to have taken 3 maternity leaves?

[Kathyis12feethighandbites]

This thread is making me very uncomfortable.
I am wondering if I am one of these women who is seen as taking the piss, abusing our generous employment rights etc.
I know that is how my head of department sees it.

I've had 3 children in 5 years, taken an average of 3 months off in each pg due to hyperemesis. This time I was sick right the way through so was not working at 100% capacity the rest of the time though I did my very best.
I took 6 months mat leave the first time, a year the second and will take 9 months this time. I have never taken my full holiday entitlement because I feel too bad about it.

Should I have not had the third child, especially given that I knew I was likely to get hyperemesis again?

My employer is a big one (a university) so should be able to absorb the cost, BUT as there is a policy of not always giving the dept any money for cover (even when they are saving money on salary ) the strain did fall on colleagues/the departmental budget.

People who take sabatticals don't get slagged off for it, do they. People always say oh fab how exciting.

This is all wrong. To say women should give up work if they plan to have more than 1 child - which is effectively what is being said as far as I can see.

It's not unreasonaqble to take three maternity leaves. It doesn't mean the people picking up the work are going to be sweetness and light about it though. I wouldn't want ot do extra work on top of my own to cover for a colleaques's long term planned absence. Your job should be properly covered, but can you get temps in your line of work...?

YANBU to plan your family with small age gaps if that is best for you and your husband. You are entitled to take the mat leave and shouldn't feel guilty (although I can see why you do). Maternity leave entitlement has increased a lot in recent years which most people see as a good thing. However, the real problem is that a lot of employers are put off employing women of childbearing age precisely because of the increased mat rights. It is a really difficult problem to resolve in a way that is fair to female employees and to small employers too.

but surely it has to be seen how incredibly hard on employers 3 mat leaves in five years is.

That means

up to 3 years off work for mat leave

up to 13 additional weeks in that time for parental leave

up to 6 weeks for each year, so a further potential 3o weeks for holiday which cannot be deducted

plus in the ops cases 3 months - so an additional 9 months to cover hyperemesis.

That works out at more than the five years employment that this op could conceivably be out of the office for, that other staff are doing the job for but the job has to be kept open, and large proportions of that are paid - the employer literally ends up paying for up to five years off work. I am all for sabatticals but most people only get one.

I think there has to be some balance because as a heavily pregnant woman right now myself who also runs a business I can see how small businesses in particular dont want the burden of coping with that kind of outlay. Yes you can legally take it but if you are intending to have that many children in that amount of time is it fair to do it to the team you work with?

It 's a tricky one. My boss once said to me (he wasn't being an arse, just being matter of fact), that when someone goes on mat leave, esp with first baby, you have to factor in that it probably won't be their last and you will have another period of leave to cover in the next few years. So I think employers should cover it and TBH closer age gaps probably mean one longer period of disruption rather than several shorter ones which is probably easier to deal with.

That said, I do think there comes a point where it's not really fair any more - eg. what if a small business employs a woman who then goes off on leave once a year until she has 8 kids? There must come a point where it simply isn't fair on the business/colleagues. But them I'm getting into the realms of limiting how many kids people have. It's a minefield!

YANBU as you're entitled to maternity leave however I wouldn't choose to have 3 DCs in 5 years because I would feel so guilty about work.

Currently off on 9 months mat leave and would plan to be back at work a year or so before having another DC. I think this is reasonable for my department and I don't feel guilty - win, win.

No peachy it wasn't you, didn't know you had TBH.

I did say very clearly the underlying implication in the post was that the poster intended not to go back, I tried to make it very clear that it was the intending not to go back all along that was the issue not the not returning or the change of mind (hadn't realised until I was writing it that my SIL is another perfect example she really is intending not to go back -but she isn't even pregnant yet!)

Ooh, reading with interest. I have 2 DCs and was actually pregnant by the time I went back (to working in education) with my 2nd. Both times I've taken the full 12 months entitlement because I wanted to be there for my DCs. I am now back as of this academic year, just part-time and have had a few 'are you going to shaft us again?' type comments from colleagues (with children . Actually am planning on TTC #3 in the New Year, which, if successful, would mean going on maternity leave (or quitting??) at the start of the following academic year.

Am I bad to be thinking like this? I've worked at the school for six years. Unless I 'should' leave with the next maternity leave (if it happens), then I plan to stay on for another few years. I was straight up both times and told them asap. I even gave up my career-oriented, relatively high-powered position so that the school wouldn't suffer.

I am already feeling guilty for the school (financially strapped), for the kids in the school, and for my colleagues (who won't pick up my slack as my job has been created for me so-to-speak, but like the OP, feel guilty of the leave to which I'm legally entitled).

kat don't be so rude disagreeing with my opinion is fine insulting me is less so!

I was referring to my posts on the linked thread which I assume the OP and most others have read (the thread not nec. my posts!!)

I wont repeat them (the posts) all here but there are some reasoned comments my point is very valid rather than barking.

It shows there is still a long way to go for this to be a fair and equal society if you are taking the blame for your employer's cheapness in not providing cover.

I find it continually sad that time and again it boils down to money and the brainwashing that you owe your job and colleagues as much as you owe your family. An attitude which employers wish to cultivate and perpetuate for their own ends. It's gotten so bad that it's seeped down to schools, further preparing people to be merely units of production. In this model women are devalued because pregnancy and childbirth naturally means they aren't producing for the employer in that time. In this economic crunch this worldview is leading to a backlash against female parents.

No B&B for all the reasons given on tis thread YANBU

I am in this situation right now. I have been back at work 4 months and I am 9 weeks pregnant again. As it took me 2 years the first time round, I am shocked, but delighted.

BUT ... I am dreading how I am going to be judged. I work in a pressurised, male environment, and I know they will all be talking about me behind my back...

FWIW, YANBU, but I totally understand why you feel that way.

I'm surprised at how symapthetic to employers some posters are

I am a middle manager and have dealt with dozens of employees going on maternity leave over the years - that's life, women have babies. I work out staffing and cover for all sorts of reasons, that's my job and you get on with it and do it, not sit around whining about how hard it is.

If employees are being asked to cover extra work with no recompense of time or money that is the fault of the employer or manager, not the woman who has dared to have a baby.

I am taking a year's maternity leave and have never felt guilty about it but am now wondering at the attitudes I'm going to face on my return to work

I totally see the points but if the old "your employer and colleagues arent as important as family - you cant expect to be committed to them" old argument is there - then why should an employer, particularly a small one fighting to get through recession put the same commitment into YOUR family? It has to work both ways and thats my point.

It isnt wrong to take mat leave and everything else but the system is unbalanced. Again I am a small and heavily pregnant employer who would NEVER discriminate against pregnant staff but say I employed someone for the next 7 years and for five of those the person wasnt in work i think I might feel differently.

YABU, sorry. To you and lots of mums, it isn't taking the mick (we are entitled to have as many children as we like) but to the outside world you really should have given up work a while ago.

Ofcourse I'm just jealous I can't pop out 3 in 5 yrs!

Do people have a resposibility to their employer then, which they should meet in order to exercise their rights?

There are many instances when people do things/things happen to people which are not brilliant from the employer perspective. If things were based on what is best for employers, there would be no sick pay, no discrimination policies, no maternity or paternity leave, no contracts and no minumum wage.

Our society has certain standards and government gets the measure of these and enshrines them in law. Thus employers are forced to do things that in an ideal world very few would do by choice. Many people are protected by employment law in many different situations. It only seems to be maternity leave that is up for debate - in all other situations it is deemed right and proper that employers toe the line.

People - women and men - like to have children. They have the right to have children. They also have the right to not be discriminated against at work due to this, and to be financially supported (not very generously with SMP) while they take the time to raise their baby through their first months.

For people to argue that this is terribly unfair is not on. Remember that small employers get the mat pay back plus some on top as compensation. It is for employers to understand that people have children and act accordingly in line with the law. Not for women to hurt themselves financially and give up their careers for the crime of wanting a family.

Kathy - I'm going on my 4th maternity leave in 10 years soon. Also work for a University. I had 6mo off with nos 1&2, a year with #3 and undecided yet as to #4. I kept in close contact with work throughout (but at my instance rather than theirs) and it has been fine. I don't know what my colleagues think but don't really care either. It has slowed (naturally) my progression but I'm 35 and will be working for at least another 30 years so don't see it as that big a deal - at least I go back and still contribute to economy etc (that's not meant as a dig at sahms but at some of the very rude men I hear on the radio).

On that point, I'm still seething at the man on radio 4 this morning who announced that people in work earning £15k+ should renounce their rights to child benefit, state pension and something else (pg brain ); he was so beyond reality it was untrue.

YANBU at all. It is how society works. this is why maternity leave is a legal requirement - to enable our society as a whole to function effectively by giving the women the entitlement to raise children and continue contributing to the workforce. am very sad to see some responses to your post.

Cat64 clearly you are getting at me since I dared to question "what the fuck" and stated that this made my blood boil.

For as long as woman like you remain "on the fence" about this issue, then my stance will remain as above.

How on earth can it be unreasonable for a woman to take maternity leave? Or would you prefer a return to the "good old days" where a woman can have a career as long as she doesn't have a ring on her finger (because we all know what will happen once these feckless woman do - they'll get knocked up without so much as a bye or leave and then when will their poor boss be?)

Presumably you wouldn't argue that if someone with cancer is "part of a team" they ought to stop being so selfish as to take time off? Worlds rarely fall apart if someone has a period of absense (even if extended). Where there is a will there is a way. The trouble is I get the feeling there is no "will" even from mothers and I find that depressing in the extreme.

What responsibilities do you feel a woman has to her employer, above and beyond those that she is legally or contractually obliged to fulfil?

Please enligten me, since whilst you seem very quick to criticise me for having an opinion you don't seem to have one yourself.

You know YANBU really, but I really feel where you are coming from.

I work at a university, and was actually pregnant (6 weeks) at the interview and then had to go in and tell them I wouldn't be starting the 1st term.

Bet they were delighted

My guilt has lessened since then because nobody could accuse me of not doing my job well.

I also went back to work after the statutory 3.5mth period.

In fact when I told my H of Dept I was pregnant 2nd time round he was very nice about it and pleased for me. (he could be I suppose because I worked from home for a lot of my leave)

Now we are wondering about having a third child, but I know I wouldn't want to go back after 3.5 mths this time, it was SO hard.

I would probably want a year "off" but I can't see who would do my teaching/cover my other responsibilities.

It's a fact that being pregnant, giving birth and BF cannot be shared with men. Why should women work in fear and an uncomfortable environment caused by resentment just because biologically we are the ones who carry and produce offspring?

I know, lets not have children! Solve the problem once and for all! Or lets give up going to work if you have more than one child!

Clearly not the answer but seems the "solution" to some of the posts on here.

I do feel sorry for small businesses though for whom 3 pg members of staff might represent 50% of their workforce, so for that reason I feel there should be a distinction between small companies and large companies (and small companies offered more support or more flexible rules WRT staff).

YANBU

You are entitled to take it, and presumably you have before your first pregnancy and after your last one spent the rest of your career not being on maternity leave.

Of course YANBU. It's your legal right. End of.

If your colleagues are inconvenienced that's your employer's fault.