Giving a special benefit that will for the most part only be exercised by women discourages hiring women. You can still think its worth it, but don't pretend like you're baffled by anyone who would object or question how this impacts women.
How its taken is up to the parents. The people that I know who've taken it have split it fairly evenly. (I know I know sample size.)
I did not take any, as I was not eligible at the time.
As someone who does a lot of recruiting, I don't think "hmm I'm going to have to pay this woman for mat leave" because frankly that's bollocks, who knows who's going to be here for six months, 1 year or 8?
From a purely business point of view, the women that have come back from maternity are normally bargains. They don't ask for more pay, they are flexible and are loyal, assuming we have made the correct allowances for being parents.
also being a parent in tech allows people to deal much better with the toddler tantrums/playground fights that seem to be common in this industry.
An insight that comes from a place of being forced to be more mature yourself. Well said!
Wonderful comment that brought this book and idea to my attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27468582
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
This graph shows women's employment rate trending up in the UK:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
The model could be that employers are altruistic. Or that employers are dumb and don't realize this. Or they're sufficiently compelled by the law and the penalties and enforcement are strict enough.
And your model also has to account for the system not being a closed system. For instance, its not enough that all employers are altruistic, but any prospective employers that could enter the market would similarly be altruistic.
Again, it could be worth it, but don't pretend that there's no disincentive by this policy.
An interesting way to think, to say the least.
The arguments for "not hiring women because they'll just go and get pregnant" have largely been settled in the UK.
shared parental leave is a thing, its just what happens. Employers that don't facilitate it are punished, either by employment tribunal, or people leaving to join somewhere that does.
And absolutely nothing else changed in the UK in the last 20 years that may affect this number? Logic would tell you the disincentive exists. Looking at aggregate country data over 20 years doesn't tell you anything about a single policy.
> Employers that don't facilitate it are punished, either by employment tribunal, or people leaving to join somewhere that does.
That's a lot of employers to keep track of. In terms of people leaving for jobs that do offer paid parental leave only works for those wishing to take parental leave. If someone does not wish to have children, she would be willing to take a higher salary in lieu of a company that provides generous parental leave.
Either way, seems like a net win for women!
Explain why this matters? The data demonstrates that you can increase parental leave while also reducing employment discrimination and improving conditions. That's the real world outcome.
> Logic would tell you the disincentive exists.
Surely logic would tell you to give more weight to real world outcomes than to imagined mental models about how others "should" behave?
I'd question why you think people should think that way in the first place.
The main argument against paid parental leave is that is will cause wage gap to grow. I don't see the data backing that up.
Yes, there have been other landmark cases in the courts about equal pay.
> That's a lot of employers to keep track of. In terms of people leaving for jobs that do offer paid parental leave only works for those wishing to take parental leave.
You see this is where I think we differ. Here in the UK parental leave is part of a few measures that are aimed at flexibility. There is the right to flexible working (ie working non standard hours) Working from home (which is implied rather than a legal obligation) All of these in 2019 were part of a movement to make work a bit less shit. I had a number of employees who were childless that we enabled hybrid working. So that they could avoid coming in hungover, or work non standard times from abroad. Or just not come in with a cold and get everyone ill.
When a company advertises its "benefits" (this was pre covid) they used to use parental leave as a signal that they had a more relaxed working atmosphere.
For me, I've found that happy employees are loyal, more productive and willing to forgive mistakes. I have tried to make sure that those I manage feel like they have some level of work security, which rewards me as a manager with better productivity and lower staff turnover.
I used to try and be a bit like malcom tucker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjKHPv7b3fQ) it doesnt work as well as just being reasonably caring.
> she would be willing to take a higher salary in lieu of a company that provides generous parental leave.
again this is not a british thing to do. A right is a right, opting out of a right to get more money undermines everyone. I mean sure you can come back two weeks after giving birth, (I know someone who came back after a month) but you're not going to get more money for it.
The study doesn't agree with how I believe the world works so therefore they must be wrong.
It's telling that your only conclusion for why companies could possibly continue to hire women is that they must be stupid or chivalrous.
So you're interested in theory, not reality?
See this comment for explanation:
Now the pay does not replace a full salary of course. It is a percentage of your pay up to a maximum of 1800€.
I know many dads (myself included) that have used this program.
Since the pay is capped at 1800, I know a few fathers who didn’t take even their two months because they were living at the edge of their paychecks (yes, it’s possible to live a little too large anywhere, and Germans aren’t immune), and one mother who went back to work at the end of the eight weeks post-birth that we’re absolutely forbidden to work (but are paid quite close to our pre-maternal net pay) because she was the primary earner. It’s also rougher on single mothers than partnered ones, of course, but at least isn’t as harsh for them here as it is back in the US, and for low earners, 2/3 of your previous net + 200 child benefit is not much less than net + child care (subsidized for big earners, highly subsidized for lower earners) + general costs of working.
“But you could have saved even more than that over the past few years if you didn’t have to pay really high German income taxes!” Yes, we certainly could have, and would have, given our behavior even with taxes the way they are.
However…
Most people wouldn’t/couldn’t, and because the benefit is so widespread, employers expect you’ll take it and have policies in place to accommodate it. The fact that a maternity year is normal makes it less of a career risk, and the same with several months away for fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#/media/File:OEC...
Seems like countries with paid leave have comparable or higher rates of labor participation and (on average) lower gender pay gap.