Is it fair that new pregnant employees currently don't get a penny in maternity pay from their employers? And what we can do to change it.

[clarabridgetta]

Currently employers do not have to pay a penny in maternity pay for women who are pregnant when they start a job, women must be with an employer prior to getting pregnant to be eligible.

I was in this position and so are countless other women.

This amounts to gender discrimination as it often prevents women who are pregnant from taking new career opportunities. This feels like a financial penalisation for women because they are pregnant.

Statistics show women face the most discrimination in the workplace once they become mothers.

So I wanted to do something to change this so I started a petition to call on the Women's minister to force employers to pay women maternity pay regardless of when they start working for them.

Can you help?

As I am struggling to get many signatures from my non parent friends and colleagues and getting them to forward it onwards.

secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Minister_for_Women_and_Equalities_Nicky_Morgan_Call_on_Morgan_to_end_maternity_pay_inequality/?preview=live

Please sign and share with your friends and family.

Thank you.

Clare (mum to Iliya 10 months old).

As above message, the government covers most of the cost of maternity pay so I do not believe their would be any more discrimination. Employers already discriminate against pregnant women, it is the role of government to protect women from such discrimination.

Many women are in short term contracts and due to the nature of the market have to change jobs more frequently.

For women to get money from their employer they would have to be in employment before they got pregnant, and as women do not know they are pregnant for at least 5 weeks, they could switch jobs not knowing they were pregnant and lose out. Many women can take years to conceive and may not change jobs because of this potential financial insecurity if they do.

In Britain in terms of maternity leave and pay we are doing better than other countries, but I still think there is room for improvement.

For women who have well earning partners, and earn well themselves it is less of an issue but for single mums and women on lower incomes this loss of income could hit them hard.

This small change could make a big difference.

I agree with earlier posters. This would actually lead to more discrimination.

It would make a big difference, but not the one that you are hoping for.

It would make it much more difficult for women of child-bearing age to get a job, regardless of whether they were pregnant or even planning children. Men and younger/older women would be far safer bets, and so they would be employed instead.

Many people are in short-term contracts and change jobs frequently, that's par for the course. If you're planning to TTC, this is a consideration. It's not just women, though. And if this was bought in, it would make it much harder for women to be accepted for any position.

Wouldn't changing Maternity Allowance make more sense though? To pay the 6 weeks at 90% of pay, if you are in employment but not been in the job for long enough to qualify for SMP?

no, maternity leave isn't a career break but what I'm saying is that you wouldn't employ someone knowing that they intended to take a year out in the next three/six months and that you would have to pay them for some of that and would also then need to potentially start recruiting immediately for their replacement. This is no different.

Tbh I would think twice about employing a pregnant woman anyway on the basis that her future with the company would be uncertain given she might decide to stay home, etc. But if as an employer I knew I would be financially obligated to cover not only her maternity leave but also that I would be recruiting again to replace that person within the six months I wouldn't employ them. And believe me, it's not hard to find a reason not to employ someone

But atticus surely you could make exactly that argument about paid maternity leave generally.

wannabe though I'm with you on disagreeing with the petition your admission of choosing an employee who is not pregnant iver one who is would be precisely the reason women don't declare pregnancy in interviews and don't say anything until the job is offered.

'and as women do not know they are pregnant for at least 5 weeks, they could switch jobs not knowing they were pregnant and lose out. Many women can take years to conceive and may not change jobs because of this potential financial insecurity if they do. '

Um, plenty of women do. I got a positive test result before my period was even due. And I'm not interested in legislating on the basis of what-ifs so will not be signing this.

'Tbh I would think twice about employing a pregnant woman anyway on the basis that her future with the company would be uncertain given she might decide to stay home, etc'

Or come back pregnant and use the employer to fund 2+ years off work.

Op before I decide what I think can you explain the difference in real terms?

If I work for a firm for x months and then become pregnant, what am I entitled to?

If I join and then become pregnant within a month, what am I entitled to?

If I join and am already pregnant, what am I entitled to?

And does maternity allowance depend on partners income?

I've applied for quite a few jobs recently, and with those applications you get an equal opportunities monitoring form which asks things like "do you have a disability/what ethnicity are you/do you still have the gender assigned at birth/what is your sexuality/status. These forms are allegedly there to gage the numbers of minorities applying for companies etc etc....

However, recently a new trend has emerged with these forms and questions now also include:

Are you the primary carer for a child under the age of eighteen? and are you the primary carer for an elderly or disabled person?

Personally I don't believe them when they say that those forms aren't tied into the applications, and I also believe that those additional questions are now entered in order to eliminate candidates based on e.g. whether they have children. It is not legal to ask those types of questions at interview, therefore this is a way around that.

So in the event such legislation were to be implemented I imagine the equal opportunities monitoring form would also include the question "are you currently pregnant?" NB: it is an offence to enter inaccurate data on the monitoring form.....

Who says it's an offence to enter inaccurate data on a monitoring form? I've never heard of that before. As far as I've ever seen, the questions are usually optional and have a "prefer not to say" response for most questions.

As far as I'm aware the equal opportunities monitoring forms are none compulsory so the necessity to answer is not required. Advising a new employer you are pregnant before 25 weeks is also non compulsory, which is why a lot of people will wait until a job offer to declare - so discrimination cannot be made.
I do still disagree with the petition, if I choose to change jobs while pregnant I am more than fully aware of the implications when maternity leave comes around. As stated earlier, what I don't find fair is that men pay the same national insurance contributions yet aren't entitled to anything at all if they change jobs when their partner is pregnant.