To wonder if enhanced maternity benefits actually work against women?

[people]

I work in the public sector in an area staffed almost entirely by women. In this financial year we have had 4 women (from a staff of 24) go on maternity leave, meaning for a large part on the year we have been paying double salaries for those roles, while cover was employed.

This has meant that our department has gone into deficit and that we will be put on special measures for our financial audit for the next 3 years. A right pain in the neck and I seriously think that my boss would think twice about employing so many women if she had a choice. If we were a private company we would have gone bust.

In other industries, where there is more competition for jobs from men, it must be easy to find a "reason" to employ the man rather than a woman of child bearing age. I'd like to think I'd be professional and fair,but if I were in that position and faced with a choice between 2 equally qualified candidates I'd probably choose the man. (I know there are reasons a man can need extended leave, but in practice it is usually women)

My mind boggles at the enhanced maternity pay that is available in that sector. I get SMP.

This is why it is so important that men now have the option of taking the last half of maternity leave as paternity, so employers will hopefully realise that men will be likely to take time off as well.

And anyway, I was under the impression that employers can claim back any maternity pay from the government, so not really seeing how the women taking the time off was the reason you were in deficit. Are you sure you have your facts right?

We have come so far in getting more rights for women and families, I see a disturbing amount of these comments, depressingly enough mostly from women themselves. I really hope we don't start to go backwards and take away the maternity rights so hard won. Under the tories though, am not confident...

YABVU, I work in the public sector in role that has a fairly even mix of men and women. Fortunately, equal opportunities means more than just a few words to my employers and they would be shocked that someone could hold this view. I was pregnant when they employed me and I was up against male candidates but they deemed me the best candidate for the job despite knowing that I would be taking maternity leave 6months into the job.

I hope you are never in the position of employing people if equal opportunities means so little to you.

I agree Nightowl ,but do you know any men who've actually done that? I don't and I don't know any who would want to or any mothers who would want them to TBH - I accept that a few will, but I think we are a long long way from it being the norm, so there is still far more "risk" when employing women.

Yes I have my facts right - it was my wrists that have been severely slapped for "letting" the deficit happen

That sounds a very generous maternity package. The statutory minium is no way a full salary.....and yes for larger organisations the SMP can often be set against NI contributions. (not any enhanced benefits thought)

I get your point but to employing a man
U employ the best person for the job as you dont know what the future holds and can't presume
Hope there are not more like you in hiring roles
I have one child and don't plan on another but according to u u would not employ me as I may have a child in the next 10 years!!! Please!!!

Wow = what area of the public sector do you work in that gives a year out on full pay?

Larks - I said "equally qualified candidates". If you were the best person for the job of course I would employ you, but if it was a close contest I challenge you to find anyone who would pick the pregnant woman over an equally suitable man.

most private companies only offer SMP. The only people I know who got more either work in the Public sector or were expected to take no more than 4 months.

Generous packages sound great, but are not practical for most companies.

My company gives 6 months full pay and 60% of the workforce is female. Its a massive company, but if a smaller company offers enhanced pay (ie not just smp) I think it can hurt the chances of a woman of child bearing age. Infact I had a telephone interview for a small company. She asked about me and I mentioned that I had just got married. She then said (whilst acknowledging that it was illegal, 'are you planning children soon, we can't afford paying people who aren't here!' So I am of the opinion it does happen.

A company can claim back 103% of statuatory maternity pay so it just be a very generous package.

I was also under the impression the public sector can claim back maternity pay from the govt....

I do agree though that enabling leave to be interchangeable between parents would be a massive step forward and win win for everyone. Employers are less likely to be wary of women, while children benefit by having time with each parent as main carer

Employing a woman who then takes maternity leave can be make or break for many small businesses. No wonder they are wary of employing women who may get pregnant and go on maternity leave. And yes, small business can claim the SMP, but that doesn't take into account the upheaval and cost of employing and training a replacement.

Companies can claim back a % of maternity pay. I go on ML in 10 weeks and have just been working out how much my maternity cover will cost them. It is around 1/3 of my salary. I'm not taking the full year though. However maternity benefits were much more generous at the private sector supermarket I used to work for than they are in my current public sector job. Why do so many people think the public sector pays so well? I've worked in both and my remuneration packages were always better in private rather than public sector. I moved to public sector because of location/ travelling, not for better pay!

YABU. I am an NHS nurse, the main reason I work in the NHS rather than then private sector where I would be paid significantly more is because of the maternity package, pension and other benefits and being a lefty socialist. If you want to take away benefits the the salary will have to go up or we loose all the best staff to the private sector.

Also, if most workforces, and society in general, weren't based around a patriarchal model then this wouldn't be an issue. That's what needs to change, rather than taking away benefits from mothers.

people actually, my DH will be taking the opportunity to take the last 3 months of my maternity leave as he will be going part time when I return to work. I really believe that as pay and opportunities become more equal that this will happen more and more, and that stripping rights from women will be very detrimental to our society in the long term.

people are you one of the four? If not, could you tell me how you know that all four of them were in receipt of a full year's wage? I find it very hard to belive that anywhere offers that.

I know public sector jobs give good benefits, and understand that this is to counterbalance the stringent pay. My friend is a nurse with the NHS and was telling me of the benefits she would get if she had the baby she wants while in that job. I must say I suggested she have her baby while still in this job as the benefits are vastly better than mine in the private sector (though Im not in healthcare).

In teaching the school pays 100% for two weeks, 90% for 4 weeks and 50% for (I think) 13 weeks, then you get SMP. I assumed it was the same throughout the public sector but maybe not? If it is then that's hardly double pay for a significant amount of time.

I have examples of where women have been declined for roles or had offers withdrawn because they were pregnant. There is no doubt in my mind that the maternity regulations put some men off. But on the whole I think more women benefit from the regulations than are discriminated against.

"attheendoftheday Fri 23-Mar-12 19:44:07

Also, if most workforces, and society in general, weren't based around a patriarchal model then this wouldn't be an issue. That's what needs to change, rather than taking away benefits from mothers."

An excellent point, ATEOTD.

How odd. My organisation offers enhanced maternity pay, and I manage the budget for my department. Whenever we have someone out on maternity leave, I have to apply to a central "maternity relief fund" to get back the additional costs. It seems very odd that a department would be penalised for implementing company policy.

Perhaps your boss was supposed to apply for something to get the money back & failed to do so?

90% for six weeks, half pay up to 18 weeks then SMP here in local government which I've always thought was great.

No golden year at home with your baby on full pay. Where on earth do you work?

I dont understand why maternity leave would affect a compant. For a start the government pays it, and additionally if they cant afford to pay it they can get an advance from the government so they are only paying for one staff member at a time.

You can only claim back SMP so if a company pays more than that they have to bear the cost.

SMP here, public sector, no cover. People on maternity actually save our council money ( although left over staff may burn out..)