7 ms·

> incentive to hire people who they don't believe are likely to have children soon. If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, ski

by antr 12y ago

> incentive to hire people who they don't believe are likely to have children soon. If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, skills, etc, this is not an issue. I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years, and living in Europe, this "issue" didn't cross my mind. Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy. I don't know what it is, but US companies seem to have a real issue with taking a "European" approach to this work-life balance matter.

pc86 12y ago
Your parental leave is government-paid, correct? You're ignoring the first part of the sentence you're quoting: > if you forced companies to pay through their leave
- antr 12y ago
  Not really. The first 20 weeks or so are paid by the company 100%. Those 20 weeks are also your rights as parent by law to take off. Then you can take more time off (there is a maximum discretionary number of weeks), and in that case the company doesn't pay for that leave, but the government subsidises x% of the income. Maybe since our last maternity leave the law might have changed slightly, but not materially.
zo1 12y ago
>"I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years[...]Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy." And if your company is too small to have that kind of money to throw around? What about tough financial times? As much as I admire and believe that some of these laws/regulations do good, and mean well. I have to stress to individuals that they all have an effect on the economy/market. They skew things one way or the other, with constraints and incentives. E.g. The example above, it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.
- antr 12y ago
  I'll just repeat what I said at the start: If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, skills, etc, this is not an issue. Then, how can you assure me that a male hire won't take paternity leave too? They have a legal right too, and you can't stop them.
  - zo1 12y ago
    It is an issue because they are not free to hire "the right people that fit [their] company's needs". They're "free" to do so if they have money to blow on it. Which is something small, budding, or failing companies do not have the luxury of doing. Hence why small/budding companies are discriminated against with such prejudicial (albeit noble) regulations. Additionally, they are further not "free" to hire the right people, because the right people might end up being "all white guys", or whatever is cheapest at the time, etc. And we all know what a public lynch mob that would create if it ever came to light. That's assuming your country doesn't have laws against it in place already.
    - antr 12y ago
      You are creating an issue where there isn't one. In my opinion. If you hire on the probability of someone getting pregnant (or their partner), good for you, that's your choice. I hire employees who I (and my team) believe have the right technical skills, have initiative, are responsible and trustworthy, etc. I guess we have different hiring priorities.
      - zo1 12y ago
        I know I don't have the most popular of opinions, but I at least expect people here to have the polite courtesy to read my post before they respond to it. Good day.
        antr 12y ago
        Read it twice. It didn't change my answer. I'm sorry you base your hiring decisions on "failing companies", and imply that I have "have money to blow on it"... Well, we do have money to spend on the right hires, but we definitely do not have the money to spend on the wrong ones. To you sir, I wish you a good day too.
542458 12y ago
> I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years, and living in Europe, this "issue" didn't cross my mind. Maybe not for you (Is your maternity leave government paid? This isn't.), but for many european entrepreneurs this is a very big issue. See the first few paragraphs of the "This is why I don't give you a job" post, which went viral a while back (linked below). Even when leave is government subsidized, you still end up with massive problems on employer's side since managing labor supply is suddenly very complicated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing - I just think your "It's not a problem for anybody, Americans are irrational" attitude is unrealistic. http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_give_you_a_job http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_giv...
- antr 12y ago
  > but for many european entrepreneurs this is a very big issue. You are preaching to the choir.
  - 542458 12y ago
    > You are preaching to the choir. I'm a little confused by this. HN seems genuinely divided on the issue, with lots of posts from both perspectives. How is this the choir?
    - antr 12y ago
      Because I am a European entrepreneur, and I have learnt that I should make hiring decisions based on talent, not on the probability of someone getting pregnant.
      - 542458 12y ago
        Not to be pedantic, but "preaching to the choir" usually means you are trying to convince people who are already convinced. If HN is divided on the issue, this isn't the choir! http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/preach+to+the+choir http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/preach+to+the+choir Furthermore, as I said in my post, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing, I just feel that paining it as a simple issue is unproductive. I don't make hiring decisions based on talent. I've highly talented people who can't collaborate at all - I wouldn't hire them. I make hiring decisions based on expected ROI, what I can afford, legality, as well as other personal factors (one of which is increasing diversity, both of gender and cultural background).
thanksgiving 12y ago
@pc86 even when you don't have to pay people through their extended vacations, it still is a strain on many companies. You have to be very disciplined and thorough. Single points of knowledge (SPOK) are difficult to get rid of and they creep in all the time (sorry, not all of your workmates will be as enthusiastic about work as you probably are).
john_b 12y ago
> "I don't know what it is, but US companies seem to have a real issue with taking a "European" approach to this work-life balance matter." Much of it is because US companies pay a higher proportion of the costs for things like parental leave (if they provide it at all) since the government does not pick up the bill. In some cases, the government mandates that companies pay for work-life benefits, but provides no funding to support them. If you are a large, stable company with predictable revenue, this may be ok. If you are a small company or a startup without significant outside investment, it is a different matter entirely. The question of parental leave is easy when the government picks up the bill and that society as a whole has agreed to subsidize child production.
alistairSH 12y ago
So, when you hired the substitutes, you were essentially paying a double salary (new mother's salary + temp employee salary) for probably less production (temp employee probably not as effective as FTE)? I'm not arguing one way or the other. My heart says we should codify parental leave of some sort. But, my brain has trouble figuring out a system that is fair to small employers (short of only mandating large employers provide leave, which doesn't seem right either).
- xorcist 12y ago
  Probably not, but it would depend on the country. It is common to treat parental leave through a similar (or the same) insurance system as sick leave, in which case the employer pays the temp just like in other extended leave type of situations. (An employer pays model leads employers being unnecessary wary of employing. I know several countries practice it, but it has clear drawbacks.)
SilasX 12y ago
>Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy. Sure, as long as those substitutes don't want kids or job security...

by antr 12y ago

pc86 12y ago

Your parental leave is government-paid, correct? You're ignoring the first part of the sentence you're quoting: > if you forced companies to pay through their leave

antr 12y ago
Not really. The first 20 weeks or so are paid by the company 100%. Those 20 weeks are also your rights as parent by law to take off. Then you can take more time off (there is a maximum discretionary number of weeks), and in that case the company doesn't pay for that leave, but the government subsidises x% of the income. Maybe since our last maternity leave the law might have changed slightly, but not materially.

zo1 12y ago

>"I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years[...]Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy." And if your company is too small to have that kind of money to throw around? What about tough financial times? As much as I admire and believe that some of these laws/regulations do good, and mean well. I have to stress to individuals that they all have an effect on the economy/market. They skew things one way or the other, with constraints and incentives. E.g. The example above, it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.

antr 12y ago
I'll just repeat what I said at the start: If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, skills, etc, this is not an issue. Then, how can you assure me that a male hire won't take paternity leave too? They have a legal right too, and you can't stop them.
- zo1 12y ago
  It is an issue because they are not free to hire "the right people that fit [their] company's needs". They're "free" to do so if they have money to blow on it. Which is something small, budding, or failing companies do not have the luxury of doing. Hence why small/budding companies are discriminated against with such prejudicial (albeit noble) regulations. Additionally, they are further not "free" to hire the right people, because the right people might end up being "all white guys", or whatever is cheapest at the time, etc. And we all know what a public lynch mob that would create if it ever came to light. That's assuming your country doesn't have laws against it in place already.
  - antr 12y ago
    You are creating an issue where there isn't one. In my opinion. If you hire on the probability of someone getting pregnant (or their partner), good for you, that's your choice. I hire employees who I (and my team) believe have the right technical skills, have initiative, are responsible and trustworthy, etc. I guess we have different hiring priorities.
    - zo1 12y ago
      I know I don't have the most popular of opinions, but I at least expect people here to have the polite courtesy to read my post before they respond to it. Good day.
      - antr 12y ago
        Read it twice. It didn't change my answer. I'm sorry you base your hiring decisions on "failing companies", and imply that I have "have money to blow on it"... Well, we do have money to spend on the right hires, but we definitely do not have the money to spend on the wrong ones. To you sir, I wish you a good day too.

542458 12y ago

> I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years, and living in Europe, this "issue" didn't cross my mind. Maybe not for you (Is your maternity leave government paid? This isn't.), but for many european entrepreneurs this is a very big issue. See the first few paragraphs of the "This is why I don't give you a job" post, which went viral a while back (linked below). Even when leave is government subsidized, you still end up with massive problems on employer's side since managing labor supply is suddenly very complicated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing - I just think your "It's not a problem for anybody, Americans are irrational" attitude is unrealistic. http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_give_you_a_job http://andorjakab.blog.hu/2014/03/02/this_is_why_i_don_t_giv...

antr 12y ago
> but for many european entrepreneurs this is a very big issue. You are preaching to the choir.
- 542458 12y ago
  > You are preaching to the choir. I'm a little confused by this. HN seems genuinely divided on the issue, with lots of posts from both perspectives. How is this the choir?
  - antr 12y ago
    Because I am a European entrepreneur, and I have learnt that I should make hiring decisions based on talent, not on the probability of someone getting pregnant.
    - 542458 12y ago
      Not to be pedantic, but "preaching to the choir" usually means you are trying to convince people who are already convinced. If HN is divided on the issue, this isn't the choir! http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/preach+to+the+choir http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/preach+to+the+choir Furthermore, as I said in my post, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing, I just feel that paining it as a simple issue is unproductive. I don't make hiring decisions based on talent. I've highly talented people who can't collaborate at all - I wouldn't hire them. I make hiring decisions based on expected ROI, what I can afford, legality, as well as other personal factors (one of which is increasing diversity, both of gender and cultural background).

thanksgiving 12y ago

@pc86 even when you don't have to pay people through their extended vacations, it still is a strain on many companies. You have to be very disciplined and thorough. Single points of knowledge (SPOK) are difficult to get rid of and they creep in all the time (sorry, not all of your workmates will be as enthusiastic about work as you probably are).

john_b 12y ago

> "I don't know what it is, but US companies seem to have a real issue with taking a "European" approach to this work-life balance matter." Much of it is because US companies pay a higher proportion of the costs for things like parental leave (if they provide it at all) since the government does not pick up the bill. In some cases, the government mandates that companies pay for work-life benefits, but provides no funding to support them. If you are a large, stable company with predictable revenue, this may be ok. If you are a small company or a startup without significant outside investment, it is a different matter entirely. The question of parental leave is easy when the government picks up the bill and that society as a whole has agreed to subsidize child production.

alistairSH 12y ago

So, when you hired the substitutes, you were essentially paying a double salary (new mother's salary + temp employee salary) for probably less production (temp employee probably not as effective as FTE)? I'm not arguing one way or the other. My heart says we should codify parental leave of some sort. But, my brain has trouble figuring out a system that is fair to small employers (short of only mandating large employers provide leave, which doesn't seem right either).

xorcist 12y ago
Probably not, but it would depend on the country. It is common to treat parental leave through a similar (or the same) insurance system as sick leave, in which case the employer pays the temp just like in other extended leave type of situations. (An employer pays model leads employers being unnecessary wary of employing. I know several countries practice it, but it has clear drawbacks.)

SilasX 12y ago

>Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy. Sure, as long as those substitutes don't want kids or job security...