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.

[AlwaysBizzy]

I think this person is taking a gamble.
I hope they have assumed that after they have had their second child they dont want to return to work, or at least if they do, they dont want to return part time.
I've seen a couple of women make the move described above, then after #2 they ask for part time & are surprised when it's refused.
Employers are human, and will normally play by the rules. They can also enforce the rules and part time working is not a right.

[Pigsmummy]

Hillbilly this isn't "abuse" of the maternity system though is it?

[lovetomoan]

YDNBU. How dare that woman not to have an abortion when she is obviously ruining her employer? [sarcasm smile]

[AnaisB]

hilllbilly what do you mean "abuse of the spirit of the system." What is the "spirit" of the maternity leave system - I think we understand it differently.

[Growlithe]

Where will it end? They'll all be asking for flexible working conditions next.

[Cabrinha]

But, but... these companies NEED us to have children!

We can all stop having kids, there'll be no maternity leave costs to pay. And in about 80 years time, no consumers. And declining numbers until then.

To continue as a society, we need children. As a society, we need to find a way for some people to provide those children. That includes maternity leave.

As it happens, one child here, no back to back leave. But if I had? I will work and pay tax from 16-67. Yes - 67! Potentially FIFTY YEARS. And it really matters if I have 2 years on mat leave? Really?

[toobreathless]

Not everybody has the luxury of time.

On the one hand women are being told that they are 'leaving it too late' and that their fertility declines after 35. On the other hand the OP and other people think that they should wait to try for a second.

So if you meet the right partner at say 36, marry at 38, have DC1 at 39 then you should wait until 41? 42? And accept the risks associated with increased maternal age.

Yes it might present a real difficultly to some employers but they need to STOP think of the bigger picture and work with the women and their other staff to find appropriate solutions while the women is away.

Oh and no personal conflict of interest here, I had my first at 26, and am 35 weeks pregnant with my second at 29.

[mrsmalcolmreynolds]

Someone earlier made a comment about why is this just a "women's issue" and how can that be changed?

I agree it shouldn't be and think that until it is as normal (or at least as acceptable) for a man to take a substantial amount of time off to look after children at a very young age as it is for women, we will never have proper equality in the workplace or more generallyin society. There are some proposals at the moment I think to make it possible for couples to have more than two weeks off together with a baby, and also to enable more flexible sharing of the year's stat leave. If this comes in and people actually start to use it I think it could eventually make our society a much more equal and ultimately more productive place.

Disclaimer - I realise I am talking about quite abstract stuff here so please do not bash because I appear to be ignoring a) breastfeeding which only a woman can do b) the fact that some people can't afford two weeks of two lots of stat pay c) the impact on businesses especially small ones d) any combination of the above or related issues. I am aware of all these, it is just that I wholeheartedly believe that it is best socially and economically to provide much more flexibility for parents in general (not just women) than currently exists. Fuller participation in the workforce has repeatedly been found to be of economic value at both micro and macro level.

FWIW I will be going on mat leave with Dc2 in early May having been back for nearly three years, following 10 months off with DC1 who was ebf and I am the major earner in our family.

[mrsmalcolmreynolds]

Sorry in b) that should read two weeks (let alone more) of two lots of stat pay...

[ceramicunicorn]

I still don't see the difference between having two kids close together or having a larger gap.

I work full time. I have worked for the same employer for a fair amount of time. I will take two lots of maternity pay in my working life. After whuch I will return to work full time. How the hell does the fact my dc's are being born 15 months apart make me immoral?

[Growlithe]

This thread makes me so angry actually. Could I not expect everyone on this site to support the need for maternity leave?

It's not benefits. It's working people having children and being able to draw on their NI contributions in order to support this.

You cannot 'abuse' maternity leave. You work, you have a baby, you get mat leave. That mat leave of course accrues benefits as if you were in work. If it didn't that would be sexual discrimination.

Some of the comments on this thread seem to support sexual discrimination.

How odd.

[ceramicunicorn]

Fully agree with growlithe.

This thread has made me feel really angry and upset that other women on this site feel that taking maternity leave is taking advantage of employers.

[ChairmanWow]

^ This.

I hate this bitching about other women's choices. I wonder what the OP and those who agree would have as an alternative. Perhaps some of you could post your ideas on how you would stop this so-called abuse.

Think about what life was like for families before we had these hard-won rights. And stop being so Katie Hopkins about the whole thing.

[HairyHandedTrucker]

yabu

[FamiliesShareGerms]

I think it's possible to believe that doing this is not an abuse of the maternity leave system whilst also realising the negative impact that this has on a business (particularly a small business, but large ones can also have difficult HR processes to negotiate in order to get maternity leave cover agreed and in place).

[LittleChickpea]

YANBU, it's not the maternity pay. It's the disruption to the business particularly if the person is in a client facing role. In my line of work this would place our clients at risk and would be totally unfair on the business and the rest of the team. There needs to be consistency in relationships and it's not as easy as just replacing the person on maternity with someone else. Don't mean to sound judgemental but if someone is trying so quickly after going back maybe they should consider how their colleagues and business feel. Let's face it, people will be thinking "you are taking the mick and using the business". I certainly would consider the impact on the business and the wider team.

[jellybeans]

YABU. If mothers are to carry on working this is the way it has to be. They SHOULD be allowed time off with baby (I think 12-18 months would be a good minimum time for those who want it) and to have as many children as they like.

[Bogeyface]

I think it does take the piss and is the reason why many women of a certain age struggle to get taken seriously in their careers.

Every woman that takes the piss with ML and pay makes the rest of us look bad.

[MajaBiene]

What would be not taking the piss Bogey - leaving 6 months between MLs, 1 year, 4 years? Only taking 1 ML with each company you work for?

[ceramicunicorn]

Bogeyface how exactly is taking two lots of maternity leave close together taking the piss anymore than taking two lots of maternity leave with a longer gap?

There's the same problem with employers finding cover, timing has nothing to do with it.

I'm still struggling to believe there are so many people out there that think women are taking liberties by daring to claim maternity pay.

[LittleChickpea]

Bogey face, I totally agree with you. In my company the client manager/director is essential to retaining the business. If there is constant change, inconsistency and disruption this does have a huge impact on clients and has resulted in our company been sacked. Nothing wrong with trying quickly between DCs but be honest with the business from the off so they can manage the situation.

[poocatcherchampion]

I'm doing this, so thanks for that op. I told my enployer at 7 weeks and offered to do a different role so they could keep my mat cover on. they declined. so I'll be returning this week at 12 weeks. its just as inconvenient as if I went off at Xmas or whatever.

my just finished mat leave counts as continuous service so I don't need to return at all technically.

my maternity enhancement is negligible so is mainly paid by the gov. however as I've accrued so much annual leave ilk be paid full time but be 2 days a week. that's the great bit for me.

but funnily enough that's not why I'm spacing my family like this