You are misunderstanding what the 5 years is: it’s a protection against being fired. You know as retaliation against actually having priorities that trump your employers emergency-through-incompetence-while-planning.

The actual leave time is typically around a year. Which is roughly where you can give children over without them crying. But yeah the workload of that parent will have to be picked up by additional staff

For one thing, most companies have hard time keeping employees working for them so this 'we have hired too many good workers and now we have to get rid of them' does not happen nearly as often. As others have pointed out, it's not a 5 year leave. Assuming it one to two years and assuming you simply cannot afford to have more people on payroll it's completely OK to hire somebody specifically for a year or two. Not all work contracts are indefinite.

I have no kids, don't plan on having any but it's kind of crazy how 'hail corporate' some cultures are. We're humans after all. Let people spend some time with their newborns instead of forcing them to make more money for somebody 3 weeks after giving birth.

Not five years of leave. Five years of protection that one wont be fired due to having taken leave is the way I read it.

Also in the system I work under, all employees pay a government tax that is used to pay for the parental leave. That is, the money isn't coming out of the companies pocket, but coming out of a national bucket designated for the purpose. The company pays nothing when the employee is taking this time.

What you suggest is not a good government policy in my opinion. A government wants educated people to not be scared to have kids. Leaving a job to be at home a few months and look a for a new job after is extremely stressful and risky, and it can destroy a career.

And long parental leaves are just normal and common in some countries. A medium to large company has no issues dealing with them. It’s part of the management work to deal with that.

Moreover it’s better for a company that their employees don’t leave.

> Companies are not charities created to employ people.

And employees are not charities for their employers! If you can't afford the staff needed for a given task, perhaps you should pivot to something else.

if the companies are unhappy with those terms then they're free to go elsewhere. under those terms companies hire people, so your assessment that such terms must break companies is clearly wrong.

>Companies are not charities created to employ people.

And employees aren't charities required to do things unpaid because there isn't the budget.

It works both ways

> What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that?

Its the workforce who votes for those laws. The workforce in Europe are not propagandized fools to the extent that they vote against their interests.

> Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,.

And is for things like this that libertarians shouldn't make laws

> Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years.

slavery ended thousands years ago