4 ms·

Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you? I'm sympathetic to the prin

by mhartl 15y ago

Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you? I'm sympathetic to the principal message of this post, but regarding the bit about parental leave: Has it really come to this? If someone takes a job intending to "exercise their legal right to parental leave" shortly after joining, it's the company that's the bad guy for wanting to stop it? To my eye, such behavior identifies the employee a special interest parasite, feeding at the public trough with a smug sense of entitlement. It's effectively illegal to ask a job applicant, "Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting?" That's not progress—it's madness.

ryguytilidie 15y ago
I actually think this is a great point. As much as I completely agree with the letter, the idea that the first thing job applicants do is threaten me with legal action for something they presume I will do doesn't really inspire much confidence in me that they are good people or that they will contribute much to the organization.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I agree with you in principlr, but let's not over-think a fictional situation where a job applicant threatens a company that makes sharing FB information a condition of employment. It's all made up and the points don't matter, but from where I sit, once a company behaves like this, you have to either walk away or play hardball. They might actually respect your cojones if you cut it rough, you're speaking their language.
  - ryguytilidie 15y ago
    Ah, if thats the case than I 100% agree with you. Initially the interactions seem like hyperbole that was probably made up, but yeah, if they're made up, I know what you mean. As I said in a different post above, I recently left a company where they had asked all of us to sign new employment contracts. I most certainly was not the only one.
ppereira 15y ago
... unless, of course, you happen to be in that narrow window in life where it is optimal for you or your partner to have children. A woman's biological clock waits for no job. Here in Canada, parental leave is self-paid through Employment Insurance at a rate that is proportional to our income in the previous year. The employer does not pay directly---they do, however, need enough flexibility in staffing to accommodate new parents.
- infinii 15y ago
  Speaking from a management point of view, it's not about the financial cost. It's the fact that the company needs to get your job done still. Do you hire someone else? If you do, you need to deal with issues such as headcount, budget, what to do with them when you return. Look at it from another perspective. If given the choice between 2 equal candidates and you choose the one that's not about to take "leave". It's not discrimination, it's purely you making the best choice for getting the job done. One person is going to start the job right away, one is basically say "hang on, I'll start that in x months".
officemonkey 15y ago
>Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting? If the employee earns the leave, he/she should be able to take it anytime they want.
furyg3 15y ago
I've thought about this a lot and I can't really come to any alternative solutions. Three months ago you found out you're pregnant. Finally! you'd been trying for almost a year! Today you walk into work and find out the company is bankrupt, clean out your desk. What are you supposed to to? Not look for a job for 6-7 months? Tell every prospective employer you're happy to start now, but in a few weeks you'll be out on prolonged leave? The only possible thing that they can do with that information is discriminate.
- mhartl 15y ago
  I suggest avoiding the word "discriminate"—its emotional overtones are too strong. Here we're merely differentiating between multiple candidates, and doing our best to be fair. Enshrined in law is the notion that it's unfair not to hire someone merely because she's planning to take maternity leave shortly after starting. I admit that calling this "unfair" confounds my intuition—forcing a company to subsidize a new mother strikes me as unfair, and neglecting to disclose a pregnancy borders on fraud—but perhaps I can trigger a sense of unfairness even without reference to the company's well-being. Suppose Alice and Barbara both apply for a job for which they are equally qualified. Alice is newly pregnant, but (per the law) the prospective employer isn't allowed to inquire about this. If the company hires Alice, the company suffers—and so does Barbara. It's impossible to afford pregnant women special treatment without harming women who aren't (and perhaps don't plan to become) pregnant. Life is full of choice and chance. When trying to legislate away the consequences, expect bad side-effects.
  - ckpwong 15y ago
    What if Alice didn't know she was pregnant -- or wasn't even pregnant -- at the time of the interview? The process of hiring can drag on for weeks and months for many industries and companies. The employer made what you've described as a coin flip choice and have to stand by that decision. Life is never "fair" in the way you're defining fairness in this case.
    - mhartl 15y ago
      It's the same basic situation, just not as severe. Alice undoubtedly has some inkling that she may become pregnant, even if she thinks it unlikely. If Barbara isn't pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and has taken steps to prevent pregnancy, she is still a better hire than Alice, all things being equal. In a competitive market for labor under complete freedom of contract, a company could ask both Alice and Barbara about their plans to become a mother. The employment contract could also include clauses contingent on pregnancy, such as indemnifying the company against the lost productivity caused by unexpected maternity leave. The details would be determined by the relative bargaining power of the company and prospective employee. Those offended by such practices could simply decline to apply to such companies. In short, under freedom of contract, company policies with respect to pregnancy would depend on free negotiations between buyers (employers) and sellers (applicants). The solutions would likely vary widely, each tailored to the needs of its particular industry. In effect, the status quo consists of a mandatory one-size-fits-all (or perhaps one-size-fits-none) solution that has many more negative side-effects that its proponents are prepared to admit. (Exercise: Show that compulsory compensation for maternity leave necessarily increases unemployment and lowers wages.) The idea that current policies necessarily benefit women is naïve at best, evil at worst. Incidentally, there's nothing necessarily wrong with governments subsidizing procreation. But deciding whether and how to do so requires judgment and wisdom—qualities not particularly evident in those currently in charge.
ckpwong 15y ago
Yes, it is the company's fault. The law regarding parental/maternity leave varies by jurisdiction, but raganwald is in Canada, and parental leave, complete with job protection, is a legal right. It's not madness nor parasitic -- it just shows your moral compass is not entirely compatible with employment laws in Canada. ;) Extended paid vacation is a different story -- employers are not obligated to approve your vacation request. Also, many companies have policies on how (paid) vacation days are incurred, especially during the first year. Having said that, most people I know would disclose any previously planned extended travel plans with the potential employer, both out of courtesy to the employer and as a condition of accepting the job.

by mhartl 15y ago

ryguytilidie 15y ago

I actually think this is a great point. As much as I completely agree with the letter, the idea that the first thing job applicants do is threaten me with legal action for something they presume I will do doesn't really inspire much confidence in me that they are good people or that they will contribute much to the organization.

raganwald 15y ago
I agree with you in principlr, but let's not over-think a fictional situation where a job applicant threatens a company that makes sharing FB information a condition of employment. It's all made up and the points don't matter, but from where I sit, once a company behaves like this, you have to either walk away or play hardball. They might actually respect your cojones if you cut it rough, you're speaking their language.
- ryguytilidie 15y ago
  Ah, if thats the case than I 100% agree with you. Initially the interactions seem like hyperbole that was probably made up, but yeah, if they're made up, I know what you mean. As I said in a different post above, I recently left a company where they had asked all of us to sign new employment contracts. I most certainly was not the only one.

ppereira 15y ago

... unless, of course, you happen to be in that narrow window in life where it is optimal for you or your partner to have children. A woman's biological clock waits for no job. Here in Canada, parental leave is self-paid through Employment Insurance at a rate that is proportional to our income in the previous year. The employer does not pay directly---they do, however, need enough flexibility in staffing to accommodate new parents.

infinii 15y ago
Speaking from a management point of view, it's not about the financial cost. It's the fact that the company needs to get your job done still. Do you hire someone else? If you do, you need to deal with issues such as headcount, budget, what to do with them when you return. Look at it from another perspective. If given the choice between 2 equal candidates and you choose the one that's not about to take "leave". It's not discrimination, it's purely you making the best choice for getting the job done. One person is going to start the job right away, one is basically say "hang on, I'll start that in x months".

officemonkey 15y ago

>Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting? If the employee earns the leave, he/she should be able to take it anytime they want.

furyg3 15y ago

I've thought about this a lot and I can't really come to any alternative solutions. Three months ago you found out you're pregnant. Finally! you'd been trying for almost a year! Today you walk into work and find out the company is bankrupt, clean out your desk. What are you supposed to to? Not look for a job for 6-7 months? Tell every prospective employer you're happy to start now, but in a few weeks you'll be out on prolonged leave? The only possible thing that they can do with that information is discriminate.

mhartl 15y ago
I suggest avoiding the word "discriminate"—its emotional overtones are too strong. Here we're merely differentiating between multiple candidates, and doing our best to be fair. Enshrined in law is the notion that it's unfair not to hire someone merely because she's planning to take maternity leave shortly after starting. I admit that calling this "unfair" confounds my intuition—forcing a company to subsidize a new mother strikes me as unfair, and neglecting to disclose a pregnancy borders on fraud—but perhaps I can trigger a sense of unfairness even without reference to the company's well-being. Suppose Alice and Barbara both apply for a job for which they are equally qualified. Alice is newly pregnant, but (per the law) the prospective employer isn't allowed to inquire about this. If the company hires Alice, the company suffers—and so does Barbara. It's impossible to afford pregnant women special treatment without harming women who aren't (and perhaps don't plan to become) pregnant. Life is full of choice and chance. When trying to legislate away the consequences, expect bad side-effects.
- ckpwong 15y ago
  What if Alice didn't know she was pregnant -- or wasn't even pregnant -- at the time of the interview? The process of hiring can drag on for weeks and months for many industries and companies. The employer made what you've described as a coin flip choice and have to stand by that decision. Life is never "fair" in the way you're defining fairness in this case.
  - mhartl 15y ago
    It's the same basic situation, just not as severe. Alice undoubtedly has some inkling that she may become pregnant, even if she thinks it unlikely. If Barbara isn't pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and has taken steps to prevent pregnancy, she is still a better hire than Alice, all things being equal. In a competitive market for labor under complete freedom of contract, a company could ask both Alice and Barbara about their plans to become a mother. The employment contract could also include clauses contingent on pregnancy, such as indemnifying the company against the lost productivity caused by unexpected maternity leave. The details would be determined by the relative bargaining power of the company and prospective employee. Those offended by such practices could simply decline to apply to such companies. In short, under freedom of contract, company policies with respect to pregnancy would depend on free negotiations between buyers (employers) and sellers (applicants). The solutions would likely vary widely, each tailored to the needs of its particular industry. In effect, the status quo consists of a mandatory one-size-fits-all (or perhaps one-size-fits-none) solution that has many more negative side-effects that its proponents are prepared to admit. (Exercise: Show that compulsory compensation for maternity leave necessarily increases unemployment and lowers wages.) The idea that current policies necessarily benefit women is naïve at best, evil at worst. Incidentally, there's nothing necessarily wrong with governments subsidizing procreation. But deciding whether and how to do so requires judgment and wisdom—qualities not particularly evident in those currently in charge.

ckpwong 15y ago

Yes, it is the company's fault. The law regarding parental/maternity leave varies by jurisdiction, but raganwald is in Canada, and parental leave, complete with job protection, is a legal right. It's not madness nor parasitic -- it just shows your moral compass is not entirely compatible with employment laws in Canada. ;) Extended paid vacation is a different story -- employers are not obligated to approve your vacation request. Also, many companies have policies on how (paid) vacation days are incurred, especially during the first year. Having said that, most people I know would disclose any previously planned extended travel plans with the potential employer, both out of courtesy to the employer and as a condition of accepting the job.