I lost my job as a result of Fennel's situation - more childless people around willing to invest more time than I could possibly offer. I firmly believe that men need to have equal child-rearing rights as women and that these days more men would take advantage of it, so that it would be less of a women's issue and more of a parenting issue.

I have just been demoted by my employer whilst on maternity leave with my second child. I had previously negotiated part-time work on the same level as I was on full-time (a senior manager). Now there has been a change at the top and the new boss doesn't believe in part-time managers. Full stop. No attempt to try it or offer job share or anything. If I want to stay part-time when I go back (and I do) I have to lose all management responsibilities.
Oh, and he's also issued a moratorium on all new applications for people to go part-time as he thinks there are too many part-timers already. And this was mailed out to everyone on maternity leave. Nice.

is it because of maternity leave or the fact that some people want to choose to have a home life?? we all work to earn money and that money is to provide for ourselves and our families. what is the point if we don't see our families?
wanting to work flexi hours, part-time/jobshare is all hard to get and detrimental to careers. but work should be assessed hour by hour not by how many days in a week. I'm only part-time but i know i don't waste time chatting or larking around or sneaking off for fags but go in and get the job done. my colleagues do those things and are also unreliable and sickly. i am punctual, efficient and rarely off sick. now i have 2 children and i have to have some childcare for them then it is likely that at some point i will need to have some time off if they are ill but why does that make me less dedicated to my job than someone who gets drunk and doesn't show up or doesn't get on with the job or is just plain less efficient than me?
I was told about a career opportnity when iwas 1st pregnant in a ou'd be perfect but heres a ot of stayin aay which won't suit you now. yes they were right but that just proves the point. it does efect our careers but then as some others have said its also (up to a point) a choice that we make and i wouldn't want to spend less time with my kids.

I suppose it's not so much taking maternity leave as actually having children full stop.
Where I am it is virtually guaranteed to be the end of your career!

I work for a very large organisation in a skilled profession.

Taking mat leave is not usually a problem and a year isn't worse than 6 months really for your career.

What is a problem is if you want to work part time and/or fixed hours..if you need to leave the office at 5.30pm each day your career will suffer. You need to be at the beck and call of the organisation on a moment's notice. If you have a live in nanny this is the best choice for your career due to good flexibility - but this is not affordable for most as an option. Nursery is not too bad but once your kids go to school life becomes 10 times harder to coordinate!

And if you want to change employer and find a job with part time hours you will struggle to find one at all, and when you do you will crucify your hourly rate by at least 30%.

Exactly, Athene. It's just assumed everyone who works can afford to stay home. Not always true.

I was lucky in that my maternity leave was full whack for 16 weeks, and I was able to tack on a couple of weeks of holiday.

But then it was reduced and we just could NOT afford any reduction in pay at the time.

And not-so-low wage earners in todays market I think.

I had to chuck it in, too, Athene, because we really needed my income to pay the rent.

It's just a fact of life for many lower-wage earners.

Intersting point that breast feeding policy is in conflict with efforts to reduce descrimination in the work place.

I personally chucked in breastfeeding at 4 months after going to a meeting with leaky tits. Thank God we ewre in a training room and there was a computer screen in front of me.

Certainly there did come a point where breast feeding is not more important than my ability to feed the rest of the family.

you can predicr fairly close where it (pat leave) will be in most cases; you have to apply by week 25 iirc, giving details of when you plan to take it- unless a baby is born unusually early thats not a huge window; indeed dh gives far less notice for his annual leave

Having covered mat leave, had to deal with colleagues mat leave, and now about to go on mat leave myself, it's easier in my experience to arrange cover for a year because people are willing to be employed to do the job for that long. Not nearly as many people want a 4-6 month contract, which makes it harder for the employer to deal with.

I think it's hard for many employers to deal with paternity leave as it's two weeks (ie too short to get someone in to cover), but you can't predict when it will be, either, unlike staff holidays.

Apparently in the Netherlands all parents have the right to work a 4-day week. Would be fascinating to see the same here. I know not all jobs can be totally flexible, but I see so many people asking for reasonable accommodation (usually on disability grounds) and employers just saying no rather than trying it.

Not at all rebelmum, and I get very angry very often about 'how' the government spends my money, BUT even with the coruption it would be a lot more expensive per person to individually buy into many of the services that are provided by the government.

Look what happened in the housing market. People had access to more money, so all the house prices increased. Childcare: - Gov provided childcare voucher scheme, all childcare places put their prices up.

The tax thing would only benefit you if everyone else paid tax, but you didn't iyswim.

MrsSparkle I do accept that self-employed are a special case. However, I'm assuming your DH does take time off from work occassionally, so paternity leave is NOT impossible. Perhaps the gov could help out in certain ways though!

"I think the gov should make 2 weeks paternity leave compulsory, since they now chuck the women out of hospital sore, anaemic with a 24 hour job."

My dp is self-employed so he couldn't take peternity leave, even if it were compulsory.

It's 'not giving people more disposable income' it's NOT stealing their hard earned cash in the first place. Do you really think the Government is a better custodian of your wealth than you?

We should be breast feeding for a lot longer than 6 months, I personally did not want to leave my child after 6 months and took unpaid leave for a year. I know all women don't feel the same but I couldn't leave my child at such a vulnerable age.

rebelmum1: Giving people more disposable income will only increase inflation. The standard of living could be exactly the same therefore, but without bin men!

i would love it if my childcare costs were tax deductible
oh and my mortgate too
alas, i think this is not to be....

agree with dadada- i wouldn#t want dh to take mat leave but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available to others

flexible working is the one thing that helped dh stay in his current role after boys were dx'd (it is available to older children with sn). if it helps those with carer roles remain in the workforce thats good I think

This Gov should stop taxing us so heavily more like and keep the costs of living down. Fuel duty, car tax, council tax, vat, stamp duty, every single penny that passes through your hand is taxed. Most of which is wasted or pays for pointless bureaucrats or worse stolen by crooked politicians. Bit radical I know but I'd like to choose how I spend my own money.

I think the gov should make 2 weeks paternity leave compulsory, since they now chuck the women out of hospital sore, anaemic with a 24 hour job.

It would help with recovery AND with establishing bfing, but most Dads feel they can't take the time off and many employers still expect the Dad to be available via phone and email even if they do take the time off.

"I think that both parents sharing the leave is missing the point especially if you are breastfeeding."

What are the current statistics for exclusive breastfeeding after 6 months though? I know how controversial a question that sounds, but I'm not being provocative. Sharing parental leave might not be necessary for you, or in an ideal world where most babies are breastfed until 12 months plus, but for a lot of families it could be useful in the latter part of the first year.

I genuinely think that if employers expected fathers to take an equal share of emergency parental leave and demand flexible working hours to the same extent as mothers, then it would benefit working mothers by levelling the playing field.

The gov should limit working hours. IMO is someone is working 60 hour weeks their company should employ 2 people to do their work.

This country is doing really badly on the happiness scale and this is in part due to working hours and people feeling trapped into them!

'But then I must be in the minority of women who don't want to work at this time in my life but simply have to because of the high cost of living. '

i dont think its a minority, its quite common RM

certainly was for me with ds1 and ds2 when shorter mat leave meant returning at 9 eks

it depends on the job i guess

but i've heard a few people using it (not on mn) as an excuse for restricting mat leave when it clearly isn't, individual woman need the option to weigh up mat leave with likely effect on their carrer (and other options such as part time work) and reach their own answers for their own circumstances

Well I have taken conference calls in my outside loo, in the car with my dd infront of the TV, taken 6 months off when my dd was critically ill, dropped my colleages in it time again, get in really early forgetting to dress properly because I'm so tired and am in the most part clinging by my fingertips, I have even come accross colleagues in meeting rooms within 3 months of giving birth expressing their milk! But then I must be in the minority of women who don't want to work at this time in my life but simply have to because of the high cost of living.

i think the obvious thing here is depending on the employer
i worked for a big bank with my two DCs and took 6 mos maternity leave for both of them (the bank paid salary in full for 6 months). i knew i was going back to work so had a quiet word with the people i normally deal with and said that if they were stuck on anything, feel free to call me at home - though obviously bearing in mind my ability to help might be constrained by what's going on at home with a little one. a couple of the guys in the team did call me now and again -- whenever there was a major thing happening and they wanted to get my take on it (the person filling in for me would take twice as long and probably do it inaccurately anyway) -- i seriously didn't mind doing this (though i always teased them i could get HR to pay me millions). To be honest, it boiled down to my working relationships with these men and they trusted me enough to know that they can ask me for help without suing them the next minute.
Anyway, that whole team of people i used i deal with on a day to day basis in the bank was poached en masse during my 2nd maternity leave and i was the first person they recommended to the new bank they were going to work for -- and i am now working here with them.
It is very tricky because i didn't want them to take advantage but at the same time it didn't make sense to be completely incommunicado just because i had a baby - a 10 minute conversation every 3-4 weeks was no real trouble for me and they viewed as immensely helpful. I don't have the answers in terms of the best "one size fits all" policy that could help all mothers/fathers in general though.

I think that both parents sharing the leave is missing the point especially if you are breastfeeding.

Surely though with these rules in place, employers are just going to be put off employing women of a certain 'child baring' age?

But it would not be within the law though if they don't give justifiable reason? It is my understanding that the Flexible Working Agreement means that new parents returning to work are entitled to this consideration.

I might have that completely wrong, but whether or not they should or should not have to give a good reason. They do, and this Agreement is, or should be understood by the employer on giving a person who is of an age to parent a child (mother or father can request flexible working) a job and therefore is a condition of employment by default. Surely? In the same way a woman is entitled to maternity leave, even though she has been employed to a job with x days leave, should she have a baby, the employer has to allow more time off than she was employed for, and for that period of time, will be unable to do that job.

And in reality flexible working can enhance a role rather than hinder it. For example, my work needs people to cover evening work, and struggles to fill the work that needs doing. I needed on whole day off, which was quiet in terms of workload. It was more cost effective use of my time to allow me to work compacted hours that covered the evening work which was problematic to cover and give me the day off that I needed. My work is more productive as a result, I am happier as a member of staff and my boss is happier as she gets her team running efficiently.

I think Pavlovthecat has said something really significant. Women often downgrade their careers when they have children. It is less important to them and they don't go the extra mile. So progress is limited but it's not entirely the company's attitude.

But the employer shouldn't have to give a good reason. That person has been employed to do a job, a job that the employee accepted apon the interview so the employer shouldn't have to justify a decision providing it's within the law.

My understanding of Flexible Working is that you had the right to request, and the employer has to take it seriously and give you a justifiable reason if it cannot be accommodated. It is my understanding that they can't just say no because they dont feel like it. They have to be able to evidence that it is not practically/economically viable to allow it, that the business would suffer as a consequence of the flexible working hours requested.

My boss was great. It was not possible to accommodate my request fully as I asked, so we sat down and worked out a compromise, with the view that, although I was only allowed one formal request for change of hours per year, if either of us felt it was not working, we would revisit it again unofficially until the next year. I have not needed and it has worked out to be far more flexible in reality than on paper.

But I know that has a lot to do with the nature of my work, the team and employer I work for.

It definitely damages you round here!

"But if you have three babies during your time with an employer then of course it follows that it would take you three years longer to progress"

which I agree is as it should be, so you pick up where you left off each time. I am not sure I'd expect to have advanced three years while being out of the work environment for that time. But at my place of work, even first babies put you out the running for promotion and part time = backwater unless you get there before babies (or get pregnant while promotion process is going on so you can shout "sexism" if they then do not promote you - a tactic I have noticed). A year off - even six months - when you are trying to retain clients and compete with men who by definition don't get long leave pretty much scuppers you.

But they wouldn't have to if they had a good reason why it wouldn't work. I do think a lot of employers just think "No" to anything different or non-orthodox, when it might actually work fine.

Not the length of time before you return on its own.

What can be damaging is if that return sees you move to a different department, different responsibilities - have to build up on new skills again and it can some time, so can slow it down.

Returning on less hours can also slow down the promotional opportunities - less projects, less hours to network, less time to prove yourself.

However, I found the biggest hinderance was my own attitude. Before I became pg, by career was flourishing. Now its just sort of stagnant. But, when I was childless, I was prepared to but in more hours, travel further/stay overnight for more training courses, volunteer to be involved in more projects, get myself known out there. Coupled with a return to a new team, i am just not in the same place as I was before, less interested in moving up right now. If, and when I am ready to return to the career element of my work, I am sure any new maternity leave I will take wont damage it too much.

Many of my colleagues are female of a similar age to me.

I don't think the employer should have to give flexible working hours/part time. These things work fine for a big company but not for smaller businesses. It is of coarse, the persons choice to have children so they should adapt themselves accordingly.

Is that really right nkf? I thought you had the right to ask for flexible working/part-time hours, but they don't have to give it to you.

I work in banking in the City and I can say that my company were brilliant. They give an excellent incentive for returning to work (125% of salary for 4 months) and I don't think my career had suffered from a 1 year leave. Of course, I was starting from where I left off with some catch up training thrown in but in essence, I felt that I was taken just as seriously and never thought that promotion was out of my reach.
Its different now when I returned part time after 2nd child but I still feel valued which is more important to me than further progression.

I am a computer programmer and things moved on (new language, new product, years of new skills for the team) while I was away on 2 back to back leave periods and its been unbelievably hard.

Being discussed on the Jezza Vine show (or whoever it is today) now, Radio 2

Last time (took 9 months) I think it actually benefited me in that no one covering my work did it as well as me and also they all pissed off the Nightmare Fussy Client who liked me, so I was far more appreciated when I went back . This time, if I go back, it will be to a different role at a different client and I don't think it will make any real difference one way or the other.

of course it does.

Anyone who takes 1/2/3 years out to have babies can't possibly expect to progress in their career in the same time as someone who has been in the office consistently for that period.

There are two issues. Someone who leaves a job to have a baby should have the right to come back to that job when they return to work. After all it is by definition "leave" which indicates an intention to return.

But if you have three babies during your time with an employer then of course it follows that it would take you three years longer to progress. After all that's how long you have been out of the work place, so why should you progress at the same rate as someone who hasn't had that length of time off?

The government only pays the statutory bit. And flexi work is your right and the onus is on employers to prove you can't do the job that way.

Nicola Brewer has started speaking at the meeting to launch the Home Front debate. I've passed on your comments so far and will be feeding in the comments made on the Home Front threads on Mumsnet here

Please come and join us. I will try to feed back comments from the speakers at the meeting.

So good maternity pay, and the costs of filling the post, should be paid for by the govt so that it makes little difference to the employer themselves.

And working from home, flexible working etc. should be everyone's right unless the employer can prove the job can't be done that way.

Snopw leopard - many companies do choose to offer higher maternity pay and thats greta for the indiviual but then of course they do have to fund it.

It was difficult for my employer when I had maternity leave as I'm the finance director of a small company. Interim finance Director cost an arm and a lef and they couldn;t possibly have afforded it. In the end, I didn;t take laods of time, I worked from home a bitand my number two did a great job (we gave him a bonus) with me on the end of the phone.

It is difficult to get cover particularly for specialised or more senior roles.

On the upside they have been very flexible since I got back and let me leave 30 mins early wihtout reducing my pay - so it works both ways.

Snopw leopard - many companies do choose to offer higher maternity pay and thats greta for the indiviual but then of course they do have to fund it.

It was difficult for my employer when I had maternity leave as I'm the finance director of a small company. Interim finance Director cost an arm and a lef and they couldn;t possibly have afforded it. In the end, I didn;t take laods of time, I worked from home a bitand my number two did a great job (we gave him a bonus) with me on the end of the phone.

It is difficult to get cover particularly for specialised or more senior roles.

On the upside they have been very flexible since I got back and let me leave 30 mins early wihtout reducing my pay - so it works both ways.

Yes, they do. Of course they do. And the person doing fewer hours (nearly always a woman) is less likely to be promoted. That's what's meant by damaging a career.

Having never worked in an office environment myself, i could be wrong but i would have thought that someone putting in a 50-60 hour week and doing alot more work would be more likely to get a promotion than a working parent who is only putting in a 30-35 hour week and doing alot less work?

Some jobs do require long hours though. And sometimes people have to stay late unexpectedly. And that is often the people without children. Or the ones with very flexible childcare. And, of course, the ones who are prepared to go home late and not see their children that evening. I agree that there is a macho culture in some workplaces of who can stay latest and it's not the same as poductivity.

I think the boss who insisted on everyone sticking to their hours and taking all their holidays was enlightened and I'm glad it worked out for his organisation.

Hi - I'm Mary-Ann and I'm working with Mumsnet and Dad Info (www.dad.info) on an on-line consultation on these issues. Mumsnet has started a new topic in talk

here

Nicola Brewer from the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be speaking this lunchtime at a meeting with Justine from Mumsnet and Duncan Fisher from Dad Info. If you want to ask questions or respond to points raised please go to the talk topic and I will do my best to feed your views into the meeting (and type in answers as they come)

ahem benefits

Exactly lala. There is a very daft attitude in the UK that working long hours/staying late makes you a better employee. I heard an interview with a company director once who had decided to ditch this. All their staff had to work only the set hours and take all their breaks and holidays. Their productivity shot up. Employers would do far more to boost their productivity by working on their benifits, flexiility, staff morale and making life easier for the best people, even if they are women.

Not sure that it damages your career per se, but its very, very difficult - because its not possible to get maternity leave cover. In fact we struggle to recruit full time staff, so when women in my group have been on mat leave work either has to go onto the rest of the group, or wait for them to come back. So no-one has had a year off as they couldn't face it.

The people in my job who are working 60 hour weeks are producing more than the ones working 30 or 40 hour weeks. On average.

What Filly said about it being less about the period of leave and more about trying to work while juggling a family afterwards ( need flexibility/PT/carers leave/unabel to do late nights without a months notice etc etc etc)

If the government funds it, why is it so hard for employers?

But most jobs don't require 50-60 hour weeks. IMO, most jobs can be done on a part-time basis if you work efficiently. Companies should be looking at output not hours spent looking busy.

Maternity leave is very difficult when you only have a small business. I feel the laws were designed well for larger companies but not really practical for smaller traders.

any maternity leave damages careers around here. Long maternity leave would more or less terminate it ... Them's the breaks.

I think the part time option does more damage. But then as Fennel says it's unrealistic to pay people who do 59 hour weeks the same as people who do 35. If long hours are what's required. There is a lot of dead time in offices.

The Government does fund substanitlaly all maternity pay (90% of mine was paid) snow leopard. unless your employer gives more than the statutory minimum (which mine doesn't.

Definitely. My (ex-)company refused to interview me for different jobs after my first baby and made me redundant when I was on maternity leave with second. Before anyone starts up, I had always done a really good job and was seen as a shoo-in for promotion prior to having my children. Don't regret taking long leaves though .

One of my feminist colleagues argues that you can't actually make it so that people who do less work are rewarded as much as those who invest everything in their job. My job has many people who don't have children and who work 50-60 hour weeks or more. And in the end they are going to progress further in their careers on average than those who slack about doing a 35 hour week and going home to the kids.

I think that women sometimes have to look beyond legislation when they decide how long to stay home on maternity leave. Just because you can't prove you were held back because of your long maternity leave, or maybe excessive number of maternity leaves, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I think that only when men can take off with the same perks will it then become socially acceptable for them to do so. And only when they start taking it will women start getting treated equally. This will take years, probably a couple of generations. IT won't go away when they make laws forbidding these bigotted views -- which of course we already have.

My job doesn't discriminate against people taking long leaves. Except, in the end, you succeed if you work harder and do more. So every leave, or period of part time working, or period of not working quite as hard, is going to have a cumulative effect on career progression.

I know loads of people who say when they went back to work after maternity leave they had reduced responsibilities and were sidelined. Some of them don't even seem to mind! One's attitude is "Oh well, might as well have a bigger career break then". She regards it as if she basically deserves it.

I don't know exactly how it works now, but I think the solutions are to give both parents equal amounts of leave, and to make it so that it costs the employer nothing whatsoever - the government should fund all maternity pay.

Another point is that employers may discriminate, but it will cost them in the end. If you write off - and think it is OK to write off - all women of childbearing age, and not give them jobs, one day you will wake up to realise your staff are mediocre. Because you are discounting half of the best people, and that leaves you half as many well-trained/hardworking/responsible/bright people to choose from. Enlightened employers will eventually do better out of setting up great maternity provision and flexible hours, and employing women when they are the best for the job.

I don't suffer this, because I'm freelance and don't have a boss and work at home. I can pick up where I left off after maternity leave because people want my services and I can organise my own flexible hours. I miss out on benefits, but I think overall it's a far better situation to be in. I never have to justify myself, or deal with resentful boss/colleagues because DS is ill, or have anyone see me in an emotional fluster or exhausted when I'm pg and start doubting my abilities or making life hard for me. I would recommend any young woman who wants to have children to start developing a freelance career.

yes.

yes

taking a year has definately knackered my career prospects atm. As this was my third child I thought it wouldn't make any odds, a year was a nice even time to plan for etc etc. I don't regret taking the leave - but it was very much a case of out of sight, out of mind - and now out of pocket too!

i got made redundant when i returned to my old job after 6 months maternity leave - only one to get made redundant

i hope i will fare better in my current job if and when i have another baby

i do work in the voluntary sector which is, i think, more women friendly and more felxible than others (except for my last job!)

i think Edam has hit the nail on the head ...

There was some resaerch a few years ago that found that in the UK and the US (where maternity leave + right to flexible working were less generous) suggesting a big gap in earnings between mothers and other women. In Scandanavia (and other countries with more generous arrangement) there is a smaller gap in pay between mothers and other women but a larger gap between women + men.

If you're considering measuring how detrimental things are to career, say by lookkng at the gender pay gap, then the countries with a longer maternity leave, and with more options for part time working, also have a larger gender pay gap than the countries where women have short leaves and tend to work full time after their leave.

In the countries where men are given the option to take some of the leave, women still mostly take most of the leave.

It's one of those things, you can't easily legislate against. The more flexibility and long leaves on offer for motherood/parenthood, the more women's careers are going to suffer because many women do take the time off when they can

Agree with edam - Couldn't believe Ms Brewer was saying the amount of leave was the problem. It's the ATTITUDE that is the problem. Besides, I can't see much difference between a year and the current 9 months. Many people can't afford to live on SMP anyway.

I thought mine did damage to my status within the organisation. A good part or my pre maternity role was resdistibuted and I didn't get it back when I came back even though I returned on the same money etc. I was told things have moved on and I wasn't there when they did. I was the only woman to ever return to full time work after maternity leave in my organisation.

However now I am being used as the token woman who has children to deal with and a career and I was promoted and some PR went out about it. That actually annoys me more since it is now seen that I didn't get it on merit but because of some PC thinking. I am happy to take the money and play them for what its worth

It is interesting that by giving women maternity leave it enforces further the idea that women should be the primary caregivers. Scandinavian countries offer leave for both parents. That makes me happier.

IME maternity leave DID make a difference to career prospects and in some way seemed to reflect on how 'committed' I was to the job.

Edam said "I think it's very worrying that the head of the Equalities Commission is attacking maternity leave rather than sexist dinosaurs. Her time would be better spent persuading the dinosaurs that they are wrong. And, perhaps, asking the government to make the second six months transferable between parents - so either the father or mother could claim that period." - quite agree, well said.

I can't see how 1 year is worse than 6 months TBH. My DH has his own restaurant and if someone took a year off it is a lot easier to cover than, say, 3 months.

I think alot of employers avoided women between 28-40 years old even before maternity leave was extended. Then ageism kicks in - lucky us, eh?

I think the point is seeing maternity and paternity with equal responsibility and have the conditions to facilitate that.

there is no doubt in my mind that the mere fact of being a woman damages your prospects long term anyway and doing 'woman things' like having babies (apparently achieved in a vacuum) has consequences.

I guess it is about thinking what is important to you and how you can balance it

oh yawn at article

well then, change/strengthen the law to that employers can't so easily discriminate

cos right now its a piece of piss, tbh.

I think leave should be fully transferable bw partners but am not sure how much effect that would have. Men often don't even take the statutory 2 weeks after the birth ime. At dp's work they have 3 weeks fully paid, aside from him pretty much NO ONE takes it

Not at my old company (although I did get made redundant but so was my whole department). Plenty of women who have been on maternity leave came back and got senior positions. Although the old boss was heavily involved in Women's Lib in the 70s - I hear the new boss is rather anti-women, so maybe that has changed.

I think it's very worrying that the head of the Equalities Commission is attacking maternity leave rather than sexist dinosaurs. Her time would be better spent persuading the dinosaurs that they are wrong. And, perhaps, asking the government to make the second six months transferable between parents - so either the father or mother could claim that period.

no damage is not the word,

depends how long though and how many and what your job is. A year would be fine for a lot of people, I suspect

actually though the maternity leave ISN'T the problem as such for a lot of women, imo, its the need for flexibilty/ pt hours sfterwards

definitely yes

I would think it does.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7504637.stm