"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.

Porcamiseria - no I don't think they are wrong in the least. Look at this situation.

Woman works for company for 12 years, putting in huge amounts of overtime and working 12 hour days, rising swiftly up the ladder.

Woman gets pregnant, goes on maternity leave.

Comes back - finds she never sees her baby awake and is regularly late for nursery pickups. Requests flexible working so she can start and leave half an hour earlier each day to pick up her baby. The request is turned down. Changes request slightly and agrees to take a 20% pay cut. Request is granted.

Woman is given more responsibility at work and asks for raise. Request is turned down. She's now taking work home and doing the same hours as pre-pregnancy, only earning 20% less.

She gets pregnant again. Takes more maternity leave. When she returns she asks for her pay to be made level with her non-parent colleagues. Request is turned down. Her pay doesn't cover two sets of nursery fees so she resigns.

THAT is more familiar to me than the scenario you outline.

Maternity time off is very badly paid so no, I'm not sorry for the employer nor the government, besides, we are bringing up FUTURE TAX PAYERS that will support us all with their taxes when we are too old to work.

In Sweden parents get a whole year fully paid and the leave can be shared between both parents, I think that we still have a long way to go before we can get any close to the Swedes in terms of equality and consideration for parents.

I worked for a small company that had one open plan office and two side offices that were shared by 4 directors. We had an open plan storeroom/kitchen and one toilet. Where exactly was I supposed to express milk? It just was not practical for me do do that and in any case it seemed to take me ages to get very little out.

When I went back to work 3 days a week, ds was 11.5 months old so I could breast feed just when we were together. Going back at 6 months would have made breast feeding ds until 2 years old (which I did) almost impossible

I do see it from the employers side as well though. My boss had less of a problem with women deciding not to come back at the end of the year as the fact that they had the right to come back early with very little notice.

If you have employed someone on maternity cover for a year because you expect the employee to be off between 9months - 1 year what do you do if they turn up and want to come back at 6 months which did happen to her You end up having to fork out for two employees as firing the person on a year's contract isn't on.

This "demand flexitime" thing is incorrect.

People have the right to request flexible working but the employer does not have to grant it.

IME it's not the case that the poor employers are granting flexitime to terrifying mums who are threatening to sue, but that employers have a policy/culture of flexitime or they don't. If they do, the request will be granted if it is reasonable. If they don't then the request will not be granted. I have heard of many women who have had to quit when their part time/flexi working request was refused, i do not know anyone who has sued. I mean, your bog standard average woman doesn't go around sueing the pants of companies does she, she just shrugs, mutters and leaves it.

I certainly had to change jobs during my MAT leave because it was made clear there was no option to go part time.

I now work for the NHS, which is excellent (generally) at offering part time hours, flexible working etc, but not good at reflecting this in the job itself, so I do the same work as a full time colleague (if not more), in the equivelant of a day less per week.

I don't think we need to worry about the (fairly depressing) scenario you describe, youngvisitor. Even on the bare facts that porcamiseria outlines the woman is still not even a little bit "wrong".

The woman has worked for the company for x time and is therefore entitled to ML. This is a benefit that her company (if she is lucky) and the state have agreed to reward her because they recognise that it is VERY IMPORTANT that women have children and that they are able to contribute to the working marketplace. It is an issue of public policy. Objective, reasonable people have determined this policy because it is good for society in the longterm. Her childbearing years have not been paid for the state or the company (unless you are a waaaaay better package than me!) - she has just been given a (imo paltry) contribution for the contribution she is making to society.

I don't think that people who do this "create a bad perception in the workplace". I do think though that the expectation that women will do this raises issues but these are tied up with the general discriminatory issues facing women in the workplace and the assumptions people make of them.

Incidentally, no hammering required, porcamiseria - I think these are issues we all worry about and need to think about. I often have to check my immediate instinct which is to think that my company is doing me a favour by granting me ML/flex hours etc but they really aren't - I work for them, I earn my salary. They would struggle to find someone with my experience and they definitely get their money's worth. I deserve those benefits - we all do.

porcamiseria - "I think that the govt have designed a policy that is right and fair. Unfortunately, businesses dont see it that way. If you work in the public scetor its a different kettle of fish."

It is true. The public sector does not have to worry about costs in the same way as a business. Any flexibility or spare capacity in a business is a cost that has to be paid for either by customers or shareholders. Hence business sees women of child bearing age as a potential future financial burden.

I have seen the scenario you describe of a female friend taking 6 months maternity leave, asking for and getting flexi time for 12 months then another 6 months maternity leave then asking for and getting flexi time again and for 9 months then another child with another 6 months maternity leave then finally resigning on the very last day of that maternity leave. Sum total of nearly 3 years and 3 months with constant disruption and reorganising colleagues round her.

On the other hand I have another friend who suffered exactly the scenario theyougvisitor described who was fully commited to returning to work and to furtherng her career as the main bradwinner in the family.

Problem is that this is a situation where neither women or employers able to trust the other side to be reasonable and fair. The whole thing becomes a focus for general hostility when firms attempt to dump the burden of maternity leave on remaining colleagues or avoid employing women all together or forcing the woman out.

If Govt just picked up the whole tab for maternity pay, also paid the Employers NI contributions of any temporary staff that came in to cover maternity leave, and men were allowed to take a full 6 months as well then I think some of the hostility might subside.

I am very familiar with the scenario that porcimasceria described and for that reason was often passed over for promotion. As I've mentioned before, since moving to France I have seen my career prospects flourish (although I work in the same industry, for the same company and for the same boss) because now pregnant I will be returning to work 10 weeks post birth. (I am going to try and BF and express for as long as possible and I have had support on the Living Overseas/BF threads from mothers living in France who have been in the same situation and have managed, perhaps I will fail, but they have given me hope).

I don't have pity for employers but some of them have such an entrenched view that woman of child-bearing age = cost to them and therefore reduced profits which they then have to explain to directors and shareholders that it is impossible for them to see the bigger picture.

There's lots of discussion here about 'pitying the business', but not much mention made of the fact that lots of businesses offer maternity packages that are more generous than the statutory minimum.

One can only assume that these firms aren't stupid, but are doing it because they want to attract the best staff, want their experienced female employees back, and base their maternity packages on experience.

Yes, as with any system, a minority might be inclined to take advantage, but I suspect that many more women have earnt the faith that their employers have put in them through hard work prior to maternity leave, when they would have covered other people's absences too, don't forget. They are probably also extremely cost-effective employees when they return, because they won't necessarily expect immediate promotion.

There are issues for smaller businesses, but it needn't be devastating if you hire the right mix of people and manage the team well. My Dad runs a small business, has had a female employee go on maternity leave and then come back, and he's not scared of hiring women of child-bearing age.

flyingcloud then the answer is that women should have to go back to work when their babies are very small, or quit?

It doesn't feel particularly progressive to me... In fact it is basically, you have had a baby, now stay at home with it. Oh you're very driven are you? Well come back to work and we'll pretend the whole sorry incident never happened...

I have not read all of this.

I took 13 months off with DD. 6 months full pay, 3 months statoury and 3 months unpaid (with a months accrued holiday at the end).

It was the hardest flippen year of my life!!! I do not consider myself to have been greedy.

DD is now 21 months. I am 11 weeks pregnant. I will probably "only" take 9 months this time, mainly so I get back to an easy life quicker.

I do feel a little bit guilty work wise (I am also now part time) but I work hard when I am there and am committed to the business. In 4 years or so, I will be back full time and fully engaged. I can not help the fact that its women that have the babies, women that breastfeed etc.

One can only assume that these firms aren't stupid, but are doing it because they want to attract the best staff, want their experienced female employees back, and base their maternity packages on experience.

a very good point.

If a man moves on from a job 3 months after accepting it, no-one accuses him of milking the system. No-one says "oh his poor employer with the intolerable burden of recruiting a new employee".

another very good point.

why did the idiot journo at the Times not consider these points?

'women beware women..'

and I had no idea how generous our firms maternity policy was until I was pregnant, so had nor have any intention of milking it.

I have every intention of returning and working hard once my childrens very early years are gone.

I also realise that I am very lucky.

Good post, Matsikula. Only thing I didn't agree with was the mention of "a minority might be inclined to take advantage".

No one's taking advantage of ML or milking it - you play by the rules set out in your employment contract. If you have earned the benefits of ML by your service then you should be given the benefits of ML. You can't be taking advantage of the system just because you collect on the benefits promised. It would be like saying no to your bonus, pension scheme or medical insurance.

People have the right to request flexible working but the employer does not have to grant it.

Anyone taking ML is entitled to return to the job they were doing before or a similar position with equivalent pay and conditions. If women base their expectations on this then they cannot be disappointed. I realise that it can be very difficult to balance work and family life but there is no obligation for employers to change an individuals job to suit their requirements. In my experience, employers will take reasonable steps to meet requests. For example, someone I know requested to work part time for childcare reasons. The job she did was a full time position so her employer advertised for someone to job share with her No one applied so she had to continue working full time (or leave)

My post re flexible working was in response to posts stating that employees were "demanding flexitime" and employers were forced to grant it for fear of being sued.

This is not correct.

Employers have to consider requests, they do not have to grant them, and IME (and the experience of many others on MN) often do not.

I find it sad that employers so often and so cheerfully lose experienced people who know the job rather than allow any leeway in their working pattern.

I went from a 5 day to a 3 day week (longer days) and can honestly say I achive more in my 3 days then I would have done before, as feel I have a point to prove and I dont work Fridays so miss out on the chit chat/longer lunches etc.

pamlelat I have noticed that too - when working full time and you have the whole week to kind of spread stuff over, you can afford slacker periods. Plus everyone seems to work harder at the beginning of the week and it gradually runs down...

I never noticed until I went part time the sort of rhythm to it - and how when you work part time you end up working much harder - and for me working at the beginning of the week the thursday/friday wind-down doesn't happen at all.

I definitely work harder working part time.

Imsonot - me too. I do Monday to Wednesday and am always surprised come Monday on how little appears to have progressed since I left.

i see a year's maternity leave as the most amazing opportunity and an investment for the future in many ways, including for wider society. If you look at attachment theory (work of John Bowlby) the experience of the first close personal relationship is thought to govern the quality of subsequent close relationships THROUGHOUT life.

I understand how hard it is for businesses, so i feel Government should fund with longer term perspective in mind.

but doctormummy - the government DOES fund maternity leave. Businesses don't pay it out of pocket you know (unless they choose to offer an enhanced package of course).

chibi

As a teacher, you should get the 'Burgundy Book' entitlement (unless you are working in an indie school), which is more than just SMP.

I realize this opinion won't be popular, but as an expat living in the US, I think 1 year mat leave is a bit much. I am not advocating the US system, as I had only 12 weeks off work unpaid (and I was working until the afternoon I went into hospital to have the baby)..clearly, 12 weeks is not enough. I had family help for 3 weeks, then my husband took the summer off to be home with DD, so she was 7.5 months when starting nursery 2 days a week (we both now have flexible schedules to minimize the time she spends away from a parent). My DD was EBF until a month ago when she started solids properly. I still pump at work once a day, as do all the women with babies in my company, even if it means those without an office go to their cars to express. One girl even drives in to work expressing using her electric pump car adapter and a hands free bra.
I am rambling somewhat here, but my point is that you can be a working mother of a very small baby and cope very well. You have to be organized. I honestly couldn't imagine still being on mat leave with a one year old. I would be worried about the temp they hired to replace me for 12 months. I know it is not legal, but I have heard so many stories in the past year about friends in the UK about to go back to work/back at work for a week and they are laid off. Be realistic, most of us have skilled jobs. Employers can't hire good people to temp jobs who can do the job as well as the person they are replacing (good candidates would be looking for something permanent?)...which means they suffer. 6 months is a good balance, but this is just my opinion.

I thought I'd go back at 6 months after ds1 - we were both ill. So I planned 12 months with ds2.
I am part of a large group of trainees and people come and go from the "working" group anyway - I'm doing research at present, for example, so will only do part time clinical work for 3 years. Taking 6 v 12 months mat leave doesn't make much difference to my colleagues; what does make a diference is being very clear as far in advance as possible about when I start and stop mat leave.
I was unpaid for a lot of the time I was off - have to save up in advance as there is no other income in our household. I am grateful that I earn enough to do this.
There is a huge amount of pressure not to have a long mat leave once training is completed and you are in a job where your absence does impact on colleagues substantially -especially if you are newly appointed,which many women would be.

The 2007 Millennium Cohort Study found that children who's mums are with them for the first year are healthier, do better at school - and eventually cost the tax payer less in support while contributing more. Surely it's worth society's while to subsidize that - or is that too long term a solution with elections constantly looming?

I stopped working full time as an events organiser when I had my little girl. I took on and trained my replacement as it's a very small business ( just 3 of us) and not the sort of thing you can get agency staff in to do.

Of course it's cost us a lot of money, and no, £100 per week goes nowhere but we'd waited 7 years for our little girl and had saved up so I could be a full time mum - what would be the point of 7 years heartache to not spend as much time as possible with her?