3 ms·

Even better solution: don't penalize any employers for their employees' reproductive choices. If the state believes it's a good idea to have a parent at home,

by neilk 15y ago

Even better solution: don't penalize any employers for their employees' reproductive choices. If the state believes it's a good idea to have a parent at home, the money for maternity and paternity should come out of the state's coffers. And I'd encourage everybody to be open about their plans to have kids or not. If this results in undue discrimination against people raising kids, offset it with a corporate tax break for employing people with dependents. This would be really expensive, but probably cheaper than the costs that a destitute single mom or a poorly-parented kid can inflict on society. And at least the costs would be borne by everyone, and both businesses and their employees could be honest and plan realistically.

soult 15y ago
> If the state believes it's a good idea to have a parent at home, the money for maternity and paternity should come out of the state's coffers. It does. The state pays for the paternity leave. The author's point is that he still has to find a replacement worker for those three years.
- neilk 15y ago
  If he's not being compensated for the cost of finding and retraining an employee, then the state isn't really paying for the whole thing. That said, small businesses, and even certain roles in bigger businesses, just can't deal with the kind of disruption this would cause, never mind the money. I think we have to be realistic that someone who wants to take imminent leave shouldn't be in those kinds of jobs, and no government program can fix that. Maybe I don't have the perfect solution in my pocket, but IMO the right answer can't be that employees lie about (or conceal) their intentions, and employers equally are forced to find plausible reasons not to hire women (or to fire them) just to stay afloat.
  - soult 15y ago
    This makes no difference. He would still have to find and retrain an employee if he just fired pregnant employees instead of them taking paternity leave.
overgryphon 15y ago
"And I'd encourage everybody to be open about their plans to have kids or not." I have been asked on two separate occasions by two different bosses making a decision about hiring me on a non-temporary basis about my plans regarding children. I was 18 and 20, and am a woman. No way was I going to say anything other than "I hate kids" regardless of the truth. I don't want an employer making decisions based on my ability to carry children until the day comes that I decide I want a child. Though I'm happy that no one as disrespectful of their employees and immature as the OP is going to hire me.

by neilk 15y ago

soult 15y ago

> If the state believes it's a good idea to have a parent at home, the money for maternity and paternity should come out of the state's coffers. It does. The state pays for the paternity leave. The author's point is that he still has to find a replacement worker for those three years.

neilk 15y ago
If he's not being compensated for the cost of finding and retraining an employee, then the state isn't really paying for the whole thing. That said, small businesses, and even certain roles in bigger businesses, just can't deal with the kind of disruption this would cause, never mind the money. I think we have to be realistic that someone who wants to take imminent leave shouldn't be in those kinds of jobs, and no government program can fix that. Maybe I don't have the perfect solution in my pocket, but IMO the right answer can't be that employees lie about (or conceal) their intentions, and employers equally are forced to find plausible reasons not to hire women (or to fire them) just to stay afloat.
- soult 15y ago
  This makes no difference. He would still have to find and retrain an employee if he just fired pregnant employees instead of them taking paternity leave.

overgryphon 15y ago

"And I'd encourage everybody to be open about their plans to have kids or not." I have been asked on two separate occasions by two different bosses making a decision about hiring me on a non-temporary basis about my plans regarding children. I was 18 and 20, and am a woman. No way was I going to say anything other than "I hate kids" regardless of the truth. I don't want an employer making decisions based on my ability to carry children until the day comes that I decide I want a child. Though I'm happy that no one as disrespectful of their employees and immature as the OP is going to hire me.