AIBU to think that this is outrageous

[ModreB]

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

here

ilovesotty - yes you are.

Thanks: thought that was the case.

Unreal.

Do you also accrue holiday if you're on sick leave? I guess you do? Would you be as surprised if someone returning from long term sick took their accrued holiday at the end of their sick leave?

I fear this is a debate that will never be resolved. My father ran his own small business and I completely understand the difficulties for small business owners. Equally, it is an emotional issue for parents (mainly women) to be told that maternity/paternity leave is something that damages the economy and it is our selfish life choices that are to blame. I am about to go on maternity leave having spent many years working, covering colleagues absences of all kinds. I pay 40% tax and do it gladly as I know that this is the only way society can work. I have never claimed a single benefit, nor do I judge others that have needed to. However, today I sit here feeling tremendously sad that I will shortly be viewed as a burden to society and economical growth. My crime? I am having a baby.

How the he'll are families supposed to 'save to cover costs of maternity leave' (when they won't know if they have a job to go back to) when they will most likely have £40k student debts, save for 20% deposit on over inflated house price and rampant food and fuel inflation.

This has made me so angry I'm actually feeling quite sick.

This country is going to hell and the government is just looking down and laughing, rubbing their hands.

Also, when are they expecting employers to 'negotiate'. If you're already pregnant you are hardly in a position to negotiate as you are holding no cards whatsoever. And no woman in their right mind wod negotiate assertively over maternity rights when discussing initial terms of employment. So there will be no negotiation will there.

Something that doesn't seem to have cropped up yet is that pregnancy isn't always a lifestyle choice - it isn't always planned. In fact I would imagine a large proportion of MN have experienced a not-quite-planned pregnancy, which, with today's maternity rights, isn't the end of the world. But, if maternity rights aren't guaranteed then a woman finding herself accidentally pregnant might feel compelled to have an abortion as having the baby could mean losing her job or even her house. Do we want a society where women are forced out of economic necessity (even more so than they already are) to abort?

All these people who take a year off must have a way to survive on just one salary, basically, because I can't think of any employer who pays at full-whack for that period of time so that means the woman is on SMP for months.

I was the chief breadwinner and had to go back after 18 weeks because my full-whack pay ended after 16 weeks (I took a further two weeks a/l).

But honestly, you're talking about well-off people here because otherwise, the person can't afford to be off so long without full pay.

I agree that small businesses are going through tough times at the moment.
It must be very difficult to recruit tempory staff, nobody I know would pass up permanent employment for tempory.

Fwiw whem my dh worked at a firm employing only 4 people, they purposfully avoided employing younger women for this very reason.

On the other hand, age 40, I've found it easier to get work after making it clear our family is complete through sterilisation.

Leplan, If couples can't afford to put by £100 or £150 a month for few yers to save up for the costs of having a baby how are they going to cope when they have actually got a child and have to pay child care costs and just the general "running expenses"? With my own children I made provision in advance adn took off 10 weeks with the first and a fortnight more with the second ( because he was late arriving). Now I am employed in a different sector and deal with recruitment of staff. Fortunately you need to show skills that only come through life experience to be really suited to what we do, so the younger women tend not to do as well as the more mature ones on our interview case scenarios. Most of our 91% female staff regard maternity leave as a pita for them as they have to cover and do extra work to support those taking it.

I run 2 small business - I plan for most things and as such I employ agency and short term contract staff and also staff on 0 hours contracts. I do so, so I do not have to ''cope'' with Maternity pay/leave - the leave more than the actual pay. My 3 permanent staff have all had maternity leave and all work flexible hours (suits me and them ) but it has put me off from expanding and employing more permanently, as all the ''creative'' thinking to cover their post, took me away from my primary function of generating business. Its a big leap from small company ie 1-10 to medium company with enough resources and an HR department - don't think I will do it till my own children are much bigger as the risks are immense and the red tape/paperwork/legislation are daunting.

Exactly, Getabook. I feel like I've been farting in the wind here. People already get round this by employing agency staff.

higgle - good point, how exactly are these people going to pay for the costs of bringing up their children? Short answer: they aren't, the government is. So it's no wonder that the government are trying to discourage people who can't afford to pay for their children not to have them. I know you can argue that it's social engineering - but so is giving such generous benefits that it pays to stay at home popping out kids, rather than planning in advance and saving up.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the thousands of women business owners who effectively have no choice but to get back to work as quickly as possible, as otherwise there might not be a job to come back to.

The point is that good employees will always be attractive to employers - ones who work hard, turn up on time, pay their own way etc. The cost of replacing them would far, far outweigh a small amount of maternity leave, so I don't think it would be detrimental to mums working for small businesses.

But a point that seems to be missed is that to qualify for ML and SMP, you need to be employed and paying tax and NI in the first place.

Another thing that worries me is that if you make allowances for small businesses, then this sets a precedent for other scenarios.

What about businesses that are non-profitable, will they also be given an opt out? For instance, RBS, a massive organisation is not making a profit at the moment. If you acccept the case for small businesses to opt out, what about them?

What about non-profit making organisations such as charities? Should they be allowed to opt out as paying for ML eats into the charity funds?

No, the law is there for everyone who is employed, and all employers must be expected to comply.

What about other areas of the law that are hard for small business to comply with, or that they feel are having a detrimental effect on their business. Should they be allowed to opt out off them as well? Not pay vehicle tax or insurance for example if they feel it too expensive?

There's such a lot of sensible thought on this thread (a few "world owes me a baby" dramatists aside), I think whoever the governement's got working on this should read it!

While I was ttc, the qualifying period for mat leave was 2 years and the leaver had to say when they intended to come back. (I was in a heavily unionised industry, thank god, and assume our rights were actually better than the legal requirement.) This did mean that women with less than 2 years' service, who got pregnant, did have to weight up the economics of continuing the pregnancy. Well, all pregnant women do, obviously, now or then. But there was a degree of protection there for both parent and employer.

This isn't a debate about the ethics of abortion, benefits in general and so on. As someone has pointed out, current mat benefits make it possible - not easy, but possible - for someone to get pregnant, get a job and leave it after few months, then rely on the state to fund her pregnancy and baby years. Morally and ethically, I like this fact except for the potential to basically rip off employers. There's also the issue of people not being forced to consider the economics of having a baby. Surely would-be parents should be giving those considerations high priority?

Women like me fought for abortion on demand so that having a baby COULD be a lifestyle choice. I can't help thinking that some posters to this thread want it both ways. Yes, you deserve to have a baby if you want one and couples should be supported in that. Deserving & support are not exactly the same thing as the world owing you a baby whenever you want one, though.

Realise I'm speaking to deaf ears.

Maybe we could save for maternity leave by choosing to opt out of national insurance contributions

ModreB: all employers must be expected to comply. But there are already concessions for small businesses. I can't provide full disabled access, for example, because I work in a house. The cost of installing all the stuff a large corporation has to provide would be more than 5 years' profits! (Not to mention the probable planning & building regs problems.)

If you rigidly apply the same requirements to all types of employer, you effectively ensure that only the large & wealthy ones can afford to employ anyone.

Lizzie, should I, then, get a chunk of my NI contributions back because I didn't have DCs?

garlic you misunderstand. You can't install full disabled access, as your business is based in a house fair enough. But I expect that you supply some disabled access, even if it is just assistance up the steps to your house if needed.

My point is that the base standard, that all employers are expected to comply with the bare minimum must apply in all cases, and if they opt out then this should also apply to other areas of law, and that to allow certain, specific people to opt out of legislative requirements sets a very scary precedent.

Modre, but ... A wheelchair user who can't get to my loo is in a very unfortunate position but knows there's sod all I can do about it. They couldn't sue me for discrimination. That's why the law is flexible; bear in mind that this flexibility is all about the economics of small businesses.

Likewise, I wouldn't expect not to offer any support for a worker (male or female) having a baby. But the worst-case scenario of somebody taking a year off before they've got their feet under the table could break me. Imagine, if you had 3 or 4 employees who were all women under 40, you could end up with no-one at all coming to work for months on end!

You need to be able to plan for this, so I think flexibility is needed here, too.

I hope that if this happens, that there will be investment in increasing childcare & nursery places, as if I was only able to take a few weeks off ML I would resign from my job. The problem being, when I wanted to look for a job I would't be able to get a nursery place to coincide with my return to work as it is impossible where I live to find a nursery place at short notice - you need to book in at least 9 months to a year ahead - therefore making it much more difficult to return to the workplace.

By being a allowed a year off you can spend a decent amount of time nurturing and bringing up your child, plan childcare, and come back to work with a positive work ethic.