5 ms·

> It's no longer a bigger risk for companies to hire late 20-s women compared to late 20-s men - both will go on leave if they get kids True. But now it is a r

> It's no longer a bigger risk for companies to hire late 20-s women compared to late 20-s men - both will go on leave if they get kids True. But now it is a risk to hire people in certain age groups in general. Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?

notSupplied 7y ago
It would at least least disperse the risk from "don't hire women of a certain age" to "don't hire people of a certain age" which I think is a win on the margin.
gamblor956 7y ago
"don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?" --> "Don't hire people during their most economically productive ages." Not an economically viable strategy for any company looking to stay in business more than a year or two.
- baddox 7y ago
  Surely whether it's "their most economically productive age" would depend heavily on how many children they have and how much parental leave they are allowed.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Ah, so "don't hire people who are planning to have multiple children at the peak of their potential economic productivity"?
  - nostrebored 7y ago
    We know that people in most developed countries aren't even hitting replacement rate, so I don't think that 6 months of leave is going to break the bank. In my experience, employees who are bad employees and blame it on time commitment to their children have usually been bad employees to begin with. I have a child, spend upwards of 4 hours a day with them on average, and work at a FAANG, while hitting promotion tracks more quickly than my colleagues without children. I know a bunch of people doing the same.
sonofhans 7y ago
> Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive? Not for a good company. I've had several employees go on maternity and paternity leave. I've given them respect, and time, and money, in order to make this time of their lives as unstressful as possible. I've done it because it's the right thing, but these people remember being treated well. They've come back to work and done very well. They feel safer knowing that their day job explicitly supports their families. The time someone needs off work to care for a new family is a drop in the bucket compared with a whole career, or even a few good years spent at one company. Optimize for the humans, and for the long term.
- lbriner 7y ago
  So you had good people that you wanted to get back? Great. A lot of us employ people who are just average and cannot afford to pay them multiple thousands while they are on leave, paying someone else to cover them, and then they could always decide to leave anyway.
  - durandal1 7y ago
    If you can't afford an employee going on paternity/maternity leave, you have an unsustainable business.
    - legostormtroopr 7y ago
      Or you have a small business. Not every company is a 10,000 headcount multinational. Over 90% of small business employ fewer than 20 people and small businesses make up 30% of the economy. Realistically, 1 person missing from a small business can mean 10% of their workforce is gone - and due to the size of the company they may not have people to cover the missing staff.
      - growse 7y ago
        You don't need to have 10,000 people working for you to be able to afford to hire cover for when people going on parental leave. 10 people or 10,000 people, if you can't afford your staff going on parental leave / long term sick / vacation, you don't have a sustainable business.
Broken_Hippo 7y ago
* Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?* No. The only real way to avoid this is to just not hire folks who can birth or father children. You'd be mostly safe hiring folks over 45 (Though men over 45 would be more risky than women). This probably isn't a good strategy for an employer. Marriage doesn't lend itself to children: Having sex does. Having a stable relationship does. Adoption does. On the other hand, lots of married folks don't have children, on purpose or by circumstance. There is no real way to sort folks out.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

notSupplied 7y ago

It would at least least disperse the risk from "don't hire women of a certain age" to "don't hire people of a certain age" which I think is a win on the margin.

gamblor956 7y ago

"don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?" --> "Don't hire people during their most economically productive ages." Not an economically viable strategy for any company looking to stay in business more than a year or two.

baddox 7y ago
Surely whether it's "their most economically productive age" would depend heavily on how many children they have and how much parental leave they are allowed.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Ah, so "don't hire people who are planning to have multiple children at the peak of their potential economic productivity"?
- nostrebored 7y ago
  We know that people in most developed countries aren't even hitting replacement rate, so I don't think that 6 months of leave is going to break the bank. In my experience, employees who are bad employees and blame it on time commitment to their children have usually been bad employees to begin with. I have a child, spend upwards of 4 hours a day with them on average, and work at a FAANG, while hitting promotion tracks more quickly than my colleagues without children. I know a bunch of people doing the same.

sonofhans 7y ago

> Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive? Not for a good company. I've had several employees go on maternity and paternity leave. I've given them respect, and time, and money, in order to make this time of their lives as unstressful as possible. I've done it because it's the right thing, but these people remember being treated well. They've come back to work and done very well. They feel safer knowing that their day job explicitly supports their families. The time someone needs off work to care for a new family is a drop in the bucket compared with a whole career, or even a few good years spent at one company. Optimize for the humans, and for the long term.

lbriner 7y ago
So you had good people that you wanted to get back? Great. A lot of us employ people who are just average and cannot afford to pay them multiple thousands while they are on leave, paying someone else to cover them, and then they could always decide to leave anyway.
- durandal1 7y ago
  If you can't afford an employee going on paternity/maternity leave, you have an unsustainable business.
  - legostormtroopr 7y ago
    Or you have a small business. Not every company is a 10,000 headcount multinational. Over 90% of small business employ fewer than 20 people and small businesses make up 30% of the economy. Realistically, 1 person missing from a small business can mean 10% of their workforce is gone - and due to the size of the company they may not have people to cover the missing staff.
    - growse 7y ago
      You don't need to have 10,000 people working for you to be able to afford to hire cover for when people going on parental leave. 10 people or 10,000 people, if you can't afford your staff going on parental leave / long term sick / vacation, you don't have a sustainable business.

Broken_Hippo 7y ago

* Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?* No. The only real way to avoid this is to just not hire folks who can birth or father children. You'd be mostly safe hiring folks over 45 (Though men over 45 would be more risky than women). This probably isn't a good strategy for an employer. Marriage doesn't lend itself to children: Having sex does. Having a stable relationship does. Adoption does. On the other hand, lots of married folks don't have children, on purpose or by circumstance. There is no real way to sort folks out.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]