Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by xyzzyz on Monday May 18, 2020 @01:28PM
(#23225467)
There is no abuse involved. You employ a young woman, and in a year she gives birth and is out for a year or two. Nothing wrong with that, and many businesses with large employee turnover won’t care, but other businesses, especially small ones, which require significant training for company-specific processes, or which have small pool of candidates, will be very unhappy about the fact that now they have to find and train a temporary replacement.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by learc83 on Monday May 18, 2020 @03:55PM
(#23227580)
We already have a very similar situation with respect to hiring military reservists. It seems like we could use that data to see if there's really a big enough problem to worry about.
Anecdotally, I've never met someone in the reserves who had a hard time finding a job.
Do the military reservists have to disclose to potential employers that they are reservists? How often the reservists actually called for service? This is an interesting point, and I'm asking because I have no clue about the realities the military reservists face.
Re:The case for national paid maternity leave
by learc83 on Monday May 18, 2020 @05:10PM
(#23228415)
There's no requirement to disclose during an interview, but most people I know depended on their time in the reserves/active duty pretty heavily on their resume, so I'd guess it was pretty rare for an employer to not know or at least suspect.
Also they have have leave to train for 2 weeks per year, so the employer would need to know at some point.
As for chances of being deployed, in the last decade it was probably a good bit higher than the chance that a reproductive age woman gets pregnant for a given time period.
They can also end up deployed for longer than most countries paid maternity leave lasts.
And I take it that when they are deployed, their employers are in some way required to guarantee them employment when they return?