AIBU to think that this is outrageous

[ModreB]

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

here

Actually I suspect what we'd see with shorter maternity leave is that people would have to decide very quickly whether or not they wanted to go back to work and already have their childcare in place.

So the employer knows they're coming back, the employee knows who's looking after their kid - all extended maternity leave does is delay these decisions, it doesn't make them any easier for the mum and it makes things extremely difficult for the business.

Of course it makes it easier for mum to have more time off - it's much easier to leave a 1 year old than a 3 month old for example. If I had to return to work within a few weeks or resign, I would resign.

Personally I'd love employers to be supported in providing decent childcare facilities. That keeps not-quite happening though. Wouldn't it be nice if you had the option to return to work sooner and bring baby with you?

I'd also be more interested in a return to fixed qualifying periods for parental leave than (necessarily) the time allowed. The randomness is as much of a killer as the absence.

I am confused about the suggestion that women on maternity leave should only take part of their leave entitlement. If the main problem is the recruitment, training and handover, what difference does it make? Surely it's a bigger problem to replace someone for seven months or so than a year, as a longer temporary contract is generally more attractive?

Yes, but what I am saying cat64, is that if that is all that I was allowed to take, I would quit my job. I would then find it hard to find a job and suitable childcare at short notice when I was ready to work again.

I am in that position right now - due to go back after a year and I feel well ready to go back, but even at 6 months after I couldn't get my head around going back to work and wasn't sure if I wanted to - now I know I do. The reality of having a new baby is always different to what you think it will be, and all sorts of problems can arise during those early months which might make it difficult to get back to work quickly.

Anyway, therailwaychildren is right - how would shorter ML help businesses? A year off is easier to fill and train a contract worker for, than a shorter stint. Perhaps the answer is to ask women to be definite about their return to work date - but keep that up to a year.

I doubt they have even thought about the damage to the economy in terms of Jo Jingles, Music Bugs, Water Babies, Sing and Sign, monkey music, aqua tots!

Surely they will all go out of business!

If you don't feel ready to go back to work, Mary, it's your choice but it is a choice. Lots of us choose to go to work when we don't feel like it.

I did actually take a 'sabbatical' to travel & do voluntary work for just over a year. As no sabbatical system was available, I resigned and took my chances on getting another job when I came back. I'm afraid I still can't see why one elective absence should be paid for by other people, when everybody else has to sort out their own time off for personal development.

Yes but when you returned from your sabbatical, you did not have the added burden of finding childcare at short notice to fit in with your new employment - I was saying that in the event ML laws are relaxed for small businesses, I hope there would be investment in providing more accessible childcare for those who did decide to resign and return to work at a later date, as I am sure many would prefer to do than return to work within a short time period - for the benefit of their child. Babies need their mothers - it's a fact.

Bringing up a child is more than 'personal development'. Women need to have children so that they will grow up and pay taxes, and keep us all in our old age.

What is so wrong about having your job held open for a year? I can see that the uncertainty is not good for small businesses, but what is the difference in getting someone to fill in for 3 months or a year? Surely it's easier to find a contract worker for a year as it's more attractive. All I am suggesting is that a good idea might be to remove the uncertainty.

It's not about the women wanting a year off to swan around and 'find themselves', but to bring up their child and give them a good start. Who is thinking about the children here?

MaryThornbar I suspect you're right - when faced with the realities of having to go straight back into work, a lot of mums would quit.... But the flipside of that is that a lot of mums would also be available to look after kids. E.g. my mum was a SAHM and looked after our cousins whilst her sister worked full-time - it's what people did. Now you could argue that my aunt was lucky that her sister was in a position to be able to do that, and that they lived close enough for us to do that, but they actually planned it that way before they had kids - planning in advance does mitigate a lot of these problems.

In terms of the problem of finding a replacement for 3 months rather than a year, what we're saying is that small businesses are finding it impossible to find a like-for-like replacement anyway for staff in that year, so mostly the work is covered by under qualified temps and shared out amongst the rest of the workers. And in a small business, there's usually precious little extra capacity anyway.