Has anyone seen this on GMTV about women on maternity leave??

[Peaches174]

www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=33559

How outrageous! Who are these men that think women should be the first to be made redundant in a recession?!

Presumably men who run companies who can't currently afford to have someone on paid maternity and also employ another person to cover that maternity leave.

Feel as outraged as you like, but the reality is that small to medium firms struggled to afford maternity leave before the recession.

But isn't is a legal requiremnent to offer maternity leave? What about men on extended paternity or parental leave?

It is bad enough that women of child bearing age are descriminated against when going for jobs without having to watch their backs when they do have a family. Unfortunately, it is a part of life now that the majority of mums do work.

If it becomes acceptable management policy now, then when we are out of recession (however long that may take) then it will be the norm and we are back to the 1970s!

link for you

Agree with georgiemum.

maternity leave costs small employers a lot of money.

it's not PC to say so, but if i were running a business, i'd stick to hiring only older workers - age 45+, to hopefully avoid situations like that.

I was very, very dismayed when my husband said that his (no previus company) was very unlikely to hire a woman because of the maternity issue and it just a fact of running their business.

I can see your point expat, but having being sacked for being pregnant, and subsequently not being able to claim ANY benefits for the duration of my pregnancy, I don't feel that sorry for the companies.

But then that's down to my personal experiences.

Most employers can recover 92% of SMP from the Government. Small businesses are reimbursed 100% of the SMP plus an extra 4.5% "compensation". How does it cost small employers a lot of money? (genuinely interested, as I hear this a lot so presumably it does, but I can't work out where -- there's some cost in having to get a maternity cover person up to speed, I can see)

I agree P&L - as a worker in a very small company, I got SMP which the company was reimbursed for by the Govt, and in fact they didn't get cover for me as they spread my 3 day week workload out between them. Worked out better for them financially!

because they have to usually hire someone else to cover the person who's missing and train them. if they go through an agency, they have to pay for that on top and it's more than that 4.5% compensation.

SMP is less than what they're paying the person, too, usually.

if the temp employee doesn't work out, they're back having to fill the role again.

then if the person decides not to come back, they have to hire and train someone else.

i'm not saying it's right, but i can sort of see where they're coming from.

TBH I'm more upset that so many people think part-time workers should be ditched first. At least if you're on mat leave you've got time to try and find something else. If you're a lone parent working part time or that income is vital you're fucked. There still seems to be an assumption that women work part-time for "pin money" and will be looked after by their big strong man if they are put out of work. Whereas of course most are part-time to ensure their childcare costs are minimised.

That was 40% thought they should go.

Very worrying.

The only thing that will change these attitudes is men taking the same leave as women. What we need to do is give men 6 weeks of paternity leave at 90% of their pay. Only then will management see men at child bearing age as an equal risk to women at childbearing age. Anyone with half a brain knows that a married woman who has no kids will probably take time off to have them. I guess the people who really get shafted are married women who actually aren't going to have kids because they will be held back for something they aren't actually going to do.

Currently, men do not take paternity leave. They take 2 weeks of holiday because it is paid.

portandlemon it costs business because of things like the fact that pregnant women now get all their benefits for the whole time they are off costs money, and the fact that they also accrue all their holiday as normal as well giving them potentially another 5 weeks to tack on to their maternity leave which may require cover.

Cost of employing a replacement is higher than just the cost of SMP, there might be recruitment costs, lost productivity due to someone being new, higher salaries for temps, benefits for the temps and various other 'hidden' costs.

Apart from the fact that's it's obviously wrong and illegal to discriminate anyway, I don't actually agree that it makes more sense for employees on maternity leave or working part time to go first. Employees on maternity leave are not receiving salary, so are cheaper than normal employees, as long as no maternity cover is employed, so it's better and more cost effective to keep them on maternity leave, let someone receiving full salary go and then review the situation once the individual on maternity leave is coming back. It might make sense in terms of feeling less disruptive to let someone go who isn't in the office anyway, but otherwise it doesn't imo.

SImilarly part timers are cheaper than full timers. It would be better in many cases for employers to retain as many people as possible, in terms of expertise and flexibility, for example, while saving costs in terms of hours. Therefore keeping 3 part timers might well make more sense than keeping 2 full timers, for example.

I think that the majority of small to medium businesses have a policy of not hiring women for skilled positions who may decide to have a family. It is very expensive and time consuming to hire and train replacement temporary skilled workers.

How is it that usually SMP is less than what you're actually paying the person expat?

My two mat leaves have both been SMP. I only know one private sector person who got an enhanced package and she had to pay it all back when she didn't go back to that job after her mat leave was up.

IME the people who get enhanced are usually public sector ie not small/medium sized businesses.

IME a lot of people seem to think that women get pretty much full salary while on mat leave, and the public sector people with their top notch packages don't know how lucky they are. My nurse friends etc have been shocked when I have told them normal mat leave is 6 weeks 90% then about £100 up to 9 months...

flowerbeanbag's post explains it much better why it can be more expensive, JazzHands.

that's exaclty how.

i'm not saying it's fair or right.

and i don't own a business so it's a moot point.

but i think that's why some businesses don't want to hire women of childbearing age, tbh.

I work for a chuffing huge company and I only get paid SMP when I'm on ML.

Is it really the case that the majority of small companies, who we are told are so strapped for cash that they want to take away the existing legal protection that employees on maternity leave have, are nevertheless offering their employees well above the legal minimum in maternity pay?

As I said, I can see that it does cost them something, but I still can't see that it's a lot, overall (I also have a dim view of how much going through an agency adds and hence whether it's a cost-effective thing to do, but that's another issue).

Sorry expat I thought you were saying that most women got more than SMP when on mat leave.

IME there is a lot of misunderstanding amongst people ie men and women who haven't had children, about how much women on mat leave actually get. Many people assume it is full pay for a year for some reason

It may be that incorrect assumption that is driving the high amount of people saying to get rid of women on mat leave.

It doesn't really matter what we do for their employment right if they never get hired in the first place. It is so easy to discriminate. All you have to do is show up for the interview wearing a wedding ring. Interviewer talks about the weekends and what you like to do. Susses out you have no kids. And voila, you are high risk. Hire the man.

Cross-posted with flowerybeanbag -- yes, that makes more sense now. And I agree with fbb that it still doesn't actually seem to make more sense for employees on maternity leave or working part time to go first.

i'd agree that it's wrong, but it's also an ugly fact that has to be accepted maternity leave or job applicants who are likely to claim maternity leave cost companies more money.
so i can understand (not agree) why some companies would attempt to avoid hiring them or would like to see them up first for redundancy.
most companies aren't huge multi-nationals, they are small to medium businesses who right now will be fighting to keep their heads above water and can't afford to pay someone to not be at work while hiring another person to cover their workloads.
luckily there are laws in place to stop these opinions being acted upon. and don't forget that's all this survey is, an anonymous opinion poll, it has no legal bais nor is it binding uypon anyone.

my sis also works for a "chuffing huge company" (like that, P&L!) and only ever got SMP, no enhancements. Tis retail though, so that's probably why!

Perhaps it's the medium-sized companies who offer more enhanced MP? certainly not my teeny one.

I did get asked about my engagement ring at one interview (before I was married). I got the job, though (hmm, wonder if the HR person told them they'd have to hire me now or risk a tribunal case...?) and, to be fair, I suspect they just used it as a lead-in to the discussion (about flexibility and readiness to travel) that they were having with all the other candidates too.

My companies were one humungous global thingummy, and one sme. Both SMP.

I reckon if you take the public sector out of the equations it's probably not a huge proportion of employers who offer enhanced.

I am the only one more upset about the poor old part time workers - with a greater proportion saying they could go first than the mat leave question?

Maybe it's not such an exciting topic - but I'm still indignant