You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right?
For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky).
(The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.
I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year.
Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer.
I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.
Comments
You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees around, right?
For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this case is legally risky).
(The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or has been pregnant recently. )
So you support firing someone who is pregnant?
There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick, sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and sometimes they don't.
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.
I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle ground between zero and a year.
Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of partially paid leave, paid by the employer.
I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are the most productive working weeks.