> For instance, in Germany the woman's job position must be held open for her until she decides to return to work (possibly years later), not to mention the full salary compensation months before and after giving-birth, when she is no longer working.
The company will be reimbursed for the salary by the health insurance upon filling out a form. A company does not pay a single cent more than the cost of hiring another person for the position.
You actually want insurance for this because you don't want, for example, small businesses avoiding fertile women because they "already have too many pregnancies right now". If all the employees had kids simultaneously (an irrelevant random event), it shouldn't cause a bankruptcy.
In practice, people aren't typically so fungible, but the insurance at least hedges the salary portion of the risk.
> A company does not pay a single cent more than the cost of hiring another person for the position.
Losing someone with expertise/connections and onboarding someone new is a huge cost, though. Not just in the new person's salary, but in opportunity cost as that person slows down the people they work with in the process of getting up to speed.
Sure, but we are talking about 3.5 months (1.5 before birth, 2 after). In addition in the months before birth you are allowed to continue working if you wish so.
I'd argue most of the companies will be able to handle that. Especially since you have plenty of time to prepare.
Above is only the part which is different for men and women for obvious biological reasons. There is also a paternity system leave starting from 2 months after birth but this should ideally not discriminate either gender.
The company will be reimbursed for the salary by the health insurance upon filling out a form. A company does not pay a single cent more than the cost of hiring another person for the position.