Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Growlithe · 05/03/2013 11:32

Were her pictures nice?

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 12:23

well i hope someone liked them. Smile

looking at my options to cover ML:

  1. i checked how much a contractor would cost to cost an absent member of staff and it is £400 per day and upwards. this is not possible unless i work for free.

  2. we could not manage one person down

  3. i cannot pick up their work because i cannot work any harder than i do.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 12:46

I'm sorry then, but like it or not you are running that business by the seat of your pants. What if one of your male employees got sick? Wouldn't you be in the same position (or arguably worse if you had no notice).

If I was in business, which as you pointed out I am not so can only talk theoretically, I would have a figure of the cost of an employee. This would not be simply that persons salary + any employers contributions to NI and pension. It would be uplifted to include these situations arising.

Would I be wrong to do this? I would feel like I was taking a gamble if I didn't. I'd certainly not want to gamble with employment law if I was in business. If I was after skilled employees I wouldn't want the damage to my reputation.

ChairmanWow · 05/03/2013 12:50

Sorry but this is all reading as me, me, me. It's inconvenient to you therefore millions of women should have their hard-won rights removed from them. If you don't think claiming back all the SMP plus an additional percentage (if you're a small business) is enough then go to the revenue and complain. Campaign for small businesses to be given more support to cover mat leave.

Given we still don't have equal pay and women still lag behind in the boardroom it's sickening to read other women complaining about one area where we do have some rights.

I seriously hope more men start taking their share of the leave, then at least it will put paid to this sickening woman-blaming.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 12:59

Quite, Chairman. It would appear that when you go into business, as a man or a woman, you are allowed to leave your ethics behind, by shrugging and saying 'I'm a small business and there is a recession on you know'.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 13:13

I have said I don't think other women are doing anything wrong using their rights - just explaining the realities of my situation.

if you think me not being able to afford £400 day (day not week) for one ML cover is bad business - really?

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 13:18

Yes, financially, legally and morally.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 13:29

so what should I do?

close down the business?
work for free?
work Saturdays as well as Sundays?
not have my own family?

WWYD?

ChairmanWow · 05/03/2013 13:46

If you start a business then you need to be prepared to put in the extra. It's not the same as working for a big employer, for example and I'd think it's naive to think you can start up your own business and clock off after a 7 hour day. It might sound harsh but that's the reality of being a business owner. The ultimate responsibility lies with you, but so does the ultimate gain when business is going well, which I'm guessing is what motivates many people to start up in the first place.

As has been said, SMP is claimable. If you pay enhancements you clearly think that's affordable. You keep mentioning £400 a day. The only way you can cover mat leave is through an agency or contractor? If she's taking a full year then surely you can recruit.

But still, it's not enough justification to come on here bemoaning the fact that women can take paid leave to be with their babies. What would you do if one of your employees suffered a serious illness?

thereonthestair · 05/03/2013 13:47

I am reading through this, and want to ask whether we all think that 12 months leave is, in and of itself progress.

At the moment there is nothing wrong with having back to back maternity leave, it is a pain as an employer, but so are many things. In my field I would prefer employees did this, than came back for a year then off for a year as that would be much more disruptive. But it all depends. It is legal and not legal for a reason, but it does encourage the attitude of not employing women.

But this whole argument is predicated on 1. women taking the majority of the leave and 2. them being off for a year. Am I really the only one who remembers when it was a matter of weeks. Everyone managed, not ideal but we managed. Now as it happens I would personally prefer the state gave more leave, and paid for it and we all paid more taxes to cover the costs as havign children is a benefit to society. But given it will not do this and we do rely on business to create jobs, cover jobs etc I do wonder why some people are so naive about how much of a buggeration it is to be out of work for 12 months. It does disrupt careers, mine is getting slowly back on track 3 years later and I only took 8 months off. I actually wish I had taken less time but my husband had been allowed to take some of it - so far example we both carried on working and carride on working 2/3 days each that would have been easier to manage from an employment perspective. (I am an employer btw, and do have honest conversations about what staff are planning with respect of children, partly because if I want to take another ML I want to know it is not likely my assistant will also be off at the same time - as happened last time).

ChairmanWow · 05/03/2013 13:49

Plus from what I can see from your posts and the constant reference back to your own situation you clearly resent that your employees can take a year's mat leave. Otherwise you'd be saying 'yes it's a bit of a ballache for us small businesses but I absolutely support the right to take mat leave without interference from employers'.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 13:51

where have I 'bemoan[ed] the fact that women can take paid leave to be with their babies'?

I don't expect to work a 7 hour day! good god!

if someone was ill, I would do what I could, for as long as I could and if they still weren't well, I would have to let them go.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 13:52

Embark on a bit of succession planning to ensure that if the shit hit the fan one way or another you would not be left held to ransom by a £400 a day contractor?

Maybe your next recruit could be a trainee. I believe there are a few young people twiddling their thumbs at the moment. Do the old fashioned thing, train one of them. They will work for you for a lot less than £400 a day.

Then, if and when one of your guys (or gals) needs extended leave, there they are - cheap and cheerful cover.

Oh, I know. You can't afford to. So you are excused from employing women of child bearing age.

ChairmanWow · 05/03/2013 13:54

(I am an employer btw, and do have honest conversations about what staff are planning with respect of children

Then please be aware that you are breaching the Equalities Act and your employees can make a tribunal claim against you. You have no legal or moral right to ask your employees about their family planning.

Some of the attitudes on here stink. You employ these people for x hours per week. By paying them a salary you have not bought the right to control any other aspect of their lives.

Anyone starting a business should be aware of all the machinations of becoming an employer. There are numerous liabilities. If you don't want to take the responsibility nobody is holding a gun to your head to start a business.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 13:55

chairman - I don't have any female staff. how can I resent them? hardly any women work in my area.

I don't resent my friends having ML.

ChairmanWow · 05/03/2013 13:58

You've spent how long on here arguing about how you'd have to pay a contractor £400 per day, work a 7 day week etc etc and you don't even employ any women. Oh. My. God.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the first male employee tells you he's taking 6 months paternity.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 14:02

chairman - which I said upthread a number of times.

thereonthestair · 05/03/2013 14:06

I think that attitude of don't ask is a little naive and also rather sanctimonious. When having those conversations I know exactly what risks I am taking, I know when I am crossing the line, and when I may get sued for it. I also think if you read my post you would see at no point did I say I would ask women, I say I would ask staff. Now that may be indirectly discriminatory as a PCP which applies more to women than men, but even then to be illegal it would have to be to the particualr woman's disadvantage, or create an offensive hostile or intimidating environment for a woman (such as viewing porn at work). It is not a comment which is made because of a woman's sex, as such it is not contrary to the Equality act, unless it could be proven to only be being asked because of a woman's sex. As I can show I ask men too then that is going to be diffiuclt to prove as even if the burden of proof was reversed as it may be in a sex discrimination case I have facts to disprove the inference. As such even if it were indirectly discriminatory it is only unlawful (not illegal) if I could not justify my actions.

I have decided that that is a risk I am happy to take. It is not I also know that sometimes it is better to know and to be asked. When I was an employee I volunteered the information as I would rather my emplyoers knew what I was planning. That made work planning much easier for everyone concerned, and good employers can and do have these conversations in a way which engenders both trust and a sense of loyalty. It is much better to do that that to be faced with discriminatory attitudes which are hidden because people are frightened of the law. The law is there, it has to be complied with, but it is nowhere near as balck and white as many small businesses fear. It is all about balancing rights and obligations, and balancing different risks.

When employers are frightened of employing women they chose not to do so. If they ask staff sensibly and plan for different eventualities, it is much easier and IMHO makes for a much friendlier place to work

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 14:07

this is what makes MN so fascinating...

I create jobs in a recession ...
women don't apply for them because few women work in this area...
I sigh when they don't, because I want time to look after my own family & have my own DCs.

and yet I am so immoral!

I don't mind being total that my people who do more than me... but the rest, I do wonder about!

of course the less you do, the easier it is to do it perfectly!

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 14:16

Creating jobs in a recession does not make you above the law.

You have explored the possibility on this thread that would be preferable for you to go to a tribunal rather than employ a suitable candidate who may, at some time in her employment with you, go on maternity leave (all hypothetical of course because we all now know you don't employ women).

You do this on a site called 'Mumsnet' - with the tag line 'for parents by parents'. Hmm

FierceBadIggi · 05/03/2013 14:33

What happens if you have had the conversation with employees, they have no plans for further/any dcs, and then an 'accident' happens? (Just read some threads of mumsnet if you think this doesn't happen often!). Do you suggest they terminate? And what if you have the chat with me, and I tell you I won't have more dcs, but am crossing my fingers behind my back as am currently ttc but think you are the type of boss to discriminate? Or you make plans based on knowing I'm ttc but then I end up have recurrent miscarriages?
I think such discussions are pointless and won't give any real info. I hope you're chatting to my dh too, as he's going to request part-time hours next year.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 14:42

grow - being relieved you don't have to deal with something is not discrimination.

hopefully, I will be able to have my own family, grow the business then as our required skills set broadens, maybe women will apply and be successful.

I do find it interesting the number of times women on MN are told to put their own families first. and how far away from that are the comments to a female employer.

Growlithe · 05/03/2013 14:53

I think you handed in your right to sympathy as a 'female employer' when you said you didn't want to employ females.

FasterStronger · 05/03/2013 15:01

its not I didn't want female employees. I am in my late thirties. its now or never for me.

and on one else is going to put me first - fair enough i don't expect that from them - but i will do it for myself.

luanmahi · 05/03/2013 15:03

Surely it's good business to expect to have to replace people regardless of who you employ. People leave for all kinds of reasons including the fact that they just want to move on. To particularly dread having to employ women because you don't want to deal with maternity is a silly thing to say (particularly on a website like this) when you could have to replace people for all manner of reasons.