3 ms·

Yes it happens. But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Just include the cost of abuse in the projections and deal

Yes it happens. But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Just include the cost of abuse in the projections and deal with it. That's how every system works. Every system gets abused. One example: credit cards - there's plenty of fraud there, but we somehow manage to deal with it and make the system work regardless.

mrlala 6y ago
Exactly.. really hate the attitude of "oh well someone might abuse it so let's just screw everyone instead"
xyzzyz 6y ago
There is no abuse involved. You employ a young woman, and in a year she gives birth and is out for a year or two. Nothing wrong with that, and many businesses with large employee turnover won’t care, but other businesses, especially small ones, which require significant training for company-specific processes, or which have small pool of candidates, will be very unhappy about the fact that now they have to find and train a temporary replacement.
- learc83 6y ago
  We already have a very similar situation with respect to hiring military reservists. It seems like we could use that data to see if there's really a big enough problem to worry about. Anecdotally, I've never met someone in the reserves who had a hard time finding a job.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Do the military reservists have to disclose to potential employers that they are reservists? How often the reservists actually called for service? This is an interesting point, and I'm asking because I have no clue about the realities the military reservists face.
    - learc83 6y ago
      There's no requirement to disclose during an interview, but most people I know depended on their time in the reserves/active duty pretty heavily on their resume, so I'd guess it was pretty rare for an employer to not know or at least suspect. Also they have have leave to train for 2 weeks per year, so the employer would need to know at some point. As for chances of being deployed, in the last decade it was probably a good bit higher than the chance that a reproductive age woman gets pregnant for a given time period. They can also end up deployed for longer than most countries paid maternity leave lasts.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        And I take it that when they are deployed, their employers are in some way required to guarantee them employment when they return?
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        That is correct.
bediger4000 6y ago
> But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Because employers, at least in the USA, believe they have a right to nearly of their employees' time on or off the clock, and a right to exert some control over their employees' personal lives and even political choices. Enjoyment of this control is part of why people become employers or managers.

mrlala 6y ago

Exactly.. really hate the attitude of "oh well someone might abuse it so let's just screw everyone instead"

xyzzyz 6y ago

There is no abuse involved. You employ a young woman, and in a year she gives birth and is out for a year or two. Nothing wrong with that, and many businesses with large employee turnover won’t care, but other businesses, especially small ones, which require significant training for company-specific processes, or which have small pool of candidates, will be very unhappy about the fact that now they have to find and train a temporary replacement.

learc83 6y ago
We already have a very similar situation with respect to hiring military reservists. It seems like we could use that data to see if there's really a big enough problem to worry about. Anecdotally, I've never met someone in the reserves who had a hard time finding a job.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Do the military reservists have to disclose to potential employers that they are reservists? How often the reservists actually called for service? This is an interesting point, and I'm asking because I have no clue about the realities the military reservists face.
  - learc83 6y ago
    There's no requirement to disclose during an interview, but most people I know depended on their time in the reserves/active duty pretty heavily on their resume, so I'd guess it was pretty rare for an employer to not know or at least suspect. Also they have have leave to train for 2 weeks per year, so the employer would need to know at some point. As for chances of being deployed, in the last decade it was probably a good bit higher than the chance that a reproductive age woman gets pregnant for a given time period. They can also end up deployed for longer than most countries paid maternity leave lasts.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      And I take it that when they are deployed, their employers are in some way required to guarantee them employment when they return?
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        That is correct.

bediger4000 6y ago

> But why punish 100% of potential beneficiaries for what maybe 1-5% of them might do. Because employers, at least in the USA, believe they have a right to nearly of their employees' time on or off the clock, and a right to exert some control over their employees' personal lives and even political choices. Enjoyment of this control is part of why people become employers or managers.