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.

Women can't win. Go back to work pregnant and you are an evil drain on resources. Give up work and you are a lazy mare who is either a drain on the state or wasting your qualifications.

This country is actually facing a major problem with an ageing population. We need people to have babies. What's more all those companies who are pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by maternity leave depend on having a workforce, customers and suppliers - and guess where those people come from?

Maternity leave also creates job and training opportunities for other employees; a jolly good thing when we have high unemployment.

But hey, if people are determined to begrudge others, they won't care about the facts...

Sorry luanmahi I meant FarBetterNow

I'm not begrudging any woman taking ML, but find it amusing that some of the same women may begrudge other less fortunate, who haven't got a job, their welfare benefits.
90% of a high income for six weeks, is an incredible benefit not to be means tested, in these days of austerity.
It is interesting that the government has not chosen (yet) to reduce MP, but have reduced many other benefits to the disabled.

I went on adoption leave about two months after starting a new role. I had warned my prospective boss that we were looking to adopt, that if it happened it would all move quickly, and that we had no idea of timescales. He said he'd take the risk, as he really wanted me. Even though I had warned him, I felt completely shit when I gave him about ten days notice that I was going to be off work for a year. I'm not completely irreplaceable, but I do have a particular set of skills which meant that I was by far the best person for the job. I did feel that I was letting work down.

Adoption is different in that at least with pregnancy there is a few months notice, but similar in that it happens when it happens and there's not always much scope to plan.

I shrugged my shoulders and figured that no one would thank me for not adopting DD, and there was every reason to do so. But I was also acutely aware that I had put my boss in a really difficult position - and also giving managers who are so minded an excuse not to hire women of childbearing age.

Of course when men start taking longer off to share a period of parental leave, it will matter less when women take repeated periods of maternity leave, or go on leave at short notice. But until then I don't see what is wrong with acknowledging that sometimes exercising our statutory rights to maternity / adoption leave can be a PITA for the companies that employ us.

Yes absolutely, what a shocking sense of entitlement women have to expect not to be disadvantaged in the work place due to their gender and owning a uterus.

It's not really even about the money, but having your job held open for you.

What a depressing thread.

Isn't it just. Feminism v capitalism all the way. Companies deserve to have rights more than women. God forbid that an employer should be inconvenienced. Much better to discriminate against women, or just erode our rights.

Any company that can't cope with its employees taking maternity leave when the statutory element is fully claimable is badly run, and anyone who thinks they are completely irreplaceable is arrogant.

I have to build up relationships with a number of different organisations and engage in complex negotiations which can run into months or even years. I've just gone on mat leave and just found out who my replacement is. She's excellent and is the person I would have chosen. She'll do at least as good a job as I did and the other parties I was dealing with wiil just get on with it. I received nothing but goodwill from the partners we dealt with prior to my leave. Some people seem to have come out of the dark ages, I guess.

I think this is a situation generated by the ability to have a year off. I could only afford four months off. Consequently, although I would like to start trying for my second DC a year after the first was born, I will have been back at work for 8-9 months at that point.

But for a lot of companies it's not just about the money, it's about being able to do proper succession planning so that they aren't left with gaps in their work force that expose them to risk; or about being able to allocate work fairly so that one area isn't overburdened while another is underused.

I work in the public sector, so not exactly a huge part of the capitalist machine. I have about ten people in my team at the moment. I know that one has moved heaven and earth to get pregnant, and I am thrilled for her that she is going to be a parent after so long trying. But the harsh fact is that I will be carrying a gap in my team because I almost certainly won't be able to get someone in to cover. That has an impact on everyone in the team - very few organisations are set up so that they can manage a 10% drop in staff without an impact on delivery.

I'll repeat my previous point that it's possible to believe in maternity / adoption leave and also recognise the impact that has on the employing organisation.

MrsSpencerReid, sorry to hear that.
People seem to forget that not everyone can confidently plan their pregnancies so as to least inconvenience work.

Can't believe OP thinks this situation is immoral.

I found myself in this situation. Towards the end of maternity leave with DD1 I gave my employer a months notice that I was coming back to work - we desperately needed me to be working again as DH's work was going through a lean patch. I unexpectedly fell pregnant 2 weeks later, and went back to work 4 weeks pregnant.

I made the decision to tell my boss straight away as I felt really bad about it. I didn't have to tell him but I thought it would help them with their planning. I went back when DD1 was 11 months old in August. I decided to take my maternity leave as soon as I could and add my annual leave on before it as well, so I left at the end of January. I was made to feel awful by other members if staff and it was horrible. I'm so glad i left as soon as I could as it became really stressful.

But you know what - I didn't break the law, I followed all policies to the letter and was made to feel bad about an unplanned pregnancy. It really soured the whole time for me.

It's part of the reason women of childbearing age face discrimination in hiring practices.

I think women who have children should only be allowed 3 months off.

Would make exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months (almost) impossible though wouldn't it?

(As in, the government can't really continue to support idea of 6 months ebf and yet make ML 3 months).

Thanks fierce mat leave isn't covered where I work so people pick up extra shifts, I know I was glad of the chance of extra money when others were off and I know people were wanting extras when I went off to pay for weddings etc, I'm not going to be made to feel bad about my decision to have children or about what may be a sort gap in between, work is going to get many more years out of me yet!

I think you'll see more and more employers putting clauses into contracts to avoid this situation. Personally, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way and mat leaves are far too long.

I think you'll find that such clauses would breach the Equality Duty.

Alwaystimeforwine - unexpectedly fell pregnant. What does this mean were you ttc or taking precautions. I agree that mat leaves have become too long and you should have to work for a set amount of time before you qualify for a second or third period, this should actually be work and not using accrued annual leave.

I do think mat leave in the UK is very, very long now - I had 6 weeks at 90% and 12 weeks at half pay (NHS, so better than basic terms) and I couldn't afford to take more than 26 weeks off in total - it was long enough for me.

However, I can see that might not work for everyone - mine were on solid food before 6 months though still bf - I expressed at work. I think that the government needs to look at offering tax breaks to companies who are family friendly - not just in terms of mat leave, but also in respect of flexible working, leave for fathers, carer policies etc. You have to make it worthwhile before you can change culture.

I think industry tries its utmost to support women with ML. But in some cases people do / are playing the system. It's interesting to read how few people actually look at this from the employers prospective. It seems to be all about the woman's rights. What about the rights of the business and their expectation for a return on the investment they put into their employees? They don't just employ people for the love of it, it's so they can grow, increase revenue and protect shareholder value. Now i am not saying woman should not have children / take marternity but I do think they need to be honest about their intentions so the business can better manage the situation.

Women can't win: take only a little maternity leave and you're a cruel cold businesswoman neglecting her offspring. Take a lot of maternity leave and you're sponging off your boss, the state, your husband etc. Quit your job, and you're wasting your education and setting feminism back by a century.

My view is to take the leave you're legally entitled to. After all, we'll spend the rest of our working lives making sure other women after us can have the same leave, and facilitating the increasing paternity leave rights on top of it all. I don't begrudge anyone their mat or pat leave, just as I don't begrudge anyone that annual leave or their sick leave. We're all contributing to these rights so we're all allowed to take them.

LittleChickpea - spot on with rights come responsibilities
Ciske - it's not about taking all you are entitled to it's about playing the system that will prevent the next generation of Mums from getting a job in the first place

Maybe the baby wasn't planned? Even if it was though, what's the problem?

Or she might have wanted children close together? She managed to secure the job based on her skills and is therefore fully entitled to start her family whilst at work.