There should be a 9-month qualifying period for mat/pat leave.

[garlicgrump]

A few recent threads have made me think about this. I think it's hopelessly wrong that a woman can get a new job while knowing she's pregnant, then bugger off for a year's mat leave. AIBU?

[garlicgrump]

Boots and Bored, I'm not questioning the principle of mat/pat leave - it's the lack of prior commitment that bothers me. It strikes me as unfair to employers, thus I think it works against women's interests wrt equality at work. It makes it look as though women want the earth just coz they have babies ... excuse lazy language, I'm not feeling too well.

Koala - congratulations :) Yes, you are entitled.

Again, I'm not questioning the entitlement (though I want to see enforced sharing between the parents) but the fact that this entitlement kicks in immediately. The employer's legally required to honour a commitment to an employee, who isn't required to commit to them.

This isn't about sex discrimination, Northern. There is no other circumstance in which a brand-new employee, of any gender, can say "Oh, I'm going to want a year off from the month after next. Get a temp in and I'll let you know if or when I'm coming back to this job." Being pregnant does give you the right to ride roughshod over common decency and respect for your employer's business, but I don't really think it should - it's undue privilege, imo.

[garlicgrump]

Thanks for that Fawcett link, soup! Couldn't agree more :)

[foreverondiet]

See it both ways - with dd I'd been ttc for a while - was told would probably need fertility treatment and then got made redundant! I found a new job and got pregnant (without fertility treatment shortly after) - are you saying that if a woman us made redundant in pregnancy she shouldn't look for a new job??

[garlicgrump]

I dunno, forever. It's tricky. There's always going to be some unpredictable circumstance - especially nowadays. As employees are feeling less secure, though, so are employers. Something like several staffers getting upduffed at the same time can literally ruin a business. I don't have all the answers but am unconvinced this particular provision helps the cause of women's equality

[Lovelygoldboots]

I think that it has to be as it is because it benefits mothers and fathers. Two people make a baby. If a woman has to look for employsment whilst pregnant what else is she supposed to do? Sign on? If a woman does not return to work why? Addressing a lack of affordable childcare would go a long way to resolving this supposed inequality by encouraging women to return to their jobs. People change jobs for all kinds of reasons. I found myself pregnant after being in a job for six months, as I had.been made redundant. I returned after four months mat leave. When I was pregnant again 12 months later I realized I was not going to be able to return to work ans left. I would have liked to very much but they did not want to offer me any flexibility. 8 years later I am working part time in a completely different role for a fraction of the pay. Rewarding, yes and my choice. But I think employers could think outside the box a bit if they want to retain the staff they employ. It seems to work in other countries.

[Iggi101]

"this isn't about sex discrimination"
rofl.

[NorthernLurker]

Rofl here too. Yes it is about sex discrimination.

[garlicgrump]

Why is it? Honest question; I'm willing to learn.

Do you disagree that there's any undue privilege at play? (It is "due", strictly speaking, as a legal right, but my vocabulary isn't quite working atm.)

Boots, I agree, flexibility makes a lot more sense than conventional (patriarchal) business structures would like to admit. I think companies that don't implement enthusiastically family-friendly policies are stupid. And I would like them to be forced to do it.

[lainiekazan]

I do feel for small companies.

There was a case a few years ago where a woman applied for a job at a caravan company which only had two or three employees and where the job was demonstrating the caravans. When she turned up for work she was pregnant and said she was unable to do the work. So she was fired, she sued and she won. The company owner was very bemused and considerably out of pocket.

[Lovelygoldboots]

Lainekazan, can you link to some details of this case?

[OrangeFootedScrubfowl]

There is no other circumstance in which a brand-new employee, of any gender, can say "Oh, I'm going to want a year off from the month after next. Get a temp in and I'll let you know if or when I'm coming back to this job."

No, but anyone could say "I am going to want some time off from today, I can't let you know for how long (so you won't have any idea of whether you'll need a temp or what sort of temp) or whether I am coming back to the job" if a serious illness strikes.

A healthy pregnancy and maternity leave is much more predictable. And a pregnancy is a part of life and companies should be able to cope with the not unheard of scenario of a woman having a baby.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

So what's your solution, OP? Fire the woman when you find out she's pregnant? Fire the man when you find out his partner is pregnant?

[TiredyCustards]

So wrt automatic entitlement, what's the alternative? The woman has to come back to work straight after birth or lose her job?

And pp are using the word unethical - why would anyone place the interests of their employer,who could and would make them redundant at any moment, over the interests of their baby and themselves? If being a sahm is best for your family, then it's tough for the employer - they cannot be cushioned from everything.

Women should not feel guilty for availing themselves of their rights.

[moominlike]

This has really struck a chord with me as I have just found out I'm pregnant a week after being offered a new job. I don't know what to do and feel guilty at the thought of accepting it, but am on notice of redundancy at my current place of work! I accept it isn't ideal for the new employer but equally don't really see what choice I have? As someone else said too the pregnancy is such early days that anything could happen and I don't want to end up without a job for potentially a year!

[NorthernLurker]

It's about sex discrimination because history shows us that unless women's employment rights are protected pre and after birth, they will lose jobs, lose promotions, be unfairly selected for redundancy and not employed in the first place. Even with these rights in place, this site abounds with stories of unfair treatment.

[DoctorRobert]

odfod.

I was made redundant from my job of 10 years when I was about 6 weeks pregnant, so had no option but to find another job. I started a new job when I was 5 months.

would you honestly begrudge me that? I didn't qualify for statutory maternity pay, but too right I was entitled to a year off and my job kept open!

this is 2013

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Moomin, accept the job.

OP, women are the only ones who can bear children. To make an allowance for this is trying to make what is a biologically unequal situation fair. You never know, said woman might take the minimum biologically driven leave and then her partner take the rest, ESP if he had access to any pay over and above maternity allowance.

[Lovelygoldboots]

moomin, another one who thinks you should take the job. You have been selected because you are the best candidate for it.

I don't really understand why you feel there has to be this prior committment to the job op? If women are not allowed to change jobs and take promotions because of pregnancy there will never be change in the workplace and women will always be on the back foot when trying to forward their careers. So their jobs should stay open. It not only benefits women, but men also as their partners can continue to work and contribute to the family income. What if the father of the child is made redundant during the pregnancy, a woman is then out of work also as she has not completed her "qualifying period" for materntity leave and the whole family is out of work? What becomes of them all? It benefits not just the women, but society as a whole to ensure that women have full employment rights whatever stage they are at with an employer. Otherwise women, whether they choose to have children or not will always struggle in the workplace, as they will always "potentially leave" and be therefore judged "unemployable". This is an untenable position for any woman in the workplace.

[Lambsie]

This would have meant that I could never have changed jobs in the six years that I was trying for a baby as it was always possible I could become pregnant between applying for the job and starting it possibly six months later. Was I really supposed to put my life on hold like that?

[BearsInMotion]

It's massively problematic because it's making a judgement on how the majority of women would behave based on the experience of a few. I want to progress my career, an ideal job comes up, I apply for it. If I'm the best candidate I get the job. Why should I not receive the benefits I'm entitled to (I.e. the job being held open for me if I'm pregnant) just because some women may not come back?

My predecessor in this job was a man, who'd been in post for many years. He took three months paternity leave. The company thought, not worth getting in a temp, it's only three months. He didn't do any handover. He announced just before the end of his paternity leave he wasn't coming back. Left the company in a right mess. Do we deduce men with several years experience shouldn't be allowed paternity benefits? Or do we assume that the benefits to the majority make it worth compensating for the few cases where it doesn't work out?

[garlicgrump]

moominlike - clearly you should go for the job. It is your right under the law :) Hope all goes well with both job and pregnancy!

I'm working through the other posts as it's a lot to think about. Scrubfowl - I did mention the unexpected illness scenario. Fact is, an employer can let a person go if their health makes them unable to do a job. Pregnancy is the only exception to this afaik, and isn't an illness anyway.

[RunnerHasbeen]

I see it differently - by working there longer you become more valuable and important. If an employee is going to be taking a year off I would rather they did it early on. Why would six months longer make any real difference long term, when you look back over a five year period, say?

I know doctors in training who are almost encouraged to have children before they are full consultants, as their role is more easily filled while they are away. Most jobs are similar, the more experience you have of the role the harder you are to replace temporarily.

I always feel these discussions centre on the idea that ML is a privilege you need to earn and not a right that society needs to have in place.

[garlicgrump]

the idea that ML is a privilege you need to earn and not a right that society needs

I think my issue is that pregnancy doesn't just happen to you - not in the usual run of things, anyway. We aim to plan our life changes, including job changes and pregnancies, for best results. Doesn't always work out that way, but I'm thinking about responsibility. The pregnant employee and her partner are responsible for the pregnancy and have responsibilities to their employers.

[garlicgrump]

Sorry, forgot to directly answer your point there - I've not questioned the need for ML provision, nor that some employers disrespect it. My question is about whether it should apply from the very beginning.

[sleeplessbunny]

There is still a significant gender pay gap. Women often settle for less (financially) than men, and have some feelings of guilt when taking maternity leave, even if they've been in the post for years and return to the same job (speaking from experience). It's because we are still measuring ourselves against a male-centric model of the working world.

(OK I have made some sweeping generalisations there but I think it makes sense)

Women have babies, men can't, that is something we are unlikely to ever change, so it is the workplace that needs to accommodate if women are ever to gain equality at work.

I agree it can be hard, particularly for small businesses, and I don't know what the "answer" is, but I believe recent mat/pat leave changes are in the right direction. It will take generations of tiny steps to change perceptions at work.