To worry about taking 12 months maternity leave??

[user1476114613]

Hi All,

First post, no idea how to personalize my user name.

I am 3 months pregnant and looking to tell my employer shortly about this. I work for a US company but am based in the UK. I report into a USA-based manager and have no team mates in the UK office, if that makes sense. I am Head of Marketing for Europe and of course work to GMT hours.

I am maybe unreasonably panicking about my maternity leave. HR are based in the US and I know that they will think it's nuts that we are entitled to up to 12 months. In an ideal world, I would take the full year. I am pregnant with my first baby after a long slog with fertility treatment so we are over the moon. I've waited so long for this and want to make the most of it. My role is reasonably specialist due to the area of business we operate in and I am quite popular with managers (sounds like a dickish thing so say but hopefully relevant).

My company has recently carried out thousands of redundancies across the world (we employ 50,000+ globally but it was still huge). We're told we're over the worst but I do worry about being replaced/ditched if I take more than 6 months. I obviously want to find someone who will cover my work well but I am also (very unreasonably!) worried that they'll not take me seriously if I take more than 6 months. The average amongst US colleagues seems to be between 6-12 weeks for maternity leave which seems nuts to me but they don't bat a n eyelid.

I understand that I am legally entitled to return to my original job after 6 months (i'll also tag on about 30 days accrued leave onto this). Would it be sensible to take just the 6 months? Or AIBU to not take 12 months based on an outcome which might not happen? Due to the nature of our fertility problems (early menopause) this will likely be my only baby.

My job is incredibly convenient - I work from home but can pop into the office whenever I choose and my salary is very good. Work is hard but the balance is fantastic if im honest.

WWYD?

I think the legal relevance of 6 months is that your employer is required to keep your job - your actual job - for you. Once it's over 6 months they're only required to find an equivalent. At that point you are into a grey area as to what is equivalent etc etc and your ability to point to a clear breach/discrimination is much more limited. Anecdotally I have seen this happen with my friends a lot (not just in a U.S. company context - just generally) - lots of arguing about whether a new role is equivalent, usually followed by them resigning, claiming constructive dismissal and then being out of pocket as they job hunt whilst arguing the toss with their former employers. If you stick to 6 months or less, there's no arguing - they have to give you your job back. If you're subsequently made redundant, then so be it.

Of course, all of this is context dependent - the OP should be guided by the culture of her company, along with how much she likes her job, how much of an impact taking 6 months vs a year out will really have (a year really would be too long for my role but that's not always the case depending on the nature of the role), etc etc. But you do need to acknowledge that you have far greater legal protection if you limit your mat leave to 6 months or less, which does give you some extra leverage.

But you do need to acknowledge that you have far greater legal protection if you limit your mat leave to 6 months or less, which does give you some extra leverage.

This is absolutely true. But if any length of maternity leave over and above the US average is frowned upon (covertly, of course) and means that (again, behind closed doors) the OP is written off, then she could return after to six months to her job, only to be told, say, 5 months later that they were making her position redundant. If that's part of a wider redundancy exercise, she probably doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of making a claim against them. If she is on maternity leave for a year, they have to play a longer game. If she's the only person doing that job in the UK office, it's probably very hard to offer her an "equivalent" job that isn't her old job ( if that makes sense). Plus - if she thinks she might be on the redundancy list anyway - she has far more rights if she's made redundant while she's actually on maternity leave.

Please note that I am deeply cynical....but I think this sort of thing is a more tactical game than it may appear....

I am in awe of people who go back sooner and so just wonder how they manage?

This is a generalisation but, based on my friends and family, I think a lot of it is about expectations. So, I see a lot of posts on here from women who are extremely unwilling to leave, say, a 3 month old for even an hour or so but my American relatives have at that point gone back to work. I don't think it's because they are "tougher" or they don't love their babies as much or anything, I think it's because they always expected/intended to go back to work at 3 months. Of course, they find that stressful and, in some cases, very upsetting and difficult to manage but - actually - I don't think they find it any more so than my British friends/family do when they go back to work much later.

Again, this is a total generalisation, obviously there are some women who get to the point of going back to work and just can't face it but I do think a lot of it is about what you've mentally prepared yourself for.

At 3 months it is just madness to go back to work after having your first baby

You do realise some of us had no choice? We couldn't afford for me to stay home any longer so my dd did had to go into childcare at 3 months. These were days before paid leave and I'm only talking about the 1990s here, so hardly when there were only one income families.

The OP is lucky enough that she does have the choice, though.... And - although I'm now veering completely off topic - how many times have I heard far more pejorative terms than "madness" used to describe women whose choice is not to return to work at all....? (Not directed at you Thunder - you didn't mention that - just occurred to me....)

I took 13 months both times, and returned to the same job no problems. For me a year was perfect - I loved the first 6 months, but find the 9-24 month stage really really hard work. Just as I was getting fed up of being at home all the time and in need of additional challenge it was time to get stuck back in to work. Going back made me a much better parent as well.

However I am lucky - both employers I took ML with were very family friendly and not into sexist working practices. I don't understand why the length of time off is a big deal - once you're off you're off and actually it's less disruptive to have a longer cover in many ways as they actually have time to get the hang of the job.

Not read the other replies but my thoughts would be either:

1. Take the year then you can always give 8 wks (or more) notice if want to return sooner
2. Take 6 mths then can give 8 wks notice if want to take longer

Do not underestimate how handy that working from home gig will be once your kid gets into daycare and you can do drop off yourself. Can your partner take parental leave too? We split the 12 months between us and a nanny to have either a parent or nanny taking care of our child until she went into daycare at 1. Sorry if you answered this - not read full thread

Notinagreatplace -you are spot on.

I returned to work when dd1 was 12 weeks old- not because I was super human but because that's what paid ML was back then. All my friends who returned to work did the same
Thing so it didn't seem odd or massively stressful. Btw it's perfectly possible to bf long term even if returning to work early. I took longer with my subsequent babies because ML rights had changed.

In fact, if anything I'd say emotionally it's easier to start leaving a 12 week baby than a 12 month old because there's no separation anxiety.

It's up to you OP but in your shoes I'd probably go for 6 months and not take extended ML if you're concerned about your job. It's not about your career taking precedence over your baby- of course our children are far more precious to us than a job BUT having a worthwhile career matters too to many people, and it's worth thinking about how to retain it

As a small business employer I think a year is a very long time for maty leave and do think such a long time off doesn't help women of child bearing age. getting people to cover specialised jobs is very difficult. I think if you want more time with kids a short break then going back part time is much more sensible

Maybe some of the difference in answers depends on whether you have a job or a career. I earn more than my husband and am still working despite my kids now fluing the nest. My job helps pay for their universities.

OP I'm in the uk and work for a US company and now have a US based boss so I've been in similar shoes to you.

To be honest they really do find it strange we get such long leave and it doesn't go down well. I was also very very apprehensive about taking the full 12 months, but I did.

You're not obliged to say up front when you'll come back but there will be a policy about notifying them of your intentions, i.e. If you intend to extend your original date you must inform them 8 weeks before the original date. I said I was expecting to be back in seven months and then extended it. I was nervous of hires being made to replace me and decisions taken as if I was never returning.. to a degree that did happen but I felt more secure nudging my return date out rather than announcing " see you in 12 folks!"

Also, take the 12 if you want it! Your baby, and only a baby once and congratulations!

I am self employed and returned to work at 8weeks. My dd was a dream she slept, ate, and to be honest I was lonely and needed to work.
You have to do what's right for you

2rebecca, surely a year gives a chance to someone else to develop skills though. DH has a small business and prefers longer leaves as people can settle in better, he also likes getting new ideas/outlooks too. i do think s lot of the time employers big and small are fearful of what might happen rather than any hard evidence. My friend is currently fighting to go back 3 days, they haven't covered her ML at all so how they can say that she needs to be full time when they actually don't need her is ridiculous. They are probably just trying to force her out to save money but they would still save money Ray if she dropped to 3 days and benefit from her additional fee earning.

Take as much time off as you want and can afford. I had 13 months with my first, 14 months with my second.

I co-run a company. I went back two days a week when DS was 6 weeks old and then 4 days a week when DS was 3 months old and able to go to nursery.

Haven't felt i missed out at all. DS and i are very close.

I love my DS but I love my job too. Both define who I am. I couldn't have contemplated taking 6 months or a year off even if the company wasn't mine. Would have gone stir crazy.

I think your job sounds great and id want to hang on to it. Working at home (so no commute to worry about with drop off/pick up) is great.

Not sure if this would work in your role but if your baby is ill and can't go to nursery, working for a US company they might let you make up hours working into the evening!

I also work for US company, us boss etc and on my third maternity leave & each time took the full almost 12 months n don't feel a bit guilty about it. There's been plenty of redundancies over the years & I haven't got the bullet yet. Honestly love the time of with the babies & as this one am on now is def my last am going to stay off for as long as Is allowed. It's the us folks who should be embarrassed giving so little mat leave is disgraceful for such a so called advanced nation.

American company here too. 10 months mat leave with first and 6 months with second. Very close together. I'm in an md role and was promoted between mat leaves. I would take as much time as you can financially afford. Check the mat pay policy. For us it's 6 months full pay.

If you want a year take it - who knows if the six months will be perceived much better anyway. Jobs come and go and many people switch as a result of maternity.

I had a very short ML with both DC as I was worried about my career and position at work (less than 3 months both time). It's been fine. I breastfed my first for a year and I'm still breastfeeding DC2 and aiming for a year for him too.

It sucks but I felt I had to.

I think this is a personal decision and you have to be comfortable with your choice.

Personally I'd be thinking that if I could afford the 12 months i'd be taking it, I could always find another job even if it wasn't quite as convenient or ideal but I couldn't get back that time with my child.

Worked in a US-based company. My former colleague took more than 12 months' maternity leave for each of her two children. Our US boss never got over it. My colleague had a difficult relationship with the boss and I got the benefit of that. She also made it clear she would take at least 12 months ML. In the end, she never came back.

6 months plus bits of annual leave is fine. I took 6 months both times - yes kind of tired some days but able to keep some BF going til month 11. If you are the big earner then maybe it just has!to be done (not "madness"). I have got promoted twice since first child born 6 years ago - that would not have happened without going back quickly I think, for us this is a pretty big deal as DH is SAHD.

The job sounds ideal in the longer term so wouldn't want to rock the boat too much.

Might you want a second baby? Maybe bear that in mind as you decide......

Congrats on your pregnancy!

If I were you I'd definitely take the twelve months. I've just returned to work from 12 months leave and it's gone by so fast. I'm so glad I didn't return any earlier. Like PPs have said, they cannot discriminate against you because of mat leave. I think it's in the Equality Act 2010. If they made you redundant they would have to have a very good reason and you may actually be in a stronger position than most other employees because you could potentially take them to a tribunal on ground of discrimination.

Also in the UK, an employer is required to assume you will take 12 months maternity leave unless stated otherwise. If you wanted to return to work earlier you only have to give 8 weeks notice.

They may be a US company but they have to adhere to UK laws.