace, particularly for young female employees.

But while some participants believed the practice would promote women’s reproductive and career options, others were concerned it could reinforce the ‘career vs. family’ dichotomy and undermine women’s reproductive autonomy by pressuring female employees to delay childbearing.

“Some felt there should be less emphasis on fertility preservation and more support for women to have children when they feel ready,” Ms Johnston said.

“Participants commented that companies with better family-friendly policies and flexible working arrangements would negate the need for delayed childbearing, or raised concerns that women might be penalised in their career trajectories if they didn’t use the technology.”

Should any employer-sponsored egg freezing policy be adopted in Australia, the study’s authors said it should promote fully informed and voluntary decision making.

“Women need to understand the benefits, risks and limitations of egg freezing, feel no pressure to take up the offer, and if they do, it shouldn’t have any negative impact on and is accompanied by other family-friendly work policies,” Ms Johnston said.

The question is whether any such policy would in reality be able to achieve the kind of informed consent the study’s authors speak of when it comes to employer-sponsored egg freezing.

The benefits of egg freezing are already overstated and the risks and limitations downplayed by an industry that is ultimately seeking to maximise its bottom line. While the chances that egg freezing will actually result in a baby are low and the health risks associated with the hormones and fertility drugs can be significant, the marketing of the practice often tells a different, much rosier story of empowerment and safeguarding one’s future.

The mere existence and more recent aggressive online marketing of egg-freezing procedures has already exacerbated the pressures and fears women have about their future fertility, with some feminist scholars criticising the marketing of the procedure as “ultimately generating an atmosphere of increased reproductive anxiety”.

By normalising and incorporating the practice as an employee benefit into workplace culture, it is not unreasonable to expect that this could create a more subtle pressure on women to “take up the offer”. Added to such concerns, is the fact that employers have a conflict of interest to delay women having children, as it keeps them in the workforce and is arguably more economically viable than other ‘family-friendly’ work policies.

Before advancing the idea of employer-sponsored egg freezing in Australia, there needs to be a much closer examination of the practice of egg freezing itself, and its harmful impact on women, as well as a much greater emphasis on implementing family-friendly policies that support women who want to have children.

 

[Angelica Cheng]

The pros and cons of employer-sponsored egg freezing

Original link: https://insideretail.com.au/business/the-pros-and-cons-of-employer-sponsored-egg-freezing-202107

https://www.corporatedojo.com/uploads/117/421/30-7-21-Inside-Retail-The-pros-and-cons-of-employer-sponsored-egg-freezing-Inside-Retail.pdf

ge US companies offer female employees financial support to access egg freezing, with experts predicting Australia could soon follow suit.
Molly Johnston, a postdoctoral researcher, assistant lecturer and lead author of the Monash study, said that while some survey participants believed employer-sponsored egg freezing gave women more reproductive and career options, others were concerned about putting this power in employers’ hands.
“Some people thought that family and workplace should remain separate because the employers have a conflict of interest in that they’re motivated to keep women in the workforce, and by offering egg freezing perhaps they could be pressuring women to stay in the workforce and delay having children to avoid paying maternity leave or organising a flexible work arrangement,” Johnston told Inside Retail.
“There are concerns about putting pressure on women to make that decision, but conversely, if they don’t decide to freeze their eggs, some feel there could be negative repercussions associated with that such as being overlooked for a promotion, for example.”
Of those surveyed, 27 per cent said it would be inappropriate for employers to pay for egg freezing, and nearly a third (31 per cent) were unsure. Older participants and those employed part-time were significantly less supportive of the idea.
Some felt that if employers offer generous parental leave and family support policies there wouldn’t be a need to delay motherhood, however, Johnson notes that will only help some.
“There is obviously significant room to improve family-friendly policies, but that’s only going to help the people who have children. For those who don’t have a partner at that point in their life or are unable to have children because they don’t want to be a single parent, having access to parental leave isn’t helpful to them, whereas having access to egg freezing might be something that is more appealing and may help them have children later on.”
Some women considered employer-sponsored egg freezing could be a win-win for employers and employees but Johnston suggests the government could regulate the conditions in which it is offered.
“There is an opportunity to help women overcome financial barriers, increase their reproductive options and reduce the pressure experienced by women to choose between having a career and having children,” she said.
“Women need to understand the benefits, risks and limitations of egg freezing, feel no pressure to take up the offer, and if they do, it shouldn’t have any negative impact on and is accompanied by other family-friendly work policies.”
Karen Gately, an HR specialist and founder of Corporate Dojo, told Inside Retail that employer-sponsored egg freezing could be included under a broader category of supporting the health and well being of people.
“It doesn’t have to be a standalone program … if we just have a health and wellbeing benefit that people can draw on if they have special needs it gets away from that idea that it’s just for one particular gender,” Gately told Inside Retail, saying this could extend to IVF programs,
While there are no obligations on employers to provide such assistance, Gately believes helping team members through life challenges sends a strong message about values and is likely to benefit the company in the long run.
“Employers are more likely to earn the respect but also emotional investment from their people in being part of your team if we are being generous. If we are demonstrating that we actually care about you as a human, we will support you where we can, then people are more likely to be engaged and are likely to stay,” she said.