to think that maternity leave is now so good, that job prospects for young women may be limited?

[stubbornhubby]

Don't get me wrong I am really in favour women being able to have good maternity deals, enabling a career and children... BUT has the pendulum so swung so far that smaller, ordinary firms find it difficult to afford it, and are they quietly trying to avoid hiring young women...

I worry that my DDs are actually going to find their career prospects harmed - - because increasingly only v large firms and govt jobs are going to be able to afford to employ them.

(retires now to get flamed as every man ever does who mentions maternity).

Ronaldhinio - yes absolutley. Look at it as a positive and use it as an opportunity.

name them poogles

maybe we need a list of woman friendly companies
perhaps we could make it been seen as important to woo and retain the best staff

Well yes Ronaldinhio that would be true IF all women wanted to return to their job after maternity leave. However the fact is that many women do choose to leave work, or change job, after they have children.

Therefore companies often have all the expense/disruption of maternity leave but without the benefit of getting to keep their core staff.

There is a balance to be struck and I do think that at the moment it is a tad unbalanced that an employer must keep the woman's job open for up to a year but the woman can choose not to come back at the end of that time (and doesn't have to give much notice of this).

i think that the training someone up is such a hassle and waste of time excuse is just that
an excuse

it keeps managers sharp
re-evaluates what we do, how and why
it helps streamline and innovate
it allows us to try employees with different personalities or skillsets than we might if we were taking a perm employee

you never hire with the expectation of never rehiring but getting and training some temp cover to retain an excellent staff member in the long term seems like a decent trade off

we need to move away from seeing mat leave as a burden
this sort of leave spell will increase in different forms as the population ages and we want to look after our edderly family before returning to work in a tradional sense
we must start to support not sideline

I work for Ford who tend to have 'best in country' policies that support employees.

The reasoning is that if you treat your employees well, they will want to stay. Our retention rates (male and female) are incredibly high.

I've never known anyone not to take their full maternity leave which means we are able to plan cover etc when women come back to work. Whilst I will agree that sometimes part-time work can cause a head ache, there was a reason that person was hired and we get to have their skills after they leave.

Almost all of our employees return to work after their maternity leave, many return full time.

We find that we attract the best women as well because they are aware that we are a company that respect a work life balance.

Maybe, if women had to pay back their maternity pay if they decided not to go back to work it woudl a) encourage them to return and b) be some recognition of the fact that in reality they left the firm on the day they went on maternity leave hence shoudl not have bene paid. If the firm kept the money instead of returning it to Govt it would be a kind of compensation for the disruption?

To be fair, I know several female friends who dragged put their maternity leave to a year and then promptly resigned and they knew they were probably going to do that from the start.

most women want to return in some capacity if they have a genuine opportunity in a supportive environment with a flexible caring employer

the way their maternity and pregnancy is treated will greatly affect this also how others are treated and general company attitude makes a huge difference

Personally, I wouldn't want to work for a company that held maternity pay over my head like an axe. Asking peole to pay back if they don't return will only make people feel 'forced' to return and they would probably go sick anyway.

Treating employees well tends to work well for us in retaining staff.

well when men have the option too, it won't be a problem will it

BeenBeta. You say that you know friends who have dragged their maternity leave to a year and then resigned. That is a bit of a negative attitude isn't it? You say it as if your friends are being deliberately awkward.

With ds1 I took a years maternity leave, I intended to return. I was expecting a substantial payrise which would have made it worthwhile to return I was informed 9 months into my maternity leave that I wouldn't be getting the payrise so I had to revaulate my options and I decided to resign.

I am currently on maternity leave with ds2 it is only a part time job that I took as a stop gap and the pay is very poor. If I go back I will only earn £3 a month after childcare so I don't intend to return. However I have kept my options open as there is threat of redundancies at dh's company, if he gets made redundant and is unemployed I will return to work and he can look after the boys. They know the score where I work they have recruited a maternity replacement for me, if I don't go back they will offer her a permanent contract it isn't that big a deal.

"Personally, I wouldn't want to work for a company that held maternity pay over my head like an axe. Asking peole to pay back if they don't return will only make people feel 'forced' to return and they would probably go sick anyway."

How is that an "axe"? Seems perfectly reasonable to me?

In the past my DH has had contracts where he has been on training courses with the agreement if he were to leave the company in the two years following the course he would have had to pay the cost of it back.

I see no difference with this. It's not a threat, just common sense.

Would you take sick pay back if someone decided to resign as they were to ill to work?

Besides, as dollshouse, says, situations can change and therefore those with the best of intentions to return might not be able to in the end!

I also think you don't know how you're going to feel as a mother and about going back to work until you are int he position so people sometimes genuinely don't know.

But wanted to add that we do (kind of) have to pay back maternity pay (everything above smp minimum) if we don't return for at least 3 months. If we go back for 1 month we pay back 2/3, 2 months we pay back 1/3. It's fine, you know that going in and can actually opt not to get the extra (non-statutory pay) during the leave if you think you might not return and then get a lump sum if you do return.

Hope that makes sense.

we have small business, employ approx 20 staff ,only 2 men.
We have to allow flexi time as most are mums with young children. Works fine for us , we try and help them and in return they work bloody hard when we need them to

With regards to your original post, no I don't think improved maternity leave limits job opportunities for women. Our Company improved maternity to attract them!

Stubborn - utter rot, that's all.

Bye Bye!

In my original country, the parental leave is 3 (yes, three) years. It only became available for both parents not so long ago, so generally the mothers will take it (even though it is becoming more and more common for dads to share, which is of course excellent). As only 1,5 years of it is paid according to your previous income, most people take about 2 years off. And you know, small businesses are doing just fine, everybody adapts and accepts that this is the way the things are - peole have kids and take time off.

Then again, the child care is affordable, schools have more reasonable hours, kids have more independence and parents mums are not expected to find a way to get to school gates in the middle of the day, therefore most women also return to work full time after the maternity leave.

So I think this is actually the main problem - as it is so expensive and complicated to work and take care of kids, many women decide to stay at home instead of trying to do it all. And many employers assume that they will do so. So this is the thing that harms women's career chances, not so much the exact lenght of the leave.

So yes, first the parental leave should definitely be availabe for both parents, it's ridiculous that it isn't. It will take some time before fathers start using it, even when available, so maybe even the solution like in some Scandinavian countries would be good (otherwise parents can share as they see fit, but some part of the leave is only for the father and if he does not want to take it, they will simply lose it. Paid leave, of course).

And second, the whole system is currently set up assuming the mother does not work or does so part time, this really needs to be changed if women want to be treated equally by employers. Please note that I'm not in any way suggesting that everybody has to work full time, but everybody should at least have this option available, so they can do wahtever is best in their particular situation. Which I don't really think is a case at the moment.

My company has a 'Return to work bonus' scheme, that gives a bonus every month for two years after you come back, to encourage women to return after maternity leave. I get £78 a month before tax, am not looking forward to it ending next April (though the number of people who've suggested that that's the time to get pregnant again makes me roll my eyes).

I got completely incensed when on mat leave at the disparity between mum's and dad's rights - it was the first time anyone had ever told DH and I that we had to organise our household a certain way merely because I was the woman and he was the man. The government should make it parental rights so the man has just as much an entitlement.

YANBU.

It also strikes me as somewhat ironic that the "loony left" campaigned for extended right to maternity leave - yet if receiving only SMP, only those with a wealthy partner, or those on benefits will be able to take the full year.

Discrimination against women of child bearing age is a fact, I have heard of businesses that avoid hiring them and I am sure it has held me back in my career.

It can be difficult to replace someone that is highly specialized, or who has built up good working relationships with your customers whilst they are away. Also, requests to work part time can be hard to cope with if the work isn't really amenable to part time working. Also, if your business is too small to have a HR department, you need to either hire someone with the expertise to handle this additional element or spend time trying to interpret the rules to make sure the business does nothing wrong. So yes, discrimination happens, not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to give you an idea of the thought processes behind why it happens.

I agree with Fluffles in principle that men should have more equal paternity rights but I just don't think many would take advantage of them. I know several male friends who failed to use their two weeks of paternity leave.

Realising my previous post sounds overly negative! I think what's needed is a culture change as ullainga implies.

Why on EARTH would a man not even se his 2 weeks paternity leave?? My DP has arranged with his boss to have his 2 weeks paternity leave, and they have agreed that when ever the baby is born, he can take 2 weeks of his paid holiday straight afterwards. So he will be at home with me for 4 weeks after the baby is born. It's not our first dc, either, it's DC4. WHy would a father not be looking forward to spending the first 2 weeks of his baby's life bonding with their new child and helping their partner out? DP would happily take time off to be with his new baby! It just so happens that I'm a SAHM, so he needs to go back to work after the 4 weeks for financial reasons.

"And then there's the pre and post maternity disruption - possible additional leave, dependants leave, etc etc. As others have said I can imagine that it makes long term planning a nightmare."

they should spread this more between both parents then shouldn't they.

I work for a small firm and was actually upfront with them before they hired me about the fact that I was planning to get pregnant (very specific circumstances, however). Their response was that as they were a growing company, they would hire someone permanently to take on my responsibilities while I was on leave, in the expectation that there would be enough work for two of us to do when I returned. And so it transpired.

Now that I've returned, I do 4 days a week - which reduces the cost to them, as they don't need to pay a full-time salary. If they had to replace me now, it would be a LOT more expensive as they wouldn't get someone with my skills and experience for the salary they pay me. I'm happy to be paid what I currently earn in return for the flexibility and supportive environment.

ullainga - I think you're spot on with your post. Fortunately, I have one day a week at home with DD, otherwise I don't now how we'd manage doctor's appts, etc. She's not at school yet, but I know from other posts on here what a juggling act it can be.

100% agree with posters who say that if statutory leave was parental rather than maternal, it would reduce some of the implicit discrimination that currently exists. I think there would still be some residual discrimination because some people will always assume that once a woman becomes a mother she will want to stay at home with her children.