AIBU to think that this is outrageous

[ModreB]

If this happens and firms are allowed to opt out of maternity and paternity leave

here

EDAM you critise me but you didn't actually answer my question how to be fair to EVERYBODY.

We do employ women in our businesses in the tourist season we rise to approx 160 employees over 120 of them are women.

I employ only lads in the yard for the reasons I mentioned and because I will not have heavily pregnant women working around my horses. It is me who would have to live with it if one of them got hurt not you.

One of the girls got let down by her lad and although no longer working for us has been living rent free in one of our cottages since Christmas so maybe Im not that big a bitch

There is one easy option for small companies who think they can't afford maternity pay- employ older people.

I think that there are an awful lot of small businesses that wouldn't employ a woman of childbearing age due to the maternity leave issue. There are also an awful lot of companies that won't employ school leavers because they won't work/can't read or write/are always late.

Small business owners do what they have to do to stay in business and profitable. Those of you saying that these businesses have no right to be in existance are really short-sighted and naive.

We do employ across a wide range youngest is 14 oldest is 82! But I do like to give the 'breeding age' lasses work especially if they already have bairns as that is when a young family really needs the extra cash.I won't use pregnant women in jobs which involve manual work because it is against my moral code I don't give a flying f what the law says. Pregnant women should be cherished and cared for not treated like beasts of burden. If they have no other means of support the state should support them. The fact is that these 'laws' are ok I suppose if you work in a office but lets get real here how many lasses really WANT to work until they drop. Also how many really want to leave their babies whe they are tiny. The whole thing is a hateful conspiracy against women some of you are being complete MUGS.

From here

There were 2.10 million enterprises registered for VAT and/or PAYE in March 2010,

The distribution of enterprises by employment size band shows that 88.6 per cent had an employment of less than 10, and 98.0 per cent had less than 50 employment. Large enterprises, those with 250 or greater employment, accounted for only 0.4 per cent.

So 88% of businesses could decided that they are not going to pay SMP.

Where are women supposed to work then? And Alan Sugar has said that he thinks that people with small businesses should be allowed to ask if an applicant wished to have children.

This is a massive backward step for women's rights.

Those who say that it is not the money - because that is repaid by the government - but the staffing shortages - what do you do when a male member of your staff falls ill, or has an accident taking him out of the workplace for weeks or months?

More to the point ModreB why the f*ck is that guardian post under 'life and style' instead of news and comment? even the grauniad doesn't think maternity rights are serious and newsworthy.

Thanks for the figures Mme, you're right this isn't about money- this is about the right to mat leave and the chance to bond with your child, your body recouperate from pg and childbirth, the right to return to the position you held unpenalised for having the temerity to reproduce.

Sweden give new parents 16 months paid leave per child, a minimum of 2 months to be taking by the minority care giver (usually father, obv not always) - it can be done. The cost is shared between employer and state.

Replacing a skilled employee for a permanent job is hell of a lot easier than replacing a skilled employee for a temporary - we're not sure how many months it will be for - post.

Is getting easier with recession to find skilled people for temporary posts though. But in better economic times, skilled people are not interested in temporary posts. Why should they be?

Yes, amazing how this government is rather less keen on 'helping' small businesses when it means putting some pressure on the banks THAT YOU AND I HAVE KEPT AFLOAT to continue to lend to them, but are very happy to crap all over another sector of society to do so.

Or make out that they're doing so when actually the crapping all over bit is the real aim.

I think that part of the problem is that SMP is so small, that most people need more than that to live on during their maternity leave. Companies recognize this and will invariably offer a more generous amount, and for a longer period. Currently it is 90% of salary for the first 6 weeks, thereafter £123 for the remaining weeks? That is a monthly salary of just around £500. You would need a full time working partner to support you, I would think. This is the figure which is re-imbursed, whatever the actual maternity pay paid out by the company.

In Norway SMP is either 100% of your salary for 10 months, or 80% of your salary for 12 months.

In either way, UK SMP is not enough. This seems like just another way of squeezing women out of the work force.

Also if people are off sick they are agencies who can provide skilled staff for a short period. This isn't affordable for the length of time maternity leave lasts.

If any member of staff has been off for longer than a couple of weeks I have always had a good idea when they would be back - through information provided by worker from their GP. With maternity leave I have no idea if they will even be coming back.

I actually employ quite a high proportion of women with children. As a small firm we are able to offer a greater flexibility in working conditions than larger firms offer. So makes it easier for people with children.

And yes I have had a staff member go off on maternity leave. We were very very lucky that the only other person in our city who I know has the skills, wanted the maternity cover as they were planning to move hundreds of miles away in 9 months time. It is a very specialised position.

Lesley
"Also if people are off sick they are agencies who can provide skilled staff for a short period. This isn't affordable for the length of time maternity leave lasts."

Why? If the woman on maternity leave is being paid by the state, why is it not affordable? Do you have to pay a temp worker more?

I have been thinking about this thread a great deal today trying to see the argument for your different propectives. I feel the major problem is that all types of employment, all sizes of business and all locations have been treated as if they were the same for the purposes of the 'law'. Clearly a woman who is doing manual work and a office worker are not doing the same type of job and all sorts of factors will come to bear in the manual job that don't apply in the office one. It is ridiclous to pretend they don't. I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they would of gone on in my situation. Not so easy when its a real life situation is it?

a business can already claim the SMP from HMRC in a lump sum at the beginning of the maternity leave, (to the poster who suggested that further down the thread).

I hate the fact women assume a right to mat pay - you aren't going to work yet get paid for 9 months to saty home and care for your baby. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to turn it down but I still am grateful for it and don't see it as a right. We were desperate for dd1 and waited 3 years so we could save and afford a child.

In the USA they only get 3 months and no option to be off longer with job open. I think it's fab we get our jobs saved for us but I think we should be more grateful for what we get.

It's not just about the ML, they are also talking about opting out of the Paternity leave scheme.

How many families would want to go back to the days when fathers got 1 day off when a child was born, and if they wanted more had to take annual leave, and if they had no leave left hard luck?

I remember a family friend around the time that my DS was born, 20 years ago, who lost his job because his child was born premmie, and he took time off to be at the hospital with him. Who wants to go back to those days, when the choice was stay with a sick baby and get the sack or have to go to work?

How many people want to go back to the days when time off for family emergencies could lead to losing a job if you had no leave left?

cat I agree, a premmie baby is a suprise and cannot be planned for, but as you say the majority of experiences mean that maternity and paternity leave can be planned for, and a company that fails or refuses to do this is not much good anyway.

Governments need to realise that a well supported, happy workforce is a more productive workforce. This proposal is a retrograde step and targets the most vulnerable.

From what I've heard employers say, the issue is not so much the money, it's the uncertainty.

The problem is that they have to keep the job open for up to a year not knowing whether the mother will return or for how long.

I think it would be fair if women had to state their intention to return/not return a lot earlier during their ML. And perhaps, if they say they are returning but then change their mind, they have to repay some of the SMP (as compensation for the fact that the employer could have taken on someone else).

I know these are hard won rights that I'm suggesting watering down, but if it's gone so far that businesses avoid employing women then it is worth looking at whether there are tweaks that would help.

I am not sure however that allowing small businesses to have a different set of rules is a great idea.

Maternity leave is nine months now?? No wonder the country's in a mess! It was 16 weeks when I had DD1 and 18 weeks for DD2. That was plenty of time. Nine months is a joke.

oh ffs.
a nice little government ploy to turf women out of jobs so that companies will employ men thus seemingly reducing the dole queues.

and yes its cause women get pregnant all by themselves just to reap the wonderful 'benefits'.
so i take it those supporting this will never draw a pension because it is the children of these women that will be providing your pension.

Why don't we just have done with it and repeal the Married Women's Property Act of 1864 then we could all get back in that kitchen (bare feet required) and stop nagging on about this "equality" nonsense. After all, it's not very ladylike, is it? Why do women have to adapt our lives to the needs of the workplace instead of the other way round? Or are you under the impression babies are delivered by storks/gooseberry bushes/cabbage patches? If you define 'job' as 9-5 mon-fri, it can only be done by someone with no responsibility for kids. So redefine it as something with the flexibility to accommodate work/lifebalance for both men and women, equally.

Its hard for small businesses, not just covering the costs of training someone else, there could be agency costs, advertising costs. The woman may give them no idea if she plans to take 2 months or 12 months off or even come back at all. She may also return pg and take even more time off or state she now only wants to work x days/hours.

Not sure the new proposals are right but i can see why smaller businesses are asking for some form of opt out or tighter time limits. Perhaps shortening the leave and tighter time scales for notice to return etc may mean that smaller businesses dont have to feel that they cant employ younf women.

pipe down now the lot of you.

tut tut should never have let the wimmin into school.