To expect to be able to take my annual leave after mat leave?

[Birminghambabe]

AIBU or is my employer?

I’ve been working with current employer for around 4 years. I’m on maternity leave and due to return early December. As far as I’m aware because my friends have told me and what I’ve read online is that I accrue my holiday days whilst on mat leave and can take them before or after mat leave.

I was sick around 32 weeks with HG so went on sick leave then early mat and my boss said I couldn’t use my annual leave then, so when I asked if I could just use it after and return in Jan they said no as I can’t carry over as per my contract. Surely as I’m on mat leave that overalls? The contract just says I’m allowed 22 days plus bank holidays per year Jan - dec.

I like my employer but at the same time I think they’re incorrect and it’s a lot of holiday (extra time off with baby) and money.

AIBU? Or are they

It can seem ridiculous @AbraKedavra but @MrsLilaAmes is right. We have to allow the ones who really go overboard to ensure that the ones with the least aren’t treated like they are in the US.

Don’t get me wrong, I had colleague who had 3 kids back to back, took 1 year plus all her annual leave each time, and returned for 3 months between each one. It meant that out of a 4 year 3 month period she was only there for 9 months but got the benefit of a salary plus pay rises etc for nearly 4.5 years. She then never returned after baby 3. That situation drove me mad. But there are many more who only get a small amount of time off so need the annual leave too.

Yeah my question wasn't very clearly phrased. Basically you seem to class the employers as a 'have' and the employee as a 'have not'. Hence your argument that we should protect the have nots.

What I'm saying is a small business owner is no more a have than an employee on a decent wage.

As to your points,

1. Mat leave isn't entirely government funded ad there are several costs involved in getting in temps. From agency fees, to training, to lower output to higher wages due to them being a temp. So even the 'free' mat leave part is actually subsidised by the employee.

As to annual leave, that can easily be as much as 10%-15% of the yearly profit. Not insignificant in any way.

1. For starters you're factually wrong, as in the USA where they haven't got these OTT mat leave laws, people still have kids. Even poor people.

More to the point, you could hardly call it treating someone like a workhorse if you don't give them paid holiday for not working.

It's one thing to obligate employers to pay mat leave, but to then add paid holiday to the leave is lunacy. Something that could only happen in the UK where being successful is a mortal sin. And even being on the possible road to success, namely owning a business and employing people, must be nipped in the bud and punished.

You can't compare getting a government benefit, with the tax burden shared by all of society, with leeching off a specific business.

The thing is, you can’t run a business without employees – you need people’s labour. If you can’t afford their labour, including facilitating their right to maternity leave and annual leave, you don’t have a viable business. You have a hobby.

@fitzwilliamdarcy

Your argument is that most people don't abuse it. But I claim that any holiday pay for not being at work is abuse. Paid annual leave should be there only to ensure employees aren't worked 365 days a year. But where they haven't been at work anyway, why should they be entitled to a paid holiday?

That's circular. It's only that way because of the ridiculous law that obligates you to pay for holidays on top of mat leave. Take away that law and the 'hobby' suddenly turns into a viable business.

She must've been loaded though, unless you company has full pay for a year?
My employer is generous (albeit private sector) and it's something like 6 months full pay, 3 months half, 3 months none.

Legally you're only owed 90% of your salary for the first 6 weeks, and then SMP for the remaining 33 weeks which is about half a year.

It's wasted money paying this employee, but it's the company that has decided that benefit not the law.

I have a colleagues who had 6 children in 10 years. So out of 10 years I think she worked 2.

This is absolutely wrong. If you are in maternity leave you cannot take annual leave so therefore it must be taken when you are back. It is against the law to take it away from you because you are on mat leave, even if there are rules about carrying over. You cannot carry over because you are on mat leave. Please fight this, my work tried to do the same shit and I wrote them a very pointed letter. They backed off.

People like this are a minority though. I’m glad we don’t penalise every woman for the few like this one. I definitely would want 6 children just for the Mat leave!!!

Ooops
i meant “wouldn’t want”!!

I carried mine over this year from last year

We couldn’t accrue holidays one year into the next but we did get paid for them in dec payroll.

I used my accrued leave to work a 4 day week until my baby was 18/19 months old, rather than taking an extended end of maternity leave. Not relevant to the carrying over, just suggesting as I enjoyed mid week day off over a longer period of time!

I’m replying largely because I don’t want the OP to feel any guilt about fighting for her annual leave entitlement, which is her legal right.

I understand your question now @AbraKedavra. I was comparing pregnant women who are ‘haves’ with pregnant women who are ‘have nots’ and saying we must protect the latter- regardless of the status of the business.

I would not wish to be successful if I could only do it by exploiting other people.

As others have said you do accrue holidays whilst on maternity and you can carry it over, regardless of what your employer says. They can dictate when you take it however.

Can I also point out, that you accrue your leave at whatever rate you worked at, if you negotiate going back to a part time role you still have the full time accrual amount of leave. When I worked for a large higher education provider where A/L was particularly generous, we often didn’t see first time Mums return for about 18 months, or they used their leave to work one day a week for months.

It doest matter whether you agree (for moral reasons or otherwise) the law is the law.

What do you mean other employees paying for you to have a holiday? How are they paying for it? They wouldn't get paid more if OP didn't take her annual leave.

I really hate this kind of 'advice' - women should roll over and give up their rights for the good of the economy. Fuck that.

That was a bit strong, sorry.

I get that you disagree with current mat leave arrangements, (and I think the burden of enacting then should be borne centrally and not by individual businesses)

But that's not helping the OP. I don't think she should be berated for wanting her employer to operate within the law.

Abuse of who though?

Employers are free not to start businesses and employ people, if they want to avoid the abuse associated with employment rights.

I agree with you that it can go too far like the women who’ve had years and years off but I think that’s the price we pay to ensure that people have decent employment rights here.

Bloody hell! It’s really common where I work to have 3-4. I know one person with 5 but nobody with 6.

Her husband was, and yeah there’s very generous provision where I work. I agree it’s the employer to “blame” for it (albeit it’s the taxpayer paying for it).

How is the taxpayer paying?
Only for 39 weeks, after that you're on your own.
Maybe there's benefits to bridge the gap but that is independent of employment status.

The people who actually need the money wouldn't be able to do as colleague had done. And she was probably never planning to return anyway, as husband loaded so no regard for professional reputation or otherwise

@fitzwilliamdarcy AH sorry! You must mean wporking for a public sector body.
I get it now been a long day.
Yes, it's ridiculous!

Also 3-4... I can see why with those benefits 😛