To think I’ve done nothing wrong?

[YouDoYou18]

Background - Currently on Maternity leave for my DD, 29 weeks pregnant so will be going onto another Maternity leave straight after

I was talking to a close friend yesterday about how my work has sent over the details for the reward day this year and how I’m sad to be missing it as it sounds really good, she replied with it’s very nice of them to offer considering you won’t be working for them and I simply said they probably do just because I’m still employed, even while on maternity leave.

The reply I got was Eh? You didn’t go back after maternity leave. To which I responded that I’m still on maternity leave and will be rolling into another maternity leave but still employed. The response I got was Fucking hell you work for a fucking good company as I had to be back a year before I could have another baby. I said it was illegal to not allow someone a second maternity leave, it’s just that you have to claim maternity allowance instead of SMP.

She then started questioning what the point in me even being employed was, to which I said holiday, continuous employment on my cv and the ability to go back, at which point she informed me that ‘it’s no surprise you’re not entitled to any benefits’. And has now completely stopped talking to me.

Somewhere in the conversation I appear to have pissed her off but I have no clue when?? I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong in keeping my job, and I’ve not been declaring that I should be entitled to benefits, I’ve just recently been worrying about not being able to get any help with childcare when I do get back.. AIBU?

Lol people need to remember the human race would be extinct if women didn't take maternity leave!! Have as many babies as you want.

@mydogisthebest yes, ignore everything else I said why don't you 😂

@jenny a- they don't get back elements such as cost of holiday pay, company car etc. Your comment / statistic may be true but it's pointless.

Small business or even people who employ one person are put under ENORMOUS pressure by having to find and pay for cover for indeterminate absences.

@bbcessex Most small businesses who really need it do get the full cost of the employee back. No they don't get annual leave pay back, but they would have had to pay that anyway.

I speak as an employer of a nanny, Jenny. I had to pay +£2000 Holiday pay to my nanny, plus holiday pay for her temp replacement.

You are naive to think this doesn't have an impact.

I don’t think it should be a race to the bottom - American maternity leave is horrendous and we shouldn’t be aiming to emulate that.
Also get that accidents happen and people become pregnant again quickly sometimes however there ARE women who plan to be back at work for the shortest time possible (and are lucky enough to plan pregnancy) who do take the piss!
When you work in hard front line roles (E.g. social work) where clients lives are in your hands it’s Very annoying to have someone mooning about counting down the days to their next mat leave - there are women who do this over and over - end of.

Jenny. You’re missing the point, this isn’t about statutory maternity pay as the majority of that is reclaimable. The cost to the business is in maintaining someone’s employment status whilst on leave by having to pay for annual leave, allowances, bonuses etc.

Those costs are being paid twice because they also have to pay them to the person covering the maternity leave.

Thats the risk you take when running a business or employing a nanny.

People get ill and pregnant all the time.

A risk that some business will avoid by not employing women for child -bearing age

Maybe to even the playing field all employees should be able to take say 1 year off over their careers. Then it wouldn’t just be women taking years out and perhaps employers would see us more favourably.

With the current environmental worries I think having children is seen as less important and having lots of them a potentially bad thing. That seems to be making people less respectful of maternity leaves perhaps?

A risk that some business will avoid by not employing women for child -bearing age

Which is discrimination which apparently we are all supposed to be ok with.

Given that there are some women who have large families, we see it on here. 5 + kids, what would happen if they had back to back maternity leave?

I'm amazed quite frankly that legally you can roll maternity leave together, I'm surprised there's not a requirement for 12 months between leave to get your job open (no issue with smp or maternity allowance being paid, but as an employer loosing someone for 2 years and having to employ a temp because you must keep their job open is ridiculous, one year is a struggle.

Joan. Not sure anyone is saying it’s right, but it’s still a fact.

The bottom line is that for some SME’s the cost of maintaining employment whilst a woman takes maternity leave, particularly back to back periods, is too costly.

They have no way around it once they have employed those women as they are legally obliged to pay for annual leave, benefits etc so the only option is to not employ them in the first place.

100% not ideal but it’s the unfortunate reality for some.

But it shouldn't be the reality. Employers should not be able to get away with this blatant discrimination against women.

You saying its a fact and so many other responses on this thread just goes to show that we are expected to put up with it, and also that people think its ok because its other womens fault.

Things will only ever change when we stop blaming eachother and stop allowing discrimination (of any kind!) In the workplace.

I know it happens, what i am saying is that it shouldn't happen and employers should not be allowed to get away with it. It is not women who need to change their behaviour. It is employers.

@joan - what about employing a personal carer who your elderly parent depended on?

As it stands, the rules are that person could develop a strong bond with your parent then be off for 1, 2, 3 years and you still have to hold their job open and manage a run of temp carers whilst your vulnerable parent suffers.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Things are never black & white.

If you end up having children in quick succession, and want to maintain your career, where there is a second parent, they should step up and take the bulk of leave to look after the child, after, say, a 12 week period for the mum to recover.

Only when men & women are both as likely to be absent will employers see things differently.

When I worked for a very large organisation, a senior role became vacant and there were a lot of internal and external applicants looking to make a big step up. The woman who won the role (external candidate) announced shortly afterwards that she was 5 months pregnant and would be taking advantage of the firm’s (v enhanced) maternity leave package. Fair enough. She was off for 12 months and the role was covered by a couple of colleagues stepping up on some tasks and a skilled contractor. She didn’t return as she was pregnant almost immediately. Towards the end of her second stint of leave, she was pregnant with baby number 3. She was on maternity leave for 3 straight years and resigned once the package came to an end. She worked for just shy of 3 months in the role. It suited her circumstances, but the role was not properly filled until her resignation, and whilst the original list of candidates included many highly qualified women, the person who finally stepped into the permanent role was male.

Maternity benefits and packages are an absolute necessity, but some people do take the biscuit.

Wineandroses, this is an absolute piss take. What a cf of an employee; clearly entitled.

Only when men & women are both as likely to be absent will employers see things differently.

Agree.

I also think there should be a set amount of time employees can take as continuous maternity leave, it needs to be fair to the employer as well as the employee. Ie you can take twelve months in every twenty four or something,

Going off for two years on the trot is too much I think for many companies to have to take and still be expected to keep your job for you and integrate you back in.

Bluntness. I agree and also think that you shouldn’t be able to accrue leave and benefits (except pay) when actually on maternity leave.

No. Nothing wrong technically. However I work for a small company, and covering/paying for mat leave is incredibly expensive. We have had employees accept the job in the first few months of pregnancy without telling us and others becoming pg soon after starting. Neither of which are technically wrong at all but both of which have caused other people a lot of sleepless nights given the costs. We only employ men now (joke).

@JoanMavisIcecreamGirl, yes I realise that no contraception is 100% effective but I can never believe just how many accidental pregnancies there are.

Certainly lots on MN and 2 of my neighbours have just had their 3rd baby which were accidents.

Strange that I and a lot of my friends and family who did not want children managed to never have an accident isn't it?

There are ways to make sure you don't accidentally get pregnant.

@JoanMavisIcecreamGirl, I doubt I am the only person who thinks that it is ridiculous to be able to only work for a company for 6 months to be entitled to maternity pay and leave and then you can get pregnant while on that leave and have even longer off and even more money. I guess you could do that for a third or fourth time?

I am actually amazed that any employer would think about taking on women of child bearing age when they could likely actually do very little work but get the benefits