Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Plans to allow small firms to negotiate parental (maternity) leave

82 replies

flyingcloud · 14/03/2011 10:23

Has this been done?

It just makes me so :(

OP posts:
David51 · 14/03/2011 11:27

If it happens it will be announced in the budget on 23 March

CaptainNancy · 14/03/2011 11:29

I saw KateMumsnet tweet it yesterday, but did not have time to get my head round it.

Effectively mean women are unemployable, no?

Original poster
flyingcloud · 14/03/2011 13:12

It will be so hard for women to 'negotiate', especially in the current economic climate. The govt should be doing their utmost to protect the hard-fought rights of women, rather than legislating their rights away.

OP posts:
AliceWorld · 14/03/2011 13:30

In theory, more employable as the small businesses don't have to pay maternity pay so they won't need to discriminate on that basis. But women effectively become temporary workers, as if they dare to bring new human lives into the world, then they can just be disposed with. And of course yes an utterly out of balance 'negotiation' where the employer can just sack the woman for being pregnant. So you're more employable because you're more disposable. Women can just be the temps for now.

Is there anyone left who doesn't think the Tories' cuts are ideological? I don't know how clearer they can get.

It's not happened, yet. Wonder if the Lib Dems will remember any principles they claimed once to have had? Hmm

swallowedAfly · 14/03/2011 14:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

aliceliddell · 14/03/2011 15:10

The comments on the end of that link are hysterical! Women! Know your place! It would be funny except these Eton tossers are running the country. Tell you what? Lets phone Nick Clegg, the moral conscience of the outfit. A principled man...

ForkfulOfTabouleh · 14/03/2011 15:23

What the hell?!?! Shock

I have recently realised that most people don't realise that small companies RECLAIM from the Government (HMRC) any statutory maternity payments which they make.

So the 90% of salary for 6 weeks and the ~£123/week for the remaining 33 weeks.

In fact they reclaim 104.5% of it. This covers any employer's national insurance payments so they have NO £ going out on SMP.

(Larger companies claim back 92%),

See here.

They have to pay to recruit a new employee - which they would have to do if the pregnant employee was sacked/left.

They have to train the new employee - again which they would have to do if the pregnant employee was sacked/left.

They put the replacement employee on a temp contract so no liability incurred in terminating them when the woman returns from maternity leave.

If flexible working does not suit their business and they can prove this then they don't have to offer it.

If small companies weren't giving SMP then would maternity allowance be qualified for?

What will stop companies artificially organising to have subsidiaries of less than 10 people to get round the legislation?

ForkfulOfTabouleh · 14/03/2011 15:25

i.e. small companies aren't suffering the cost of SMP at the moment so really what are they hoping to actually gain - just the possibility that women won't leave?

swallowedAfly · 14/03/2011 15:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Unrulysun · 14/03/2011 18:28

We're all in this together remember ladies...

I'm sure Sam Cam will be suffering along with the rest of us.

CaptainNancy · 14/03/2011 21:02

If the replacement for maternity cover becomes pg whilst in your employment, you are not allowed to sack her, you have to keep her in the role. It could be an awkward situation if your original employee, her maternity cover, and possibly her maternity cover are all still employed- where does that leave a business that only usually has 4 employees? (theoretical question obviously)

Portofino · 14/03/2011 21:07

Surely that does not apply to temporary workers?

Portofino · 14/03/2011 21:07

And surely you can sack anyone if you have genuine, nonpPG related reasons for doing so?

MarionCole · 14/03/2011 21:08

Fucking unbelievable. That has made me so angry.

SMP doesn't even costvthe employer, so it's another state benefit withdrawn under the guise of 'cutting red tape' for business.

Portofino · 14/03/2011 21:18

I can understand the difficulties for small firms though - without saying this is the answer. You employ someone, maybe with specialist skills, after a complicated recruitment process. A few months later they announce they are taking parental leave. You have to hold their job open but might not be able to find someone suitable who is happy with a temporary role....

SardineQueen · 14/03/2011 21:26

Surely these rules are at european level - maternity leave and pay minimums are in there? I don't know I admit but that's what I always thought.

The way they say paternity leave and maternity leave as if this impacts men as well - what firm is going to begrudge 2 weeks paternity leave? Not many. How many are going to want to pay any mat pay or give any leave? Not many. Pregnant = you're out from what they've said in that article.

SardineQueen · 14/03/2011 21:27

This is a policy that the UKIP bloke got challenged on when he came on - and now it's going to happen? WTF?

breatheslowly · 14/03/2011 21:31

While I don't necessarily agree with what I am about to say, it could be argued that a small company could openly negotiate with a woman who they otherwise wouldn't employ. So at interview they could say "we are offering 6 months maternity leave" and she might not want any more anyway and the company removes the risk and she can take the job. Admittedly this is based on the idea that they are just discriminating in the first place which isn't acceptable. They will of course have to balance their offering with their ability to attract decent candidates.

SardineQueen · 14/03/2011 21:33

How are the government going to police the compensation that they pay to employers I wonder. How does it happen at the moment. it's going to be terribly complicated if they're all paying different amounts for different time periods. Could be fiendish for the employers to provide the evidence etc.

CaptainNancy · 14/03/2011 21:38

The problem small businesses have is that 1 person can be 1/3 of your workforce. Someone who is highly skilled, and highly knowledgeable in what your business do isn't going to be that easy to replace. Plus recruitment is costly.

SardineQueen · 14/03/2011 21:44

I understand that small businesses find this hard.

There is a question though of what is more valuable in society - women being able to access employment equally, and not be penalised for their child bearing capacity - as when they are penalised this can have a negative effect on them and their children and thus can cost the government money and cause other problems. Or is it more valuable that businesses are given an easy a time of it as possible.

It's society vs money, basically, isn't it. Money wins.

SardineQueen · 14/03/2011 21:46

Women losing their jobs when they fall pregnant and not having any entitlement to maternity pay will be a huge step backwards, won't it?

CaptainNancy · 14/03/2011 22:05

I think the idea of the legislation is to allow women to access employment equally- the argument is that they are currently being discriminated against by small employers who won't take a chance on them because they may fall pg.

AliceWorld · 14/03/2011 22:07

Then tackle that problem. State sanctioned discrimination against women does not remove discrimination against women.

OrangeBernard · 14/03/2011 22:09

Let's just regress 30 years. They'll say they want to take the vote off us next.

Swipe left for the next trending thread