What does "legally protected maternity leave" mean? From your stipend comment it sounds like it's not fully-paid. Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? What happens if the company has eliminated the roll/laid people off in the meantime? Can they not get rid of your position if you are on maternity at the time?
> Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return?
The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket.
So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position.
> This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.
correct. in general, when letting people go you need to consider the impact on their lives. and you need to let go those who are less impacted. you can't just pick the weakest performers or the most expensive (although the higher paid ones are less likely to be impacted)
This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
Wow, this sounds very complicated, subjective, and invasive. I guess in such situations it's not possible (or not favorable) to not have your employer know much about your personal situation.
yes, that is kind of unavoidable. but i don't really see why you would want to keep that private.
we already have or work on laws that makes peoples salaries public to allow employees to know if they are paid fairly, and you are not going to hide your kids in a basement, so the most important factors to consider are more or less public already
This is anathema to me, as an American. I would never want to have pressure to tell my employer anything about my home life, for fear of losing my job. As for laws about salaries, that also sounds terrible. I am glad that this is extremely uncommon where I live, except for government workers.
actually, in the US policies about keeping your pay secret are illegal. and in many states salaries need to be published on job postings too. so it's not hard to figure out what someone earns, and it is in your benefit to not keep it secret unless you are a very high earner.
you also do not have any job protection, so you don't benefit from sharing this. but the number of kids is hardly a secret worth keeping. and when your employer offers childcare benefits you would also share that information. you would not forgo the benefits just to keep that private.
and that's the same in europe if you don't tell your employer then you can't benefit from the additional job protection. your choice.
No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense. It is true that a small minority of states (under a quarter) have some requirement about salary range on job postings, but that doesn't tell you what people make. That tells you what the base salary range is, and the range can be quite large. It also doesn't tell you what anyone who wasn't just hired makes, since their salary could have increased in the time since they were hired in the applicable range. And of course, the many people who worked at a company since before these recent laws went into effect have no hint of their salary published anywhere.
I guess some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do. I would think that European countries, where they like privacy so much that they invented cookie banners, wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
And this is before getting into the efficiency arguments of retaining employees based on productivity, not family structure. I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
> employers make termination decisions based on family structure
There might be a misunderstanding. The employer usually does not know about your family structure; the only place that really has to know about that is the wage department to calculate your taxes etc. (even though in some countries you can do that yourself if you are a very private person, but in that case you are more likely to be self-employed anyway). Of course if you want to claim days out of work, paid or not, to care for the children or a parent, the employer might want to know if the children are real.
The employer usually does not know about your family structure
when i need to let go people from my company because i need to downsize for whatever reason i need to choose those who would be least affected. that means i need to know who is single, married, or has children. because if i let go the one who is a parent instead of someone who is single, they might sue me because it would cause them undue hardship, if say finding a new job would force them to move which would affect the other parents job and also the kids school. and their whole social life.
sometimes this can't be avoided. if all my employees have families and children then i am stuck. but if there is a choice, then the choice must be the person who is more likely to recover, or who has less dependents. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
long story short, i have to know the family structure to make that choice.
i am talking about germany, but i believe this is true for many european companies.
i am legally compelled to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them, when i could dismiss other people who would face less hardship.
basically i need to consider three factors: how long they already worked in my company, how old they are, and their family situation, whether they have dependents.
failure to consider these risks a lawsuit making the dismissal invalid.
this of course does not apply to dismissals that are related to bad behavior or lack of qualification.
on the other side: unique qualifications that i need to keep my business running are also exempt even if that person otherwise would be the one facing the least hardship from a dismissal.
It's not like that in Slovakia afaik. There is no legal obligation to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them. I'd think it's also similar in other Eastern European countries. It's pretty hard though to force someone out if they did nothing wrong, so that fact alone is very protective for employees.
I guess it's easier to lob silly fart claims rather than engage with the fact that what you've described is very foreign to most Americans.
As for sanctioning specific states, we do this plenty. There aren't many voices raised when it's done against countries that are our enemies. Sanctioning allies would obviously be a weird move, and countries in between, are in between.
I'll end by saying that you characterize this as a debate, when it isn't one. You're free to think it's grand to terminate employees based on their home life. I think it's terrible and am glad I don't work at a company that would ever do such a thing. But I don't think it's something that should be illegal, as long as everyone who went to work for the company knew what they were getting into.
No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense.
really? it has been a widespread policy in many companies across the US until the laws changed.
some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do.
why though? what's the big deal with someone knowing how many children you have?
European countries, where they like privacy [...] wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
there are a few things you need to consider: for one earnings are much more average. there are not many high or low earners. if i know what your job is i can pretty much guess how much you make because most people in the same job get the same pay, and that is already public knowledge. unlike the US (you do have a point with the base salaries and the range there) the pay ranges in europe are much narrower. likewise costs are irrelevant because almost everyone has health insurance which covers anything worth of note. medical bills are not a thing for the average person in europe. i said it before: there is nothing to disclose that isn't already public.
I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
also not relevant because these laws don't apply to small companies. the minimum is 50 people i think.
And you get a small monthly stipend per child during this time. It's small but it's something.