Maternity leave laws causing discrimination against women of child bearing age

[StealthPolarBear]

I keep reading threads like this and have this argument at the back of my mind that I am struggling to articulate.
Lets assue every pregnancy involves a man and a woman as a couple (I know lots don't but enough do to make this a valid argument I think). If you employ a woman and she gets pregnant you may end up paying more than her salary to hire a replacement, there may be issues around handover of tasks and clients etc. So it can cost.
However, as each baby belongs to a couple, if you have a man, you are effectively getting the same outcome (a member of your staff having a child) 'free'.
So on average (unless you hire proportionately more women than men) and unless you consider the human race should stop reproducing, it evens out.
I know the word 'naive' will be used in at least one of the first 3 replies, but can you at least see my logic? If the couple were employed in the same small company it becomes a bit clearer.

Or just hire a disproportionate amount of men and let some other company pick up the slack

Would I have got more replies if I had titled this "Pregnant women/women with children should not be allowed in the workplace" as I was tempted to? :o

well exactly
But that should be dealt with in another way
What I mean is, when people go on about the 'cost' of women going on ML, they need to realise that for each woman, the cost is half what they think it is, and in theory each man incurs the same cost, only they don;t have to bear it.
And if they can't deal with that cost, they shouldn't be in business.
Couples hae children, not women. Unfortunately women bear all the career related costs (antenatally, anyway)

You'd have more agreement from me anyway.
No problem with the pregnant women or maternity leave, but the aftermath is fucking attrocious and is a fully justified reason to never hire any woman who is of an age where pregnancy is a potential occurence.

I am of course talking about women bringing their babies into the office.

They need to give men equal rights - and some sort of positive action to encourage them to use them. There is no point giving women equal rights at work if men aren't given equal rights at home.

:o
I read that like this:

I don't know what the answer is though for companies that are too small to prove they are hiring the requisite number of women - e.g. ones with

actually I think that might be the way forward, treat all small emplyers in an area as a group and then fine them all if jointly they don't meet the requirements!

Women bring their babies into the office? It would never occur to me to do that.

SPB are you saying that employers should attribute half the cost to the mother and half to the father?

SD, what do you mean about giving men equal rights?
Are you just meaning post natally, and leave ante natal as is?

SurreyDad what rights are you meaning?

Chaotic, not literally. But when they have the figures in their minds for hiring a man vs hiring a woman, they should bear in mind that while men are cheaper, someone else is picking up the tab for them having babies. It would be ideal if the woman's employer could bill her partner's employer for half the costs!

"And if they can't deal with that cost, they shouldn't be in business."

I think that eventually a point will have to be reached that it is so entrenched in business procedure that it may well simply be seen as another cost of business.
However the problems that I see are as follows

1. there will always be resentment from certain people who feel that they are paying for anothers life-style choices. "Why should I be put out because you've decided to have a baby. etc". For me this is negligible and is more to do with attitudes/atmosphere/treatment in the work-place than an actual barrier to decent maternity leave etc.
2. The second reason would be what I'd regard as a completely reasonable if unpleasant truth. If we go by your theory then it makes sense. As you say, if you have 50/50 or there abouts men and women you pay for half, you don't pay for the other. But this would really only work in medium/large businesses. For small businesses they may only have 2/3 staff and they may all be women.

Further to that while for bigger businesses they may have enough staff that maternity leave can be incorporated into the general cost of doing business as they'll have more or less the same amount of people off each year/couple of years, for a small business it is the uncertainty and irregular nature that is the real killer in business terms. They don't know when it will occur, if the person will come back, how long they need a replacement for. While they are reimbursed by the government it is not in real-time, they have to claim it back and as such a small business is more likely to have tighter profit margins and operating costs so any fluctuation in the short-term could be devastating to them.

"Women bring their babies into the office?"

Yes. And it's horrific.
Not when they return to work, but while they are on maternity leave just to "pop in" and show them off.

Yes
I really do think treating all the (similar) small businesses in one geographical area as one is the answer - thye should maybe all pay into an "employee pregnancy insurance" fund.

I did that, but then my babies were the most beautiul ever :)

you are an appalling human being and I wish to have nothing further to do with you

lol SPB I'm sure they were, along with mine

"It would be ideal if the woman's employer could bill her partner's employer for half the costs!"

Yes, if the woman's employer was a small business and her partner's was a medium/large business and not the other way around or her partner being self employed.

I do like the idea of an "employee pregnancy insurance" fund.

Overall YANBU

"Yes, if the woman's employer was a small business and her partner's was a medium/large business and not the other way around or her partner being self employed."
Why? If the small business employed the woman they'd bear all of the cost.

exactly- but it should be human beings, rather than women!

Loving your logic SPB

I'm continually astonished at how many MN'ers seriously think maternity leave is damaging for women.

I'm interested in employers reaction to dh job hunt at the moment. He is downsizing massively from a v good but takes over your life one to minimum wage one but you forget it when you go home. He is giving dd3(dd1 to him) as his reason for downsizing when asked. A woman wouldn't be able to do this. I'm not sure he should be although there's not a good way of explaining the change without that.

Stealth - I see your argument, but isn't the issue basically that if a company hire disproprtionately more men they can 'externalise' the cost - i.e. take all the freebie halves of the equation (the men) and not pay their fair share. So although your argument about it evening out works, it's still an economic incentive to avoid employing women.

So that begs another question, has anyone ever experienced discrimination, or knows of discrimination first hand (not just anecdotal) towards women for this reason?

Personally, I would rather there was ML than not, even if the cost is some idiot bosses refusing to emply me.