It's sometimes doable sure. 10-person company is 5x bigger than mine though so it's way easier there. It's also the case that some areas require specialized knowledge and some don't. If I hire someone even very competent it will a few months till they are productive because we work in a very niche area. If you need someone who programs a CRUD website then yeah, it is easier. Just because something is doable in your 10 or 15 person company doesn't mean it's doable for others in their <5 people businesses.

when it comes to a social policy question like parental leave there is no size fits all solution, so we need to ask what we prioritize.

I respect people who want to run very small businesses, but we can't realistically make policy for them if we want to guarantee some basic welfare and labour protection.

Small businesses are often so unprofitable, have so little savings, and are so exposed to risk (as in this pregnancy case), that you realistically need to scrap so much protection just to accommodate them.

So the answer to the question of how to combine very small business and paternal leave is quite simple, you really can't. It's a policy that favours middle-sized and large businesses who generate more profit, suffer less from a few workers dropping out, and can organise these benefits.

> you realistically need to scrap so much protection just to accommodate them.

And why not do so for them specifically? If you still have protections apply to larger companies, then it becomes a matter of choice for employees to choose small or large. But if you apply to everybody, and it kills small businesses, you're strictly worse off - if you can't land a job at one of those larger places, you're outright unemployed.

I mean you could do it, but then you have some different issues at the margins like the incentive to hire people off the books to not fall into a more regulated category.

And also there's a big ethical question here if you create an excemption for small business, because you create a two class workforce where parents in small companies lack what is arguably a very fundamental right.

So I guess it is a complicated issue, but on the specific matter on paternal leave I would argue that a universal protection at the cost of small business activity is preferable. Every parents should have the same rights when it comes to child care.

> And also there's a big ethical question here if you create an excemption for small business, because you create a two class workforce where parents in small companies lack what is arguably a very fundamental right.

The way I see this, the fundamental right here is to have paid parental leave in general, not a right to have it at any particular workplace specifically. Thus, so long as those who need it can get a job that offers it, I don't see any pragmatic reason to require all businesses to do so. So long as it's clear in advance - so people who e.g. don't plan on having children can go seek employment with small businesses. It's not an insignificant part of the population, so why remove an option for them?

Why make employers eat the costs? Just make government pay equal benefits to every mother for x months and don't force employers to keep the position open. This way actually everyone will have the same rights unlike now where how much you get depends on how good a job you managed to land even if you only worked there for a very short time.

There is incentive to re-hire anyway if you have open positions as you get someone already familiar with the work. Forcing employers to do so is a problem for smaller companies having many non-duplicated positions though.

Doesn't that mean you're equally vulnerable to the bus factor?

Allow me to offer a different anecdata.

My friend is a lawyer and works for a small, but somewhat successful canadian firm (which I will not name for obvious reasons).

His boss had hired 4 women in a row.

3 of them went on maternity leave within a short amount of time. 2 out of 3 didn't even bother coming back. The other one came back and quit shortly after.

All the files got dumped on my friend and the boss had to hire 3 new lawyers, had them all go through training and learning the logistics of how the office runs (first as a temp, and then once again as full time employees).

So basically a total of 6 staff rotation within a years time.

Needless to say this was a major nightmare.

My friend told me his boss rather let slip that he will think twice before bringing women onboard..

I was obviously shocked to hear these as I myself am strongly against discrimination but I can't help but to at least sympathise with his boss to a certain degree.

Because many businesses can't afford to do so. I worked at a small company where a senior dev took a year off. His replacement didn't quite fit the same roles as well and the project fell apart. I believe the company fell apart afterwards too.

Well, if your business was in Canada or Europe, you'd have to figure it out. And as a parent who has taken advantage of this, it's worthwhile due to the positive effect it has on the children.

And if that senior dev just left for a better job?

Same thing would've probably happened, but that's not a risk you can really mitigate against. I believe he even had some ownership of the company, so he probably lost out on a bit too.

With all the possible factors: leaving for a better job, falling ill, having a family member fall ill, getting hit by bus, getting poached by a competitor, or taking parental leave -- that last one is hardly even the worst. If you're worried about that, you're not worried enough about real issues.