Mumsnet Talk

I would think it does.

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

definitely yes

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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!

yes

yes.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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