4 ms·

Exactly. This is basically just that: "employers forced to discriminate in hiring:" I wouldn't hire a woman. The reason is very simple: women give birth to chi

Exactly. This is basically just that: "employers forced to discriminate in hiring:" I wouldn't hire a woman. The reason is very simple: women give birth to children. I don't have the right to ask if she still wanted to. If I had the right, and she would answer, she could deceive me deliberately or she could change her mind. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with women giving birth to children. That's how I was born and that's how my child was born. I wouldn't hire a woman because when she gets pregnant, she goes for a 3 years maternity leave, during which I can't fire her. If she wants two children, the vacation is 6 years long. http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/this-is-why-i-dont-give-you-a-job http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/this-is-why-i-dont-g... Edit: Just to clarify, this is not my opinion, just a link to a blogpost about why said author shows why (in Hungary) it is basically impossible to hire a woman (or older people, or basically anyone) for that matter.

rdl 13y ago
OTOH, Even in California, the costs of hiring women who might potentially have children are far lower than the costs of either not hiring women (and missing out on highly qualified candidates) or not hiring women (and getting a reputation for gender discrimination which either exposes you to legal liability or causes both men and women to not work with you). Co-founders are IMO somewhat different; if a vesting agreement is set up properly, it probably will not vest during an extended leave -- even for protected reasons like maternity or military service. It's probably not worth having someone as a cofounder who would seriously game that, anyway. (and there are plenty of situations where issues other than pregnancy would cause an extended absence; illness, disability, ...) I am not a lawyer, of course. For a regular employee in tech, I'd still not care, since the market for top talent is so tight. Where it might be an issue is in a job market oversupplied with talent, and where the job has substantial on the job training or search costs or whatever, and in small firms. A lot of these conditions don't apply to companies under 5 or 50 employees, too.

rdl 13y ago

OTOH, Even in California, the costs of hiring women who might potentially have children are far lower than the costs of either not hiring women (and missing out on highly qualified candidates) or not hiring women (and getting a reputation for gender discrimination which either exposes you to legal liability or causes both men and women to not work with you). Co-founders are IMO somewhat different; if a vesting agreement is set up properly, it probably will not vest during an extended leave -- even for protected reasons like maternity or military service. It's probably not worth having someone as a cofounder who would seriously game that, anyway. (and there are plenty of situations where issues other than pregnancy would cause an extended absence; illness, disability, ...) I am not a lawyer, of course. For a regular employee in tech, I'd still not care, since the market for top talent is so tight. Where it might be an issue is in a job market oversupplied with talent, and where the job has substantial on the job training or search costs or whatever, and in small firms. A lot of these conditions don't apply to companies under 5 or 50 employees, too.