Perfectly reasonable use of hard won rights?

[Ultrasoft]

We have six months paid maternity leave.

One member of staff has had/is having 3 children in 4 years.

She came back PT after the first pregnancy, worked a few months then asked to go FT, which was agreed, then promptly announced her next pregnancy, worked only 3 months FT before going on maternity leave. So, the main outcome of the change of hours was increase maternity pay.

During that leave she applied for a promotion. She was successful and we muddled through without anyone in post until she returned. At the time I was pleased the company showed the backbone to appoint the best candidate despite her not being available to work and please to see a woman/mother in the post, when it would have been easy to go for another, more available candidate. Again the main outcome of the promotion was increased maternity pay.

Now, two months after returning to the more senior role she has announced she's pregnant again.

So over the last 4 years she's either been on maternity leave, just getting back to normal after returning or preparing to go on leave again.

I know it makes sense for women to have some rights during pregnancy and early motherhood but I'm concerned that using them like this makes it more difficult for appointing managers to employ women of childbearing age.

I doubt the manager in the example would be keen to increase the hours or make the promotion for another woman in a similar situation, for example, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Shucks. How dare she get pregnant! Abusing the system or what . OR she really wants to have a career AND a family, something we are constantly told is possible.

I can't get worked up about this tbh. She made the best of the rights available- good for her.

Asking to go back to FT hours, knowing she would only do it for a few weeks?

Three maternity leaves, I agree is reasonable and important, but manipulating the system to get maximum benefits whilst off?

However my concern is that right or wrong, this kind of behaviour makes it harder for all the women who follow her and who might (or might not) have children.

Yes. It is a perfectly reasonable use of hard won rights. I did something similar.
You should be happy to work for a company that does not discriminate against pregnant women or mothers. Because such discrimination does still happen and accessing justice costs more money than the average worker has.

I guarantee the managers involved in these decisions won't make that mistake again, which is wrong but they won't.

Why is that her concern? We seem to have this notion that a man who behaves selfishly is just a man behaving selfishly, whereas a woman doing so is somehow betraying her entire sex by refusing to be a martyr.

That's my point really Plan. I am pleased or I was but I don't think it will be as readily available for the next mother. It really won't be me

No, it doesn’t make it “harder” for the women after her, she’s blazing a trail that makes it easier for the women after her to claim their rights.

She’s unlikely to have more kids so the company benefits long term from having the best person in post. The FT mat pay for what- 3 months is not going to break the bank long term. Look at the bigger picture.

To explain further on harder or easier. Whichever women push the boundaries are usually viewed as taking advantage of the system.

When I had my first DC over 20yrs ago, you could not apply for a promotion while pregnant much less on maternity leave. Well, you could theoretically, but you’d not even get interviewed. The discrimination was that overt. What can you do? Complain? And lose your job and maternity leave?
In addition, you were accused of taking advantage if you did not come back to work within 3 months of the birth. If you decided to take your full entitlement it was looked down on and you committed career suicide by doing so.
Today, it’s more accepted and that because of more and more women taking what they are entitled to and fighting the stigma.

If you’re looking at convenience, surely it’s better for an employer if a member of staff has their children close together as leave is typically taken in a block rather than with blocks of twoish years of employment between.

Where I work we have a very generous maternity policy (it was only by me challenging it that it now applies to parents, not just mums). The additional benefits are available twice for mums/dads, if you choose to have a third you obviouslt get the standard leave/payment entitlements.

Everyone will say it's fine - and obviously it's in the spirit of the law - but it is cynical and it would suck for a small employer.

Shit, I meant the letter of the law. I don't actually think it's in the spirit.

We need an edit function!

she has not done anything wrong.

She took the piss and has now made it harder for women who are following behind her. Either that or she has no idea how contraception works.

A small company or business can't sustain that type of employee, despite it being legal. Hopefully she can employ a nanny and do the job she applied for,

Got my tin hat on but I live in the real world of work!