Why shouldn’t life be made easier for pregnant women/mothers?

[Duckwithnobill]

Read quite a few threads here lately that have really shown vitriol towards advancements in working conditions, pay and other adaptations that make life easier for pregnant women and women with young children, which is bizarre to say the least on a parenting forum.

A couple of examples being resentment at the increased ability to work from home or more flexibility from employers around attending meetings/commuting in late pregnancy. I’ve seen women that take advantage of these enhancements be labelled as workshy or as the reason women aren’t respected in the workplace. Full disclosure I am pregnant and my employer has been great at accommodating my pregnancy presumably because they want me to return after maternity leave!

Then there’s the whole debate around P&C parking spaces, where some posters seem genuinely angry that there might be small conveniences put in place to make life a little bit easier for parents.

AIBU to find this attitude quite baffling? Surely improvements to the way pregnant women/mothers are treated can only be a good thing? Or should we all just suffer and struggle?

In the UK statutory mat leave could certainly be improved but it could be worse, @YaMuvva . Carers may have progressive employers and I applaud that but I believe that otherwise they really struggle; am I wrong?

I cannot see that someone with an adult child with a serious disability, who cannot care for themselves and lives at home, needs less help than the parent of a young child. All need more (realistic) support than they are getting now

I could not agree more OP.
My working life when I had kids was sprinting between nursery/childminder/school. It would have made a huge difference to me to have the ability to work from home sometimes.
Same with tax free chilcare/universal credit which helps women stay in work. I am so glad that this is now available with improved maternity/paternity.

I've been treated appallingly at work (public services) throughout my years of being a single mum to young children. They are now teenagers and my home life is easy. I manage lots of women (and men) now as a middle manager and I go out of my way to make sure they are valued, looked after and treated better than I was. Yes their lives will be a lot easier than mine and that is a good thing.

I don't have kids, through choice, so have very little skin in the game (apart from obviously hoping SOMEONE produces a few future tax payers, since I cant be arsed to!).
I'm happy for any disadvantaged group to benefit from better conditions.
Let's face it, in the case of this example, if I wanted those benefits too, I could just have a baby.
I just desperately wish the conversation was about mothers AND FATHERS! I know the reasons for a mother typically doing more than a father are complex, but women will always be on the back foot if fathers aren't expected to do their equal share.

Regarding midwife appointments, she may have not had much choice when they were.

Mine were only on Tuesdays or Thursdays - she may have had similar.

Not ‘I didn’t get that so why should anyone else’ but ‘I managed fine without that so why are some women now saying it is impossible’. Obviously reasonable adjustments when needed.

Re need to WFH because of having young children I am firmly against it as it means women will work while looking after DC, which then discredits all mums working from home.

Which is exactly why the attitude shouldn’t be “waaaah lifestyle choice” it should be accommodating human beings when life inevitably ly throws a challenge their way

But it’s certainly your employer who should
A. Notice and
B. Address the problem with the individuals
C. Address the problem of the culture of Pisa taking if there is one

Also - do you speak up? If I thought a colleague was taking the piss and I didn’t speak up I’d only have myself to blame if it continued.

But if a person is caring for an elderly parent, would you not think it a good thing that work were able to offer some flexibility? It shouldn't be about saying make no exceptions for group A because Group B don't have them, but look we make these exceptions for Group A, they should be applicable to Group B / the whole work force.

What about things that come under risk assessment that require changes to working practice? Should we refuse to accommodate that because we wouldn't make the same exception for someone who wasn't pregnant? Even if we would for someone who had a physical ailment that impeded them?

But technically it is I you could say no. You DO have a choice.

Anyway that poster wasn’t advocating being being a carer as being seen as a ‘lifestyle choice’ she was showing how utterly ridiculous it is to say having a child is a lifestyle choice like it’s knitting and mountain biking.

They won’t be picking up MY work. They will be picking the the organisation’s work. I wasn’t thankful for that, it was nothing to do with me.

IME - public sector is terrible for not covering maternity leave or distributing work well. I now work in life sciences for a private company that very swiftly and diligently recruits staff when someone’s maternity leave is looming or when someone hands their notice in. I work in public sector for ages and honestly if people knew the half-wits in management they’d be terrified that they run our country. Everything takes forever, has about 1,000 tick box processes, the interview process is absolutely BONKERS and when you do get someone in post who had the brain and work ethic of an earthworm, they’re far more protected as an employee than the organisation is as a place which relies on competence.

After having DC1 and returning to work, I was tired, I was still breastfeeding and not sleeping and I was SO nervous about going back to work because I felt my brain had melted in the year I’d been off and I forgot how to speak to humans. Rocked up on my first day back and my boss went “Oh yeah, forgot you were back today. Well I’m really busy and have no work to offer you, why don’t you do some photocopying for Alice.” Alice was a new staff member in the exact same role as me who was very much the attitude of “ew women having babies and getting perks!” Like people on this thread. And after a week of her bossing her about I had to inform her that i was absolutely not her PA, I was in the same role as her and on my first day I should have refused to do her photocopying (we were all in senior roles) but my confidence was too low on the day to object, but that doesn’t make it ok for her to treat me like an underling.

I can well imagine Unis follow suit with poor arrangements for cover. I work closely with academics in my work and the things they tell me make me very worried for what is going on in higher education. I think they’ve stolen some of the half-wits from public sector management!

@YaMuvva
Can you tell us what is so “unreasonable” about an ill pregnant woman that the only route is to sack her?

That's not what I said, is it? I think an ill pregnant woman should have just the same rights, protections, and adjustments as any other ill or disabled colleague (specific maternity leave aside). The same amount of adjustments or sick leave before disciplinary/capability stuff comes into play. (As an aside, the fact that illness can lead to "disciplinary" actions for anyone is awful. It should surely always be about capability, not the language of punishment.) It doesn't seem fair to me that pregnancy-related illness gets treated differently, in that sense. It is no less fair to sack a pregnant woman who can't work, than to sack a woman who's ill/disabled and can't work. (I'm not actually saying either is great, just I don't see why the two scenarios should be treated differently.)

What I think is fairer would actually mean women who are very ill in pregnancy wouldn't be forced to take very early maternity leave (which seems unfair when other women who get to use the leave to have more time with the baby). I think whatever the maximum sick leave is before disciplinary/capability stuff would happen for anyone, should be added on to the front of the mat leave. So you'd have X weeks on the sick and then maternity leave starts.

What is not fair is if the pregnant woman in question is still working but in a flaky way that means other colleagues are detrimentally affected. Because she is not actually doing her job properly. If she's ill she needs to be signed off so a proper replacement can be found. Or if there are reasonable adjustments that can be made, these should be the same for any other ill or disabled person.

And then it comes back to employers. Sounds like an awful lot just expect everyone else to pick up the slack. Not getting proper cover for long periods. Even past pregnancy/baby stage expecting the childless to always work Christmas and other antisocial shifts, instead of clamping down on that expectation. At least covid showed just what is possible in terms of working from home and flexibility that previously parents and disabled people were told "not possible"!

She said she's spoken up and hasn't been listened to.

@CostelloJones my local midwife only scheduled appointments on Mondays and Tuesdays as these were her days in my local area with other days elsewhere. Usually you don't get much choice.

But who will pay your pension when you retire if no one had children? And who would look after you in old age if there was no one younger than you fit and able? Doctors/nurses, if no one had children because of lifestyle choices then we would all be in a slight pickle

Bingo!

I think its your last line OP. It's a good thing for pregnant women and parents. No one would deny that, and many would be pleased for them. Its when 'it's a good thing' is presented as 'it's a good thing for society as a whole' that you start to lose people. I think there would be a lot less push back if parents stopped telling non parents that it's 'good for everyone', because not only is that arguably untrue (colleagues without children do fill the gap left by family friendly employment practices, from being last in line to get Christmas off, to being first in line to mind the shop while parents WFH) but it also frames the choice to have children as some act of altruism for the benefit of society that should be supported by non parents, when really it is a lifestyle choice. (I speak as a parent myself btw.)

Yes carers will struggle if their employers aren’t flexible, but the difference is being pregnant is not an illness but it IS a physical/medical condition, a temporary one which requires support, whilst being a carer is not. I find being a carer is one of those things that would be difficult to offer statutory rights for, but its very much in a business’ interest to offer a policy that supports carers.

The maternity leave leave in this country can’t get much worse. When you look at what Scandi countries offer, a great package that actually benefits everyone and is bad news for no one, we really get the scraps here in the UK.

Oh god the running around I used to do was insane. Run into nursery, out of nursery, run to school out of school, rush to work and do it all again later. Having to drop everyone off and be at work on time meant even a minute of traffic or slowness would have an impact on my day and it was so bloody stressful. Walking into work to hear the usual dickheads (funnily enough always women) say “Afternoon!” Because I got in at 9.02am (on a flexi time rota!) or “Oh it must be nice to leave early!” Or “What are you doing on your day off tomorrow anything nice” (it’s not a day off I don’t fucking get paid to work Fridays) makes me wonder how on Earth I didn’t tell more people to go fuck themselves.

i see your point of view. However it may not be ideal for the companies who need to also pay a maternity cover

But what you find impossible other people will manage well. No one is right or wrong. It’s all relative - but those two statements carry the same sentiment

But if people aren't encouraged to have children, who is going to be there to wipe your backside in old age and fund your pension?

Lots more bingos.

I'm happy to pay huge amounts of taxes to keep society running. It's the civilised thing to do. My taxes fund yiur child's health and education, your child benefit if you and lots of other things that make the world a better place for your child.

As someone who couldn't have had children even if I'd wanted them, it really does piss me off to have the whole my child is funding your pension/wiping your bum thrown at me every day especially as, as I've explained above, my taxes are funding your child NOW.

However, im mightily pleased that so many MNetters children are going to be the arse wipers of the future and so looking forward to social care being staffed properly.

But don't worry about me, I plan on stockpiling the nice deadly drugs so I can time my own exit without a need for any care.

im not suggest you shouldn’t get paid in line with colleagues

just it is illogical for companies to promote us right before we give birth and do maternity leave. It’s harsh but it’s life. You can’t get promote
it would be nice but many companies won’t do it regardless of the law.

It doesn't seem fair to me that pregnancy-related illness gets treated differently, in that sense. It is no less fair to sack a pregnant woman who can't work, than to sack a woman who's ill/disabled and can't work

Pregnancy is temporary. HTH

I think part of the problem is that some women really do take the piss. It's like "Right, I'm pregnant. Let's see what I can get out of this and how much I can get other people to do for me." That kind of attitude affects all women, pregnant or not.