Anonymously they say what we have all known for years.

[divadee]

I saw this article today and I have to say it didn't surprise me. Upset me and made me angry but it only says what women have known for years and years.

I would like to say that that article surprises me. Sadly though, it doesn't.

I had three babies, which made for two stretches of maternity leave. I didn't return to work after the second one because the cost of childcare for two more than wiped out anything I could earn.

By the time all three were of an age where I could return to work I was in my late forties with a very long gap in my employment history. It was very hard to get back into paid work and took me a long time to achieve it, although I love the job I do now. I will never again have the earning potential I once had though, simply due to time elapsed.

I feel I was disadvantaged there, as (it seems) many women still are.

Well this why the laws exist then. Just be thankful they do, at the moment....

(If you voted Leave you will be complicit in loosening this law)

I'm not a boss but I have some sympathy with this view especially when women have more than one baby. One lot of maternity leave can be covered. But when they come back, get pregnant again and go off again I can kind of understand why an employer would get frustrated. But those without kids can take loads of sick leave or have other caring responsibilities eg for elderly (or same aged) relatives .

Maternity leave opens up opportunities too -I got one of my best jobs because someone went on maternity leave and I covered, she came back part-time and I got to stay.

As for childbearing age - what's that, these days? In a previous role I helped to recruit two ladies, each of whom had one child, and both were over 40. They were both the best for the role (and are both still employed by the company concerned, 8ish years later) but I remember thinking they probably wouldn't have any more kids and that was a plus. Both of them did. So you can't tell anyway.

As for worrying about what comes afterwards - well if nurseries and schools phoned dads when kids were ill rather than defaulting to the mother every time, dads would also need the "special treatment".

I really don't blame companies for this tbh. I can't share why I think this because it is far too outing, also about someone I know very well so wouldn't like offend them.
It must be very disruptive, especially for small businesses (and expensive).

I don't want to compare the UK to the US. I want something more comparable to mainland Europe. The US is an admirable country in many ways but social support isn't one of them.

When you look at the implications it’s a fairly rational decision is some cases I’m afraid.

Only if the decision is based purely on financial outcomes. That fails to take into account the benefits of a diverse workforce, and the benefits to society as a whole.

Company outcomes (and reporting) need to be far wider ranging than profit. But that's never going to happen with a Tory government that only considers the wealthiest.

My DD's Nursery call my DH before me when she is sick, and if we have another we will be sharing the leave once they're here. Times is a changing.

I'm of childbearing age in a male dominated industry. I'm well qualified and experienced. Since I had a child there is A LOT less opportunities coming my way..I'm no longer considered for interesting projects and my development has stopped...I don't know why, nobody said anything but my male colleagues get opportunities that I should be getting as I'm more skilled in a specialised area!!

I think I'm experiancing what "glass ceiling" is...Maybe they are afraid I will have another baby or maybe I'm just unlucky...

I hate this sexism..And when ALL the senior managers are male it's so bloody hard! Reading this topic is seems even if there were women on top it might not be any different..it's depressing

It's worth pointing out that my DH has been penalised in terms of promotability because he is quite happy to split household chores fairly and spend most evenings with his family instead of reading programming manuals, flying to meetings abroad and spending most weekends in the office. He does not see this as a sacrifice, but a choice he was lucky to be able to make. Nevertheless, he has paid a price.

This isn't 'whataboutery'; women with children are railroaded into similar positions because they need to earn, but short of giving their children away to permanent foster care (or boarding school) cannot physically manage the 70-80 hour weeks demanded by high-status careers.

Maybe we need to force employers to contribute more of their profits to compensation for those women who have inadequate or no pensions and limited earning capacity because they have children and have been repeatedly passed over by those same employers? (oh wait, it's been tried before, hasn't it?)

I'm 28, married, I am just finishing up a part time degree and starting a masters in the autumn. You're damn right I want to progress in my career - that's what I'm busting my balls for studying evenings and weekends around full time work.

I also don't want children and I'm well aware that interview panels look at me and see maternity leave and hospital appointments and short-notice days off. I wish I could just tell them up front that it's not an issue but obviously I can't, I just have to cross my fingers that the employer isn't one of the people in the article.

I can’t say I’m surprised by that report.

When I was working, I had a number of colleagues who were pretty vocal in their opinion that employers should be legally allowed to discriminate against women of childbearing age, in case the women got pregnant. I heard this from both male and female colleagues. Including some women who were of childbearing age themselves

I had one line manager - one who got his job after I’d been hired - who used to ask me things like “when are you going to see sense and quit work to look after your children?” He also told me on several occasions that DH should get a vasectomy as they’re less invasive than a sterilisation operation is for a woman. He never came right out with any comment about how he wouldn’t hire a woman in case she got pregnant, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was secretly thinking it.

And of course this sort of attitude - that it should be okay to discriminate against women because babies - also makes things harder for women who can’t have children or who don’t want any children.

I work part time and have been in my role for 10 years. Part time is not ideal for my boss, I know but many many men have left to go on to bigger and better things. Mothers tend to stay put in a suitable job.

From an employers viewpoint, It is so frustrating when female teachers go off on maternity leave. It can at times be almost impossible to cover the job, you don’t know if they will come back, how long they will have off, what part time status they will then demand, which you basically have to give in our organisation even if it is a pain in the bum to cover! Then you get the frequent need to miss work as their child is ill/has an appointment/special event at their school.

Then you get some parents complaining when their child’s education is disrupted as their teacher decided to go on maternity leave at a time that didn’t suit the parents.

Doesn’t stop us employing the best candidate, but does always make us wonder how long we will get out of them, especially the newly married ones.

In some roles maternity is less disruptive, but in teaching, especially primary age where there are more women anyway, it is a bloody pain! Of course without all these kids we wouldn’t have jobs, but doesn’t stop it being hard to manage!

Only if the decision is based purely on financial outcomes. That fails to take into account the benefits of a diverse workforce, and the benefits to society as a whole.

What about a small company? One with only around 5-10 people? One person taking maternity leave for a year could cripple the business completely. You can't use the benefits of diversity if your business is failing. One could see how annoying it is when a woman takes maternity leave for a year, comes back for another year then decides to have another, takes more maternity leave then decides she isn't coming back because childcare is expensive and she wants to see her little ones grow up. Are you basing the 'benefits to society as a whole' on the sole fact that she is producing children? Obviously a boss is going to think about the financial outcomes of their business; if the owner of a small company had a male and a female of equal ability, you couldn't see how they might want to avoid that risk?

But the woman will be pregnant for many months before maternity leave. Someone offered a new job is gone in a few weeks.

I don't think either side is being unreasonable really.
Work is both a source of income but also a purpose. I'd do my job for free ( and often end up doing so ) because it's great. Didn't put my employer out at birth haven't done so yet.
I don't get why men are excluded from this though. Surely after the inital nine months and birth there should be some law saying they need to have paternity weeks, plus sick days, sports days and assemblies until at least secondary.

The worst manager I ever had in terms of discriminating against woman was a female. She made it clear careers were over if you dared get pregnant and promotions were discussed in the context of potential future children. I got hired by my current manager when I was pregnant and he knew that. Yes it is mostly men discriminating but not always.

@gunnyBear your post really angered me. All i can say is thank goodness you are at the end of your career.

Hahahaha, childbearing age? I'm 22 and pregnant, that's very young for the area I live in but it's not for where I'm from (both areas are in London).

What are you going to do not hire women under the age of about 45? Those women won't have had work experience then so just don't hire women at all?

I was hired at my current company aged 20, I've been here for 2 years and no one saw this pregnancy coming. It's sucks for them that I'm the only person who does what I do here (apparently I have a weird combination of skills because I grew in the company), they'll have to manage and get cover while I'm off on maternity. It's a small company and I feel for them, honestly, I feel bad about thinking when could I have the next baby. The flip side is now I'm more likely to stay, whereas people tend to move around a fair bit in my line of work.

My partner is more replaceable in his job (there's more of them and he's not been there long) but he is paid more so it's going to be me that takes the time off. He'd love to take time out to be with the baby but London rent needs paying.

I think men need encouraging to take some more time off in babies first year for it's not only the woman who is primary carer and knows all the ins and outs of daily life. More pay and time, not taken from women? Surely it would be cheaper in the long run if we could stop denting women's earnings over her lifetime.

It needs to be affordable for two parents to work with 2.4 children between them in childcare, so someone (the woman) doesn't sacrifice her career, pension and earning potential to look after the children for years on end.

Gunnybear as a 'boss' I have to agree. When advertising for a PA I didn't want anyone of child bearing age because our small company just couldn't cope with someone joining and then going off for a year. Yes you can get someone to cover and yes only statutory maternity pay given but it's so hard to recruit the right person for the job that all that would happen is I would have to take over their role for a year and no doubt they would come back part time too. Small businesses are not like big business. I'm a mother and a business owner and I had to only have a few weeks off and child had to go to nursery from 3 months old full time. Else my business would have suffered.

Having said that it's not right my viewpoint I agree but it's so hard running a small business .........

p00ka I would employ you over a 20-40 year old every time

@Maidsrus small businesses (those who paid less than £45k in Calss 1 NI) can claim back 103% of the statutory maternity pay they paid out to help cover the cost the disruption.

I agree enforced equal leave would be a good step forward, six months at full pay for each parent. And subsidised childcare so it’s easier and cheaper for people to get back to work. I do think that making a choice to stay home longer with kids will disadvantage you in terms of employability and also having a life and purpose outside of child rearing, and having a system that disincentives people from doing that is no bad thing

Employers are making a lot of money out of their employees' efforts

This is perfectly true, though equally they also pay out in return for those efforts. All of which works just fine when there's a suitable balance of give and take, with problems only starting - at least IME - when that balance falters

It's also true that the children of today are our future potential, but many employers are more concerned about possible problems now than 20-odd years in the future, especially when that "now" may cause them a lot of money and inconvenience

Again, I'm not suggesting this is necessarily right - merely that it is