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?

What you are saying garlicgrump, makes it impossible for anyone to start a family. If an employer wants to start a business and make money from employees he or she is the one with responsibilities. An employee has to only abide by the terms and conditions of employment. Employee rights of any nature have been hard won and cannot be brushed aside under the belief that an employee has a responsibility to their employer. How can that be when an employee can be made redundant when it suits the organization?

An employee can't legally be made redundant just because it suits the organisation.

What I'm saying does not make it impossible to start a family! I'm just saying I'm not sure the law should support them starting a family whenever it suits them, even if they've only just started a new job.

Bunny: we are still measuring ourselves against a male-centric model of the working world. - I totally agree with this and am in favour of radical restructuring of working practices. What's bothering me is that pregnant people can start a job, knowing they're going to become unable to do it for a considerable time, and the law protects their position the same as if they were already a valued part of the workforce.

I have disabilities. The law says employers must make necessary adjustments up to the cost of recruiting & training a replacement.

If I'd already been working well for my bosses, the replacement costs would likely be higher as the new person wouldn't know the job as well as I did. So they would have to make more adjustments - this is what happened when I first got sick.

If I were to start a new job now, the employer only has to assess whether the adjustments would cost them more than recruiting someone else. (They would cost more, but even if they didn't the employer could say so.) Therefore it's up to me to evaluate what I can & can't do, so as not to piss off a string of employers by getting jobs that never start.

I don't feel the law owes me the right to start a job I know I won't be able to do properly. Why does a pregnant person not have to make similar provisions?

I have applied for a job, and been interviewed for it, while pregnant. I'd have told them, I think, at the point of accepting it had I been offered it.

There aren't that many good, interesting jobs around in my field. I was a couple of months pregnant, still at a stage where it was quite likely I'd miscarry. I didn't feel I should pass up the chance.

Yes it does, garlic. When you are TTC, you don't know when it will happen if at all. In the meantime you have to get on with the business of living your life and working. You can't just stop forging ahead. I was made redundant whilst we were ttc and had a mc whilst working my redundancy notice. I still had to work and find another job. You advocate cant advocate mat rights on one set of circumstances. It has to apply to all.

I conceived 2 days before I started a new job. Had no idea till a good few weeks later when I had already started my new job and left the old one.

I had maternity leave but no maternity pay, only state maternity allowance.

OP what would you have suggested we did? My baby went into childcare at a few hours old and I went back to work?

Or perhaps I should have had a choice between abortion or the sack?

Oh, well. I'll have to give up on this. Good thing I'm not a policymaker, eh?!

It still seems to me that this particular provision is more likely to put employers off hiring and/or valuing female employees than any other. I've never actually worked with it - throughout my working life, maternity rights in the UK were an issue (there weren't any when I started.) Perhaps this informs my perspective. I am NOT saying parental rights are too much already - far from it! - just that I see this as particularly detrimental to employment of women.

Maybe I should be campaigning for fully protected disability rights. But employers have a right to expect work to get done. Oh ...

I know very little about disability employee rights. But we should all have a right to access gainful employment. What alternative is there otherwise? I do wish you all the best garlicgrump.

Thanks, Lovelygoldboots :)

Small business employers get screwed every which way in all areas. It sucks that employees have all the same rights and entitlements when working for a small business (of say less then 10 employees) as a big company who hires thousands of staff where it is so much easier to accomidate all the differents entitlements.

For instance it is so much easier for a big company to hire a temp or get there hundreds of staff to muck in and cover the job then it is for a business who only has 6 staff members to cover leave, especially in a skilled job.

It also makes me furious when people say "couldn't you just get a temp" when talking about finding cover for someone in a skilled job where it takes months to train and that is if you can actually find someone who want to go to the length of training etc for the sake of a year. Plus you get left in limbo as to whether thet are coming back or not.

Small businesses get a government kickback for maternity leave, don't they? No clue of the details, just recall seeing it on a Chamber of Commerce site.

... though I agree a couple of grand isn't the same as a person you've just trained into the job.

yes the employer can claim the money back but the money isn't the issue, it's the uncertainty of it all, the stress of re-hiring, training, finding someone who can/wants to actually go through all the headache of training for a job that is a year long etc then you are left in limbo whether or not they will be coming back. No one ever know where they stand on it all as the employee holds all the cards so to speak.

Small businesses get a government kickback for maternity leave, don't they?

the govt pays statutory ML and a very small amount on top to cover admin costs.

but it is not thousands and it is not a profit

Sorry i am just feeling abit peeved today because an employee, the one who does the job that without someone doing that job, the place doesn't function, told my dh last night that they are going in for an opperation next week and will be off maybe between 2-4 months or maybe longer and wouldn't answer whether they thought they would be back or not.

Trouble is to find someone to do this persons job is very rare because it's a dying trade and it will take months to re-train someone new and even then it is unlikely someone will do that knowing it will be for a few months. So my dh will be doing 18 hour days with me picking up the pieces in all other areas and i know this will not do my GAD any good at all. There is nothing we can do about it either, as the employer we just have to suck it up. I just wanna throw in the towel.

Until pregnant women and those on maternity leave are better protected, then no, I don't think it's wrong. After nearly five years service I got made redundant whilst five months pregnant, so didn't get company enhanced maternity leave I had planned on living off, nor did I get SMP, just basic MA. Although legally I didn't have to tell prospective employers of my pregnancy I chose to only apply for short term contracts and be honest at interviews. 3 years later my pay is 25% less than before redundancy and I cannot find a permanent job for love or money. In hindsight I should have gone straight for another permanent job whilst I had a strong work record with no "career break" on my CV or dependants, had a job to return to when DD was old enough for nursery and have a good, stable income to cover childcare fees. BTW I get asked about my childcare arrangements/plan for DD's sickness at every interview, by males and females.

Emsmaman it must work both ways though because do you think you shouldn't have been considered for redundancy because you were pregnant? I am not saying a woman should be the first to be considered for redundancy because she is pregnant or on maternity leave but surely she shouldn't be illiminated from redundancy either because she is on maternity or pregnant? Surley that wouldn't be fair on the other employees that they are condidered for redunancy but a pregnant woman is exempt?

Its really difficult, I'm being made redundant soon, and have started looking for a new job. We are also TTC, because we're not getting any younger, if we don't start trying now, we mayn't be able to have another baby (took us 2 years to start our first, and DS was conceived 2 years ago, our fertility is only going to have declined since then).

But what can I do? I can't not work until I get pregnant and have another child, that might be years out of the job market (or forever, secondary infertility isn't unknown). Also I can't afford not to work while TTC just in case I put a potential employer in a difficult position; both financially and in terms of keeping career going I need to work. Also, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy will proceed smoothly, I might have a mc.

But I do worry that we might be 'lucky' this time, and conceive fast, in which case I'll feel like I'm treating a new employer badly (if I get a job fast) or go for interviews knowing I'm pregnant, which I'll feel uncomfortable about concealing, which would probably mean I won't get the job if I tell them...

In an ideal world, we could all conceive precisely when we want to, whilst in stable employment, if only....

fucking humans hey chocolate - dam them and their organic puny bodies!

Chocolate, that is hard on your DH but that person may well not know how they will recover etc.

OP, don't forget that interview processes can take several weeks, notice periods can be 1-6 months and people can be TTC for years. "just plan it better" is not a reasonable solution. Not to mention that an awful lot of families do bear this in mind for their own financial interest.

Also, people can't be made redundant on a whim, but they can for an economic reason.

maddening yes and what people forget is employers are also human too. We aren't all big corpartate businesses with HR and other assorted departments to fall back on, we are a just like you, we also have families to support and (especially my dh) have health problems also. The attitude some people have to their employers (i am talking about very small businesses) can be shocking. Again we aren't all big CEOs making millions, we are little fish in the big sea just like you trying to bring up a family and make a living.

Chocolate it was your choice to start a small business, which comes with both great rewards and risks. Suck it up and put loads of non business stuff through the books to reduce your tax like every other small business owner I know does .

To garlic YABU. Do you also think peo

...People with medical conditions, depression, who play risky sports should also not be hired as they might have to have time off?

No woman would do this on purpose unless she was desperate for the job or it was a dream opportunity for her. Either way you are very likely to get a dedicated hard worker.

ivanapoo unfortunately it wasn't my choice to start a small business - i married someone who has a small business, a business that has run in his family for 60 years so it was kind of put upon him that he would carry it on after his father retired. If i had a choice we would sell it tommorrow but unless we are willing to give it away for peanuts because no one is buying nor do they have the skill and know how because it is a dying trade so yes i do suck it up.

I would never choose to be self employed in a small business - ever.

Chocolate, if it is that stressful, can your DH sell the business and himself too ie he doesn't get much for the business but remains doing his trade on a salaried basis?

Since around 50% of the UK workforce works for SMEs, the chances are a lot of people on this thread do work for small employers. I have worked in the senior team of a small business where there were a lot of health issues, bereavements etc, from the managing director downwards. People bemoan their bad luck, juggle, work crazy hours, get stressed - none of it is nice but there are no alternatives to employing people with outside lives.