Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think it is out of order taking 4 maternity leaves in a row from the same employer?

208 replies

bodybag · 21/09/2008 21:08

this woman, i am supposed to work with has barly been there in 6 years!

don't you think it's a bit out of order from the same employer to have to cover all that for 1 person?

OP posts:
flowerybeanbag · 22/09/2008 14:11

I think it is likely the OP is a troll but still a few interesting points being made.

I would like comment about how much maternity leave affects/costs business, small ones particularly.

Yes they can often claim most or all of the maternity pay back. But they can't claim recruitment costs. They can't claim training costs. They can't claim salary if they need a handover period. They can't claim compensation for lost productivity while the new person settles in/learns the ropes. They can't claim for management time used in recruitment/managing new person. They can't claim for the fact that they now have to pay the woman benefits including holiday for the entire duration of her year's maternity leave.

Not all those obviously apply in every case and equally obviously lots would apply if someone just resigned as well. My point is it's not quite as simple as saying 'they can claim back SMP so it doesn't cost them anything'.

Having said that, if the OP or anyone else does think that the current maternity regulations are disruptive/costly to employers to an unnecessary and unacceptable degree, the claim should surely be that this government is unreasonable for increasing maternity provisions as it has. I can't see any argument for the women themselves being unreasonable for taking advantage of laws that are there to protect them.

mayorquimby · 22/09/2008 14:23

"Is having 4 children really abusing the system? "

no that's why i said where colleagues feel someone is abusing the system.and that it is a much better situation to have where a few fellow employees think someone's taking the piss than to have no legal protection what so ever.

i do however feel sorry for business' having to take on a financial burden for an employees personal life style choice.

PrettyRubbishReally · 22/09/2008 15:17

Children are not a lifestyle choice.

If a colleague had frequent sick leave due to injuring themselves doing a dangerous sport, that would be a lifestyle choice.

Without children, there will be noone to pay taxes to keep us in our care homes when we're all old and dribbly. There will be no care workers. There will be no economy, no society.

I'm not suggesting we should be given medals for having them, but to call it a lifestyle choice is a bit much.

mayorquimby · 22/09/2008 15:27

"Children are not a lifestyle choice.

If a colleague had frequent sick leave due to injuring themselves doing a dangerous sport, that would be a lifestyle choice."

surely that analogy applies perfectly to the woman in the op as well then?
if you miss work frequently for long periods of time due to your decision to have sex/children how is that not a lifestyle choice?

as i've said already i'm not saying get rid of maternity leave.just that i do feel sympathetic to bussiness' having a financial responsibility imposed on them due to the personal choices of employees.

LittleMyDancing · 22/09/2008 15:39

Because a lifestyle choice implies that the choice has no benefit whatsoever to anyone except the person choosing it.

As a society, we have to make it possible for people to have children and still work to support them and make ends meet. Otherwise, it's all a bit short termist, isn't it?

mayorquimby · 22/09/2008 15:51

in that case your definition of lifestyle choice is pedantic beause pretty much every lifestyle choice will benefit others apart from the particular person in question.like the example given of someone involved in extreme sports. that would be economically beneficial to soceity as it would make the market for sports equipment more profitable etc.
at this point i think the argument is getting bogged down in semantics. o as duncan bannatune would say, i'm out

overthemill · 22/09/2008 15:53

YABU. It's allowed. It's the law. Thank god for it too.
btw i have one dd and i still defend anyone else's right to countless mat leaves. kids are our future

LittleMyDancing · 22/09/2008 15:53

well yes, in the short term. but dangerous sports are not essential to the future of mankind. children are.

if we make it impossible for people to have children, we sort of grind to a halt, don't we?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page