3 ms·

> It should be a law because left to their own devices companies will otherwise simply evade the problem and hire guys instead of equally qualified women. Some

by 542458 12y ago

> It should be a law because left to their own devices companies will otherwise simply evade the problem and hire guys instead of equally qualified women. Sometimes these laws actually discourage hiring women. For example, you say: > companies only have the requirement to re-instate the person that took leave after they return This is a great example of why these laws are more complex than they appear. For example, in that case I'll need to hire somebody to fill in for the person on leave while they're away. So I'm paying for that training, paperwork, etc for the new person. Then when the first person comes back from maternity leave, I've got two people for one job. Either I have the unpleasant business of firing somebody who hasn't done anything wrong (and may actually be the better employee!) or depending on how the laws are written I may be forced to continue to employ both, despite a lack of need. What if I've downsized or pivoted, and no longer need to original person? Do they accumulate benefits and paid vacation while they're gone? All this can be an employer's nightmare. A post by a Hungarian entrepreneur partially on this topic went viral last year. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that maternity leave is a bad thing, I just feel that paining it as a simple issue is unproductive. 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...

vidarh 12y ago
If you can't deal with someone going on extended leave for some reason or another, your business is likely going to go out of business for reasons unrelated to maternity soon enough anyway. Maternity leave is generally going to be a lesser problem for most businesses than churn of people leaving and cost of hiring replacements, or other unexpected loss of staff. And no, you don't "have the unpleasant business of firing somebody" as that somebody would normally have been hired on a short term contract to cover for the maternity, knowing the position is temporary. > All this can be an employer's nightmare. It's an economic risk that is fairly straight-forward to estimate and amortize the cost of over your staff, and most of the concerns are risks that any responsible business needs to plan for anyway.
- SilasX 12y ago
  >And no, you don't "have the unpleasant business of firing somebody" as that somebody would normally have been hired on a short term contract to cover for the maternity, knowing the position is temporary. But the whole point of these policies is to prevent the workforce from trending toward the all-contractors-no-benefits situation, in which maternity leave could be avoided all together. If you're so casual about suggesting that the replacement be hired on as such a contractor, then why not suggest the original employee be so hired as well?
  - xorcist 12y ago
    Why do you think short term employees (or even contractors) wouldn't have the same parental leave as everyone else? Over here parental leave is common and expected, so it is always factored in. It is a very common way to enter the work force or try another job, as it is short term by nature.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. What contracting job is there with paid parental leave from the employer/customer? Do you mean a job where you work for a "job shop" which is your employer of record but are actually working at client sites? If so, I can see how that would work out. But that's not what the GP was describing, in which firing someone is no big deal because "we hired them on a short term basis anyway". But if you accept that as legit, I claimed, why are you even complaining about maternity leave, since you seem to be okay with people being hired on short term bases with no such promises, which is somehow all okay because "hey you made it clear from the beginning"? IOW, the GP seems to be saying "Don't treat workers as disposable! You can just get a disposable worker to fill in for them!"
      - xorcist 12y ago
        Right. I had specifically insurance based parental leave in mind, which is the right way to implement it "by law". I might have posted that in the wrong part of the subthread. I agree with you regarding an employer pays model, which has obvious drawbacks.

by 542458 12y ago

vidarh 12y ago

If you can't deal with someone going on extended leave for some reason or another, your business is likely going to go out of business for reasons unrelated to maternity soon enough anyway. Maternity leave is generally going to be a lesser problem for most businesses than churn of people leaving and cost of hiring replacements, or other unexpected loss of staff. And no, you don't "have the unpleasant business of firing somebody" as that somebody would normally have been hired on a short term contract to cover for the maternity, knowing the position is temporary. > All this can be an employer's nightmare. It's an economic risk that is fairly straight-forward to estimate and amortize the cost of over your staff, and most of the concerns are risks that any responsible business needs to plan for anyway.

SilasX 12y ago
>And no, you don't "have the unpleasant business of firing somebody" as that somebody would normally have been hired on a short term contract to cover for the maternity, knowing the position is temporary. But the whole point of these policies is to prevent the workforce from trending toward the all-contractors-no-benefits situation, in which maternity leave could be avoided all together. If you're so casual about suggesting that the replacement be hired on as such a contractor, then why not suggest the original employee be so hired as well?
- xorcist 12y ago
  Why do you think short term employees (or even contractors) wouldn't have the same parental leave as everyone else? Over here parental leave is common and expected, so it is always factored in. It is a very common way to enter the work force or try another job, as it is short term by nature.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. What contracting job is there with paid parental leave from the employer/customer? Do you mean a job where you work for a "job shop" which is your employer of record but are actually working at client sites? If so, I can see how that would work out. But that's not what the GP was describing, in which firing someone is no big deal because "we hired them on a short term basis anyway". But if you accept that as legit, I claimed, why are you even complaining about maternity leave, since you seem to be okay with people being hired on short term bases with no such promises, which is somehow all okay because "hey you made it clear from the beginning"? IOW, the GP seems to be saying "Don't treat workers as disposable! You can just get a disposable worker to fill in for them!"
    - xorcist 12y ago
      Right. I had specifically insurance based parental leave in mind, which is the right way to implement it "by law". I might have posted that in the wrong part of the subthread. I agree with you regarding an employer pays model, which has obvious drawbacks.