to think this woman has no need to apologise for ending her mat leave when she chooses

[lecce]

I am a teacher and am getting seriously pissed off with the comments from my colleagues about a teacher who has been off for about a year and is coming back to work a week before the six-week holiday. She is doing this, I assume because 5 years ago I did the same, because you are not allowed to say you are returning to work during the 6-week break (because you can't really go back) but if your entitlment runs out during that time you face a few weeks with no pay at all.

I assume that this woman, like me, cannot afford the few weeks with no money coming in but wants to maximise the time she can have off. People I work with are saying what a "nerve" she has etc but surely she is doing what is right for her and her family and is not cheating anyone? After all, it's not her fault that this is how the dates have worked out and that there is a 6-week holiday at this time, is it?

I don't really know why I'm so bothered (except I do because several of the people who go on about it were here when I did more or less the same, so I assume they talked about me in the same nasty way they talk about her but have now forgotten my circs) but it depresses so much that people (and women in particular) are so bitchy about each other and quick to believe the worst.

Sounds like she is robbing the tax payer.

robbing implies illegal

Josephine how can going back to work possibly be construed as robbing the taxpayer? Unless having any kind of maternity leave/pay is also a way of robbing the taxpayer. Bad women.

Maybe women just should stay out of the workplace. After all there are loads of male teachers.

It might be legal but it certainly isn't fair on the taxpayer. She is going back to work for one week but getting paid for seven.

I remember struggling on through work in order to time my maternity leave - but not with holidays or pay in mind, it was getting my exam class through to the end of their course I was focused on. Stupidly, as of course almost everyone still labels teachers as greedy/selfish no matter what they do.

Actually, I am confused. I thought teachers didn't get paid for the holidays and it was paid only for the time they are in school (I realise they work in the holidays too) but in monthly payments?

So Josephine in jobs were people add on accrued annual leave to the end of their maternity leave (ie time off work for which they get paid) is that immoral too?
Nope, it's just the teachers isn't it.

For the hard of thinking/reading: TEACHERS ARE PAID FOR 1265 HOURS OF WORK A YEAR. THIS IS PAID IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OVER THE WHOLE 12 MONTHS OF A YEAR. TEACHERS ARE NOT PAID FOR THE LONG HOLIDAYS.

Most teachers (IME as the partner of a teacher and a TA in a primary school) work many, many hours in excess of the 1265. And when their schools budgets run out they top up resources etc out of their own pockets.

Unlike some other jobs their working expenses (see above for example) are not reimbursable or tax deductible.

The woman in the OP's example could suck up the 'expense' to the tax payer and return to work in September and lose money. Or she could follow guidelines and return to work a week before the pre ordained holidays and get the pay she is entitled to in law.

Or maybe we should just reinstate the marriage bar so that tax payers are not inconvenienced by female public sector employees who dare to have kids?

I made mine span a financial year (well for the one born in april, not the one born in September!)

Stealth if you don't start back till September, you get no pay packet in August. If you start back in July, you'd get paid (salary divided by 12) in August.

So if they're not paid for the holidays then she'd be entitled to the money, or not, irrespecitive of whether she came back...

It is perfectly legal op, but you opened the debate in AIBU so you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with you!

I am not a teacher, and I don't know what I'd do if I were a teacher on ML with this dilemma about returning. However it is perfectly valid as an issue for public debate, because it is public funds at stake here, and also, any of us with children do have a vested interest in what happens.

A couple of things spring to mind: how does this affect academies. Many schools now have this status and I assume if they end up paying two people over a period of time for the same job then does this mean less money in the school budget for other things? Textbooks, equipment etc?

Also someone said earlier 'what's it got to do with parents'- well, my DH was a parent governor a few years ago at our primary school and this exact situation arose. The only decent candidate for the maternity cover was not prepared to accept the job unless it was a full year contract from sept to august. Basically, if someone were employed on a week by week or even term by term basis, they had no clue when the teacher on ML would return. She had her baby in the autumn and could have decided to come back in January, Easter, before the summer or indeed could have taken an entire year off til the following sept. The only candidates prepared to accept such uncertainty- possibly being out of a job at any point- were not that good so therefore the school took on the candidate for an entire year- for the good of the pupils. Sure enough, the teacher on ML came back for the last week in July, therefore both teachers had to be paid for a period of time for one job!

Tbh I think this is a wider issue than teaching, although the restrictions on holidays highlight the problem more. Maternity rights are hard won and I don't think anyone would want to see too many steps backwards in terms of rights. But in some ways things have swung so far in employees favour that it could end up backfiring. I think it must be very hard for an employer not having a clue when a women is going to return for example. Women are obliged to give very short notice of when they want to return, which leaves employers in a hard position. While dh was a governor there were also 2 cases of women coming back from ML for only a set number of weeks to avoid having to pay back maternity pay. They then resigned. All perfectly legal- but it was disruptive for the education of children in their classes.

alistron, I completely support everything you have just said, but I'm just trying to clarify, either teachers get paid hols or they don't. If they do, then coming back a week early means you get paid them, and I have no issue with that. If they don't, then you get paid for that week only, surely?

I returned to work after a year and was entitled to all my hols, including bank holidays. I am a public sector worker, so what does the tax payer have to say abot that?

Your colleague's plans are probably the least disruptive for everyone else. Classes can keep the same supply teacher, while the returning teacher goes through the progress-tracking info for her classes, gets up to speed with curriculum changes, and plans lessons. Everyone is on the ball ready for the new term. It doesn't cost the school more, because supply teachers don't get paid in the holidays.

BTW it is possible to return during the summer holidays - I did, as my planned return in the summer term was delayed due to contract negotiations. ( I worked, in school, and paid for child care, during the summer. )

Teachers are NOT paid for the holidays it is explicit in the terms and conditions of employment. 1265 hours of directed time and such other professional duties (i.e working at home) that they are expected to discharge (or words to that effect), and TBH I don't understand the rationale of the maternity entitlement either. I am not paid for the holidays as a TA - just for my 19.5 hours a week term time (which is averaged out over 12 months), but if I was off sick in the week before a holiday I'd have to get a sick note to cover me for over the holiday period too in order not to lose pay. And I don't understand that one too!!

I did a maternity leave cover. I was on a maternity leave contract, not a supply rate, and would have not been paid for the summer had I not insisted on it as a condition of accepting a permanent post after the colleagues maternity leave ended, as much for continuity of service as for the pay.

So I suppose my colleague and I are equally guilty of "robbing" the taxpayer, as she could have returned in September, and I could have accepted a 7 week break in my pay and service. We are both teachers worth keeping though...

Cross posts - Tinkerbel's example is very unusual, most maternity cover contracts have an inbuilt notice period.

If it's such a hassle for schools to have teachers returning for a fixed period to avoid repaying maternity pay, then the LAs should change policy.

And to add to the replies above - it's 2 weeks full pay, not 6 months.

so if they're not paid for the hols then there's no problem. Come back just before, after, whatever. Teh holidays are unpaid.
From your sick leave example though, it makes no sense!! Either they are paying you or they're not

I'm surprised more teachers want to do this then. How does it help?

I don't know why they don't just pay teachers 11 months a year to simplify things. If they want a wage packet in August they should teach summer classes.

Pay is split over 12 months. If you come back in July, you get August's share. We don't get paid for the actual days we work. Although we lose pay if we take a day off unpaid of course!

Holidays are not paid, but salary is paid at monthly intervals to make payroll easier. When I first started teaching I had older colleagues who didn't get paid at all in August, but then they were all moved to a system of 12 monthly (lower) payments as this made it easier to run payroll.

Once you return to work, you become eligible to begin to receive 1 /12 of your annual salary (adjusted for missed / extra days ) whether it is in the holidays or not.

Josephine - the system you suggest was once in place but abandoned as it made payroll more complicated.