AIBU to feel frustrated about manager's repeated maternity leave?

[ShesPregnantAgain]

My manager, let's call her Betty, has just announced her fifth pregnancy. I've enthusiastically congratulated her but I'm actually pissed off. She's barely been at work for the past 7 years. She gets pregnant, that makes her ill so she's off for most of her pregnancy, then 9 months on maternity leave, comes back and a few months later does it all again.

The job she used to do doesn't really exist any more. The company's moved on: all the people, systems and expectations are different. They get in maternity cover for her every time so someone gets trained up, actually does a good job, does a handover when she comes back and then leaves. It's so disruptive.

I know the company can't fire her for pregnancy-related sickness or for taking maternity leave per her statutory rights. They can't even performance manage her because she's never here long enough, or appoint one of her covers to do the job permanently. None of us can work for promotion to her level because that would discriminate against her. Her manager does promote people out sideways and upwards but she's just there, filling the role without actually doing anything. We all just get on without her.

I know that women, me included, benefit from these protections because of the crap women suffered in the past. I just think she's taking the piss.

Oh my god op. You sound incredibly jealous.

Fair play to her I say, play the game to your advantage!

Focus on your own journey op. You will a be a lot happier. As a PP said tart your cv up and go looking for that opportunity you believe you deserve. Nowt stopping you playing the game too!

Jealous? That old chestnut

I don't think many people are jealous of 5 children tbh.

Could you have a discussion about the possibility of someone else doing your line management? It’s not unreasonable to flag how difficult it is having multiple cover managers in such a short space of time. Is there anyone who could reasonably line manage you instead?

You keep assuming that all of this is planned. People also don’t tell people they are pregnant until after 12 weeks due to the risk of miscarriage.

Agreed.

The children / pregnancies and what not are her choice and the legal obligations surrounding her employment are part of what a civilised society should choose.

However if she is "working" from home with 2 children under 3 and then logging at 3pm for the day to do the school run that is a big issue that her line manger should 100% address.

Someone who has worked roughly 6 months in total over 7 years is classed as a working mother? Really, it’s not even a month a year!

I doubt if having five children means she is avoiding working . In my experience working is much easier than raising DCs ! Maybe there are religious reasons she has so many . And if she does suffer severe sickness she is not having a great time at home .

It is unfortunate that it has such an impact on the team.

Yep. She is taking the piss.

Weird comment. Paternity leave is 2 weeks.

2 weeks off work 5 times in 7 years is hardly going to have a large impact on the running of the company.

because she is getting paid

as for child care does she actually need it?

5 kids under 7/8...and you think she's jealous? 😂

Just bide your time op. I mean it's unlikely to keep on at this pace anyway. Chances are she'll return after the next one, struggle to cope and then be managed out.

4 children under 6 and a 5th on the way

What a silly pointless comment. Of course they wouldn’t they are not taking maternity leave ?

What a ridiculous comment.

If men had time off for pregnancy sickness (which they can’t be penalised for) and 6-12 months of mat leave, plus accrued annual leave then they would say exactly that.

A man doesn’t usually have a year off work. How is this a comparison? I’m all for protection at work and fairness but equally everyone else is being impacted by her life choices.

I'm definitely not jealous. I wanted 4 kids, then actually had children and realised that alongside all the nice bits, being a parent was tedious, relentless and exhausting. I was very happy to stop at 2 and am even happier now they're old enough for me to have a decent night's sleep and a bit of time for myself. If she wants umpteen children then all power to her but it's not the life for me.

I am annoyed that she's disrupting an otherwise perfectly nice, interesting job. Imagine she actually comes back to work in 2028 expecting to WFH while looking after a preschooler, a toddler and a baby. That's going to completely ruin the flexibility our employer gives everyone who doesn't take the piss, like allowing us the odd WFH day if our child is ill rather than making us take a day off a/l or unpaid. It's going to have to be one rule for everyone.

How do you know what the board or the CEO needs? If they genuinely didn't need her role they'd make it redundant. They should be training her to do tasks they do need. But I don't know why you're privy to their future needs if you're junior to her and to the bosses. It's hardly her fault if they do not tell her what they require her to do.

You clearly don't think much of her but if she's never there and you're fine without her it doesn't actually sound that bad. It's not your concern, if the bosses are fine with her.

Have you considered looking for a new job? One that never employs child bearing age women? As you say, she's every right to take ML so you're not going to get anywhere complaining about it.

I am very pro making it possible for women to have children, protecting women's rights while pregnant, etc. But I don't think OP is being unreasonable to find it annoying as fuck.

She's not working, that's the point. How is it fair on the business, the colleagues, etc, that she can be off for the best part of 6 years, getting paid for big chunks of it, but nobody else has the right to even find it inconvenient or annoying? I get that her rights are protected and very largely I think that's a good thing. But if this were my business we would be (privately) extremely frustrated, it would make continuity of business a nightmare, and as a small firm it would massively impact on other people in the business in needing to train up maternity cover in a role where 6 months - 1 year is the average time to really get going in some roles. But equally we couldn't financially justify hiring another person to do a role just in case someone decided to keep getting pregnant.

Rights in pregnancy should be protected to an extent, but I do think I'd support there being the right for a business to make redundant someone in this person's position - where their role has changed a lot and they have been there, as OP said, less than year out of six due to maternity.

They should be training her to do tasks they do need.

When is this training supposed to happen?

Everyone's job descriptions are published and I help with implementing the new systems. The cover people are doing one thing and it works really well. Betty's coming back and doing things that we haven't done since she was last there and no one missed. Then she stops, presumably because her boss said she should be doing the other thing, does that for a bit and goes off pregnant and sick again. I don't need to be board level to see that what Betty used to do isn't needed. It's like having someone back to work in the post room when everyone's moved to using email.

I could get a new job but this one is convenient, flexible and well paid. It's just annoying for a couple of months every year or so when Betty does her boomerang act.

@HappyLizard23 Well look at capability then? She’s not there. No wonder employers don’t want women like this. It’s an excessive cost and disruption.

Having what amounts to a frequent change of manager and someone who seems not to be up to date would frustrate me. We don’t of course know about your manager at home and why such a large by modern standards family is being chosen. I hope it is a real choice and not because of a bad or coercive relationship.

I am not sure you can do much other than looking for other roles in your company.

I can see that would be super annoying. But ultimately it could be worse. It's not pressing you or making your workload markedly worse is it? I think it's just one of those things you kinda just accept. Betty is not especially useful but she's seemingly not going anywhere. Except on ML. I guess try and take her absence as a blessing in disguise?

Oh don't be ridiculous.

How am I being ridiculous? She's very open that she doesn't have childcare and shows us the kids when we're on calls.