3 ms·

> I mean, the only reason... Because these businesses actually need all their workers to actually work, and when they don't, the business actually stops functio

> I mean, the only reason... Because these businesses actually need all their workers to actually work, and when they don't, the business actually stops functioning. Businesses do exist and function perfectly fine in countries where these policies are universal, so I don't buy the argument. I've only encountered this belief in North America. But yes, US tech giants pay voluntarily because they are quite profitable and hiring devs is (relatively) hard, and yes society should enforce it through government policy (I think whether it is taxpayer or company funded is a smaller detail IMO - e.g. annual leave and other entitlements are company funded - but yes 6 months paid leave for a very small business might be an expense it cannot pay, compared to predictable amounts of annual leave you can plan around, so it might make sense to "pool" the cost via taxation).

lazide 5y ago
The parent posters point is actually agreeing with you I think? Other countries mandate these leaves and spread them out as social programs, and therefore the small companies in those countries ARE able to function - because the costs are spread out. In the US that is not the case, because the spreading of costs and mandating of leaves isn’t universal, and they can’t afford to take it on themselves.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Yes, thank you, this was exactly my point.
est31 5y ago
The issue is market effects. If there is one company offering paternity leave, and one which doesn't, which one can offer cheaper prices? If both companies have to offer paternity leave, they are both in the same situation. Still however, one employee becoming pregnant is often a big problem for very small companies, because the effect is highly discretized. If you have 5 employees, then a pregnant employee means 20% of your company's workforce is gone. So you really need social programs that pay instead of the employer during the time of the absence.
- npteljes 5y ago
  Absolutely agree. People need to understand that abuse works well. And so, if it's forbidden in a hard rule that everyone obeys, those who don't obey come out ahead. Sometimes so much that competition is nigh possible without playing the same game.
realityking 5y ago
Just to give a data point on how other countries handle it. In Germany there’s mandatory time off for mothers 6 weeks before the estimated birth until 8 weeks (12 weeks for twins) after the actual birth. (This is strict, there’s no option to voluntarily work during this time. Students can’t even take university exams). Afterwards both parents can take up to 3 years time-off each while their job will be protected. Between both parents up to 14 months are paid, each parent has to take at least 2 months off or only 12 months will be paid. Note this is not full salary but 65% of the net salary (and not taxed) plus a cap that TBH huts as a tech worker but is fine for most people. Now here’s what the employer is on the hook for: - Need to keep your job available during all the time taken off. You need to be able to renter at the same level and salary. - Time off during the mandatory protective leave for mother’s is paid by the employer but fully reimbursed by the public health insurance (so net 0). Companies pay into this system a small percentage of payroll, currently between 0,14% and 0,88% depending on the employers chosen insurance. - The 14 months paternity leave are fully paid for by taxes and the employer has to apply for it themselves This is still a burden for very small companies but overall it creates a situation where there’s almost no financial impact for companies when people become parents. Society as a whole shoulders that.

lazide 5y ago

The parent posters point is actually agreeing with you I think? Other countries mandate these leaves and spread them out as social programs, and therefore the small companies in those countries ARE able to function - because the costs are spread out. In the US that is not the case, because the spreading of costs and mandating of leaves isn’t universal, and they can’t afford to take it on themselves.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Yes, thank you, this was exactly my point.

est31 5y ago

The issue is market effects. If there is one company offering paternity leave, and one which doesn't, which one can offer cheaper prices? If both companies have to offer paternity leave, they are both in the same situation. Still however, one employee becoming pregnant is often a big problem for very small companies, because the effect is highly discretized. If you have 5 employees, then a pregnant employee means 20% of your company's workforce is gone. So you really need social programs that pay instead of the employer during the time of the absence.

npteljes 5y ago
Absolutely agree. People need to understand that abuse works well. And so, if it's forbidden in a hard rule that everyone obeys, those who don't obey come out ahead. Sometimes so much that competition is nigh possible without playing the same game.

realityking 5y ago

Just to give a data point on how other countries handle it. In Germany there’s mandatory time off for mothers 6 weeks before the estimated birth until 8 weeks (12 weeks for twins) after the actual birth. (This is strict, there’s no option to voluntarily work during this time. Students can’t even take university exams). Afterwards both parents can take up to 3 years time-off each while their job will be protected. Between both parents up to 14 months are paid, each parent has to take at least 2 months off or only 12 months will be paid. Note this is not full salary but 65% of the net salary (and not taxed) plus a cap that TBH huts as a tech worker but is fine for most people. Now here’s what the employer is on the hook for: - Need to keep your job available during all the time taken off. You need to be able to renter at the same level and salary. - Time off during the mandatory protective leave for mother’s is paid by the employer but fully reimbursed by the public health insurance (so net 0). Companies pay into this system a small percentage of payroll, currently between 0,14% and 0,88% depending on the employers chosen insurance. - The 14 months paternity leave are fully paid for by taxes and the employer has to apply for it themselves This is still a burden for very small companies but overall it creates a situation where there’s almost no financial impact for companies when people become parents. Society as a whole shoulders that.