9 ms·

14 months or weeks?

epaga 7y ago
It's months. Amazing for employees and terrifying for employers. Someone I know took a new job somewhere, only to let them know a week or so after being there that his wife was about to have their child and he was going to be gone for the next 14 months. They were not going to be able to fire him without repercussions. He was not required to let them know during the interview.
- rglullis 7y ago
  The company is not the one paying for that, so it is not as bad for the company as you are saying. Chill.
  - gfs78 7y ago
    but they still need to get his job done
    - kraigie 7y ago
      Hence temps. Or they can redistribute the salary as overtime. If there are enough interested workers.
      - iso1631 7y ago
        They just employed someone for a full time job because they needed to spend €x on someone to do Y work Now they don't have to pay that money, which is fine, but they then need to find someone on a 14 month contract that will do it for the same salary as the person they just employed. Then at the end of it they are left with paying an overlap from the contractor to someone new
        rglullis 7y ago
        First, a little nitpicking: one of the parents can take at most 12 months off, so there is no "14 month contract". Second, the whole thing can be way more complex. In Germany a mother has her job secured for the moment she announces to be pregnant to until the child is 3 years old. So one could decide that will take the Elterngeld for 12 months but actually just go back to work 18 months, and the employer has no way of stopping it. Third and final point: NONE OF THIS MATTERS! Trying to find the "fairness" in this is nothing but some incredibly naive exercise. Like most things in life, salaries are not determined by the amount of value produced but rather by market value of labor. Risks when dealing with labor force should be already priced in.
        iso1631 7y ago
        Sure, and the policy is good, but there is still an impact on the company. Most situations that will be a large company which can easily cope, but in small companies struggling to survive is can have an locally detrimental effect (despite the company benefiting from the policy as a whole)
        rglullis 7y ago
        What makes you think that the small companies are struggling to survive? And from all of the policies in Germany that exist to "protect" the employees (minimum wage, employer share of pension contribution, health insurance, etc) what makes you think that this particular policy deserves such special concern?
- aantix 7y ago
  How does anything get done? If it were a three person company, one person is now gone for 14 months and legally can’t be replaced? A nightmare for the other two employees.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelt 7y ago
    You can hire a replacement on a 14-month contract. If your company can deal with an employee getting hit by a bus / winning the lottery and quitting, then it can deal with an employee taking maternity/paternity leave.
    - codingmess 7y ago
      You can't assume nor demand every company can deal with an employee getting hit by a bus. Not every company is a big corporation. Example: our childcare facility employs two people, and replacements are VERY difficult to find at the moment.
      - Lev1a 7y ago
        Noone is demanding that. If the company can't get it done without the person taking parental leave they simply have to sink or swim. Like with any other law regulating worker benefits and worker safety. But companies know that starting out and have to plan and act accordingly. That's the cost of doing business.
        codingmess 7y ago
        It's only the "cost of doing business" because of man made arbitrary laws. It doesn't have to be the cost of doing business. Why do you claim "noone is demanding that", when in the next sentence you just shrug it off as "they'll just have to sink, whatever". If the alternative for the business is to go out of business, it is "demanding". Businesses are not at fault for their employees getting pregnant, so why should they have to shoulder the risk? If society wants to protect mothers, society should pay up, not the individual businesses. Are you saying people shouldn't run childcare facilities? Or only huge childcare facilities are allowed, which certainly wasn't the intention of the laws for maternal leave?
- muricayeah 7y ago
  >only to let them know a week or so after being there Don't these fall under "experimentation/probation" period, where you can fire without reason?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rglullis 7y ago
14 months, but it is a little bit more complicated than what OP implies. The mother gets 14 weeks (6 weeks before due date, 8 after) that is the "proper" leave and is mandatory for the mother. After that, one or both parents can choose to take a leave where the government pays you 2/3 of your net salary, capped at 2000 EUR. If only one parent takes then it is limited to 12 month and it is extend to 14 months in case both parents decided to take it.

14 months or weeks?

It's months. Amazing for employees and terrifying for employers. Someone I know took a new job somewhere, only to let them know a week or so after being there that his wife was about to have their child and he was going to be gone for the next 14 months. They were not going to be able to fire him without repercussions. He was not required to let them know during the interview.

rglullis 7y ago
The company is not the one paying for that, so it is not as bad for the company as you are saying. Chill.
- gfs78 7y ago
  but they still need to get his job done
  - kraigie 7y ago
    Hence temps. Or they can redistribute the salary as overtime. If there are enough interested workers.
    - iso1631 7y ago
      They just employed someone for a full time job because they needed to spend €x on someone to do Y work Now they don't have to pay that money, which is fine, but they then need to find someone on a 14 month contract that will do it for the same salary as the person they just employed. Then at the end of it they are left with paying an overlap from the contractor to someone new
      - rglullis 7y ago
        First, a little nitpicking: one of the parents can take at most 12 months off, so there is no "14 month contract". Second, the whole thing can be way more complex. In Germany a mother has her job secured for the moment she announces to be pregnant to until the child is 3 years old. So one could decide that will take the Elterngeld for 12 months but actually just go back to work 18 months, and the employer has no way of stopping it. Third and final point: NONE OF THIS MATTERS! Trying to find the "fairness" in this is nothing but some incredibly naive exercise. Like most things in life, salaries are not determined by the amount of value produced but rather by market value of labor. Risks when dealing with labor force should be already priced in.
        iso1631 7y ago
        Sure, and the policy is good, but there is still an impact on the company. Most situations that will be a large company which can easily cope, but in small companies struggling to survive is can have an locally detrimental effect (despite the company benefiting from the policy as a whole)
        rglullis 7y ago
        What makes you think that the small companies are struggling to survive? And from all of the policies in Germany that exist to "protect" the employees (minimum wage, employer share of pension contribution, health insurance, etc) what makes you think that this particular policy deserves such special concern?
aantix 7y ago
How does anything get done? If it were a three person company, one person is now gone for 14 months and legally can’t be replaced? A nightmare for the other two employees.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelt 7y ago
  You can hire a replacement on a 14-month contract. If your company can deal with an employee getting hit by a bus / winning the lottery and quitting, then it can deal with an employee taking maternity/paternity leave.
  - codingmess 7y ago
    You can't assume nor demand every company can deal with an employee getting hit by a bus. Not every company is a big corporation. Example: our childcare facility employs two people, and replacements are VERY difficult to find at the moment.
    - Lev1a 7y ago
      Noone is demanding that. If the company can't get it done without the person taking parental leave they simply have to sink or swim. Like with any other law regulating worker benefits and worker safety. But companies know that starting out and have to plan and act accordingly. That's the cost of doing business.
      - codingmess 7y ago
        It's only the "cost of doing business" because of man made arbitrary laws. It doesn't have to be the cost of doing business. Why do you claim "noone is demanding that", when in the next sentence you just shrug it off as "they'll just have to sink, whatever". If the alternative for the business is to go out of business, it is "demanding". Businesses are not at fault for their employees getting pregnant, so why should they have to shoulder the risk? If society wants to protect mothers, society should pay up, not the individual businesses. Are you saying people shouldn't run childcare facilities? Or only huge childcare facilities are allowed, which certainly wasn't the intention of the laws for maternal leave?
muricayeah 7y ago
>only to let them know a week or so after being there Don't these fall under "experimentation/probation" period, where you can fire without reason?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rglullis 7y ago

14 months, but it is a little bit more complicated than what OP implies. The mother gets 14 weeks (6 weeks before due date, 8 after) that is the "proper" leave and is mandatory for the mother. After that, one or both parents can choose to take a leave where the government pays you 2/3 of your net salary, capped at 2000 EUR. If only one parent takes then it is limited to 12 month and it is extend to 14 months in case both parents decided to take it.