--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Dan Minette schreef:
>
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Too many companys are still throwing out pregnant women, or simply
>
> > >don't hire them if they get half a chance to do so
> > >without legal hassle.
> > >
> >
> > That doesn't seem to happen as much in the US. I've got a quick
question
> > for you. Is there mandatory paid maternity leave, or is it an unpaid
leave?
>
>Mandatory and paid. In the Netherlands you get 100% of your pay but >50% of
the pay comes from your boss. It is very much treated as sick >leave.
Ah-ha. Think about that. You are interviewing for jobs, and you are
telling them that you will leave for 4 months after about 5 months of work,
and that they will have to pay you half of your salary during that period.
So, for the next year, you will be an employee that will work part time,
with about a 20%/hour premium on the time you actually work...plus full
overhead.
Plus, it will not be regular part time, but a four month hole. What if the
manager has a schedule to meet, and a limited budget? Why should that
person have to hire someone to cover for you when he just hired you? Why
not eliminate the problem and hire someone else?
The law, as stated, adds to the cost of hiring pregnant women. It is not
surprising that companies will look for workarounds.
Dan M.
