AIBU to want my mat leave plus promotion

[MiniPumpkin]

Need to post this to get some perspective or give my head a wobble.. whatever you all think ..
So been with large organisation for 10 years, promoted posts are few and far between, to put into context it has come up three times in the 10 years I’ve been there, including during my mat leave with dc1. Now on mat leave with dc2 it’s come up again. I want the job, always have and I’m pretty career driven but of course I also want my mat leave to continue. I want what I am entitled to which is my entire maternity leave. And I want promotion. If I get it they will want me back early.
I’m just sick of well, being female ? Woman’s careers are so disadvantaged if you ask me, I turned down a job (with another organisation) when ttc with dc1 as I wouldn’t get as good mat leave pay.. then of course you can’t go anywhere/leave when pregnant as you will lose the maternity pay. Now I feel I want this job but feel I will just be discriminated against, I wont get it as they will just say I didn’t do as well because they will no doubt prefer to give it to someone not on mat leave.
Not even sure of point in this post, I need somewhere to vent and get perspective. I feel like saying stuff it and just wait till my mat leave is over but who knows when the next opportunity will be and it really annoys me…

@RIPIgglePiggle Exactly the same with me. We planned to do some shared parental and for me to go back when DS is 10 months old, but DH sees just how much I am enjoying being with and bonding with DS, that he offered to not take any time off. Im now going back when DS is 13 months.

This is so sad. Your DH saw how much you were enjoying caring for your son and thought "nah, that's not for me"? Why are we praising this behaviour?

Sometimes couples say it's a financial thing (that the few months taken by the father mean the couple won't have quite as much money coming in) but tbh, the woman would be back at work on full salary (whereas if she's taking the last few months of a year long leave she's likely to be on nothing or very little) Even if there's a slight shortfall for say, 3 months that the father takes

But for many couple the difference in pay is often significant making it a very difficult thing to do.

This issue is multi faceted and nowhere near as simplistic as you are suggesting.

@Snorkello

Because I'm also an employer. When I had my kids I had 8 years out of the work place, a privilege many cannot afford granted, but I couldn't do two jobs - parenting and full time work (one of my DD's has multiple sns). Now I employ people and whilst I recruit with no issues to children etc I do need that person at work during the contracted hours, if I'm recruiting it's stated in the information the expectation of a start date and if you can't fulfill it (male or female) you will be disregarded

If they want you, they'll let you have whatever length mat leave you want.

1. I know a few people who were promoted before mat leave and took whole mat leave. I believe a year and a month.

2. I know someone else who was promoted and took 8 months mat leave, came back at 3 days a week, then at 10 months 4 days, then 12 months 5 days

3. I know a head of business who was answering emails 2 hours after birth. Think a major financial institution.

4. I know someone self employed of quite a well know local but high brow business who had to do her taxes a few days after giving birth.

All of the above are in the uk.

Do what works for you, they will wait for you if they want you.

@Dexy007

I am not discriminating on the basis of sex, I have been very clear that I wouldn't be impressed with this from a male or a female employee. If I had a male employee who took 2 x 12 month stints of paternity leave so his wife could get back to work asap I wouldn't be promoting him either to be honest!

You are boxing at shadows. Read what I said.

I have read what you've said. You absolutely could be considered to be discriminating on the basis of sex. If you are saying that you would not promote someone be use they had taken 2x 12 month maternity leave then that's direct discrimination. You saying that you would apply the policy to both men and women would actually result in indirect discrimination because a significantly higher proportion of women take maternity leave compared to men taking shared parental leave.

This policy would significantly disadvantage women and would absolutely be classed as indirect discrimination. It wouldn't matter that you said you apply this policy to both men and women because it's quite clear who would be affected most. There have been some relatively high profile cases recently where companies have been found to be guilty of indirect discrimination for having policies that disproportionately disadvantaged women.

Someone has probably asked this up thread, but how long would be left between the likely start date for the role and the end of your mat leave? If its say 3 or 4 months most organisations could work around that...a year, probably not so much - where I am promotion opportunities come up for a business reason (someone leaving, expansif the business etc) so we couldn't afford to wait that long

@GuidingSpirit

Are you sure they will want you back early? I sat a promotion interview at 34weeks pregnant and got told i was successful 2 days before i went on mat leave. They are holding the post for me for when i return. I'm public sector so appreciate it's often more flexible than private sector, but could you have an informal word with the hiring manager to see how the land lies?

I had this too - not public sector but large FTSE 20 organisation with a great maternity policy so I took the full 12 months off and then returned to the new role. They did fill the post temporarily with maternity cover but it was absolutely mine to go to once my mat leave was finished.

Surely the main consideration is your suitability to do the job? Most employers will look at that first I think .If you apply and give it your best shot then thats all that matters . ML is a legal requirement and they would be breaking the law not to consider you at all.In say 2/3 years no one would remember that you were on ML when recruited surely .

@Ericaequites

You choose to have two children and have two maternity leaves. If you are out on maternity, it’s unlikely you will be offered a promotion when they need someone now. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I agree with this. But I also agree that if a man got the role he might have a three month notice period, so you should be able to wait that long before going back if they do expect you to cut your mat leave short.

Hmmm

I think if they really want you for the post they will wait a few more months
BUT
If the role is in tough competition and you really want it I'd consider going back earlier (or, as pp have suggested, get the offer and negotiate a start date eg going back after 9 months rather than 6 or 12). I don't think that is discrimination...

It's about what you want to prioritise. If you really want the whole year off (not needed for physical recovery, partner can easily do the second 6 months if affordable) then this might not be the right time to also expect a promotion. But no harm in applying!

@Ericaequites
That’s entirely untrue. It is in fact discriminatory to overlook the OP for a promotion, just because she chose to have children - and comments like this are the reason women are unable to succeed.

OP, go for it. Your employer can ask you to return early, but it is ultimately up to you - if the job is offered to you, they’ll have to be very careful about withdrawing the offer due to mat leave. That said, from a practical/relational perspective, you may need to consider shortening the leave to show just how serious you are.

[quote Dexy007]@RIPIgglePiggle this is just what I am talking about though. You earn the same and despite having a husband that sounds lovely and supportive you've decided it's only your career that has to suffer. We build these rods for our own backs. Things will never change.[/quote]
He didn’t carry a baby around for nine months though! I was on crutches by the end of my pregnancy and it took months to get back on my feet with a baby with lots of allergy and feeding issues at the start. I’ve only really recently been able to enjoy maternity leave and not be in constant pain. For me to give that time over to my partner for the sake of proving how much I love my job would feel incredibly unfair.

I think there is some idea that we are all just swanning around at sensory groups and play dates enjoying ourselves. To be honest I probably thought that before and was guilty of using the phrase ‘baby holiday’. Maternity leave is tough in itself but it’s also an essential time of recovery from something that is pretty gruelling. My experiences are pretty common too. Yes there are some people who sail through but that’s not the case for many of us. I think our attitudes need to change and I say that as someone who really had very little idea before doing it myself

@SpinsForGin I'm not suggesting it's simplistic. I'm saying that the benefits in the immediate and longer term for the child's father to have just a fraction of the year's leave - say, 2 or 3 months - can outweigh the temporary shortfall. The mother is unlikely to be on much (if any!) pay by the final 2 or 3 months of a year's ML. She'll be on full pay as soon as she returns. Therefore we're not talking about a massive ongoing financial hit! Just possibly a temporary shortfall for 2 or 3 months. That's set against the massive benefits to the father having a period of 1:1 time caring for his child.

Several posters here have said they chose not to use the transferable leave because they so enjoyed their leave that they wanted the whole year themself and their dh didn't mind. Well, that's fine (though personally I'd want my dh to enjoy the experience too.)
But the relevant thing here is the OP who says she is fed up of feeling disadvantaged because she's a woman; she wants to advance in her career; she wants equality, and therefore it would make perfect sense for her to transfer some leave to the child's father

@Dexy007 Your views are concerning. The UK’s maternity leave entitlement isn’t even that high compression to other countries and you actually think women should suffer for choosing to have a family and spending time with that family?

No wonder women continue to suffer from discrimination…

[quote PinkWednesdays]@DrinkFeckArseBrick

Well said. Maternity leave is only a year, and even being paid a decent wage is not common, yet because some women were hard done by or chose to go back early, they judge others who want to take a full year and not have their career affected.

Rather than going on about how it should be split with men so women can go back to work early, maybe we should focus on continuing to ensure women aren’t discriminated in any way for having a baby and choosing to spend a year at home with that baby…[/quote]
If you only have one child, yes. Most employers can work around one maternity leave.

But if women have more than one child, then they have two or more years off.

I don't know, maybe a female-orientated world would take this into account. But I do think that you need to spend more time in a job than out of it.

But to the OP - I would definitely apply for the role. You can decide what to do about your mat leave if and when you get offered the role.

@Dexy007

I am not discriminating on the basis of sex, I have been very clear that I wouldn't be impressed with this from a male or a female employee. If I had a male employee who took 2 x 12 month stints of paternity leave so his wife could get back to work asap I wouldn't be promoting him either to be honest!

You are boxing at shadows. Read what I said.

Its discriminating on the basis of sex because pregnancy and mat leave impacts women.

Men don't get pregnant so asinine comments about how men would be treated the same are irrelevant.

[quote GattoFantastico]@SpinsForGin I'm not suggesting it's simplistic. I'm saying that the benefits in the immediate and longer term for the child's father to have just a fraction of the year's leave - say, 2 or 3 months - can outweigh the temporary shortfall. The mother is unlikely to be on much (if any!) pay by the final 2 or 3 months of a year's ML. She'll be on full pay as soon as she returns. Therefore we're not talking about a massive ongoing financial hit! Just possibly a temporary shortfall for 2 or 3 months. That's set against the massive benefits to the father having a period of 1:1 time caring for his child.

Several posters here have said they chose not to use the transferable leave because they so enjoyed their leave that they wanted the whole year themself and their dh didn't mind. Well, that's fine (though personally I'd want my dh to enjoy the experience too.)
But the relevant thing here is the OP who says she is fed up of feeling disadvantaged because she's a woman; she wants to advance in her career; she wants equality, and therefore it would make perfect sense for her to transfer some leave to the child's father [/quote]
But not all families can afford a short term hit to their finances. If we look at women's participation in the labour market we know that women tend to work on lower paid jobs/sectors and often have partners who are older and therefore have progressed further in their careers which can mean higher earnings.
For many couples it just doesn't make financial sense to share parental leave.

However, I do agree that we need to do more to encourage more men to take this leave as it would be an important step towards equality but unfortunately there are structural and societal barriers preventing this happening on a widen enough scale at the moment.

@LethargicActress

Be honest. Do you really think you deserve this promotion when you’re only still at the same company so you can take advantage of the maternity leave benefits?

Where did the OP say she had only stayed for maternity benefits? Oh she didn't, its "lets make shit up" time.

However even if she had said this - so what? Why on earth do you think we offer good maternity benefits if not to attract and retain women? We all take jobs for a package of reasons - money, T&C, defined benefits. Why is mat leave singled out as a "problem" compared with extra hols, BUPA, good pension schemes, LoA models etc all of which are regularly cited by men.

I don't know, maybe a female-orientated world would take this into account.

Seriously? THIS is the problem.

“Pregnancy and may leave affect women”.

Pregnancy affects women and women must have time off after birth to recover. Mat leave only affects women if they and their partner choose that outcome.

I work in the public sector (NHS) and I was in a secondment prior to going on mat leave. I was heavily encouraged to apply for the permanent post (although I didnt because I didnt want it) before going on mat leave and if I was successful another seconded post would have been put out to cover until I went back. Can you not approach management? I've never heard of anyone being disadvantaged when applying for a job pregnant or on maternity. Maybe I'm living in a bubble 🙈

^Several posters here have said they chose not to use the transferable leave because they so enjoyed their leave that they wanted the whole year themself and their dh didn't mind. Well, that's fine (though personally I'd want my dh to enjoy the experience too.)
But the relevant thing here is the OP who says she is fed up of feeling disadvantaged because she's a woman; she wants to advance in her career; she wants equality, and therefore it would make perfect sense for her to transfer some leave to the child's father^

Exactly. Shared parental leave, where both men and women are likely to be absent from the workplace for an extended period will go a long way towards reducing the greater effect on a woman's career when she becomes a parent, compared with the child's father.

Yet it seems that many women regard all of the parental leave as theirs and are unwilling to share. When leave is 9-12 months long, why can't the father take at least 3 months from when the child is 6-9 months old?

*If you only have one child, yes. Most employers can work around one maternity leave.

But if women have more than one child, then they have two or more years off.

I don't know, maybe a female-orientated world would take this into account. But I do think that you need to spend more time in a job than out of it

A career tends to last 40 years. Two years out is a drop in the ocean.

“We need to do more to encourage men to take it”.

This bit is easy. Don’t have kids with men who won’t split pat leave with you. Add it to your list of non negotiables.

Men! Don’t have kids with women who think your place is out of the home and aren’t looking for an equal parent.

[quote SoftPillow]**@BonnesVacances

It wouldn't be discriminatory. If OP interviewed, was offered the role and the needs of the business means that it needs to start in 2 months, but the OP didn't want to start then, that's her decision to decline.

It would be discriminatory to not let her interview, or do deny her the role simply because she's on maternity, but not for the business to say 'I need someone in post in x months'.

This happens all the time with notice period. Bob might be the most skilled person for the job but he has a 3 month notice period, so we offer the role to Susan who can start in 6 weeks. Some roles are business critical, we can't wait and we can't hire a cover for a few months.[/quote]
@BonnesVacances they're also not legally obliged to offer the role to the 'best candidate'. What they have to do is consider all applications equally.
Again this is a gray area . A woman would have to prove that she wasn't hired solely because of her maternity leave. As long as the company has convincing reasons for choosing the other candidate and interviews have been allowed she's unlikely to have a case.
The jobs I've been in with a single, shining example of 'best candidate' are specialist roles for which the company would wait for a 3 year maternity if required (exaggerating but you get the picture). For the others there were several people up to the job. The woman on maternity leave might have been the most senior and experienced but the person hired was done so over other senior and experienced people so there's no basis for claiming that mat leave woman would have gotten the job anyway.

For other roles I have seen discrimination related to HR bureaucracy. Hoops to jump through regarding hiring a temp and in some cases the budget for enhanced maternity being transferred to hiring dept which hadn't budgeted for it. If a candidate on mat leave was only marginally the best there isn't any point in jumping through all the hoops from a manager's POV.

The third kind is those who straight out don't want to promote women with small kids because they'll 'just go off on part-time' , which is appalling. We should be normalising part time work for men and women!