[falcolas]

The problem with this logic is that you would never hire a woman, for fear that they could get pregnant and become "unreliable" for 9 months, and completely unavailable for the duration of their maternity leave (while having to keep their job position unfilled).

It's far better to apply some humanity to the equation and just give everyone those extra 12 days off (and (mat|pat)ernity leave), so you're not tempted to discriminate off the "productivity loss".

[DropbearRob]

Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. The reason you point out is exactly what has happened in the past. In fact my mum used to work for a company that straight up fired any female staff in the secretary pool which got married to protect themselves from exactly the losses you speak of.

Luckily we don't live in that world anymore (40 years ago). And we are working to reduce the dis-incentives of hiring women over men. Im living in the UK where recently paternity and maternity leave are inter-changable and can be split between parents. entitling men to equal leave to women to reduce the incentives of hiring men over women.

There are all kinds of times when people become less productive. Im never advocating never hiring a woman, only that whatever benefits you apply to one act as a hiring dis-incentive unless applied by law to both. Its economics, not ethics.