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.

A right to work, not a right not to work.

At a certain point situations like this require people to make an ethical decision. She's not actually doing any useful work, and she's causing a problem for the employer, and sll the other employees.

She should resign, and wait until she's done having children, and then look to get back in the workforce when she's in a position to work.

People don't seem to realize that taking advantage like this, be it maternity leaves, sick leave, whatever, will result in those provisions being repealed, controlled more carefully, or employers will find a way around them.

IMO maternity leave should be limited to two children, but you should get full pay for the duration.

Why 2? Why is 2 an acceptable number?

Being a parent at a certain point becomes a FTJ.

Disregarding the actual pregnancy and recovery, kids still need care. If you can use a daycare, many people in middle class jobs can manage with two kids, if they use things like vacation for sick days. A few can stretch to three but many find that desperately hard unless they get extra help.

Ime, at three or four kids, in terms of time, and usually economics, you need someone home or in pt /flexible work only when they are under about 12.

You can get a nanny and pay for that kind of help, but you need a high paying job to do it.

People can't do everything.

Because it’s a stable replacement number.

That's because a man wouldn't be off for 9months at a time, or need time off for pregnancy related illnesses.

So now you think the government should dictate how many children is an ‘acceptable’ number before women are allowed to be pushed out of the workforce, when we already have a declining birth rate; meanwhile men are allowed to have as many children as they see fit without being penalised…. feminism is going backwards..

And this is why they have been considered the superior sex throughout history 👏👏👏 silly women, thinking that they deserved to be equal when their biology clearly makes them a liability.

Or off with pregnancy sickness/illness 🙄

I feel like there comes a point where if the job has changed that much, they could potentially justify eliminating that role and making her reapply for a new role they design. However, is this likely to be her last pregnancy?? You know for sickness / absence for genuine reasons, I think there is a limitation because any adjustment has to be 'reasonable'. What you described doesn't sound reasonable if the job has changed and it's been going on for 7 years. But again: seems likely to be the last time so no point rocking that boat.

We definitely need protections in place because it isn't that common to have this many children and we do need to know we will still have a job after having them. We'd be screwed without that law. Back to relying on a man for income.

Having children is playing the system?

What do you think happens to all women if we can't earn money or keep a job while brewing a family? We go back to being forced to chain ourselves to men. All of us.

Or we refuse to have children and we all die out.

People who are genuinely unwell don't have unlimited rights to keep their job open so I'm not sure why a person's lifestyle choices should. She's chosen to have 5 kids on the bounce - she's not more important than someone suffering with a debilitating illness or who would like extended time off to care for a dying relative. Having protected leave for 2 dc is fair and reasonable but at some point it's not wrong for an employer to expect her to turn up for the job she was employed for!

From my understanding, she shouldn’t get first dibs. She would still go through the same process as the other two managers, but her pregnancy or pregnancy related sickness cannot be used to reduce her scoring.

So there would be no guarantee of her getting one of the spots, especially if the other two managers are stronger performers, more qualified etc.

Some of us are unable to have children and never get the opportunity to go on maternity leave but spend our working lives covering for those who can and do.

I’m child free by choice but agree 100%

Companies are so terrified of legal action that they will bend over backwards to accommodate pregnant women/mothers but that comes at a cost to those who don’t have children.

For example if two people do the same job, one who is pregnant and one with no children, and they only need one person, it won’t be the pregnant one who gets made redundant.

Also women like the OP describes are the reason why women are still discriminated against in interviews. Even announcing clearly in an interview that you don’t have and have no intention of having children doesn’t help.

Add to that the new menopause awareness and it’s a miracle that any of us have a job.

Men wouldn’t be off sick for pregnancy related illness or likely take so much paternity leave afterwards.

So women deserve to be penalised for having children?

Pregnancy related illness is not a choice. For some women pregnancy is really really hard, but worthwhile for the end result.

As for maternity leave, women need time to adequately recover from child birth, breastfeed and bond with their baby. Men don’t require paternity leave in the same way as they don’t need to physically recover and cannot breastfeed.

Having 5 kids is a choice and an unreasonable one if you have work responsibilities and are blocking jobs and promotion in this way. Want 5 kids, get a passive income stream or a rich husband/husband willing to stay at home while you work.

I don’t agree that there ought to be a limit on your family simply because you are a working mother.

It’s down to the company to manage any issues and women are constantly told not to be financially dependent on a man.

The pregnancy/ maternity years are short, after which most women will need or want to continue their career, so expecting women to quit their jobs during this time is not reasonable.

But they can’t manage the issues because of employment laws.

Surely she hardly gets any work done if she has all her pre-school aged children at home rather than in nursery or with a nanny/childminder?

Even workplaces with very generous/flexible working from home arrangements expect their employees to be actually working during working hours and not doing childcare.

They can’t sack them, no; but they can allow others to be promoted; they can make sure it doesn’t impact the workload of their colleagues, and they can ensure their skills and knowledge are up to date.

The pregnancy/maternity years can be quite a long time, esp with difficult pregnancies.

During this time, women have far more rights than anyone else in the workplace.

And if a company is small, it usually ends up with either the remaining employees having to increase their workloads or having to pay through the nose for temp cover.

Those employees know that if it ever came to downsizing or whatever, they would be more likely to be out on their ear than their pregnant colleague, regardless of performance.

Of course they shouldn’t discriminate against pregnancy and maternity but when it comes to it, they discriminate against everyone else!

Exactly this. Whether people are prepared to admit it or not, the more rights women have, the more employers will discriminate against employing women. The law is great and all that but until or unless you change people’s mindsets and show employers the positive benefits of employing women over men, many won’t.

For a small company, we can be seen as a liability.

But she’s not working …