Mums BANNED from worked 6 weeks after birth

[Tortington]

was in the MNet news section ( link of home page.)

BANNED! i think this is outragous - what say you

?

If a man (or woman) has a heart attack, he's not allowed back to work until the doc says its OK. Likewise, women are checked and 'signed off' at 6 weeks after birth. Makes perfect sense to prevent women working until then. I agree a presumption that they aren't OK to work is more flexible than an absolute rule, like with driving after a CS - most insurers say you can drive once the doc says its OK - but in an area like pregnancy where discrimination is rife, I think an absolute rule is needed.

Perhaps it would be more useful to look at the actual article, or even the EU proposal (and it is a proposal, needing ratification): www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3124386/EU-to-offer-18-weeks-fully-paid-maternity-leave.ht ml

It is part of a package to increase maternity leave and protection, including 18 weeks at FULL pay.

It doesn't seem a terribly wicked proposal to me (although there are costs to bear in mind, small businesses etc). I'm afraid I think this is pretty poor reporting by Mumsnet.

Lets clear up the idea that its EU bureaucrats deciding things - this will be voted on by our elected representatives. Quick quote from the telegraph link on this - "The plan, which must yet be approved by EU member states and the European Parliament, would force employers to offer additional leave in the case of premature childbirth, when an infant that is hospitalised at birth or in the event of multiple births.

Mothers would also win the right to return to the same job or a similar one but with the same terms and conditions.

Employers would find it harder to fire mothers within six months of the end of the maternity leave. If dismissed within this period, they could ask for a written explanation. "

How many mothers actually go back to work within six weeks though? I realise there must be some circumstances where this happens, but I am struggling to think of any!

To be fair, the six weeks seems okay to me, but I took six months off, and would plan to do the same when I have another. I guess I'm lucky because we have a really good maternity pay scheme, and its only the last 6 weeks of a six month period that it drops to statoury pay.

Our mat pay is 6 weeks full pay, 14 weeks at 90% pay, and then 6 weeks stat, though that was when I was on mat leave in '05, I think it is now an extra 12 weeks at stat to make it paid for 9mths.

there may be a 2 week rule at the moment but the young lady who works in our corner shop was back at work the weekend after she gave birth. She had 4 days off in total, she only works part time but I was sad that she was at work. Sad that she had to go back to work financially - not sad that she had made the choice to go back you understand - she can't earn more than £60-70 per week.

4 days off!!! Thats awful, surely she must have been entitled to more than that??? I wonder if she knows she's entitled to more than that, and that her employer is breaking the law by letting her come back to work so fast, and/or not paying her for longer mat leave.

I would only return to work when my baby was tiny if I could take my baby with me, obviously not something I could do in my current job, but there are some jobs where you could do it if you wanted to.

Not everyone falls under the statutory maternity provisions - I don't. I'm a partner in a firm of chartered accountants so I'm not an employee. I had to ask that the maternity leave under the partnership deed be extended - it was 3 months, after that if you weren't back you were deemed to have left. And that is a firm that has maternity leave written into the partnership deed, I know of on instance where there was no maternity leave provision at all. So you get no maternity leave - maybe use your annual holiday to have a baby. Not everyone has the benefit of employment legislation protection, maybe for those (admittedly few) women then this rule would be a good thing?

CoT Actually that prem babies thing sounds good. Having a prem baby is extra expensive then most of the poor mums end up going back a lot sooner after their baby has come home from hospital.
I don't have a problem with the 6 week rule if it is part of the package they talk of.

I think it is a good thing as it will mean employers are unable to pressure women back to work.

as for women that choose to go back before 6 weeks, they will survive for 6 weeks of not working, honest. Hardly dragonian... being forced to stay with your baby.

But it won't aply to srlf employed people such as baristers, though, will it?

A firend of mine took up a bar (night club - to fit around her DH job) when her baby was 2 weeks old. It didn't do her any good physically, and she didn't last very long in the job.

A small part of it will be to protect the business/employer also, will it not?
Nwo weeks after having a baby, things could still go wrong I assume? In these days where everybody is very "sue happy", if something went wrong on the works premises, Im sure a small percentage of women would want to sue for not being protected or looked after so soon after giving birth?

Two not Nwo

I gave birth on the Thursday and was called into a meeting 9am on the Monday and went.
I think it should be up to the individual actually.

Maybe, like with many other medical procedures (for want of a better word) it should be you can only go back earlier than 6 weeks when a doctor signs you as being physically and emotionally ready to return.

Could it be linked to the idea that the first 6 weeks of breastfeeding is the most important time?

It will make employers think twice about hiring women in the first. I have no problem with this if they make all das do the same thing. Make him take 6 weeks right after mum's six weeks and pay him 90% of his salary.

Otherwise, it is sexist.