"Women have got greedy with maternity leave"

[Bleh]

What do you guys think?
I do kind of feel sorry for male friends, because they don't really have as much of a choice as women do when it comes to leave after having children, as men are only allowed up to two weeks, whereas women can be away for a year. It's really imbalanced. Also, this is a very difficult law for small businesses to fulfill, and discourages them from hiring women of a child-bearing age.

If I was in charge, I would make it so that you can choose to use some of your NI contributions to take extra maternity leave (rather than the employer footing the whole bill), and would have the government give more financial support/tax breaks to small companies that need the assistance.

What I meant, is that yes, there may be more emphasis on the workplace being family friendly etc. etc. but that may not necessarily be true. There are a LOT of women managers who are harder on women than a man would be. I believe research has shown that the best ratio for women in management is about 2/3s. All women management turns vicious.

Don't quite get the excessive use of .

bleh I never suggested the business world being run exclusively by women just suggested that an increase would more likely provide a better maternity option

also it has been my experience that many people do not work as effectively at home for the first 6 months until they get a focus away from the strictures of their formal workplace
I say this from expereince and not as a woman without any understanding

my emoticon useage isn't as irritating as your inability to read what others say or use of cod statistics

Me and my DW both think it is not fair on a business for a woman to take 1 year out, not have to say if she is coming back but the employer forced to hold the position open.

I think there has to be balance between the rights of a woman and the rights of the business.

In my view 6 months is enough and that men should be able to take 6 months as well. Equality is equality.

Truth is most professional women go back ASAP because they cannot afford the massive pay cut of maternity leave.

I do also think that equality law needs to be really toughened up and enforcement should be draconian because there is still huge discrimination against women.

No, mothers have not got greedy with maternity leave.

The rich have got greedy, manipulating house prices up and up until a family needs 2 full time salaries and parents cant afford to spend a reasonable amount of time looking after their own children

bollocks.

One of the big problems with six months etc is if you get ill so have to take mat leave early (before 36 qweks) you have to start then- most nuirseries, certainlya round here, won't take a baby before 6 months so- ?

I truly think that if they reduced Mat LLeave more women would simply not return: the final 6 months i unpiad anyway, many would take a chance and just resign then find another job, you will I suspect also get mroe applications under flexible work etc for PT work- something else employers hate IME>

notice to return to work is awkward; wouldn't people just lie? After all, if you say when you go 'Oh no i'm not coming back'- what company is going to continue paying you if there is any loophole whatsoever? That would be the next step wouldn't it- it wouldn't be 'why should we not have notice' but 'why would we pay someone not coming back'.

It's also damned ahrd to know what youa re doing when you go on mat elave; when I went on mat Leave with ds3 I was sole earner, when it came to goping back Dh was earning sufficient so all the plans changed.

I do feel sorry that men don't get more, but TBH I wouldn't want them taking "my" leave during the first six months. I had such a great time when my two DC were tiny, and I saw the time off as a bit of a reward for being pregnant.

nighbynight - yes you are right and this is the biggest problem that families have. In the old days a family could buy a ouse at 3 x one salary and now they can't.

Both parents have to work and no amount of maternity rights are going to overcome the fact that 2 people have to go out and work.

my take on allowing couples to split maternity leave is that it would just reduce the amount of leave taken generally

what do you find bollocks, psm?

I think a lot of the 15+ year long boom was down to the fact that more and more women worked, creating higher levels of prosperity and disposable income. Now we have a little wobble, it seems like its back to the kitchen, girls!

I shall be taking a full year's maternity leave, with a (very generous) 100% pay for first 6 months. I think its the least I can do for my child.

I don't think it's greedy at all. I am sure I earn at least 20% less than my male colleagues. I have turned down promotion so I can manage a job and a family.

I also have put in far more than 6 months' free overtime over the 9 years I have worked at my firm! I have covered for many other women who have gone on maternity leave.

This what relationship with a good employer should be - give and take. Not all give and not all take.

I think that until a reasonable period can be taken by either parent then this argurment will continue and women will be discriminated against. In fact I think that the combination of mat. leave being potentially so much lengthier than pat. leave, the low level of SMP and the unpaid element of mat. leave perpetuates the stereotype of women being low earners and the ongoing pay discrimination seen in many sectors.

My ideal would be up to a year off in total, at least the first 6 weeks of this must be taken by the mother (to allow for a minimum recovery from giving birth). The rest of the time can be taken by either parent with the option for both parents to be off together for a reduced total period (ie both could be off for a total of 6 months). Leave should be funded at a statutory levely by the government and then topped up to at least 50% of salary for the remaining time period by the employer although if either parent did not return to work then this top-up would need to be repaid.

The idea of paying back money sounds a little hopeful. You can pretty much assume that money will be gone as soon as you pay it out. What if the parent then finds themselves without childcare? Or the child develops a serious illness? Or if they just plain change their mind?

There's no point in taking them to court, they have no money and no form of income. I guess you could take away the little baby's houses..?

"I don't think it's greedy at all. I am sure I earn at least 20% less than my male colleagues. I have turned down promotion so I can manage a job and a family."

Yes, that's very true. I am doing a job that I am vastly over experienced/over qualified for, for a very reasonable wage.

I also turned down a promotion so that I could work part-time. My employer is getting a very good deal out of me, getting my experience and skills for at least 20-30% less salary than I could otherwise have earned.

And although I do think there should be more parental leave, I don't think "equality" necessarily equates to a 50% split.

I agree that in some ways maternity leave IS compensation for being pregnant, struggling through nausea and tiredness for 9 months, bearing a child, feeding it day and night for months, doing all the night wakings (in my case) for 18 months.

My partner is a fantastic hands-on dad, but the reality is that pregnancy, childbirth and childraising has taken a far greater physical toll on me than on him.

A few months off work is pretty scant compensation for 4 months of throwing up at 3 hourly intervals, pregnancy-induced hypertension, birth injuries and not having a single unbroken night's sleep for more than 3 years. My partner didn't have to go through any of that!

For a lot of women returning to work at 6 months would mean they switched from BF to FF which is not ideal.

The leave should be available and shared out to suit the family best. If it were a fixed 6 months for the mother then 6 months for the father I expect that many men wouldn't take it (for various reasons including financial) which would mean the child going to nursery sooner than otherwise necessary.

I think the other partner should have 6 weeks off when the baby is born as a min - that is a crucial period IMO

The points that Mellifluous and theyoungvisiter have raised are very interesting, about the effective "compensation" that the employer gets by parents (mostly mothers) accepting lower pay/worse career prospects. Wasn't there (apologies Ronaldinhio for more cod statistics) the study recently that found that mothers effectively lose out on 5% of their income for every year they have "out" looking after children. Employers are getting skilled workers, and possibly more devoted workers, at a discount rate. It's not something I've seen come into this kind of argument that often.

Bleh - what you said is true. I know on woman who is very higly qualified who, in effect 'agreed' a 20% pay cut by asking to work a 4 day week soshe could have sme flexibility but in pratice is working 5 days as she is always on call and works evenings for no extra pay.

Again (sorry Ronaldinhio), judging from people I know at work, the mothers (not parents) of younger children are more likely to stick around and stay in a job they know is relatively safe, even if it means less in the way of career prospects, kudos or pay, than some fathers and those without children.

I think leave should "belong" to the baby rather than the parents. So the baby gets to have parental care for the first year of it's life, and it's up to the parents how they split it. In my case I would certainly want to have, say - the first 4 months off. But as I'm the higher earner it would make sense for my DP to take the longer leave period. Hopefully this would stop businesses being able to discriminate against women of child bearing age too.

In fact, both parents could choose to take 6 months off together at the same time - surely this would help men adapt to their role as parents too and relieve some of the traditional burden of baby care from women.

Sorry bleh I've been skivving working from home so was perhaps touchy

I'm bored with the women make harder task masters than men argument as often they aren't the final decision makers but rather the enforcers of v senior managment policy
As women however they are expected to give more flexiblity when often it isn't within their power and are then judged more harshly
boring and obvious

Also having a small child doesn't mean that you are suddenly a easy mark in terms of negotiation in the workplace.
However I do think thst women could make use of some coaching to get the best from any of these conversations as often they seem to feel they are entering the discussion on the back foot.
Employers exploit weakness and often diligence and niceness better to know your market worth and fight tooth and nail to get it

It's alright. I'm touchy about this as well, after change in management (woman to another woman), and the new management are so inflexible and unwilling to even try to understand (when we raised it as something we would like to be considered, she literally shouted us down). But yes, I see your point.

Argento your plan sounds good to me too

The question would then be how to work out the money/how much to people get paid etc.I can't see many men being cheeful (or families being able to manage) with them on £100 a week (still the man seems to earn more most of the time). And what do you do about employers applying pressure/overlooking men for promotion who take the leave. It would be an enormous change to our entire workplace culture (one for the better IMO).

Ronaldhino I think that it can be difficult for people who have direct experience of these things to argue in a dispationate manner - I was also given the option of full time and no change after DD1 or leave. It is something that happens to a lot of women and I for one am pretty bitter