[simiones]

Not GP, but here in Romania state mandated maternity leave is 2 years at low pay or 1 year at a higher pay (the mother can choose which she prefers). And yes, the company can't fire you for becoming pregnant or being on maternity leave (I believe there are exceptions, such as bankruptcy or significant down-sizing). The state pays some of the salary, but the company pays a portion as well. This applies to adoptions as well, but only for new-born babies.

Furthermore, fathers can also ask for paternal leave in the same conditions, also for up to 2 years. Only one of the parents may take this longer leave, but the parent that doesn't still has the right to 1 month of leave.

Even if the 1 month is not taken, fathers can still request 5 days of special leave for this (or 10 if they attend a child care course).

Note that while the pay you get for this period is based on your regular salary, it is typically capped at a fairly low level, so for high-paying positions it still represents a significant income loss.

[searchableguy]

Is your system sustainable though because romania is on top of defaulting on pension and welfare system in the europe?

Most young people are migrating outside the country for any skilled jobs, huge deficit & debt, and cutting back on the promised welfare doesn't sound good to me.

You have to consider long term sustainability and practical implication.

Nordic countries, switzerland, etc which are famous for welfare systems are funded by financial systems and oil. Other countries are not. Can they afford all these generous benefits?

[simiones]

Well, one of the Romanian welfare system's biggest long-term risks is low natality leading to an aging population. So, reducing benefits for new-born children seems penny wise but pound foolish.

Still, given that the welfare system is mostly financed out of current taxes, if the population can be stabilized (or even increased), it can be self-sustaining. We are not in a good place right now, but we were in a much worse place 10 or 20 years ago, so there are reasons to be hopeful things can be turned around.

Also, lots of people are leaving exactly because welfare is not good enough in the country (while the legal benefits are nice, often times the quality of the actual services is well below par). So again, I don't think reducing welfare will have a positive impact, in the longer term.

[searchableguy]

> one of the Romanian welfare system's biggest long-term risks is low natality leading to an aging population.

That is true for every welfare system based on social responsibility structure. Society pools money to pay for retirement of everyone at a fixed rate. Young people are entered into the system to fund old people's retirement today and promised that they would get funded by young people tomorrow.

This works as long as enough young people enter the system at intervals to continue the payouts except when that doesn't happen due to demographic collapse or some other reason. Think of a legal pyramid scheme.

> if the population can be stabilized (or even increased), it can be self-sustaining

Not necessarily. Many countries underestimated the life expectancy of people retired and had to run on a deficit as a result so they are taking money from pensioners of future today. They had to fix this by increasing the retirement age, cutting down benefits, removing benefits for people with private savings, etc.

They will only keep cutting. If not, it will fall.

> lots of people are leaving exactly because welfare is not good enough in the country

I see unemployment among youth as the major reason. Welfare won't be funded by unemployed.

> So again, I don't think reducing welfare will have a positive impact, in the longer term.

Reducing unsustainable welfare will because money can be used elsewhere to create jobs, attract businesses, increase employment, etc.