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.

YANBU IMO

My dh has a very small business (only 4 employees) and they've been with him for years- and he would NEVER employ a woman because of the maternity legislation. It would cripple him, and times are hard enough anyway.

It's your right to be able to take your maternity leave and have as many children as close together as you want.

Christ, women get paid £8 odd an hour on average, compared to men who get £14 odd on average. There is a reason for this- a lot of which will be because we take maternity leave.

Equality and Diversity laws are on your side.

I cannot believe people have tried to tell you you're wrong.

YANBU at all.

Get your holidays in, sod what head of department thinks.

At least you work! How many people out there zapp taxes because they want to have children and not work?

Do not let people guilt you- you're paying your taxes and you're excercising your right to have children and survive financially.

OP
DOn't be ridiculous. Look at all the redundancies that have gone on - companies do what they need to, when they need to. They have to accept that employees will do the same. End the guilt trip, I say.

I guess am a being a bit facetious here, but not by much. If you're in a VERY small company, I accept that it's trickier for the employer. And I am really not crazy about people who accept new jobs without disclosing a pregnancy, without at least considering their employer's circumstances. There are loads of jobs where, although the employer might moan a bit, they can cope. But DH for example, whose school is inner city and has struggled in the past, hired a woman as head of a department that really really needed help and to get through an inspection they knew was coming. Desperate for stability, she knew all of this well and truly before taking the job. Arrives on job. Pregnant. Spent most of the year off on various pregnancy related illnesses before going off, I believe for a year. Not terribly helpful under the circumstances. Of course they also couldn't ask her what her plans were so after hiring someone they thought would help witht he turmoil it was basically two years of uncertainty.

i was on the original thread that unfortunately upset the OP. To clarify NOT ONE person as far as I have seen has suggested that the maternity laws are wrong, and noone wants us to have it like the US do. However there needs to be some level of realism here, the government have created a law that does not suit businesses. Whether we like it or not, businsses are complaining about the situation as is, fact. Which means that some working mothers who utilise their rights feel uncomfortable.

My main issue is with people that knowingly take their years leave and money knowing full well that they will resign at the end of it. I dont think thats fair.

A poster very rightly stated that alot of people expext their rights and want the business to treat them fairly, but show very little loyalty back.

There is no easy answer, but I do worry that if the situations worsens less women of childbearing age will be recruited.

I also think the law that says employers cant ask when a women is coming back is ridiculous, we are adults surely once the baby is 4-5 months old, you can let them know?

I have just been through a very unsavoury work period with a returning from ML leave collegue being made redundant, frankly neither her or my employees behaved that well.

But if there is such a level of disquiet on this topic to simply say 'its your right take it' misses the point.

I understand the sentiment deaddei but I think you'll find that's actually illegal, unless I'm very much mistaken.

"My DH... would NEVER employ a woman because of the maternity legislation. It would cripple him, and times are hard enough anyway"

Well I hope your Dh knows he's breaking the law by discriminating against women like this.

I honestly don't get the small business thing - admittedly I don't run a small business but I know several people who do and they seem to cope with pregnant employees.

Surely the maternity leave is paid by the government? (Plus a bit extra IIRC, if you are a small business).

And "times are hard" - well yes, but by extension there's a large pool of unemployed people out there desperate for work, so it shouldn't be too hard to find someone competent to fill a vacancy.

LOADS of small businesses employ women and manage just fine. Why is it always held up as such an issue?

"Whether we like it or not, businsses are complaining about the situation as is, fact."

Well yes, but small businesses complain about a lot of things - employer NI, bank charges, VAT thresholds etc etc. Of course they're always lobbying for a break. Why wouldn't they?

Doesn't mean the balance on any of the above is NECESSARILY wrong.

Yes he knows it's illegal- but he just wouldn't offer a job to a woman. He hasn't recruited anyone for over 10 years, and probably will never have to again.
And youngvisitor, it is a huge issue when it's your own business...

its not just small business, its industry in general, its been in the media loads recently.That Pease lady, Alan Sugar and loads more

cat64 - I think your arguments are bonkers ! Your relationship with your employer is a business relationship not a friendship.Employers dispose of employees when the financial necessity arises -they don't worry about loyalty do they ?
And how could your midwife see everyone out of 'office hours'.

deaddei - I'm sure it's a big issue, I'm sure it's annoying and disruptive and causes extra work.

But so does any change - having to make an employee redundant, having a valued employee move on and having to recruit a replacement.

Why is a woman taking a few months out funded by the government let's not forget, always seen as such a big issue?

There is HUGE wailing and gnashing of teeth over the alleged immense difficulties and cost of recruiting maternity cover. And yet businesses all over are choosing to move to short term contracts, often a year. Which suggests that in actual fact, recruiting people for a year is not such an impossibility after all, only touted as such when it suits employers.

YANBU

But I would fear taking that much maternity myself because of condemnation. Not at all saying you shouldn't but that society does expect a lot from workers and it doesn't surprise me some of your colleagues are not so understanding. It is a shame.

Because women have so much more maternity than guys (yes I know it is paternity ) then we will always have to worry about this!

I am applying for jobs now, have a dd (5) and a ds (5 months) and I really don't want to mention I am a mother at any point in case it is held against me (in interviews and so on).

theyoungvisitor...exactly...SMP is paid by the government, not the company. Typically the mat leave cover is paid less than the employee...so the issue is that the employer is not organised enough to ensure adequate cover...or HoDs see it as a opportunity to save money and expect everyone else to pick up the slack...

Not the fault of the new mum though is it??

I think it depends on the company too. In my last job, I turned down a temporary job and was eventually offered a permanent contact. It then became apparent that they had been about to recruit me knowing that they would shed me immediately as there was about to be a recruitment freeze that they knew about. I had specifically asked about job security etc and they hadn't come clean. I had no qualms in staying 18 months, taking leave and not going back. They were one of the large accountancy firms and treated employees poorly.

YANBU and I think you should have taken your holiday as well. Particularly as your intention is to go back and work there now for quite a long time if you can.

The negative perceptions etc are there, however, that's not your fault.

I know women who've decided to resign at the end of maternity leave, however, in most cases they didn't know at the start that they would end up doing so.

I thought that employers could ask when women were coming back, and that you're meant to let your employer know well before you plan to return. I returned from my first maternity leave and will return from the second at pretty much the time I always planned (after 11 months including annual leave first time, and 10 months the second time) and told my boss/personnel etc of my plans.

Hannahsaunt, the man from Reform suggested women earning £15K plus shouldn't get SMP as well as the other things you mentioned. I want to know where that "independent" and "non party political" think tank (with lots of Conservative activists working for it) gets its funding from, hope they don't get public money. And its charitable status.

Thank you everyone for all the v interesting comments. Just trying to absorb them.

I do agree actually that employers should be allowed to ask more about when you're coming back, also they should be allowed to contact you sometimes on leave, though 'Keeping In Touch' days have been invented to address this which I think is a Very Good Thing.

InveterateNameChanger made a good point in relation to my situation, which is that if you leave academia it's virtually impossible to get back in, so the option of just leaving the job (as someone lower down the thread said everyone in the outside world would expect me to do) would have had the greater implication of giving up my entire career. Which in itself would waste a shedload of govt money that was spent on me doing my PhD not to mention the skills and experience I have acquired in the job since then.

Someone asked if my job could be done by anyone else - yes, it is not so specific as to be only me that can do it, and there are a number of freelance people who can easily be bought in to cover my teaching. Obviously for certain things (eg some Masters supervisions) I am the best person to do it, but not to the extent of being impossible to cover. A third of my job is research which does not get covered by anyone but will impact only on my own promotion and job security (hence, effectively, me not having done as much will save them loads of money long term as I won't be able to apply for promotion).

I do think the way the institution where I work handles maternity leaves puts women going on leave in a difficult position. We are constantly being told how little money there is in the departmental budget, and not having to pay me for a few months ought to actually save them money, but conversely they end up having to scrape together money to pay for my cover. This is much much less than my own salary but as it is coming out of a budget with no extra money in it hurts the dept nonetheless.

Cat64 it's an interesting grey area between responsibility to 'one's employer' as an abstract entity and responsibility to one's colleagues who are, as you suggest, also (in some cases...) friends, isn't it? Also responsibility to one's employer vs responsibility to one's students (in my case, or other clients in other cases).

In fact, academic jobs can often be covered v. cheaply, because there is a huge workforce of postgraduate and postdoctoral people who are desperate to keep a toe on the ladder, and will work for an hourly rate. My HOD told me that my dept had 'made a profit' on my maternity leave.

So in some ways, covering an academic's maternity leave is a lot more straightforward - you just have to line people up to cover the teaching on an ad hoc basis rather than appointing somebody to a FT post.

(Of course this raises all sorts of other ethical issues about the insecurity and crap conditions of these hourly paid jobs, but that's another thread.)

And of course the reason my dept 'made a profit' is because they actually got some money to cover my leave - the fact that your university doesn't do this, Kathy, is a bloody disgrace.

I hae not read all the threads Kathy, but just wanted to add my view, from your post (it may have already been mentioned by others).

YANBU imo. I might not word it all correctly as I have a pg brain myself. BUT. I worked hard to get to this point in my career, got into lots of debt at uni, worked hard to get out of debt and get a stable position before having children. I work in an environment which rewards full time hard work in terms of career development, which has policies changing all the time and is very easy to lose touch.

If I were to stop working in order to have my children, as some people have chosen to do, I would find myself, in 5 years time, ready to return to the working world so far behind in my career that I would pretty much have to start all over again. This would cost me money, but also tax payers as I would be claiming benefits anyway if not working (at least higher ctc etc), and i would be paying less tax long term while getting myself back into the same career position.

I think, that while yes, you are 'taking advantage' of the system by allowing yourself the time to have your children early and get the maternity rights afforded to you by law, you are also ensuring that you continue to place yourself in a secure working environment, so that when your children are at school, you will already be working and can increase hours, pay more tax etc etc. You will, as far as I can see be more likely to pay a significant amount of more tax by working for the time you have, and will when you return, than if you were to stop working and the come back into the game behind.

Probably does not make sense. But I do not think you are wrong to take advantage of it now, rather than eek it out for longer, or decide not to have another child at all (who will be a tax payer one day too).

This thread has made me feel better. I have worked for my employer for ten years. Had 2008 off and returned Jan 09. With any luck I will be off again this time next year (assuming my down-to-the-last-second planning works!! ). I was beginning to feel a bit guilty but bugger that

It's a two-way thing with your employer - they make allowances for you and you try to be as flexible as you can in return. I have taken 2 years of maternity leave to have my three since 2003, and I like to think that if I were so dispensible then the company would have found a way to sack me by now! (yes, there are laws, but it's a private company and if an employee isn't performing then they don't make any bones about getting rid of them).
I'm 33 and very certain that I don't want any more kids. Now that I have got all my maternity leave out of the way I can start planning ahead to up my hours and eventually start working full time again - albeit probably not for a couple more years.

YANBU.

Speaking of which, better get back to work!