[UncleEntity]

Presumably they are hiring someone because they have an immediate need and wouldn't be too happy if said new hire went on leave leaving them in the exact same position with the added "benefit" of having a new, non-productive person on the payroll.

[tikhonj]

Big companies—and even established mid-sized companies—have the room and the motivation to hire people for long-term considerations. At that scale, some low % chance that a new hire will not do anything immediately is just part of the cost of doing business. If you're big enough that you can amortize costs like that, it's really not a big deal: if 1% of people took a whole year to get started and needed to be paid 300k, that's only $3k/employee, which is far, far lower than other up-front costs involved in hiring. $3k/employee/year is not a major cost for a benefit that people really value.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I prefer not to work for smaller companies.

[jagtstronaut]

I mean, if someone is trying to get pregnant, they don’t know if it will be tomorrow or in several years. Losing your leave because you moved companies and got pregnant at the same time would be a huge bummer.