4 ms·

> 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 maternit

by 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).
      - antr 12y ago
        I was referring to your "is a very big issue.". I know what you are referring too: limited time, limited cash, tight deadlines, making payroll, acquiring customers. I know what you refer by "is a very big issue.", hence my expression. My definition of talent is the same as your hiring decision. I used the word "talent" simply not to go into a long list of obvious employee traits :)
fapjacks 12y ago
My opinion is going to be annihilated, but I think "tough shit" when I hear founders complain about being unable to hire people without all of the "complications" that come with the talent. You are not hiring robots, you are hiring human beings. This is why I do not agree with the "it's not personal, it's business" statement, because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society, not just line your pockets. And in a lot of the developed world, a "better society" is one with social benefits like PTO. I am surely speaking in unholy tongues to all of the sociopath-worshiping capitalists, but if you want human talent, you have to hire human beings.
- zo1 12y ago
  You talk about hiring "human beings" instead of "robots", but then you deny them the autonomy and freedom to make decisions/risks for themselves. Sure, it's nice to have noble perks being mandated by government and enforced onto (supposedly greedy, and "capitalist") employers. But it also means that you deny individuals who voluntarily choose to make do without those perks, or who do not need them, to lose the privilege of having employers that offer the type of employment they want/need. >"because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society" [Citation Required] Citation request aside, I thought that it was understood that that's what taxes and the state is for? Whether it achieves that is besides the point. Additionally, I'd argue that the current prevailing opinion of society is that "corporations" and "businesses" are greedy, evil and generally not in it to benefit society. The opposite of what you suggest is the prevailing opinion; perhaps you're projecting your values onto a society whose collective opinion does not agree with you?
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    From what you've said, you sound like one of those sociopath-worshiping capitalists I'm talking about. Because of that, really nothing you say is going to hold any weight. You almost certainly are not one of "the one percent" and as you've said elsewhere "I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, thanks." That pretty much nails you as someone who wants to pave the future with a path to gaining easier control over people. Almost ubiquitously, people who say things like this want to destruct the social infrastructure in place which tries to prevent the kinds of overbearing, sociopath dictatorships that absolutely would prevail in a community with the zero market regulations you hope for as a "anarcho-capitalist". I haven't hoped in my entire life for someone to be as disappointed as you will be to not get your way with the market. The things I hope for are to protect the system against people exactly like you.

by 542458 12y ago

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).
    - antr 12y ago
      I was referring to your "is a very big issue.". I know what you are referring too: limited time, limited cash, tight deadlines, making payroll, acquiring customers. I know what you refer by "is a very big issue.", hence my expression. My definition of talent is the same as your hiring decision. I used the word "talent" simply not to go into a long list of obvious employee traits :)

fapjacks 12y ago

My opinion is going to be annihilated, but I think "tough shit" when I hear founders complain about being unable to hire people without all of the "complications" that come with the talent. You are not hiring robots, you are hiring human beings. This is why I do not agree with the "it's not personal, it's business" statement, because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society, not just line your pockets. And in a lot of the developed world, a "better society" is one with social benefits like PTO. I am surely speaking in unholy tongues to all of the sociopath-worshiping capitalists, but if you want human talent, you have to hire human beings.

zo1 12y ago
You talk about hiring "human beings" instead of "robots", but then you deny them the autonomy and freedom to make decisions/risks for themselves. Sure, it's nice to have noble perks being mandated by government and enforced onto (supposedly greedy, and "capitalist") employers. But it also means that you deny individuals who voluntarily choose to make do without those perks, or who do not need them, to lose the privilege of having employers that offer the type of employment they want/need. >"because in most of the developed world, it's accepted that when you are building a company, you are helping to build a better society" [Citation Required] Citation request aside, I thought that it was understood that that's what taxes and the state is for? Whether it achieves that is besides the point. Additionally, I'd argue that the current prevailing opinion of society is that "corporations" and "businesses" are greedy, evil and generally not in it to benefit society. The opposite of what you suggest is the prevailing opinion; perhaps you're projecting your values onto a society whose collective opinion does not agree with you?
- fapjacks 12y ago
  From what you've said, you sound like one of those sociopath-worshiping capitalists I'm talking about. Because of that, really nothing you say is going to hold any weight. You almost certainly are not one of "the one percent" and as you've said elsewhere "I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, thanks." That pretty much nails you as someone who wants to pave the future with a path to gaining easier control over people. Almost ubiquitously, people who say things like this want to destruct the social infrastructure in place which tries to prevent the kinds of overbearing, sociopath dictatorships that absolutely would prevail in a community with the zero market regulations you hope for as a "anarcho-capitalist". I haven't hoped in my entire life for someone to be as disappointed as you will be to not get your way with the market. The things I hope for are to protect the system against people exactly like you.