Leadsom and maternity rights

[engineersthumb]

How could anyone stomach this loathsome woman as PM when she stands up and says that anyone working for a company with less than three employees should have no right to maternity leave or the minimum wage? I no that it's is a burden on small business but life nor pregnancy gets cheaper because you happen to work for a small company!

* I know.. fat fingers typing again!

And so it begins!

I agree. But will the Conservative grassroots give a shiny shit about maternity rights?

Well at least we have a basic bill of rites and appeal through the EU... oh wait we don't!

Because lots of Conservative party members are small business owners who don't like these rights as it stops them making a profit.

She's going to bonfire everything.

Despite saying she wouldn't

We are about to go back 30 years.

And then some and if any of us fall into ANY minority it will be bloody terrifying

Agree. She's dire.

Isn't positive discrimination already unawful?www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-positive-action-and-positive-discrimination/108522/

BUt small business owners already receive 103% of the cost fo SMP back. So I don't quite understand why they think having to give maternity rights is so onerous.

Perception. Facts don't matter any more.

Oh please. That document isn't real.

Add to this she won't publish her tax returns and is a homophobe, it is really worrying that she might end up PM.

I am reserving judgment on that photo of that document until Leadsom starts to open her mouth.

If, however, she continues to avoid actual policy as she has done up to this point, I will conclude that either she has no policy or that document is indeed correct and she knows its so unsavoury that publically talking about it will damage her chance as PM.

At the moment, the lack of policy makes me ask big questions.

As someone who runs a medium sized business which was once a very small business I can totally see the point of this. A small business setting out is typically one self-employed person usually earning very little and with little in the way of cash reserves. It is very scary employing someone when they may get pregnant or go off on long term sickness. It can ruin you in fact.

What happens in practice is that people stay as one man bands and never grow their businesses. Or they only employ people very part-time on zero hours contracts. Or they don't employ women of child-bearing age. Or they pay people illegally cash in hand (this is what happens in most private sector organisations in Southern Europe).

The UK needs to encourage small businesses and it needs them to grow. So perhaps employment rights do need to be different in very small businesses. At the very least we need to let interested MPs like Leadsom discuss how government can solve these difficult issues without being immediately vilified.

Do you not know that you get back 103% of statutory maternity pay milly? So the only cost is finding an training a replacement. It's much cheaper than having someone leave because they don't like the terms and having to recruit again.

I grant you sick pay is a problem. But it wasn't until Cameron decided that small businesses were not managing their sick staff appropriately and made it impossible to reclaim SSP in an attempt to encourage employers to force sick employees back to work. Apparently there was to be an occupational health helpline to assist, but they haven't got round to that big yet.

The pay is not the main problem - it is dealing with the absence and having to keep the job open.

for example the worst case scenario:
You are a one woman band. You employ a woman. You train them and get your customers to trust them. It's all good, so then you take on lots more work to keep the two of you busy. Then they have a baby and then you have to do the work of two people - with no way of knowing if or when they will come back or whether you should hire someone else and train them up or not. Then they come back - but they have a lot of time off sick - and then they have another baby and it all starts again. It is a nightmare. So most very small businesses will not hire a woman they think might get pregnant. Not that they will ever openly say that of course! But it is a problem. If you look at the forums on the FSB (federation of small businesses) you will get an insight.

I have employed a woman for a trusted position with a lot of responsibility and managed maternity leave if you can't deal with it, don't be an employer don't just whine and expect to be treated as a special snowflake because you can't be bothered to comply with the law.

Whining includes asking for the law to be changed btw. Get a temp if cope, it's not difficult.

It's much more difficult when your employee breaks a leg and has to spend 2 months in hospital and promptly resigns when he gets out. It doesn't mean that I should whine to the government that I shouldn't have to employ men who like skiing or riding motorbikes.

Milly im childfree by choice and at an interview 12 years ago the interviewer asked if i had kids.

I told him no and i wasnt planning to.

His answer? Why? Dont you like responsibility.

So you cant win.

YY Hamish Totally agree.

Withdrawing employment rights is a slippery slope. More funding for small business is one thing but removing protection long fought for is another. I ran a small business but I never expected to grow it by exploiting people. A change in the law will be abused in the same way that zero hours contracts and imposed self employed status is currently are cyrrently being abused.

I can't see it would prevent discrimination because surely employers who would discriminate won't want to invest in training a woman who would be forced to resign if pregnant, anymore than they don't want to manage mat leave.

Would an unemployed woman offered a job without mat rights have to accept it or face benefit sanctions? Horrific thought.

Quite apart from the above arguments, imposing any arbitrary cut off below which normal employment rights don't apply will place a ceiling on small business activity. Companies will arrange their affairs to as to remain below the cut off.

The most onerous burden that has been placed on small businesses as far as employment is concerned, is automatic enrolment into a pension scheme. It is a costly and time consuming PITA. It is not an EU initiative, but this government's attempt to privatise national insurance.

Statutory maternity pay and the minimum wage are fairly simple to administer.

I think her ideas would simply make it very difficult for small employers to attract employees. We have a small business and usually have two or three employees at a time, usually women of child bearing age. Why would those women want to work for us, rather than a slightly larger organisation, if we didn't offer the same employment rights as a larger organisation?

In fact, we pride ourselves on our flexible attitude to our staff, and always try to accommodate them if they want to make a slight change to their hours, or take an afternoon off for a sports day, say.

It makes for a much better working relationship.

She is not living in the real world.