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).

loudlass - paternity leave is only paid at (I think) £123 a week, which is a lot less than most men would be paid if they just took the time off as holiday. Most households can't afford this if the woman is only on SMP as well. Officially reported figures are only for those who claim state paternity pay, but the reality is probably that lots of fathers take paid holiday instead of formal pat leave.

Agree Treats. And there's the fact that in many high pressure jobs (eg City finance/law) you are often expected to put your job before your family - and this applies particularly to men. Attitudes need to change.

I've heard many small business owners state that they won't hire women because they may get pregnant. It does exist but who knows how widespread it is.

I can understand some of the frustration, we've had instances where the person hired to cover someone's maternity leave has themselves gone on maternity leave 5 months into a 9 month post

minipie - you've reminded me of something else I was going to say - I think the type of job you do is hugely relevant in how likely you are to be discriminated against or be able to negotiate flexible working. As a finance manager, I don't have to deal with clients or external deadlines. I don't even have other team members who need to cover for me when I'm not there. So it's comparatively easy to manage my workload. I think it's much harder for people to maintain client relationships when taking leave or working part time. Or at least, there's a perception that the client won't like it. and if you're subject to the whims of a client, it's much harder to plan your day to make sure you leave on time.

I have to agree- I got grilled over my engagement ring at a job interview a few years back, and now I'm looking for new employment I'm going to switch my ring to the other hand. Admittedly I am ttc, although it won't happen very quickly or easily because of PCOS

thedollshouse - I was making a suggestion that might offset the criticism that women hold all the cards when deciding whether tocme back to work. Some kind of small compensation to the firm in recognitionof te disruption of hlding a post open for a year might do that.

On the issue of my two female friends who deliberately told their employers they would go back to work after 12 months yet knowing full well they would not I think they were not being fair.

They did it because they could and because they got a bit of maternity pay. In reality, they just resigned the day they left to have ther baby but did not tell their employer until the last minute. I would not get paid at all if I resigned from a firm or decided ot take some time off. Not sure why women should just because they are having a baby.

On that note I do also think it should be absolutley forbidden under any circumstance to dismiss, sack, make redundant any woman for any reason for until 18 months after she goes on maternity leave providing she returns to work within 12 months. Fairness should work both ways.

Beenbeta - "it should be absolutley forbidden under any circumstance to dismiss, sack, make redundant any woman for any reason for until 18 months after she goes on maternity leave providing she returns to work within 12 months" is ridiculous! If a department has to lose 50% of it's staff, why should an employee be protected from that just because she has had a baby! What if said employee commits gross misconduct on return from maternity - not sack her????

Oh and interestingly, I was never asked about my ttc plans when I was still living in my old country with 3 years of leave.

I am now living in a country where the maternity leave is 3 months. So employers should care far less about the baby plans, right? But when I came for my job interview here, I was expressly asked what exactly those plans are.

Even though according to the logic of the opening post, it should be way easier for women on the job market here, as the maternity leave is way shorter. But no, quite the opposite. The society is not set up for mothers working (such ridiculously short maternity leave is a part of it too)and therefore many employers assume that once you have kids, you will stay at home.

So no, I don't think the longer maternity leave as such is an issue and hindrance, it is more important to pay attention to the rest of the years needed to raise kids. After all, it makes more sense to hire a good employee who might take a year or two off out of their 40+ years of working life than to hire one that most likely will one day quit and never return or return in, say, 20 years.

one of the things that adds a lot of expense and workability problems of maternity is that womoen on maternity leave accrue paid holiday (which I actually don't think was the intention of parliament when they framed the laws).

we have women returning to work after 18 monhts away (nothing wrong with that) who arrive with 9 weeks accrued paid leave. As well as being expensive to finance it also makes it awkward. The employee is a full-time employee who is attending part time, and that's hard to cope with. it's neither full time nor part time . . She might not be in a part time role... do we hire someone to job share to accomodate the 13 weeks holiday she will have in the first year.

big firms can cope with this. in a small firm it's a large problem.

My sister runs a small business and spent a lot of time agonizing earlier this year whether to employ a female receptionist/admin person.

In the end it was decided that the company simply was not robust enough to employ a woman who might need maternity eave. My sister, joint MD, was absolutely furious (if I said she gained a sociology degree from Essex in the early 80's I suspect many of you will be able to picture her fury!). However, she agreed.

She has sworn that she will positively discriminate in favour of women as soon as the company is strong enough.

This situation causes real angst. I don't really know what to suggest but small companies are certainly very vulnerable at present. This does absolutely nothing to help woman get into the work place. It would have been an ideal job for a woman seeking to return to work for example. I felt a bit angry with my sister, but as said company employs three family members I can totally see the need to prioritize keeping them all in work. This is one of many issues I would like to see tackled by our new Government. But don't get me stared on the inequities of a Welfare system that considers family income being 'married' to a Tax system designed to consider only individuals.

Hmm, I am a bit grumpy today

Poogles - problem is that laying a charge of 'Gross Misconduct' for a tiny trumped up misdemeanour is now the favourite way that firms use to get rid of people. I have seen quite a few threads on MN recently where this is clearly the case in teh last few months.

If they do want to try that route then of course a woman of course has a right to take them to a Tribunal and of course the penalties should be very severe if it is unjustified. We know full well that women who have had a baby are far more likely to be made redundant than a man. It needs to stop.