Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think this is really not on (maternity leave)

358 replies

manicinsomniac · 01/03/2013 17:54

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.

OP posts:
edam · 04/03/2013 23:13

It's not that hard, I've done it. Depends where you advertise - I used Gorkana and an online ad on a national newspaper's site. If you use a recruitment agency it will cost £££ of course, but that's your choice. I bet you can negotiate on rates for national newspapers...

Primafacie · 04/03/2013 23:22

YABU. In many jobs, taking mat leave is an enormous career setback. Some women will want to have all their leave close together so as to mitigate their loss.

In the grand scheme of things, in a world where women are still paid significantly less than equally qualified men, where childcare costs are so high, where many women have their children later in life for all sorts of good reasons, the fact that some mums take "back to back" mat leave is just fine.

Can't you just be happy for her?

harverina · 04/03/2013 23:23

Jack are you suggesting equal leave for mothers and fathers?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 05/03/2013 00:02

This is a useful factual guide:

www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/pregnantonmaternityleave.pdf

Haverina, parents can share maternity/paternity leavefrom April 2011
m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20295439

Kytti · 05/03/2013 00:22

Happened to me. I took a year off, went back, realised I was pregnant. My manager asked me if it was what I wanted. I went into the carpark and cried. I suffered jibes and jokes throughout the entire pregnancy while at work.

I didn't plan it, but I wasn't sorry either. Especially when I heard all that hateful crap. I worked in a very male-orientated place.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 05/03/2013 00:25

Your manager asked you if it was what you wanted?

Wow Sad Angry.

Something tells me there's a manager who wouldn't have behaved well if you'd raised your TTC plans first.

Illustrationaddict · 05/03/2013 01:09

manicinsomniac - yes they do pay to private companies too, all working women are entitled to some form of SMP - I look at it as a form of tax return from HMRC. Just checking though - this is a UK thing, not sure how it works in other countries?

I've been with my current employer for 9 years now, and currently off with DC1, but thinking of trying for DC2. When I think of it as 2 maternity leaves in 9/10 years service, I don't feel like I'm taking my employer for a ride. Lots of women have babies older these days, its just that being older, if you want more than one child you have to speed up the process before your body gives up on the idea! Wink

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 08:29

harverina I am a woman. of course children/family is important, but as yours is to you, mine is to me.

I don't ask/expect any employee to throw away their rights, but I am under no obligation to seek out female staff - In fact to do so would probably be discriminatory in itself, under current legislation.

if i took a year off for ML, i would have to shut down the company and make staff redundant. we are too small to survive without me.

you have to be tough to grow a business in a recession. it is easy to talk about your view of ML when you aren't the one paying for it. and the SMP from the govt is irrelevant to me - the cost of the replacement would be say £300-500 per DAY. and for weeks/months they would not be particularly useful

more jobs benefits everyone but it is trade not charity.

oh and before someone trots out that tired 'you shouldn't be running a business ' line. right because we need fewer jobs, less corporation tax now don't we?

on recruitment you can advertise a position for £200 but it can yield hundreds of incorrectly qualified candidates and not one you can interview. you can pay a recruiter around 17% of first years salary. last time that was 17% of 35k so about 6k.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 09:49

FasterStronger Do you discriminate against those with disabilities or life limiting illnesses too?

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 09:55

growlithe please quote where i am discriminating against a women

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 10:21

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!

Here, you imply that if a woman with the correct skills for your advertised position would be a hassle to you. It feels like indirect discrimination to me.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 10:37

"no quality women apply" therefore no discrimination

the legal definition of sex discrimination is different and less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex.

if they aren't applying, i cannot be discriminating.

luanmahi · 05/03/2013 10:45

Growlithe - exactly.

Not advertising jobs where a lot of women are going to see them; not sending vacancies to people currently on parental leave (because even with the change in the law, it's still more likely to be the mother on leave than the father); not allowing reasonable adjustments to be made for flexible working (because again, in our society, it's still more likely for the mother to be organising the majority of the childcare). These are all examples of indirect sexual discrimination and are illegal.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 10:49

Yes, a clever choice of words, which does however imply that you would have a situation to deal with if a qualified woman did in fact apply. One which would have you sighing with relief when you are faced with such a situation, implying it would be a bad situation.

Now, I don't know, but I'm guessing you could, unwittingly of course, be wording your job adverts just as cleverly. Which could be the reason women aren't applying. If you aren't doing this, don't be tempted to start will you, because it can be deemed to be discriminatory. Which, of course, you have just proved you aren't.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 10:54

i advertise in the standard industry locations. there is no discrimination in that. anyone can look at the advert.

i have one person who works a 4 day week because that works for the business and him.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 10:55

its not clever words. it is a relief. i don't know what i would do in the best candidate was female.

RememberingMyPFEs · 05/03/2013 10:56

YABVU
why on earth should someone else's reproductive planning matter to you in the slightest?
And don't get me started on the feminist angle to this one... Walking away before my blood actually boils!AngryAngryAngry

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 10:57

Surely you would take the woman on? With you not practising discrimination and everything?

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 11:00

growhtlithe - you are convinced that in my situation, you would hire the women. but you are talking in theory.

or do you run your own business?

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 11:09

Faster you should be convinced that in that situation you would definitely hire the woman. To not hire the woman in such a situation would be against the law. Just like not paying your corporation tax.

I don't run my own business. But I live my life within the bounds of the law. You cannot ignore laws that don't work for you.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 11:16

it is not illegal to not hire someone. the police wont come & arrest you. you wont go to prison.

the individual could take you to employment tribunal which is their right and you would have to defend your actions. i would not take any action i could not defend and would advice when appropriate to ensure this was the case.

if you lost, you would pay them compensation.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 11:26

and again you are looking at this theoretically: i have never had two candidates the same

the best women to apply so far wanted to work part time in a full time job but it was nothing to do with her sex, she was an artist and wanted time for her art. fine but the role was fulltime.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 11:26

Faster This situation would be illegal. It is against the law.

You could ride your luck and hope no one takes you to a tribunal and wins if you ever get into this situation. Or you could just employ them, and deal with the fact you may one day have to provide maternity cover.

You might find the second option may be cheaper. It's definately the legal option. And, if it were me, would sit better.

But, as you say, no woman ever applies for your jobs, so you are ok, aren't you?

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 11:30

Oh, and no, as far as I am aware, it is not illegal to no give a person a job on the grounds she would like to be an artist, as long as it was nothing to do with the fact she was a woman of child bearing age.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 11:31

sorry to disappoint you but she was not a woman of child bearing age.