Having a baby is such a crucial and important event in any woman's life that a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave seems like a viable mandated right I would whole-heartedly support.
As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?
This has already been solved in multiple countries. For instance here in Norway, the leave goes for both parents. There is something like 12 months that can be shared between the parents, and both have around a month of leave just at the birth.
Even asking about pregnancy/child plans in a interview is illegal.
The pay during maternity leave is covered by the state. I am guessing this holds for all countries but I can only say for sure for my country.
It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.
Exactly, when the state pays the maternity leave, it doesn't create a disincentive for the employers.
Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc.
Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels.
For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.
Not arguing either way, but there is a natural disincentive for employers to have to plan around their employees being gone for those long periods of time, plus the ramp-up time upon their return, depending on the job.
The hand-wavy hippie arguments are "because it's the right thing to do" but of course the real answer needs to be "because we made the benefit equal for dads to remove just the situation you refer to".
Most developed countries have figured this out. Some set amount of parental leave can be used by the parents of the child with the government paying some percentage of their usual salary instead of the employer. In Sweden the parents get a total of 480 days paid at 80% of their salary.
This is why paid maternal leave is forced on employers in European countries, so that they have no choice but to do so.
Employers factor in that risk in their employee payment budget, build up reserves for it in accounting (same as they do with people falling sick or having regular PTO), in some cases governments step in and subsidize wages and that's it.
Employers as a class in general will not ever hand away such things voluntarily, they had to be fought for violently over a hundred years ago in collective action.
One of the reasons I love my employer is that they offer 6 months full pay to both men and women, with the option to have up to a year off (for women this moves to basic pay, men zero) after the 6 months - if you are having or adopting a child.
This way as someone who interviews people it doesn't matter if they are men or women, you know that some will have children, some won't, but we will cope when they are away. And they will be back again. Far far more of our men and women return to work and stay with the company after having children than the UK average. I haven't personally benefitted from this (I had my kids when at another company with just 2 week paternity leave) but it makes me happy to see colleagues able to use this time to grow close to their child and also return to work rested and happy.
We also have great flexibility in working patterns that has only increased since the pandemic. Happy humans deliver great work.
Because you're aware of the broader picture around employing practices that are sustainable for society at large, and not only focused on your immediate selfish return of investment?
Because you value the diversity in your workforce, not only because it looks good, but because it brings a unique culture to your company (as well as being fair)?
Because ultimately as a company you need workers past the current generation. If women stop making babies due to having to bear a financial and occupational burden, then your company will quickly disappear due to a lack of workers and customers.
This question is exactly why the federal govt has to level the playing field. It should be a tax incentive for companies to have workers on leave for reasons that support the health of society.
Would it be illegal for a newly pregnant woman to go and interview for 10 jobs, each of which she then never sets foot in because she immediately goes on pregnancy leave while still being paid for them all?
Asking for a friend...
If I understand correctly, in Germany that works fine and is a lot less profitable than you’re expecting because the maternity pay is based on how much you were earning a year ago.
Caveat: I’m still learning German, and this is a second-hand description from a coworker who is a father but isn’t an employment lawyer
