6 ms·

In the Czech Republic women get a legally protected 3 year maternity leave. Enough time to get a child into preschool. And you get a small monthly stipend per

by bot403 8mo ago

In the Czech Republic women get a legally protected 3 year maternity leave. Enough time to get a child into preschool. And you get a small monthly stipend per child during this time. It's small but it's something.

apparent 8mo ago
What does "legally protected maternity leave" mean? From your stipend comment it sounds like it's not fully-paid. Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? What happens if the company has eliminated the roll/laid people off in the meantime? Can they not get rid of your position if you are on maternity at the time?
- em-bee 8mo ago
  correct. in general, when letting people go you need to consider the impact on their lives. and you need to let go those who are less impacted. you can't just pick the weakest performers or the most expensive (although the higher paid ones are less likely to be impacted)
  - apparent 8mo ago
    This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him. Or am I misunderstanding?
    - em-bee 8mo ago
      only if the husband actually is earning enough in any particular case. each persons situation needs to be looked at individually. given that in most cases a single salary is no longer enough the male breadwinner theory is no longer reality. on the other hand men are more likely to find a new job so they are less impacted, which should make it more likely that they are chosen. what the actual results are needs a look at statistics
      - apparent 8mo ago
        Wow, this sounds very complicated, subjective, and invasive. I guess in such situations it's not possible (or not favorable) to not have your employer know much about your personal situation.
        em-bee 8mo ago
        yes, that is kind of unavoidable. but i don't really see why you would want to keep that private. we already have or work on laws that makes peoples salaries public to allow employees to know if they are paid fairly, and you are not going to hide your kids in a basement, so the most important factors to consider are more or less public already
        apparent 8mo ago
        This is anathema to me, as an American. I would never want to have pressure to tell my employer anything about my home life, for fear of losing my job. As for laws about salaries, that also sounds terrible. I am glad that this is extremely uncommon where I live, except for government workers.
        em-bee 8mo ago
        actually, in the US policies about keeping your pay secret are illegal. and in many states salaries need to be published on job postings too. so it's not hard to figure out what someone earns, and it is in your benefit to not keep it secret unless you are a very high earner. you also do not have any job protection, so you don't benefit from sharing this. but the number of kids is hardly a secret worth keeping. and when your employer offers childcare benefits you would also share that information. you would not forgo the benefits just to keep that private. and that's the same in europe if you don't tell your employer then you can't benefit from the additional job protection. your choice.
        apparent 7mo ago
        No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense. It is true that a small minority of states (under a quarter) have some requirement about salary range on job postings, but that doesn't tell you what people make. That tells you what the base salary range is, and the range can be quite large. It also doesn't tell you what anyone who wasn't just hired makes, since their salary could have increased in the time since they were hired in the applicable range. And of course, the many people who worked at a company since before these recent laws went into effect have no hint of their salary published anywhere. I guess some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do. I would think that European countries, where they like privacy so much that they invented cookie banners, wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs. And this is before getting into the efficiency arguments of retaining employees based on productivity, not family structure. I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
- tpm 8mo ago
  > Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket. So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position. > This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him. That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.

by bot403 8mo ago

apparent 8mo ago

What does "legally protected maternity leave" mean? From your stipend comment it sounds like it's not fully-paid. Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? What happens if the company has eliminated the roll/laid people off in the meantime? Can they not get rid of your position if you are on maternity at the time?

em-bee 8mo ago
correct. in general, when letting people go you need to consider the impact on their lives. and you need to let go those who are less impacted. you can't just pick the weakest performers or the most expensive (although the higher paid ones are less likely to be impacted)
- apparent 8mo ago
  This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him. Or am I misunderstanding?
  - em-bee 8mo ago
    only if the husband actually is earning enough in any particular case. each persons situation needs to be looked at individually. given that in most cases a single salary is no longer enough the male breadwinner theory is no longer reality. on the other hand men are more likely to find a new job so they are less impacted, which should make it more likely that they are chosen. what the actual results are needs a look at statistics
    - apparent 8mo ago
      Wow, this sounds very complicated, subjective, and invasive. I guess in such situations it's not possible (or not favorable) to not have your employer know much about your personal situation.
      - em-bee 8mo ago
        yes, that is kind of unavoidable. but i don't really see why you would want to keep that private. we already have or work on laws that makes peoples salaries public to allow employees to know if they are paid fairly, and you are not going to hide your kids in a basement, so the most important factors to consider are more or less public already
        apparent 8mo ago
        This is anathema to me, as an American. I would never want to have pressure to tell my employer anything about my home life, for fear of losing my job. As for laws about salaries, that also sounds terrible. I am glad that this is extremely uncommon where I live, except for government workers.
        em-bee 8mo ago
        actually, in the US policies about keeping your pay secret are illegal. and in many states salaries need to be published on job postings too. so it's not hard to figure out what someone earns, and it is in your benefit to not keep it secret unless you are a very high earner. you also do not have any job protection, so you don't benefit from sharing this. but the number of kids is hardly a secret worth keeping. and when your employer offers childcare benefits you would also share that information. you would not forgo the benefits just to keep that private. and that's the same in europe if you don't tell your employer then you can't benefit from the additional job protection. your choice.
        apparent 7mo ago
        No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense. It is true that a small minority of states (under a quarter) have some requirement about salary range on job postings, but that doesn't tell you what people make. That tells you what the base salary range is, and the range can be quite large. It also doesn't tell you what anyone who wasn't just hired makes, since their salary could have increased in the time since they were hired in the applicable range. And of course, the many people who worked at a company since before these recent laws went into effect have no hint of their salary published anywhere. I guess some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do. I would think that European countries, where they like privacy so much that they invented cookie banners, wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs. And this is before getting into the efficiency arguments of retaining employees based on productivity, not family structure. I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
tpm 8mo ago
> Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket. So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position. > This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him. That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.