Hacker News Reader

Comment by imgabe | Hacker News Reader

One thing I didn't know that I learned recently - in countries where paid parental leave is mandated by law, the government reimburses companies for most of the cost of the employee's salary while they're on leave. At least, this is what I was told about the UK (I think it was like 90% of the cost that the gov't reimbursed).

That makes a huge difference. Of course every company would be offering it if the cost to them were minimal. If we want to this to happen in the US, it needs to happen at the voting booth to approve a program like that. Unfortunately it would most likely have to go on a state-by-state level.

But, I think this should be brought up every time someone complains about how US companies are so barbaric that they don't offer this paid leave. Well, duh, of course they don't because it would be an enormous cost to them that it's not elsewhere in the world.

View on HN

This sounded unlikely to me (I'm from the UK), but https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments confirms that UK employers can recover 92% of statutory maternity/paternity pay that they pay to employees, or 103% if they are a sufficiently small employer.

Note that this is only for the statutory minimum -- many employers offer better-than-statutory as part of their benefits package.

But I disagree with you that the major reason why every company offers at least the statutory minimum is because they're getting a rebate. I think it is simply because it is a legal requirement. The rebate is just the government as a policy choice shifting the cost of it around a bit.

The rebate affects how much companies complain and lobby for changing the law though.

If the rebate were offered, without a legal requirement, most or all companies would probably provide the benefit, since it's basically free for them and they'd lose candidate recruits to their competitors otherwise.

I am surprised no one makes the argument that even if the government cover the salary costs there's still missing money in the form of the employer's work added value to the company (his output is worth more than his salary).

s/employer/employee (sorry, can't edit)

Whike this is (sort of) true in Switzerland it's not the tax payer who faces the bill, but it's financed partly via payroll taxes.

That means that employers ultimately pay at least half of the costs.

TANSTAAFL. You’re paying for it somewhere even if you don’t see the price.

It’s rarely you; taxes transfer wealth.

And?

It means that folks won't lose their job when the doctor orders bed rest in the last month. It gives time for proper care of children. And so on. You might be helping pay for someone else's benefits, but if you ever need them, you are paying for your own as well.

Heck, I'm childless by choice (and female on top of this) and I completely approve of such things - for both mothers and fathers. I'm fine with parents getting more sick leave for their children. After all, they have more responsibility than I do. Children with proper support are more likely to grow up to be good adults. I will probably need these adults as I age.

And it isn't like this sort of cost is limited to such things as parental leave. If you pay for your hospital bill, you are helping pay for folks that do not. Shop retail? You are paying for theft, charity work they do, and whatever benefits they give their employees. Pay taxes? You are helping pay for roads you don't use, wars you don't agree with, politician benefits and pay, and a slew of other things.

I'll add that sometimes the placement of price makes all the difference. For example, when taxes are included in the price on the shelf, there is no more pain at the register. Most places have electronic receipts that can tell you how much tax you've paid, so the cost isn't hidden. Taxpayer-funded health care means you can better budget for everyday life's ups and downs, especially the health things that are out of one's control. It matters where the price and cost actually are.

The same can be said for not paying the price up front. You get turnover, employees going into work sick and the like.

There's a societal cost to not paying for rational breaks. You get breakdowns instead.

Paid parental leave is simply a disability insurance policy. You can use your wages to buy one. So it comes down to two things:

1) Can you keep your job after you go on leave? Yes, for 12 weeks, protected by FMLA (at least in theory)

2) Factoring in the cost of that insurance policy, are you satisfied with your income level?

I don't think it's "simply" a disability insurance policy. Pregnancy can be planned. If someone were to buy an insurance policy before they conceived, pay $100/month for a year or so, then get 60% of their salary for 3 months (much more than they paid in probably), they'd just cancel the policy afterward. The insurance company would lose money on this every time.

Some quick googling suggests that there are disability insurance companies that will cover maternity leave, but they must be making a profit on it somehow or they wouldn't offer it. Besides which, I don't think there's any way paternity leave could be considered a disability, so it's no help there.

If this were rolled into social security, the cost could be more spread out. Since it's beneficial for us to have a growing population, I think it's in all our interest to support children being born, even if we don't want to have them ourselves.

It makes more sense to have benefits to employees focused on the employee side. It also makes it more fair (and more cost effective) if all benefits are equal for all; at least up to basic minimums that everyone should have for society to function well.

Lol, 90% reimbursed by the government? No it's definitely not in the UK, not in Austria, not in Germany and any other European country I know. It's quite simple, the government introduces a law of minimum leave and all companies in the country either oblidge or have to leave. Not being able to serve a rich market like Europe is not an option, so that's really incentive enough for them to follow the rules.

No, you’re wrong. The policies differ between various places, and it’s not always 90% of last pay, but almost always it is government or social security who foots the bill, not the employer.

It's 90% for the first six weeks and is taxable, for maternity leave only, then some low amount of a few hundred a month for the rest. There's a separate entitlement for unpaid parental leave. Many employers pay higher and for longer than statutory amounts.

The figure you have in mind there is the percentage of the employee's salary that they are legally guaranteed as maternity pay. The percentage the grandparent/parent comment is talking about is the percentage of the employer's total outlay on maternity pay that they can then claim back from the government (which turns out to be either 92% or 103% of the statutory minimum payment).

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlage_U2

In Germany companies get reimbursed100% 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth, which is motherhood protection leave during which mothers are not allowed to work with regular pay (part of which comes from health insurance, the rest from the employer)

Parental leave is unpaid but you cannot fire someone for or during taking it.

In Norway the government will pay you 100% for 49 weeks or 80% for 59 weeks with a cutoff at $66k. (Slightly above national average). Most/all tech employers will cover the remaining part of your salary.

>not in Germany

While on parenteral leave (Elternzeit) above the mandated minimum (Mutterschutz) you don't even get paid by your employer but you get 66% of your last pay up to a maximum amount from social securities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com