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.

[Still18atheart]

This exact same thing happened to my dfs work oly this time it was a charity. they then left after the maternity leave for the 2nd baby was up

[Sokmonsta]

Morally it is unfair. Legally there is nothing the company can do provided you comply with their notice procedures.

I am doing this myself. We had twins for preg no 3. It wasn't expected and means I can no longer afford to work. We already have 2 dc.

I have worked for the same company throughout, been treated like shit and as a result no longer feel loyally to the company.

I only have to give 1 months notice. I have had my 12 months, am now using annual leave accrued while off and won't be going back.

[Plumandpears]

Maybe we should recommend that these women should go on benefits instead and giving up work all together. That will really help the economy

[herethereandeverywhere]

But doesn't the current system rely on not all women doing this? What if the women who thought "oh no I shouldn't" ALL came back to work pregnant? Would it matter? I actually can't decide!

[BikeRunSki]

I like the idea of the man with 26 babies at fortnighjtly intervals.
One of the men I work with negotiated 2 x paternity leave or twins, on a technicality of the wording of the policy. He got it too.

[tigerdriverII]

Of course it's fine and there are statutory rights to back this up. But from an employers' perspective, it really depends on the size of the business. I have had clients who are tiny, just a handful of employees, where someone has joined and literally in their first week announced their pregnancy. That's really tricky for the business, they have to get in a replacement a few months after the candidate started, it has to be a temp replacement, there is no continuity, it's disruptive and the employee who joined is very new, has no real connection to the business. Yes, the employer gets the SMP back but that doesn't tell the whole story. I hate discrimination of all sorts but there are some difficult decisions on this issue

[Fanjounchained]

It's swings and roundabouts in my opinion. Went back to work when DS was 9 months (after my full 9 months mat leave) Found out I was pregnant with DD when DS was 14 months. I received SMP with DS. Unbeknown to me and my colleagues the directors of our small company had sold the company to a large London based group and I was subsequently made redundant when 8 months pregnant. So my new motto in life ? Look after me and mine...and screw everyone else....not nice but being out of work for the last 3 yrs has been a learning curve.

[Fanjounchained]

Oh and I worked for my employer for 8 yrs before falling pregnant the first time. Received statutory redundancy after putting up with all sorts of shit "for the good of company" to try and pull us through a difficult period.

[BratinghamPalace]

Reading this something feels a little off and I think it is this: why is this a woman's issue? This should be a fact of life that impacts all in working life as does job changing, companies being sold, promotions, external recruitment as against internal etc. it should not be a woman's issue. Do not know quite how it could be changed tho. Anyone agree that it seems off? For example most have said "my maternity leave" and the then "we tried for another." See what I am trying to say? Very garbled. Need help thinking it through Nelson do not have my glasses so cannot type.....

[fromparistoberlin]

OP this is MUMsnet, the clue is in the name

try CEOsnet, or HRmanagersnet and you will get a more sympathetic hearing

[MidniteScribbler]

I can see both sides of it. As a teacher in a system where you can take six years maternity leave and return to your position (yes SIX years!!!), this has had a very detrimental effect on the teaching profession here. So many teachers are stuck in temporary or contract positions due to the number of women who can take years out of the profession (you don't have to come back until the start of the next term following the sixth birthday of your youngest child), and unable to secure permanent teaching positions. This means lack of job security, lower pay (due to not being paid for the holidays, sick leave or being able to access maternity leave themselves). Teachers can finish the school year without knowing where or even if they will have a job the following year, or what grade they may be teaching, which means they can't use the term breaks to plan lessons. It has a horrible effect on the teaching profession, and is causing people to find alternative careers. On the other side of it, it means that teachers may (or may not) eventually come back to work after six - twenty years of leave and have no current skills or knowledge of the curriculum, which is not good for the students either.

I'm sure the original idea was to stop this sort of situation occurring (teachers coming back for a term or two, then going on leave again), but it's having a terrible effect on the profession, and ultimately it's the students who suffer in the long run. Legally, they may be doing exactly what they are allowed to do, but looking at the bigger picture shows just what an effect it can have on the industry, other workers, and in our case, students and their parents.

[sashh]

Would it be illegal to put "Finished reproducing,will not require maternity leave" on my cover note?

Nope, you can do that.

I have a disability, interviewers are not allowed to ask about it other than making arrangements for interview. At the 'have you got any questions' stage I have been known to explain the impact on work and any days off I might need.

[MidniteScribbler]

Would it be illegal to put "Finished reproducing,will not require maternity leave" on my cover note?

A better way would be:
"I am keen to continue to develop my career now that our family is complete, and this position ..... yada yada....."

[nicewatch]

Well, before we all start feeling sorry for the poor companies that have to deal with back-to-back maternity leave, let's pause to remember that women make on average 80% of what men do in comparable roles (? haven't looked up the exact stat but I'm pretty sure that's in the ballpark).

So while a woman may or may not cost a company a bit more for, what, two or three years of her whole career, I am sure it stacks up when compared to a 20% discount over 45 or potentially 50 years.

[nicewatch]

Even if the companies DID have to take the hit on mat leave themselves (which they don't), they would still do well out of the deal.

[MummytoKatie]

Personally I will have just over 3 years between children. polishes halo

However I'm not convinced that doing this is any better for my company than if I had had say 18 months.

In my current scenario I had a year's maternity leave, went back to my old job (that I was really good at), worked in it for 8 months, got a promotion, started a new job where I didn't know what I was doing, was trained up, got good at it and just as I'm getting really good I'm going on leave again.

Where as if I had taken the 18 month child gap I'd have just gone back to my old job.

Either way - in my 13 year career (so far) I am going to have 2 years of maternity leave.

[pleasestoptalking]

It's legal. I was offered a promotion when I was only a few weeks pregnant and actually took legal advice (we had a free helpline with work luckily) about whether I could take the offer or not. It was perfectly legal but in the end I decided against it as I felt I didn't need the extra stress.

I know people would have raised their eyebrows if I had taken it and then announced I was pregnant, but on the other hand I am very unlikely to have that opportunity again after having three children.

Women work, women have children. Luckily we are protected by law otherwise we would be very vulnerable to people who hold attitudes like you. Life is hard enough for working mothers who are often the one whose career suffers when having children - why do you want to make it harder?

Sisterhood at its best.

[MrsKeithRichards]

Of course a woman is entitled to the same maternity benefits that company offers if she falls soon after, or even on, leave. You are still employed whilst on maternity leaves, all your in work benefits accrue as if you were there.

It seems some people know very little about their company's and overall maternity policies.

[sarahtigh]

as bbcessex said it does cost even small companies the 104% of SMP is covered but not other things, like possibly training someone else to do job which is a distinct possibility in a 3-10 employee company, also may have to pay more out if need agency staff, or difficult to find temporary staff, advertising temporary post etc, all these expenses are legitimate and yet not covered

so it is not fair to say it is cost neutral to any company and it would affect small company more

that does not mean I think there is anything wrong in 2 lots of maternity I think whether they are close together or not is no-one else's business

I think maternity rights are good and we should have them without thinking it will adversely affect our job/promotion prospects but it does the cause no good by pretending there is no cost or inconvenience to a business because there is

the only problem soneone may have is not being back at work long enough to qualify for SMP from company as you need 26 weeks before 15th week from expected date ie you would need to be working before you got pregnant or not deliver until 41 weeks

[CuthbertDibble]

fanjounchained if you were made redundant at 8mths pregnant, you should have received your full SMP as well as your redundancy pay.

[Growlithe]

sarah but it is part of the cost of employing a person. Big companies have figures on the exact cost to the company of each of its head count. Small businesses are naive if they don't take this into consideration when increasing their staff.

It is just the same as SSP and jury service. You have to factor these costs in.

[Fanjounchained]

Cuthbert Yes I got both...sorry should have pointed that out.

I had to laugh at the two other women who were made redundant at the same time when they commented "well it's ok for you, you've got your redundancy pay and your SMP too." Yes and I was f**king entitled to it too ! I had a two year old and a new born so my chances of finding a new job were somewhat slimmer than theirs being mid twenties and no mortgage or dependants to speak of ! Sisterhood at its best indeed...

[sarahtigh]

growlithe

most small companies do factor it in and hence some are reluctant to employ certain women

but some of the costs are not just the cost of employing a person, as most of the time employing temporary staff is more expensive than training someone for fulltime job, that is why I said costs are disproportionate in small companies as generally everyone has a particular job and if sue is away whether sick maternity or holiday there may be no-one else to cover that may not matter for a 1-2 weeks with sickness/ holiday but it is a bigger expense if for 9-12 months and then they may or may not return, quite a few companies do not pay you if you are on jury service you just get statutory payment which is almost certainly less than your pay, also in some areas of work it is very difficult to get temporary staff with right level of expertise, and most people in employment are actually working in small companies

even in some large organisations like NHS they do not always get maternity cover so colleagues have to work to cover their work as well as their own