7 ms·

There's also an issue with maternity leave. Maternity leave means that women effectively cost more than men for the same amount of work, in the long run and on

There's also an issue with maternity leave. Maternity leave means that women effectively cost more than men for the same amount of work, in the long run and on average. This can be mitigated by laws, but cannot be eliminated without addressing the underlying social issues. And no, mandatory paternity leave doesn't eliminate it, as there are more single mothers than single fathers. The logic is simple. Companies survive by making a profit. In order to do so, they attempt to cut costs for a given amount of work done. Currently, females on average end up spending more time on paid leave. Hence, there ends up being a bias. And I'm not sure if it is one that can be fixed through legislation. Attempts in that vein tend to be counterproductive at best. It's more of a social issue.

mystique 12y ago
In the lifetime of a woman, how many maternity leaves does she take? On average it would be twice and very few women I know have taken more than 8 weeks. The way you put makes it sound like women take 6 months+ time off and everyone else has to pay for it.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  The way I put it makes it sound like women take 6+ months time off because, oddly enough, women take 6+ months time off. The average in Canada is 39.6 weeks paid leave. Note that that figure is for children aged 1-3, how many weeks paid leave did their mothers take. The average per women will be higher. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you are no exception. StatCan: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-...
falcolas 12y ago
This is less of an issue now than it used to be; most companies offer Paternity leave for the same amount of time these days. This amortizes the cost across all employees.
- orangecat 12y ago
  Maybe to some extent, but not fully: - Not every birth has an active father involved. - The physical effects of pregnancy will will likely require the mother to take more time off. - Not all men will want to take extended paternity leave. You can try to force them, but that has its own issues, and makes single men more attractive employees. Mandating that companies pay employees not to work puts them in an awkward position where they're incentivized to discriminate. If government wants to encourage people to have kids, then government should pay parents directly.
  - secabeen 12y ago
    Yep. Even though I had support from my employer, I took less paternity leave at the time of birth than I thought I would. Many parents find they want a break from the baby after the first few weeks, and enjoy returning to work.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Men take less paternity leave on average than women take maternity leave. Not to mention that in the case of single births, you'll end up with the women taking maternity leave while the men don't. And with marriage stats the way they are... Which means that it's still advantageous for the company to hire men over women. Amortizing costs doesn't magically make the cost go away, it just hides it.
  - acveilleux 12y ago
    Depends on locale. In Quebec, men pretty much always take their paternity leave (at least 3 weeks, up to 5) and most of the maternity leave can be transferred to the father (up to 25-32 weeks, leaving the mother the minimum of 15-18 weeks) as well. That last part is uncommon but it does happen when the mother is the couple's highest earner (say a partner in a legal firm or a doctor) since the mat leave benefits are capped.
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
wyager 12y ago
If women are actually, objectively, less productive workers (if your explanation is correct), why is it wrong for companies to pay them less?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  If women stopped getting pregnant then maternity would cease to be a societal cost, however the economy might get a little screwed as the human race dies off. Parents are your most productive employees. They are the only ones who are making more employees.
  - nawitus 12y ago
    That's a good reason for the state to pay for maternity leave instead of individual companies.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      If the state pays then the companies are paying anyway, and it is still a spread cost as long as anti-discrimination law is being enforced. The continued existence of the species through childbirth is something that organizations should really factor into their budgets. Is not exactly a difficult cost to foresee as people have been doing it for quite a while now.
      - nawitus 12y ago
        >If the state pays then the companies are paying anyway Yes, but it's better for the state to pay it so that because if companies pay maternity leaves completely, the cost is not distributed evenly. >The continued existence of the species through childbirth is something that organizations should really factor into their budgets. I disagree, that should be the responsibility of the state and individual families. >Is not exactly a difficult cost to foresee as people have been doing it for quite a while now. It's a cost that is easy to foresee if your company is large. If the company consists of 1-2 employees, the company can go bankrupt from the costs. I've talked to an entrepreneur whose company actually did go bankrupt from maternity leave costs.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jrs235 12y ago
If maternity and paternity leave is leave without pay (unless one elects or has to use available accrued paid time off) then it shouldn't matter. Except having to plan around a short term vacancy can be an undesirable problem for a manager or company No matter the position goes vacant for that period of time or if a temp worker is hired to fill it, you will have a loss in productivity.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  If maternity and paternity leave is without pay it's still advantageous for the company to hire men over women, as they will have to hire temps more often on average for maternity leave with a women over a man. And temps generally are worse productivity-wise than an experienced worker.
tomp 12y ago
> And I'm not sure if it is one that can be fixed through legislation Well, one think the government could do is to cover pay during sick leave, parental leave and child care leave (i.e. when children are sick). This would also benefit startups/new businesses, where employees being sick/pregnant is not just statistics, but can make or break a business.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  That will mitigate the issue, but not fix it. As having an experienced worker go MIA for months is bad for a company in terms of productivity, and substantially more women take maternity leave than men take paternity leave. A temp worker is seldom as good at their job as an experienced worker. Personally, I don't think government should cover things like sick leave, but that is another matter entirely. (In general, the larger the system, the less incentive for any one person in the system to keep the system as a whole running smoothly.)

mystique 12y ago

In the lifetime of a woman, how many maternity leaves does she take? On average it would be twice and very few women I know have taken more than 8 weeks. The way you put makes it sound like women take 6 months+ time off and everyone else has to pay for it.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
The way I put it makes it sound like women take 6+ months time off because, oddly enough, women take 6+ months time off. The average in Canada is 39.6 weeks paid leave. Note that that figure is for children aged 1-3, how many weeks paid leave did their mothers take. The average per women will be higher. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you are no exception. StatCan: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/11697-...

falcolas 12y ago

This is less of an issue now than it used to be; most companies offer Paternity leave for the same amount of time these days. This amortizes the cost across all employees.

orangecat 12y ago
Maybe to some extent, but not fully: - Not every birth has an active father involved. - The physical effects of pregnancy will will likely require the mother to take more time off. - Not all men will want to take extended paternity leave. You can try to force them, but that has its own issues, and makes single men more attractive employees. Mandating that companies pay employees not to work puts them in an awkward position where they're incentivized to discriminate. If government wants to encourage people to have kids, then government should pay parents directly.
- secabeen 12y ago
  Yep. Even though I had support from my employer, I took less paternity leave at the time of birth than I thought I would. Many parents find they want a break from the baby after the first few weeks, and enjoy returning to work.
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Men take less paternity leave on average than women take maternity leave. Not to mention that in the case of single births, you'll end up with the women taking maternity leave while the men don't. And with marriage stats the way they are... Which means that it's still advantageous for the company to hire men over women. Amortizing costs doesn't magically make the cost go away, it just hides it.
- acveilleux 12y ago
  Depends on locale. In Quebec, men pretty much always take their paternity leave (at least 3 weeks, up to 5) and most of the maternity leave can be transferred to the father (up to 25-32 weeks, leaving the mother the minimum of 15-18 weeks) as well. That last part is uncommon but it does happen when the mother is the couple's highest earner (say a partner in a legal firm or a doctor) since the mat leave benefits are capped.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

If women are actually, objectively, less productive workers (if your explanation is correct), why is it wrong for companies to pay them less?

lotsofmangos 12y ago
If women stopped getting pregnant then maternity would cease to be a societal cost, however the economy might get a little screwed as the human race dies off. Parents are your most productive employees. They are the only ones who are making more employees.
- nawitus 12y ago
  That's a good reason for the state to pay for maternity leave instead of individual companies.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If the state pays then the companies are paying anyway, and it is still a spread cost as long as anti-discrimination law is being enforced. The continued existence of the species through childbirth is something that organizations should really factor into their budgets. Is not exactly a difficult cost to foresee as people have been doing it for quite a while now.
    - nawitus 12y ago
      >If the state pays then the companies are paying anyway Yes, but it's better for the state to pay it so that because if companies pay maternity leaves completely, the cost is not distributed evenly. >The continued existence of the species through childbirth is something that organizations should really factor into their budgets. I disagree, that should be the responsibility of the state and individual families. >Is not exactly a difficult cost to foresee as people have been doing it for quite a while now. It's a cost that is easy to foresee if your company is large. If the company consists of 1-2 employees, the company can go bankrupt from the costs. I've talked to an entrepreneur whose company actually did go bankrupt from maternity leave costs.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jrs235 12y ago

If maternity and paternity leave is leave without pay (unless one elects or has to use available accrued paid time off) then it shouldn't matter. Except having to plan around a short term vacancy can be an undesirable problem for a manager or company No matter the position goes vacant for that period of time or if a temp worker is hired to fill it, you will have a loss in productivity.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
If maternity and paternity leave is without pay it's still advantageous for the company to hire men over women, as they will have to hire temps more often on average for maternity leave with a women over a man. And temps generally are worse productivity-wise than an experienced worker.

tomp 12y ago

> And I'm not sure if it is one that can be fixed through legislation Well, one think the government could do is to cover pay during sick leave, parental leave and child care leave (i.e. when children are sick). This would also benefit startups/new businesses, where employees being sick/pregnant is not just statistics, but can make or break a business.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
That will mitigate the issue, but not fix it. As having an experienced worker go MIA for months is bad for a company in terms of productivity, and substantially more women take maternity leave than men take paternity leave. A temp worker is seldom as good at their job as an experienced worker. Personally, I don't think government should cover things like sick leave, but that is another matter entirely. (In general, the larger the system, the less incentive for any one person in the system to keep the system as a whole running smoothly.)