To think maternity leave should be capped at 6 months to protect small businesses?

You allow the mother to choose what's best for her and her child and then you, as a small business owner, make arrangements for your business.

(I have been a small business owner.)

I will say though much as I think maternity is needed too many companies don’t properly cover it. In a number of our teams they just shrug and expect other staff to cover despite not having enough people before staff go on parental leave.

We were having a conversation at work last week where we were saying that employee protections have rightly been brought in to protect employees from dodgy employers, but your point just proves what I also said in that it doesn't actually stop them!

Bigger employers can effectively do what they want by paying people off and the dodgy employers just get rid of who they want and deal with any consequences later.

Being a good, honest employer is really hard because we follow the rules, but it then ends up being really difficult to get rid of a poor performing employee that you know the dodgy employer would just chuck out the door.

That said, your previous employer obviously got his comeuppance, though it's a shame for your former colleagues that it came to that point.

I agree but would also extend this to SSP which I would make equivalent to SMP, as it is currently significantly lower.

What are you actually suggesting/asking OP? Your original AIBU was should we cap maternity leave at 6 months. You then suggest maternity leave shouldn't be capped, but that pay should be capped. You've backtacked further stating that you are not suggesting that mother's should be forced back to work after 6 months at all, but questioning whether there should be more structural support for small businesses.

As other posters have pointed out, small businesses are already entitled to reimbursement of matenity pay, and shared parental leave exists. Your complaint is about business disruption, however it's not the states' nor the employee's job to manage your organisational structure - recruitment/reorganisational, training and managing workload is entirely the responsibility of the business owners/management team.

There are already many options available to you to cover maternity leave - fixed term contracts, agency staff, secondments, stepping up. It really isn't clear what further 'support' could be offered that doesn't water down women's maternity rights.

Should smalls businesses be exempt from allowing time off for long term sickness as well?

I agree that if your business isn’t sustainable enough to employ people legally than it isn’t one worth having. If you can’t afford to give your PAYE employees their legal rights then hire people as contractors as you need them. Then maybe you’ll find that this works out more expensive, you don’t have the loyalty and the quality of people isn’t as good as it isn’t as attractive a role.

OP is getting trouble because she's completely ignored people pointing out the issues her proposals would cause for small businesses and not engaged with any of the other ideas people have proposed.

Fuck no.

I was off April 2016 to July 2017. I had the best time.

The thing is, any member of staff could leave for any reason. They could get a new job, move away, go on long-term sick leave, get hit by a bus. Any business which is relying on having no staff turnover is skating on thin ice. If the roles are so specialised, they need to plan for this proactively, not act blindsided when it happens. At least with mat leave there's plenty of warning, and you get your employee back at the end of it.

I would also add - is it actually a problem? Compared to the alternatives, which could be more women simply not coming back to work (and the employer has to find someone new)? Given that women have babies, and that women are half the population, pregnancy will always affect business one way or another.

I there any set of legal rights the state could grant workers that you feel would be too onerous for businesses?

I don't know why you are getting so much trouble, OP, because while I don't think the answer is cutting maternity leaves, I also think that in some small businesses it can be a really serious problem. It's not crazy to notice it's a problem.

In some cases it works fine, there isn't a serious issue finding people to fill the place, they have the skills needed, and sometimes it can be a good chance for the employee to gain some skills or experience without a commitment on either side.

But in some businesses, particularly ones that require an unusual skill set, or a lot of continuity, and especially if the profit margins are also tight, it's an issue.

https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay

She can check eligibility there. I think it's a great thing and a shame so few couples use it. I honestly think it was one of the most important factors in making us genuinely equal parents.

I say the same to this as I say to business owners who "can't afford" to pay minimum wage.

If your business is only sustainable by reducing worker's legal rights, then it isn't sustainable. Best wind it up and try again with a better business model. The issue is the lack of profit of the company, not workers exercising their legal rights.

I've heard so many people use the "small businesses' card, and yet miraculously dp and the numerous other small business owners I know manage to treat staff decently and still survive.

That's actually very interesting. I think my daughter might like to know that as she's chomping at the bit to return to work and her husband is lower paid.

Actually, sorry, it could be 50 weeks off, for 37 of which the man would get pay. With shared leave you share what would be the maternity leave (39 weeks statutory pay, 52 weeks leave) between the couple as you like, except the woman has to have the first two weeks. Very few people do split it so the man does 50 weeks, but it's possible. When we did shared parental leave I had 6 months and then DH had 4. I don't think his employer was absolutely delighted, but so it goes!

I don't have kids but our union is currently campaigning for 52weeks paid maternity and I fully support it!

I would argue that the temp should be there at least a month before the woman goes off on maternity leave leave and then a month after they return to work for handovers. Due to restructures in my company and my daughter being hospitalised continuously my cover stayed on for an additional 4 months.

You say it’s to give choice, but let’s face it women will forced to come back at 6 months because they won’t be getting paid anymore or they’ll feel their job won’t be there when they return.

All this will do is increase PPD, reduce breastfeeding rates, increase the gender pay gap and increase the amount of women who choose not to work until their child goes to school.

Yes, so the 2025 updated version is employers wanting to avoid parental leave have to only employ post menopausal women now!

They're made redundant.

That's jumped up a lot. From 2 weeks up to 37

Out of interest what would happen if a mother ( before birth) says they want to take the full 12 months then once the baby is born hates being at home and wants to return after 4 months? What do you do with the cover person?

With shared parental leave it could potentially be 37 weeks.

When I had my first I was only eligible for 12weeks maternity leave. I decided to leave my job rather than leave my baby. You might find many other mums who work in a job rather than a career make the same decision if maternity leave was reduced. We should be encouraging parents to be home longer not less with little babies.

It's not a year though is it? Wasn't any with my eldest 2 and a fortnight with the 3rd. What is it now?

@Gogogo12345yes, it’s difficult. I’ve known a teacher who had 3 successive mat leaves, all a year long, only returning for a matter of months between them. It meant a permanent teacher couldn’t be appointed for the whole of that period - years! And obviously although temporary staff can be found, it’s a less attractive post so the pool of applicants isn’t necessarily as good. Eg: someone wanting a mortgage is less likely to accept a temporary position.

of course; the teacher was within her rights to take 3 year long mat leaves in close succession but it’s nuts to pretend it doesn’t have an impact or that its somehow the employer’s fault for not managing things well enough