>"I've hired half a dozen female employees in the past four years[...]Three of them had kids later on, we hired substitutes who covered for them during maternity leave, and no biggy."
And if your company is too small to have that kind of money to throw around? What about tough financial times?
As much as I admire and believe that some of these laws/regulations do good, and mean well. I have to stress to individuals that they all have an effect on the economy/market. They skew things one way or the other, with constraints and incentives. E.g. The example above, it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.
It's the exact same as saying that it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to pay taxes or pay the minimum wage or pay wages on time because they're too small to have that kind of money to throw around or have tough financial times.
This simply sets a different bar for hiring any employees at all, and that's a fair bar that's equal for all companies. The very cheapest package of hired work that you can buy includes a minimum wage, social taxes, safe working conditions, paid vacations, overtime pay and maternity leave. If you can't afford the minimum package, then you can't afford to hire people, period. The people have voted that if your business is only able to provide sweatshop-style employment below that minimum level, then you should take that kind of business out of the country.
& that's what happens. In my home country Belgium, a company needs to spend 2.5 EUR for each 1 EUR an employee makes net, making hiring effectively a last resort solution.
> it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.
If a company is unable to provide government-mandated payroll to its employees, shouldn't it be considered a failure?
Are you trying to say that I'm implying government mandates of paying employees unfairly discriminates against companies that are mandated to pay employees? Because clearly my comment was about regulations discriminating against one type (or in this case size) of company.
> Are you trying to say that I'm implying government mandates of paying employees unfairly discriminates against companies that are mandated to pay employees?
Nope.
This is clearer if you consider another government mandate which also has entrepreneurs running scared: minimum wage.
Is the government discriminating against companies which cannot pay minimum wage to its employees? Or are companies that choose to do business in a jurisdiction where a minimum wage is written into law simply failures?
It is an issue because they are not free to hire "the right people that fit [their] company's needs". They're "free" to do so if they have money to blow on it. Which is something small, budding, or failing companies do not have the luxury of doing. Hence why small/budding companies are discriminated against with such prejudicial (albeit noble) regulations.
Additionally, they are further not "free" to hire the right people, because the right people might end up being "all white guys", or whatever is cheapest at the time, etc. And we all know what a public lynch mob that would create if it ever came to light. That's assuming your country doesn't have laws against it in place already.
You are creating an issue where there isn't one. In my opinion.
If you hire on the probability of someone getting pregnant (or their partner), good for you, that's your choice. I hire employees who I (and my team) believe have the right technical skills, have initiative, are responsible and trustworthy, etc. I guess we have different hiring priorities.
I know I don't have the most popular of opinions, but I at least expect people here to have the polite courtesy to read my post before they respond to it. Good day.
I'm sorry you base your hiring decisions on "failing companies", and imply that I have "have money to blow on it"... Well, we do have money to spend on the right hires, but we definitely do not have the money to spend on the wrong ones. To you sir, I wish you a good day too.
And if your company is too small to have that kind of money to throw around? What about tough financial times?
As much as I admire and believe that some of these laws/regulations do good, and mean well. I have to stress to individuals that they all have an effect on the economy/market. They skew things one way or the other, with constraints and incentives. E.g. The example above, it unfairly discriminates against companies that are unable to provide government-mandated perks to parents, or people interested in having children.