If a company gives you a negative score due to a gap that's explained by taking time out to look after a baby then you're probably better off not working there.

If it's just one employer, that would be their loss. If it's all employers, that would be your loss. And the reality is much closer to the latter than the former.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-ter...

A negative score due to a gap is the same as a positive score due to an extra years employment, and that's a harder mindset to overcome. Only the most toxic of workplaces would say "hey, they took a year out to raise a child, no way" but many workplaces would say " these two candidates appear equal except this one has an extra year's experience in $foo"

You're trying to defend this practise by suggesting it's 'only the most toxic workplaces', but that's not the case. Given two candidates who both have 5 years experience but one has a gap of a year to raise a baby, lots of companies will chose the other candidate. Talk to parents. Understand the problem. Companies assume that if you've taken a year once then you'll probably do it again if you have a second child, and consequently they avoiding hiring you. Don't be an apologist for those companies that do it.

I’ve been involved in many recruitment processes. Companies are far more scared of you having done lots of short jobs than of having taken gaps, especially if the gaps are easily explained away as “time spent caring for family” or “self-directed study”

It's not so much the gaps that are the problem as it is the effect that the delay has on growing compensation.

For every gap there's missed yearly/quaterly reviews, there's missed opportunities for promotion, and there's a stall in your compensation growth overall. When you come back to work you typically come back at the wage you left.

I call BS on that one. What about the fact that switching companies is by fare more effective than staying at the same company salary-wise? Then it should also be a problem to employers if someone stayed at a single company for a long time as it constitutes as "missed opportunities for promotion"