6 ms·

This isn't something I've said out loud often. However, if I had my own small startup, I'd be worried about hiring young women for one reason: maternity leave.

by latch 15y ago

This isn't something I've said out loud often. However, if I had my own small startup, I'd be worried about hiring young women for one reason: maternity leave. Now, this obviously depends on where you're setting up your startup. However, if I lived in a place where a long[ish] (6+months) maternity leave was the law, I'd be pretty worried about newly hired women going on maternity leave. For a large company, it isn't a big problem, but for a small cash-strapped company, losing a significant % of your workforce for an extended period of time sucks. I've known women who went back to work, or switched to a job with better benefits, because they planned on getting pregnant. And I've known some who just happened to get pregnant shortly after getting a new job. I strongly believe that the length of maternity leave should be proportional to the length of time at the company.

Joakal 15y ago
What's stopping men from also taking leave to raise a kid? I support paternity leave for this reason. It'll make businesses worry less about only women having a kid.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  In general, men don't take anywhere near as much leave time as women. Even in Sweden, where the government strongly encourages men to take paternity leave, men take only 1/3 of all leave days. (The couple gets 330 days of leave to share and the father gets 60 days only he can use.) Germany has an even lower ratio. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden....
- maaku 15y ago
  Paternity leave is much, much shorter.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    If paternity leave were equal, ie gender equality, then there would be less of an issue for small companies hiring people in a certain age window, they'd get screwed either way. Personally I think the idea of men and women being equal is pure idiocy. I can't give birth or breast feed children for a start. But if you want equality you can't do it by halves.
    - dagw 15y ago
      What does giving birth and breast feeding have to do with anything? After the first few weeks both parents are equally capable of looking after the child.
      - lotharbot 15y ago
        breast feeding goes on a lot longer than "the first few weeks". I'm a stay-at-home dad. I'm pretty good at it. But there are things my wife can do that I can't.
        dagw 15y ago
        Breast feeding goes on for as long as you want it to go on. I'm certainly not advocating against breast feeding, if you're medically capable to do it, enjoy it, and can fit it into your schedule then by all means breast feed away, I'm even cool with you doing it public. However using it as THE reason for mothers not going back to work and having the father stay at home is simply archaic.
        philwelch 15y ago
        You're not advocating against breast feeding, you just don't think the choice to breastfeed is a legitimate reason for the mother to be the one to stay at home? That's some double-talk there.
        dagw 15y ago
        You shouldn't need any legitimate reason beyond "I want to" to stay at home with your kid. My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to raise a kid with out breastfeeding during the day and breastfeeding should not be used as an argument to guilt or coerce women into staying at home when they'd rather go back to work.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
alanfalcon 15y ago
>This isn't something I've said out loud often. However, if I had my own small startup, I'd be worried about hiring young women for one reason: maternity leave. IANAL but (in America, anyway) it's a good thing to never say out loud: it's completely illegal. You may not discriminate hiring on the basis of gender, and if any female applicant who got turned down for a job at your small startup in the future and dug up this post... well, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
- latch 15y ago
  Which is a real shame, because then we can't have an open and honest conversation about it without fear of litigation. Of course, there isn't a lack of countries where maternity leave isn't long, so I can always set up shop there and make the choice I want with respect to maternity leave benefits..
- T-hawk 15y ago
  The variable on which he's trying to discriminate for hiring is not, strictly speaking, gender. He wants to discriminate on the likelihood of an employee missing an extended amount of work time in the wake of a voluntary* personal choice. For a company to want to avoid that is quite reasonable. But of course, pregnancy correlates very highly to gender, so the execution of such a policy ends up functionally indistinguishable from actual gender discrimination. (*we're not here to debate the fine points of when contraception measures fail.)
- mannicken 15y ago
  IANAL as well, but as far as I understand it's completely legal to say "I don't want to hire women". Yay freedom of speech. However, If I am hiring people (which I'm not and never done) and reject a woman based on the fact that she is a woman, and she can somehow prove it, then yes.. I risk being sued. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - latch 15y ago
    you are wrong...even with freedom of association upheld as a key part of the first amendment, discrimination based on race, gender, age (and more) is simply not allowed. Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Codes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html) which protect people from being discriminated against has been upheld.
Egregore 15y ago
It's why I think all the maternity leaves should be paid by state and insured by state, not by company, otherwise it will cause such hidden discrimination. And I'm in favor of longer maternity leaves (at least one year) otherwise kids will not be breastfeed and it might cause health problems later. Having healthy new generation is in interest of the entire society so the society should pay for it.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  This. I get that "potential mothers are unemployable" is a huge problem we can and should avoid, but this shouldn't have been an unfunded mandate with costs and risks solely burdening new mothers' current employers. That gives management a big incentive to find excuses not to hire them, and penalizes the ones who do what we assert is the right thing.
gaius 15y ago
I'd like to see a right to maternity leave balanced by an obligation to return to work afterwards. It's unreasonable for a company to hold a position open only to find that the employee in question not actually want it, or want to change it significantly (e.g. from full to part-time).
maaku 15y ago
In California, family leave is paid for by the state, not your company.

by latch 15y ago

Joakal 15y ago

What's stopping men from also taking leave to raise a kid? I support paternity leave for this reason. It'll make businesses worry less about only women having a kid.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
In general, men don't take anywhere near as much leave time as women. Even in Sweden, where the government strongly encourages men to take paternity leave, men take only 1/3 of all leave days. (The couple gets 330 days of leave to share and the father gets 60 days only he can use.) Germany has an even lower ratio. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden....
maaku 15y ago
Paternity leave is much, much shorter.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  If paternity leave were equal, ie gender equality, then there would be less of an issue for small companies hiring people in a certain age window, they'd get screwed either way. Personally I think the idea of men and women being equal is pure idiocy. I can't give birth or breast feed children for a start. But if you want equality you can't do it by halves.
  - dagw 15y ago
    What does giving birth and breast feeding have to do with anything? After the first few weeks both parents are equally capable of looking after the child.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      breast feeding goes on a lot longer than "the first few weeks". I'm a stay-at-home dad. I'm pretty good at it. But there are things my wife can do that I can't.
      - dagw 15y ago
        Breast feeding goes on for as long as you want it to go on. I'm certainly not advocating against breast feeding, if you're medically capable to do it, enjoy it, and can fit it into your schedule then by all means breast feed away, I'm even cool with you doing it public. However using it as THE reason for mothers not going back to work and having the father stay at home is simply archaic.
        philwelch 15y ago
        You're not advocating against breast feeding, you just don't think the choice to breastfeed is a legitimate reason for the mother to be the one to stay at home? That's some double-talk there.
        dagw 15y ago
        You shouldn't need any legitimate reason beyond "I want to" to stay at home with your kid. My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to raise a kid with out breastfeeding during the day and breastfeeding should not be used as an argument to guilt or coerce women into staying at home when they'd rather go back to work.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago

alanfalcon 15y ago

>This isn't something I've said out loud often. However, if I had my own small startup, I'd be worried about hiring young women for one reason: maternity leave. IANAL but (in America, anyway) it's a good thing to never say out loud: it's completely illegal. You may not discriminate hiring on the basis of gender, and if any female applicant who got turned down for a job at your small startup in the future and dug up this post... well, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

latch 15y ago
Which is a real shame, because then we can't have an open and honest conversation about it without fear of litigation. Of course, there isn't a lack of countries where maternity leave isn't long, so I can always set up shop there and make the choice I want with respect to maternity leave benefits..
T-hawk 15y ago
The variable on which he's trying to discriminate for hiring is not, strictly speaking, gender. He wants to discriminate on the likelihood of an employee missing an extended amount of work time in the wake of a voluntary* personal choice. For a company to want to avoid that is quite reasonable. But of course, pregnancy correlates very highly to gender, so the execution of such a policy ends up functionally indistinguishable from actual gender discrimination. (*we're not here to debate the fine points of when contraception measures fail.)
mannicken 15y ago
IANAL as well, but as far as I understand it's completely legal to say "I don't want to hire women". Yay freedom of speech. However, If I am hiring people (which I'm not and never done) and reject a woman based on the fact that she is a woman, and she can somehow prove it, then yes.. I risk being sued. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- latch 15y ago
  you are wrong...even with freedom of association upheld as a key part of the first amendment, discrimination based on race, gender, age (and more) is simply not allowed. Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Codes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html) which protect people from being discriminated against has been upheld.

Egregore 15y ago

It's why I think all the maternity leaves should be paid by state and insured by state, not by company, otherwise it will cause such hidden discrimination. And I'm in favor of longer maternity leaves (at least one year) otherwise kids will not be breastfeed and it might cause health problems later. Having healthy new generation is in interest of the entire society so the society should pay for it.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
This. I get that "potential mothers are unemployable" is a huge problem we can and should avoid, but this shouldn't have been an unfunded mandate with costs and risks solely burdening new mothers' current employers. That gives management a big incentive to find excuses not to hire them, and penalizes the ones who do what we assert is the right thing.

gaius 15y ago

I'd like to see a right to maternity leave balanced by an obligation to return to work afterwards. It's unreasonable for a company to hold a position open only to find that the employee in question not actually want it, or want to change it significantly (e.g. from full to part-time).

maaku 15y ago

In California, family leave is paid for by the state, not your company.