Attention, employers
Saving money by cutting fertility and parental benefits will lead to companies paying a human price
In a few days’ time, the husband and I are taking a trip to the Big Smoke to introduce our baby to our colleagues. I’m not hugely relishing the idea, in the sense that we haven’t yet taken baby on the train yet, let alone two trains and a tube around London to be poked by various strangers. But I also wouldn’t miss the opportunity for the world: our colleagues and workplaces have been a big part of our IVF journey.
In my case, we’re a small workplace where everyone knows everyone and I have been very open about my journey. More than this, though, I have an immense gratitude to my employer for the support given to me throughout the IVF process. This has manifested in various ways, from giving me the flexibility to attend all the many, often last-minute appointments, to supporting me when transfers failed and when we thought we had miscarried.
Previously stigmatised conversations around issues such as fertility, parental rights and baby loss are now far less problematic in the workplace than they used to be. In fact, many workplaces are going out of their way to ensure parents are adequately supported.
It has therefore come as something of a surprise in recent months that some big companies are starting to reverse previously offered fertility and parental benefits. Zoom is planning to reduce paid parental leave. In Australia, EY has announced that from July any employees taking parental leave must continue working for the firm for at least 12 months before leaving; otherwise, they will be required to repay eight weeks of the paid leave they took.
The most notable firm to make changes is Deloitte US, which is reportedly significantly reducing both IVF funding and parental leave for certain groups of employees from January 2027. Paid family leave, including parental leave, will be cut from 16 to eight weeks. Most relevant to this readership is the removal of its $50,000 reimbursement for costs related to adoption, surrogacy and IVF.
Of course, world events are such that we’re living in an increasingly uncertain economy and firms will be looking to make savings on the workplace benefits that are considered a luxury rather than a necessity.
But what they save in the ‘hard figures’ is going to have a human cost. These firms will need to factor in the cost of attraction and retention (or lack thereof) of talent, as well as the PR damage done by rolling back parental support.
Of course, choosing the IVF, surrogacy or adoption route may be something people discover they need to do only when they start trying to conceive (TTC). But for many, the TTC journey is one that they know for many years in advance will be the road they’re on – and they will look for the workplaces that are going to give them the support that will carry them on that road.
For me, the support I received in flexibility and mental health support around the IVF has only improved my relationship with my company. They don’t need to worry that I’ll be quitting within 12 months of my return to work – and not because they’ve put in place a financial sanction to prevent me from doing so. It’s because they’ve shown me in practical terms that they care about me, my journey and my family.
No, I’m not suggesting that every company should be providing $50,000 in IVF benefits (fabulous as that would be). But offering any level of support to employees and then removing that is going, inevitably, to carry a human cost: are these companies prepared to find out just what that cost is?