Maternity leave laws causing discrimination against women of child bearing age

[StealthPolarBear]

I keep reading threads like this and have this argument at the back of my mind that I am struggling to articulate.
Lets assue every pregnancy involves a man and a woman as a couple (I know lots don't but enough do to make this a valid argument I think). If you employ a woman and she gets pregnant you may end up paying more than her salary to hire a replacement, there may be issues around handover of tasks and clients etc. So it can cost.
However, as each baby belongs to a couple, if you have a man, you are effectively getting the same outcome (a member of your staff having a child) 'free'.
So on average (unless you hire proportionately more women than men) and unless you consider the human race should stop reproducing, it evens out.
I know the word 'naive' will be used in at least one of the first 3 replies, but can you at least see my logic? If the couple were employed in the same small company it becomes a bit clearer.

yes RB which is why there needs to be some way of managing that
either policing that companies are hiring a proportionate amount of women
or billing the employer of the man for half the costs (of his salary prob, otherwise unfair if she's a banker & hes a waiter!)

" I would rather there was ML than not, even if the cost is some idiot bosses refusing to emply me"

oh yes! not suggesting getting rid of ML (not even 100% sure where i stand on sharing it). breastfeeding alone can depend on it, thats without factoring in loads of other stuff

This may be a stupid question, but does the government refund employers for the cost of maternity pay?

Yes more than 100% for small employers and (I didn;t know this till recently) 92% for large.
Nothing over SMP, but companies are not obliged to offer more anyway

It should become equal for both sexes then hopefully it would become less of a woman's issue and more a family issue ?

StealthPolar - I can see where you are coming from but here is the flaw in your arguement.

"So on average (unless you hire proportionately more women than men) and unless you consider the human race should stop reproducing, it evens out."

Companies dont hire equal numbers of men and women. They sack/make redundant or otherwise discriminate against women who have babies.

It doesnt even out. The women who have babies bear the cost of being sacked or made redundant or their wages cut. Firms go and hire people who dont have babies because they wnt to avoid the costs that are caused by people having babies.

Moreover, as I argued on another thread today, even if men and women had equal rights to parental leave firms would still discriminate against parents (ie both fathers and mothers).

Firms do not want employees who need flexible working or who might need to leave the office at short notice or take a day off at short notice or need 6 months parental leave. It disrupts their operations and costs them money - hence they avoid peole who have babies or illness or any other kind of external commitment that may interfere with work.

But BeenBeta - that then needs to be policed as I have suggested below, to make sure they are taking on a proportionate amount.
And yes discrimination would still occur. Although it would be less discriminiatory, so a good thing, and might actually counter some of the age discrimination!

Stealth - yes I agree BUT we have already got anti discrimination laws that are weak because they are not enforced by Govt - they are enforced by individuals taking their employer to court.

Firms have all sorts of subtle ways of forcing women out of the workforce and they do it all the time. They do it because they have a powerful economic incentive to try and get away with it and the penalties are just not big enough and never will be.

Indeed George Osborne announced today he was going to make it harder for employees to use 'no win no fee' lawyers in Tribunals.

So if small companies get all their maternity pay back, then someone being on leave for a year might actually be better for the company than if they are on leave for 6 months - it would be easier to recruit someone for a year, I'd think, and they would have a chance to settle in to the job before they have to start jobhunting again. Therefore rights to longer maternity leave / better pay should make no difference to small companies, or to how likely they are to discriminate against women? There's probably a flaw in my logic somewhere...

I've come to the conclusion that this is just an insoluble problem.

As an employer it just seems so much simpler to employ a man under current customs and roles on our society - you advertise and recruit just once for a wte and don't have to really think further if the person is good.

As a mother it is so hard to leave your young baby and go back to work - I have been torn leaving my DDs at 5 months, 7 months and 4 months. My DH just does not seem to be affected and I cannot work out why as he loves them.

As a person who uses services provided by other women of childbearing age I've found it disruptive - DD1 has had her primary school years totally affected by teachers taking maternity leave (plus sick leave of 8 weeks as the pregnancy wasn't straightforward). Whilst I do support women working I think everyone would agree there is a real tension between the personal desires of the individual employee and their commitment to their job. This will obviously vary according to the job.

As a mother of 3 DDs I do want them to be able to work or they will have to rely on a man (or me or the state!!) for an income. If they want kids themselves they will have to have some mat leave to do this, but if they have to could the DP also be forced to match it?? I can't see couples choosing to share mat leave unless they are in the quite rare situation I'm in where I earn 20x my DH...

" I have been torn leaving my DDs at 5 months, 7 months and 4 months."

Spent quite a few seconds trying to figure that out :o

Why would the woman have to earn 20x her DH salary for sharing to be a viable option? Don;t think I'd have gone for 6 months/6 months but maybe 9/3 - I went back to work at 10m with DD and used a combination of GPs and nursery - would have much rather left her with DH

Stealth - sorry re the confusion - obviously meant to give examples of my not hugely long maternity leaves and that it didn't seem to be any easier to leave them with DH whatever age they were.

I was not suggesting that you need a huge income difference in the woman's favour to make a split maternity/paternity leave viable, however, I can't see that in our current culture where generally the couple earn a similar amount or the man earns more, that there would be much uptake. In your own example you would not have wished an even 6month/6month split and I think that is an example of the problem. Yes, breastfeeding can be an issue but in reality the majority of babies are FF anyway even with year long maternity leave currently available. I still cannot fathom why I find it so much harder to leave DDs to go to work (a job that I love) than DH does (to a job he hates!). I suppose to an extent it depends on how much the focus of the leave should be exclusively about the mother's recovery and how much about the parent child relationships.