Plans to allow small firms to negotiate parental (maternity) leave

I can't imagine this making it past Europe tbh. all our maternity leave allowances have been Europe driven - without Europe we'd be more like the US - use up your holiday allowance then beg and borrow your colleagues holiday allowances then go back to work

Sardine, though maybe that is true for these tiny companies, but larger firms - it is in their self-interest to be more inclusive. Hence big employers can cope with parental leave, but also cope with sabbaticals for long term employees, and some also (e.g. my employer ) have a positive discrimation policy with regards to recruitment of minorities and SNs employees amongst others. I got accepted on their "Diversity" project for being English!

I think in reality you need slightly different rules for different size companies. For example, Joe Bloggs the local baker might struggle if they are forced to employ a quota of one person of child bearing age, one ethnic minority and someone with a disability. Your local Tesco, on the other hand, could do this relatively easily.

It's not always about the moral judgement, because companies won't exist if they don't make money. The rules NEED to exist to protect vulnerable people and to ensure equal opportunity - but you need to choose where to fight your battles IFYSWIM.

I can only find reference in the OP article and The Torygraph isn't what I would usually consider reliable.

Sorry, ignore my last - just seen there was a link in OP !

It also said:

"Furthermore, under changes to take effect in April, if a mother returns to work without taking a full year?s maternity leave then the father will be able to take the remaining time, up to a maximum of six months ? another moved opposed by most business leaders."

So a mixed bag of proposals, and no detail yet on what parameters there might be on individual negotiation. Hmmmm. One to watch.

There's one in the OP. It was also on the Today programme this am.

Does anyone have a link to show that this is a serious part of Goverment thinking?

Thanks

Orange - you think you're joking but I saw a comment is response to this article that started 'you see this is what happens when you give women the vote'.

Let's just regress 30 years. They'll say they want to take the vote off us next.

Then tackle that problem. State sanctioned discrimination against women does not remove discrimination against women.

I think the idea of the legislation is to allow women to access employment equally- the argument is that they are currently being discriminated against by small employers who won't take a chance on them because they may fall pg.

Women losing their jobs when they fall pregnant and not having any entitlement to maternity pay will be a huge step backwards, won't it?

I understand that small businesses find this hard.

There is a question though of what is more valuable in society - women being able to access employment equally, and not be penalised for their child bearing capacity - as when they are penalised this can have a negative effect on them and their children and thus can cost the government money and cause other problems. Or is it more valuable that businesses are given an easy a time of it as possible.

It's society vs money, basically, isn't it. Money wins.

The problem small businesses have is that 1 person can be 1/3 of your workforce. Someone who is highly skilled, and highly knowledgeable in what your business do isn't going to be that easy to replace. Plus recruitment is costly.

How are the government going to police the compensation that they pay to employers I wonder. How does it happen at the moment. it's going to be terribly complicated if they're all paying different amounts for different time periods. Could be fiendish for the employers to provide the evidence etc.

While I don't necessarily agree with what I am about to say, it could be argued that a small company could openly negotiate with a woman who they otherwise wouldn't employ. So at interview they could say "we are offering 6 months maternity leave" and she might not want any more anyway and the company removes the risk and she can take the job. Admittedly this is based on the idea that they are just discriminating in the first place which isn't acceptable. They will of course have to balance their offering with their ability to attract decent candidates.

This is a policy that the UKIP bloke got challenged on when he came on - and now it's going to happen? WTF?

Surely these rules are at european level - maternity leave and pay minimums are in there? I don't know I admit but that's what I always thought.

The way they say paternity leave and maternity leave as if this impacts men as well - what firm is going to begrudge 2 weeks paternity leave? Not many. How many are going to want to pay any mat pay or give any leave? Not many. Pregnant = you're out from what they've said in that article.

I can understand the difficulties for small firms though - without saying this is the answer. You employ someone, maybe with specialist skills, after a complicated recruitment process. A few months later they announce they are taking parental leave. You have to hold their job open but might not be able to find someone suitable who is happy with a temporary role....

Fucking unbelievable. That has made me so angry.

SMP doesn't even costvthe employer, so it's another state benefit withdrawn under the guise of 'cutting red tape' for business.

And surely you can sack anyone if you have genuine, nonpPG related reasons for doing so?

Surely that does not apply to temporary workers?

If the replacement for maternity cover becomes pg whilst in your employment, you are not allowed to sack her, you have to keep her in the role. It could be an awkward situation if your original employee, her maternity cover, and possibly her maternity cover are all still employed- where does that leave a business that only usually has 4 employees? (theoretical question obviously)

We're all in this together remember ladies...

I'm sure Sam Cam will be suffering along with the rest of us.

i.e. small companies aren't suffering the cost of SMP at the moment so really what are they hoping to actually gain - just the possibility that women won't leave?