Plan to allow small companies to opt out of maternity leave

[JingleJangle7]

Wow, I just read in the paper that in next week's budget there are plans to allow small companies to opt out of maternity and paternity leave. It'll basically mean that if you're working for a small company and they don't opt in and you want to take more than a few weeks off then you loose your job.
I'm sure it will be another vote winner.

Were can i put my cross about bloody time.

Also employers should be able to ask about a womans child care arrangemts in the interview.

Thank god sense has pervailed

at maypole1

which paper?

The guardian.
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/mar/17/women-victims-growth

NO NO NO NO NO! Nobody asks a man if he plans to impregnate his partner/any random woman in the next year or two. why is it ok to ask a woman about her sex life/contraception use?
Many women plan pregnancies,but many don't. Why should we lose our rights?
You can't "opt out" of rights. Rights are called rights because they apply to everyone.
Women have the right to apply for jobs on the same footing as men.
Who asks a man about his childcare arrangements? Why is it assumed that the woman will take full responsibility for childcare?
Last I checked a child had two parents.
Send all mothers their ball and chain and re-attach them barefoot to the kitchen sink?

Before anyone starts, yes I do understand that this is difficult for small firms. SMP is paid for by the government. Paternity leave is only two weeks. Fathers need that time with their new babies, and to support their partners.

I reiterate - If it isn't ok to ask a man a question at interview, it isn't ok to ask a woman either.
Obviously if a woman takes on a role, she needs to ensure she is able to meet her obligations to her employer. Just the same as a man needs to.

How hard is that to understand?

another thread here

Why should parents be discriminated on by the size of the company that they work for?

Also isn't parental leave covered under EU laws? How can the ConDems decide to opt out of that?

You can opt out of the 48 hour week thingy ...so maybe we can opt out of this too.

Agree totally with what Kat says.

What's unfortunately true is that some smaller companies will deliberately avoid employing younger women precisely because they can't afford to take on staff that might take six months, a year, two years off to have children. They don't ask about it at the interview any more because it's illegal, they just make a few calculated assumptions based on stereotyping and strike a line through the candidate. The better maternity rights become, arguably, the worse the employment chances for younger women.

I haven't seen the proposals but I think there's merit in allowing companies the chance to make a flexible arrangement with an employee up front and out in the open rather than assumptions and prejudices being actioned in secret.

"Rights are called rights because they apply to everyone."

The "rights" when it comes to parenthood do not apply to everyone, they vary according to sex, so should they not be called rights?

"Who asks a man about his childcare arrangements? Why is it assumed that the woman will take full responsibility for childcare?"

Because the "rights", well you wouldn't call them that because they don't apply equally to all, differ according to the sex of the employee. A man might be able to get two weeks off work and that's it. A woman can take a year and then be able to return to her position.

So it's not an assumption, it's a reality of the current law that women are encouraged to be the one to stay at home.

"Last I checked a child had two parents."

Exactly.

Rights should be made the same between both of the sexes. It shouldn't be the case that the mother is the only one able to take such an extended career break. That is basically enforcing the gender stereotype that a mother should stay at home.

Extend the same rights to both men and women, give new parents a year off and let them decide how they want to split the time between the mother and the father. Stop forcing the mother to stay at home by giving her choices that are denied to the father.

Companies will then have no basis to discriminate against young women and the only option will be to discriminate against anyone who they believe might have a child, so perhaps women under 40 and any man at all.

Aside from removing sexism from the law (which surely is a good enough aim on it's on?) this might also deal a blow to ageism as older employees become more valuable as they won't be taking career breaks to have children.

Some good points Badger although women are not guaranteed to return back to their original position, they may have to take another similar role in the company.
I also agree that although it may be complicated to work out, men should also be given rights to take more time off if required.
I also think 'rights' should be given to single women who choose not to or can't have children but choose to take a career break. Many bigger companies offer this benefit but some don't.

Jingle, we will have to wait for the detail of course, but my understanding is that whilst some elements of maternity leave could be tinkered with (in line with EU minimum requirements), they couldn't get rid of it altogether.

The CBI have been lobbying for small businesses to have the right to agree a return date with employees before starting maternity leave, so maybe that's it?

If 2/3 of new jobs are created by small businesses then it makes sense to consider ways to encourage them to keep recruiting, but wonder how easy recruitment will be for them once staff realise they can get a better deal at larger organisations.

I grow so very fucking tired about the hidden sexism in the country.

Why is it up to the woman?, if you have been carrying the thing around for 9 months why the hell should you be expected to stay at home looking after the thing.

the only reasons why it is the woman who stays at home is because A) all the laws make it clear it's the womans responsibility and she gets more time off etc then a man can. And B) because it tends to be the lower earner who has to look after the kid and more often then not thats the woman.

hows about making things equal instead of less so?

Entirely agree with badger. If you believe that parents are of equal value, then there is no reason for this to be a gender issue. I think it would be great if it became the norm for parents to split leave equally between them - great for dad, great for mum, and most importantly, great for the children.

Of course, someone will be along in a minute to claim that men can't possibly look after a baby as well as a woman - bollocks! The only thing a man can't do is breastfeed, but that doesn't stop the baby from being able to drink breastmilk (which is actually the important thing - not whether it comes directly from the breast or via a bottle). I returned to work when my first baby was 3 months old, which was the norm 20 years ago, and continued breastfeeding morning and evening, and expressing for the day time. It would have been great if my DH had been able to take the following 3 months off, but of course back then there was no paternity leave at all - dads just took the day of the birth off usually, or maybe a couple of days. I'm all for anything which recognises that a child has two parents who love it equally, and can care for it equally well.

Does anyone yet know what the proposals actually are?

We have had two nannies off on maternity leave. It is pretty hard.

So this measure could really help countless working mothers who employ a nanny. Just remember that aspects as well as the fact that loads of us are business owners, as women, having to wrestle with the same legislation as applies to BP and BT.

Am flabbergasted about the nanny comment! You employ the nanny so you can go back to work after having a baby. You've managed to have a baby, take some leave, keep your job open. But you don't think she should be able to do the same.

I'm all for the parental leave being split by the two parents however suits them best. Only if it is an option though and women can still have the year themselves, not be forced back after six months even if they can't afford for the father to stay at home in the cases where he earns more.

The point about the nanny is not that the entire concept of maternity leave is wrong, but that when you employ just one person and that person then takes maternity leave, you need to pay another person to do their job. In bigger organisations with healthy profits and hundreds of staff, it's more likely someone can cover for the missing member of staff or that they can afford to employ temporary staff. In a small organisation, the wage of the temporary cover might be the difference between staying afloat and going under. Which is back to what I said about small business becoming covertly reluctant to employ younger women.

It's a difficult issue. I was absoulteyl delighted that ours had 2 babies whilst working for us and came back to work and then she left when she was pregnant with the last adn then another nanny later left (her choice) as she moved away when she had a baby. My main view was this is great, having babies is great etc. However that does not get around the practical problem for two full time working paretns who barely have enough time to sleep never mind hire a replacement to cover th leave

Actually the practiacl issues are nothing like as bad as the psychological ones. The baby knows its routine and then someone else comes in for a temporary period. It's like saying mummy is going away for a few months (which is a lifetime for a child) so go and bond with someone new and then she'll disappear and you'll then be back with the original o ne. Of course they still have their bonds with the parents but it's certainly not as easy as if Janice in accounts disappears for 6 months.

HMRC pay the cost but there are hours of admin if you do it yourself and we had the pleasure of a nanny tax investigation solely into the maternity pay arrangements which were foudn to be 100% perfect of course but still think of all the hassle relating to that - have I got this maternity leave stuff and forms properly filled in given I've not done it before. Not fun but lvoely of course they had those 4 babies.

Oh and I didnt' take maternity leave. I used 2 weeks of my annual leave to have the babhies so it's not right to say I benefited from something I then don't want someone else to have.

"I'm all for the parental leave being split by the two parents however suits them best. Only if it is an option though and women can still have the year themselves, not be forced back after six months even if they can't afford for the father to stay at home in the cases where he earns more."

I agree completely.

I think that the current limit of a year should be split between the two parents as they choose. So one parent could use the whole year, or they could split it however they want to.