to think this is really not on (maternity leave)

[manicinsomniac]

Having a baby, having your full time off, coming back for a month then announcing you're 4 months pregnant and will be off again. If you knew you were pregnant (or even trying) should you really go back to work, knowing that your employer was going to have to pay two salaries for one job?

I really don't know if this is standard practice and completely ok or whether it's unfair and cheating the system. It seems unfair and a bit immoral to me.

Which is why we have laws to protect women from this.

Only women can get pregnant. Therefore by default its the woman who "screws over" her employer. While her oh sails through her pregnancy, takes two weeks off and then back into work bright eyed and bushy tailed to slaps on the back and congratulations. Your promotion is waiting for you.

Totally agree OP. This behaviour means I think twice before hiring women- a man will be my first choice every time. And before I get flamed, running a family business in these times is tough and you need a committed workforce who won't be running off to have multiple bouts of maternity leave.

This could change a lot if more parents start to share their ML entitlement - it's just the last 3 months the man can take isn't it, or is it longer?
If men were just as likely as women to take some time off it would still inconvenience employers, but would reduce assumptions being made about women being the ones to leave.

That's true but in my experience men never take extended paternity leave so they are the safest bet when it comes to hiring.

itsall I'd be careful when and where you are admitting this attitude because thankfully it is against the law.

I think I'm probably safe on an anonymous Internet forum. Here you get to hear the truth. In RL, we can point to many reasons why the man was a better choice but they aren't always the truth.

Here to agree with SPB. My old employers were absolute unmitigated cunts when I mc and my career nosedived until I left them.

Well, I say my employers. Our office manager, who controlled things like leave entitlement and sick pay. What a hideous bitch she was.

I'm glad you only employ men itsall. I'd never want to work for you.

You're probably one of the special treatment brigade that has little chance of having a successful career growlithe in which case I suspect you don't 'work' for anyone!

Meee ow
Mature response

itsall I do like the 'special treatment' the UK Employment Law offers me.

SPB I know. I'm picturing Sid James.

As a small business owner, I sigh with relief when no quality women apply for the technical roles I offer.

the roles are too complex for train someone up in less than 6 months so I would have to do my job plus their job and not see my own family then still might need to hire at the end of ML... no thanks!

I would like to see equal lengths of parental leave that was non transferable between the couple, with extra protection for the woman for pregnancy related medical conditions.

shorter periods of leave applying to both men and women and a shorter period of uncertainty.

in the meantime, employees are not doing anything wrong when they use employment law to their advantage, but neither are companies when they use the employment law that benefits them.

Ewwww keep your weirdy fantasies to yourself :o

Looking at the statistics, women don't tend to work for small businesses:

23.9 million people in the UK work for small businesses so together we are a massive employer but 4/10 women work in public sector jobs.

God, this is depressing. It's not women's fault that most families can't afford to live on one income any more. Men have babies too, ffs. There is a reason why maternity leave is embedded in UK law - the government recognises that someone has to raise children and that it is no longer realistic to expect one parent to be able to support the other (well, maybe not this government, but previous ones). They make allowances for it. I realise that it is a large burden on small companies, but so is sick pay. There's a reason things like this are statutory, to prevent employers dispensing with them to suit themselves.

I realise everyone has been very polite about the decision of LittleChickpea to go back to work 6 weeks after giving birth. I'm honestly not trying to get at you as an individual, but I believe that the baby's needs should be put first. Maternity leave has been created so that women can work and have babies, and UK society has judged that it's not realistic for most women to return to work so quickly. They have therefore made allowance for this by paying SMP for a total of 39 weeks. I don't get why you would look at the rights given to them by law and say, in effect, "oh well, I value my child less than I do my job, and so I will waive my right to 39 weeks of paid SMP. After all, my job comes with responsibilities."

TooExtra - I find it depressing too. I understand if you have your own business that it's another thing to have to deal with for the people who work for you, fundamentally though, aren't we all working for the same reason? Whether you work for yourself or for someone else, it's all to earn enough money to have a roof over our heads and for an acceptable quality of life for us and our families.

When it comes to the bigger picture, our family lives are more important than our work lives and if you don't agree, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. I've never heard of anyone on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time at their desk or negotiating a better contract with such and such a client. There will always be more people in the workforce at any given time than will be on parental leave so replacements can always be found (admittedly, it might take a while for more skilled jobs) and business isn't going to grind to a halt. When did it become OK to criticise people who have reached the time in their lives that they have different priorities?

faster

looking at the stats you quoted 60% of women obviously work in private sector ( if 40% in public) so that is the majority some of them will be self employed maybe 5% some will work for big companies 15% but actually probably 40% will be working for small companies

MrsJack, £1,500 to advertise a vacancy? Rubbish. You can do it far more cheaply if you want to - you are just exaggerating to bolster your ridiculous sexist approach. When you employ people, you have to handle recruitment. Employees can laeve. Employees can also get sick, have accidents, have to go to funerals - it's all part of the deal. If you don't want to get involved, don't have employees, try doing it all yourself if you wish. Otherwise, stop moaning.

The thing is once mat leave is over then parents can be more stable as employees - they are tied to an area by schools, as households are less likely to change jobs etc as they have more to consider etc

I also think that mat leave gets focused on when in fact humans - whatever their sex and family situation - are prone to illness, death, ambitions, family breakdown etc

So men get considered dead certs as the person to hire above a woman but being equally human are equally liable to costing their employer money - eg better job offer/having to care for family/ fancying a move to another city/becoming poorly/dying as a woman - yet the mat leave gets focused on.

faster, when my DH grows a pair of breasts and is able to breastfeed, then he is more than welcome to an equal share of my maternity leave. Until then Im claiming most of it. I assume you are a man?

"As a small business owner, I sigh with relief when no quality women apply for the technical roles I offer."

This is pathetic. I actually think that some people have lost the bloody plot. I really do think that people have lost sight of what really matters. FFS our children are far more important than any client relationship!!!!!!

Exactly Edam, there are no guarantees that any employee will stay in a job!

If I had to choose between my baby's needs and my boss's, I know which would win.

In any job, businesses keep the profit - employees don't. You don't hear firms whining about that.

There's no "profit" in most public sector roles...

For the third time on this thread I'll point out that it is possible to assert that someone taking two periods of ML in quick succession is entirely allowed within the current set up, whilst acknowledging that it can be a complete PITA for the employer.

Edam, i would love for you to tell me how to recruit a 35k post for less than 1500. I am a good employer, excellent staff retention, pay and support for leave. One of our explicit values is that we support people through the ebbs and flow of family needs. I have 2 kids, I am not oblivious to the stresses of family,life. And on my deathbed I will among many other feelings also be proud of what I have built up in my company, and that in my life i have also created something that gave meaningful employment opportunities for others.

Consecutive periods of mat leave are hard on a small business, and I can express my experience without it being sexist. I wrote to BIS when this govmt was asking for ideas to improve things, to say they need to share mat and pat leave between the employers of the mother and father, as I also believe fathers should be able to take more time off to be with their kids. I am far from sexist.