11 ms·

It really irked me that here in Canada the options were generally skewed towards mothers remaining home. You can split 40 weeks of parental leave, but many empl

It really irked me that here in Canada the options were generally skewed towards mothers remaining home. You can split 40 weeks of parental leave, but many employers won't provide parental benefits and those that do often only provide parental benefits to mothers. For instance, my employer at the time provided wage top-up for women on leave but nothing for men. Just one of _many_ structually sexist policies in society at large that ultimately contribute to the wage gap. Of course I stayed at work, and of course my wife now has enormous gaps in her work history, and so of course my yearly gains in income have outpaced hers.

jeromegv 6y ago
Well we can’t do anything about employers, that’s why relying on employers as a social net is ridiculous (what’s the % of people that have parental benefits from their employers? Surely a minority) This needs to be managed through the government. Quebec has done a good job at it. And yes, it can be used by either the father or the mother without any problem.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Well we can’t do anything about employers You can, indeed, mandate equal practices by employers and enforce that requirement.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The problem is smaller employers, which simply can't afford to shoulder the burden of paid maternity leave for 1 of their 10 employees. You can set up a graduated system like the UK has, where all employers have to pay and can reclaim a variable amount. But one way or another, any benefit the government won't foot the bill for is a benefit many parents won't get.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      Canada provides EI to those on parental leave; the "top-up" is a common compensation perk that employers offer to women, and rarely to men.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Right, but the funding available for such a benefit is limited. If employers were required to offer the top-up to both men and women equally, I expect many companies on the smaller side would have to stop offering it to stay within their budget.
    - amyjess 6y ago
      Honestly, so many of the problems in our work culture is caused by small businesses who don't want to play by the rules that I'm okay with just letting them hang. This is the same argument that's used to justify lack of paid sick leave, lack of protections against discrimination (Title VII only applies to companies with 15 or more people), working people who don't have employer-provided health insurance, etc. Every single abuse a company can visit on its employees is magnified several times by small businesses. It's time for the government to decide that small businesses not playing by the rules are a net negative for society and just let them go.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's not a matter of willingness to play by the rules. A company with 5 employees is always going to struggle to handle a sudden 20% increase in labor costs, no matter how much its owner has good intentions. It's certainly consistent to say that everyone should just work for big businesses who can absorb these kinds of costs. But I think we have to acknowledge that this process, where regulations end up building a wall only big businesses can easily climb over, would be called "regulatory capture" in a different context. Government funding really seems to me like the better alternative.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Biology tends to be structurally sexist as well. The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time. This is equality of outcome.
- markdown 6y ago
  > The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and would make the world a better place.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      Pretty sure less than 1% of the population would be pissed off by being told not to work but still getting paid. Also, its far more likely that men will be pressured into working despite this.
    - lukebitts 6y ago
      The first few weeks can be really difficult for parents, having both of them free of work can be beneficial for the couple and the child.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - car 6y ago
      Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Because they would be able to bond with their children during paternity leave, which is a huge positive for father and child. Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’? Edit: I agree that fathers should not literally be forced to take leave. That would be dictatorial. The grandparent poster used the term essentially forced, which implies strongly encouraging both parents to take the offered leave. For example, if they would still receive most of their salary during this time, and their position were protected.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
A good start would be outlawing negative scoring of candidates due to gaps.
- peteretep 6y ago
  I’ve been involved in many recruitment processes. Companies are far more scared of you having done lots of short jobs than of having taken gaps, especially if the gaps are easily explained away as “time spent caring for family” or “self-directed study”
- dleslie 6y ago
  It's not so much the gaps that are the problem as it is the effect that the delay has on growing compensation. For every gap there's missed yearly/quaterly reviews, there's missed opportunities for promotion, and there's a stall in your compensation growth overall. When you come back to work you typically come back at the wage you left.
  - dnate 6y ago
    I call BS on that one. What about the fact that switching companies is by fare more effective than staying at the same company salary-wise? Then it should also be a problem to employers if someone stayed at a single company for a long time as it constitutes as "missed opportunities for promotion"
- onion2k 6y ago
  If a company gives you a negative score due to a gap that's explained by taking time out to look after a baby then you're probably better off not working there.
  - maccard 6y ago
    A negative score due to a gap is the same as a positive score due to an extra years employment, and that's a harder mindset to overcome. Only the most toxic of workplaces would say "hey, they took a year out to raise a child, no way" but many workplaces would say " these two candidates appear equal except this one has an extra year's experience in $foo"
fastball 6y ago
It's not "structurally sexism", it's biology. Practically no women ever will make it through the entirety of a pregnancy without needing (not choosing) to take some time off work if she works a full-time job. Even if this is just a single day of delivery. Generally though, it's much more than a single day that needs to be taken off. In contrast, at no point in a woman's pregnancy does the father need to take time off. There is nothing sexist about this. It is more efficient to extend one person's required time off than it is to give two separate people time off. An extended maternity leave generally means that one company needs to find one replacement or otherwise shuffle work. Maternity + paternity leave means you need to do that, 2x. I fully support longer paternity leaves because I do think it is important for having equality in the workplace. But the idea that it's society that is sexist in this regard is ridiculous. Honestly I don't think we will really have equality until babies are grown in test tubes, and that's not society's fault.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Employer payment structure is biology?
  - fastball 6y ago
    This has nothing to do with payment. People work jobs in society. Even if you don't live in a society where you get paid a wage for working that job, time still needs to be taken off work to have a baby. It's more economically efficient (it takes time and effort to replace the work that was being done by someone, regardless of how employers are remunerating employees) to extend that person's leave than to arrange for two separate leaves for two separate jobs when there was no necessity for the second person to take time off in the first place.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Why do you think this is about economical efficiency?
      - 6y ago
jahaja 6y ago
As a Swede the replies you get to this reasonable comment is like being sent back to the ~1970. The only thing that's "biological" is that women usually take the first months of parental leave and the father the second (and sometimes they overlap). There's nothing whatsoever that's reasonable, and certainly not biological, about limiting that second period for the father.

jeromegv 6y ago

Well we can’t do anything about employers, that’s why relying on employers as a social net is ridiculous (what’s the % of people that have parental benefits from their employers? Surely a minority) This needs to be managed through the government. Quebec has done a good job at it. And yes, it can be used by either the father or the mother without any problem.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Well we can’t do anything about employers You can, indeed, mandate equal practices by employers and enforce that requirement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The problem is smaller employers, which simply can't afford to shoulder the burden of paid maternity leave for 1 of their 10 employees. You can set up a graduated system like the UK has, where all employers have to pay and can reclaim a variable amount. But one way or another, any benefit the government won't foot the bill for is a benefit many parents won't get.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Canada provides EI to those on parental leave; the "top-up" is a common compensation perk that employers offer to women, and rarely to men.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Right, but the funding available for such a benefit is limited. If employers were required to offer the top-up to both men and women equally, I expect many companies on the smaller side would have to stop offering it to stay within their budget.
  - amyjess 6y ago
    Honestly, so many of the problems in our work culture is caused by small businesses who don't want to play by the rules that I'm okay with just letting them hang. This is the same argument that's used to justify lack of paid sick leave, lack of protections against discrimination (Title VII only applies to companies with 15 or more people), working people who don't have employer-provided health insurance, etc. Every single abuse a company can visit on its employees is magnified several times by small businesses. It's time for the government to decide that small businesses not playing by the rules are a net negative for society and just let them go.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's not a matter of willingness to play by the rules. A company with 5 employees is always going to struggle to handle a sudden 20% increase in labor costs, no matter how much its owner has good intentions. It's certainly consistent to say that everyone should just work for big businesses who can absorb these kinds of costs. But I think we have to acknowledge that this process, where regulations end up building a wall only big businesses can easily climb over, would be called "regulatory capture" in a different context. Government funding really seems to me like the better alternative.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Biology tends to be structurally sexist as well. The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time. This is equality of outcome.

markdown 6y ago
> The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and would make the world a better place.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    Pretty sure less than 1% of the population would be pissed off by being told not to work but still getting paid. Also, its far more likely that men will be pressured into working despite this.
  - lukebitts 6y ago
    The first few weeks can be really difficult for parents, having both of them free of work can be beneficial for the couple and the child.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - car 6y ago
    Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Because they would be able to bond with their children during paternity leave, which is a huge positive for father and child. Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’? Edit: I agree that fathers should not literally be forced to take leave. That would be dictatorial. The grandparent poster used the term essentially forced, which implies strongly encouraging both parents to take the offered leave. For example, if they would still receive most of their salary during this time, and their position were protected.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

A good start would be outlawing negative scoring of candidates due to gaps.

peteretep 6y ago
I’ve been involved in many recruitment processes. Companies are far more scared of you having done lots of short jobs than of having taken gaps, especially if the gaps are easily explained away as “time spent caring for family” or “self-directed study”
dleslie 6y ago
It's not so much the gaps that are the problem as it is the effect that the delay has on growing compensation. For every gap there's missed yearly/quaterly reviews, there's missed opportunities for promotion, and there's a stall in your compensation growth overall. When you come back to work you typically come back at the wage you left.
- dnate 6y ago
  I call BS on that one. What about the fact that switching companies is by fare more effective than staying at the same company salary-wise? Then it should also be a problem to employers if someone stayed at a single company for a long time as it constitutes as "missed opportunities for promotion"
onion2k 6y ago
If a company gives you a negative score due to a gap that's explained by taking time out to look after a baby then you're probably better off not working there.
- maccard 6y ago
  A negative score due to a gap is the same as a positive score due to an extra years employment, and that's a harder mindset to overcome. Only the most toxic of workplaces would say "hey, they took a year out to raise a child, no way" but many workplaces would say " these two candidates appear equal except this one has an extra year's experience in $foo"

fastball 6y ago

It's not "structurally sexism", it's biology. Practically no women ever will make it through the entirety of a pregnancy without needing (not choosing) to take some time off work if she works a full-time job. Even if this is just a single day of delivery. Generally though, it's much more than a single day that needs to be taken off. In contrast, at no point in a woman's pregnancy does the father need to take time off. There is nothing sexist about this. It is more efficient to extend one person's required time off than it is to give two separate people time off. An extended maternity leave generally means that one company needs to find one replacement or otherwise shuffle work. Maternity + paternity leave means you need to do that, 2x. I fully support longer paternity leaves because I do think it is important for having equality in the workplace. But the idea that it's society that is sexist in this regard is ridiculous. Honestly I don't think we will really have equality until babies are grown in test tubes, and that's not society's fault.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
Employer payment structure is biology?
- fastball 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with payment. People work jobs in society. Even if you don't live in a society where you get paid a wage for working that job, time still needs to be taken off work to have a baby. It's more economically efficient (it takes time and effort to replace the work that was being done by someone, regardless of how employers are remunerating employees) to extend that person's leave than to arrange for two separate leaves for two separate jobs when there was no necessity for the second person to take time off in the first place.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Why do you think this is about economical efficiency?
    - 6y ago

jahaja 6y ago

As a Swede the replies you get to this reasonable comment is like being sent back to the ~1970. The only thing that's "biological" is that women usually take the first months of parental leave and the father the second (and sometimes they overlap). There's nothing whatsoever that's reasonable, and certainly not biological, about limiting that second period for the father.