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...
See this comment for explanation:
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?