> 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.
>"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.
It's the exact same as saying that it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to pay taxes or pay the minimum wage or pay wages on time because they're too small to have that kind of money to throw around or have tough financial times.
This simply sets a different bar for hiring any employees at all, and that's a fair bar that's equal for all companies. The very cheapest package of hired work that you can buy includes a minimum wage, social taxes, safe working conditions, paid vacations, overtime pay and maternity leave. If you can't afford the minimum package, then you can't afford to hire people, period. The people have voted that if your business is only able to provide sweatshop-style employment below that minimum level, then you should take that kind of business out of the country.
& that's what happens. In my home country Belgium, a company needs to spend 2.5 EUR for each 1 EUR an employee makes net, making hiring effectively a last resort solution.
> it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.
If a company is unable to provide government-mandated payroll to its employees, shouldn't it be considered a failure?
Are you trying to say that I'm implying government mandates of paying employees unfairly discriminates against companies that are mandated to pay employees? Because clearly my comment was about regulations discriminating against one type (or in this case size) of company.
> Are you trying to say that I'm implying government mandates of paying employees unfairly discriminates against companies that are mandated to pay employees?
Nope.
This is clearer if you consider another government mandate which also has entrepreneurs running scared: minimum wage.
Is the government discriminating against companies which cannot pay minimum wage to its employees? Or are companies that choose to do business in a jurisdiction where a minimum wage is written into law simply failures?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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).
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 :)
> "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.
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).
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.)
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.
@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).
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.