Fucking double standards of women on maternity leave

[ShirleyPhallus]

This is sort of a TAAT but I’ve seen many of these recently

Really sick of the threads on here about maternity leave and how women shouldn’t go for jobs if they are newly pregnant as it could leave a business in the lurch to recruit their replacement. While I have some sympathy if it’s a small business, employees being able to do their duties and not being absent is a risk any business takes.

Really sick of the internalised misogyny of just how many posters on MN say how awful it is that women apply for jobs when pregnant.

Urgh sorry for the rant. Thought we were making progress but these are such 1950s attitudes

But businesses do not run independently of what does and doesnt benefit society. Selling guns to unlicenced people might be good business, but the state has a right to ban that because it doesnt benefit society

Chemical plants may find it cheaper to dump toxic chemicals next to a school playground, but the state doesnt allow that because it doesnt benefit society

A business may find it cheaper not to allow their staff any holiday but the state doesnt allow that because it doesnt benefit society

Having children benefits society (possibly not the environment but thats a whole different argument) and your business functions within that society therefore you have to accept certain legal limitations that are in place that come with running a business. If you cant accept those you should not be running a business as it comes with responsibilities to society, your customers, your employees as well as your business.

No man is an island, if you live within society, accept the benefits of being within society then you accept the responsibilities as well.

And given maternity leave is written into contracts your are way off base with your breach of contract bullshit

@KimikosNightmare seriously...who pissed on your chips? I've tried to be reasonable in my responses to you but you seem determined to just be nasty.

I stand by everything I said. It is perfectly normal in many sectors. It clearly isn't in your sector but as I don't know what you I can't comment on that in detail. I'd be happy to dig out more information as we have data sets which cover all SOC codes ( how occupations are grouped and coded) and have a conversation about it as I'm genuinely interested but I'm not up for a fight.

So I'll leave it there. Hope you have a nice evening

*BellatricksStrange have you ever actually had a job?
You seem to be ignoring a few important facts.
It's pretty standard for maternity benefits to be written into an employees contract (as is sick pay) so there is no breach of contract when someone goes on maternity leave.
Some organisations also have policies on sabbaticals (paid and unpaid), career development, volunteering etc.

Most organisations see the benefit of investing in and supporting their employees which is why the offer benefits - they want to attract the best! This includes enhanced maternity benefits. *

Yes I've had jobs for many years, and have been an employer for many years. There was overlap for a good few years, so I actually got to experience both sides of the coin at the same time.

Your argument about companies having policies etc kinda misses the point. I never said people who miss X amount of work should be forced to leave. Of course every company can make their own policy, and if they feel it's beneficial to offer excellent sabbatical policies or enhanced mat pay, great.

What I'm against is statutory policy. It should be up to each business to set their own policies, and if this means a company with better sick pay attracts more talent, well that's the whole point. But the default position should be if an employee doesn't show up for an extended period, the employer has no obligation to keep them on.

The whole premise of your argument is based on sex discrimination. At no point are you acknowledging that it takes two people to make a baby. You talk about women choosing to have babies - are they doing this on their own??

I find this fixation on who makes the choice to have a baby quite baffling. You know who absolutely was not involved in any shape or form in choosing or making the baby? The employer! Therefore it should not fall to them to support this choice.

You claim not to hate women but I fail to see how these ideas can come from someone who likes or has any respect for women.

I neither like or dislike women, same as I neither like or dislike men. I like or dislike individuals, based on my interactions with them.

What I absolutely hate is the anti-business sentiment, the evil socialist ideas, whereby it is seen as morally right to take money from someone and give it to those who haven't done anything to earn it, yet it's morally wrong for someone to want to keep the money they've earned.

As I keep writing, for me is extremely simple: employee works, employer pays. This is the extent of any obligation they have towards one another. It doesn't matter why the employee doesn't work, or if it's exclusive to one sex, if they don't show up, the employer doesn't owe them anything.

Actually, perhaps try explaining that. Why does an employer owe anything to an employee, if they don't do what they were contracted to do? I know it's not always the employees fault, or (in case of having babies) wider society might even benefit, but why should this particular employer owe anything to this particular employee, when their entire relationship is predicated on work for pay?

@FlyingOink

companies need employees, and under current practices I don't think many can avoid hiring women Of course they can. Except if it's part time minimum wage work, then employers may find (depending on the local job market) that they have to hire some. Have you ever been to an interview for a competitive job where there were no male candidates? I haven't. Companies could hire men every single time if they wanted to. In fact I'm sure I read if you're the only female candidate the statistical likelihood of you being offered the job is practically zero.

Not if they want to maintain current productivity they can't. A huge part of the workforce is women. Look at GPs. More than half of them are women. There is no way all the positions for GPs could be filled if they refused to take on women.

There are some sectors where there are maybe enough male candidates to fill all the available positions, but a lot would not be able to.

What this means in real terms is that if a woman has a year off, and is the same age as a man, a man then has one more year’s work experience than the woman.

But this is just the truth, irrespective of my 'honestly nuts' ideas. If you have a year off, you have less work experience. Are are we to ignore that? Pretend it's not so? Hire the people with less experience in the name of equality?

Cost of morale to a company: the general staff morale is going to take a massive dip if people think they cannot take a month off or be fired.

Every company is free to set their own policies. In fact that's exactly what I'm arguing for, take away the anti-business laws, and allow each company to set their own rules.

It is utterly unfair on women to expect them to apply for new roles in their mat leave and then be so pressured to perform in the way a new employee is.

So let me get this right, a woman who had a contract with a company to provide work for pay, made a choice to have a baby, causing her to miss work for a year. Yet it's unfair to expect the woman to own her choice and bear the difficulties of the situation she put herself into, but it is fair to expect the employer to step up and support the woman's choice? I'd love to see you explain that one.

Ultimately you’re arguing for women to be dismissed just for having babies

No. What I am arguing is that if you have a contract to provide work for pay, and you fail to honour it for whatever reason - even one as noble as having a baby - the other party should be free to seek alternative workers.

Can’t you see how it disadvantages women long term?

'It' is biology, and yes, in this case, it disadvantages women. But so what? Did the employer design or create women to be that way? So why should they be held accountable?

It's a simple biological fact that if a woman decides to have a baby, they are out of commission for some time. Okay, so now what? Do we make random people bear the cost and hassle?

If there would be a way for women to give birth and take some miracle pill which would allow them to be back at work the next day, I'd be all for it. I have no interest in holding back women.What I do oppose is being potentially forced to support any particular woman's choice to have a baby, simply because I employed them.

For me it's as simple as can be. When it comes to hiring, you hire the best person for the job. If that person misses work for an extended period of time, you can let them go and find another person.

It matters not one jot if it's a mother taking ML or a father taking PL. A employer-employee contract is fundamentally one that expects the employee to show up and work, and the employer to pay. If either of the two doesn't keep their end of the deal, the contract is void. This isn't a gendered issue at all.

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that there is a simple natural basis for the employer/employee relationship. That isn't true and never has been. Society has always laid out what is required on both sides. Sometimes they have favoured one side over the other but they generally do what they percieve as just. They also tend to be structured in a way that supports their social function.

In our society, people will make the argument that we make these laws about women as employees as a society because we want to make sure women are able to have good careers at a similar level with men, because it is important they are equally able to support themselves. This is good and just for women - the fact that nature sticks them with certain reproductive realities means that we have to structure things differently to create a fair situation. Ultimately that's good for society too as it's important that women can contribute in different sectors, and can support their families.

But there is also another way to look at it, which is for business and industry as a whole, they need women to keep their productivity up. This is the reason governments are so keen to push women into the workforce as much as possible, and the fact is that is also what the business word wants. They want women in paid work, making a profit for their employers and paying taxes. If they have to put their kids in care then the women taking care of them can give profit to their employers and pay taxes too.

In order to have every adult possible in paid employment, it needs to be more worthwhile, or necessary, for women to work than not. So there are sticks and carrots. Maternity leave is one of the carrots, because the fact is that a lot of mums would just not return if they had to put their small babies in care.

@BellatricksStrange

What this means in real terms is that if a woman has a year off, and is the same age as a man, a man then has one more year’s work experience than the woman.

But this is just the truth, irrespective of my 'honestly nuts' ideas. If you have a year off, you have less work experience. Are are we to ignore that? Pretend it's not so? Hire the people with less experience in the name of equality?

Cost of morale to a company: the general staff morale is going to take a massive dip if people think they cannot take a month off or be fired.

Every company is free to set their own policies. In fact that's exactly what I'm arguing for, take away the anti-business laws, and allow each company to set their own rules.

It is utterly unfair on women to expect them to apply for new roles in their mat leave and then be so pressured to perform in the way a new employee is.

So let me get this right, a woman who had a contract with a company to provide work for pay, made a choice to have a baby, causing her to miss work for a year. Yet it's unfair to expect the woman to own her choice and bear the difficulties of the situation she put herself into, but it is fair to expect the employer to step up and support the woman's choice? I'd love to see you explain that one.

Ultimately you’re arguing for women to be dismissed just for having babies

No. What I am arguing is that if you have a contract to provide work for pay, and you fail to honour it for whatever reason - even one as noble as having a baby - the other party should be free to seek alternative workers.

Can’t you see how it disadvantages women long term?

'It' is biology, and yes, in this case, it disadvantages women. But so what? Did the employer design or create women to be that way? So why should they be held accountable?

It's a simple biological fact that if a woman decides to have a baby, they are out of commission for some time. Okay, so now what? Do we make random people bear the cost and hassle?

If there would be a way for women to give birth and take some miracle pill which would allow them to be back at work the next day, I'd be all for it. I have no interest in holding back women.What I do oppose is being potentially forced to support any particular woman's choice to have a baby, simply because I employed them.

But it is only women who can biologically have children, so yes, we should level the playing field to ignore the additional experience a man gets while a woman is on mat leave otherwise the men will continue to progress leaving women behind

It’s really basic equality. I cannot believe you’re arguing against it.

Actually, perhaps try explaining that. Why does an employer owe anything to an employee, if they don't do what they were contracted to do? I know it's not always the employees fault, or (in case of having babies) wider society might even benefit, but why should this particular employer owe anything to this particular employee, when their entire relationship is predicated on work for pay?

But maternity leave is built into an employees contract. So the employee is not breaching their contract. In fact, should an employer treat an employee unfairly due to the fact they are pregnant then they are acting illegally. These are the facts we are working with here.

You may this this is unfair on employers but they need to act within the law. Some employers will only offer very basic maternity packages in which case women, where possible, will vote with their feet and work for an employer who values their employees.

Viewing the employer/employee relationship as purely transactional in the way you do has far more disadvantages than advantages. It impacts staff morale, recruitment, retention and therefore productivity. You seem to forget that many employers see their employees as assets and actually want to keep them.

But this is just the truth, irrespective of my 'honestly nuts' ideas. If you have a year off, you have less work experience. Are are we to ignore that? Pretend it's not so? Hire the people with less experience in the name of equality?

Which is why we need laws to protect against sex discrimination because inherently (due to biology) women who have children are disadvantaged. In my sector this is a HUGE problem and has held women back in terms of career progression. We now have policies in place to mitigate this.
This is because the sector and individual employers recognise that women are valuable employees despite the biological challenges we face - the impact of menopause is a focus for us at the moment.

So let me get this right, a woman who had a contract with a company to provide work for pay, made a choice to have a baby, causing her to miss work for a year.
No, let's get this right. A woman has a contract with a company that says she's entitled to maternity leave. That contract might even offer additional benefits which is why she chose to work for that employer. Even if they only offer the basic legal amount this is in place because the vast majority of people recognise that equality is important and sex discrimination is not some to aspire to.

Yet it's unfair to expect the woman to own her choice and bear the difficulties of the situation she put herself into, but it is fair to expect the employer to step up and support the woman's choice? I'd love to see you explain that one.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge mens role in this? It's really concerning that you appear the blame women for being the ones that give birth.

Actually, perhaps try explaining that. Why does an employer owe anything to an employee, if they don't do what they were contracted to do? I know it's not always the employees fault, or (in case of having babies) wider society might even benefit, but why should this particular employer owe anything to this particular employee, when their entire relationship is predicated on work for pay?

So you’re anti-employee rights per se then?

Most of us want to live in a society where we try to ameliorate the disadvantages faced by minority groups in the workplace and balance that against the interests of businesses.

@Deliriumoftheendless

I interviewed for a job when I was pregnant. My attitude was I may need to go on maternity leave but once I’m back you’ve probably got me until retirement.

Are you still working for that company?

It's clearly every able bodied, healthy man for himself 🤷🏼‍♀️

If you're a woman who has children you are less worthy of employment and certainly shouldn't expect any legislative protection to stop you being routinely discriminated against and disadvantaged.

What I absolutely hate is the anti-business sentiment, the evil socialist ideas, whereby it is seen as morally right to take money from someone and give it to those who haven't done anything to earn it, yet it's morally wrong for someone to want to keep the money they've earned.
So this is the heart of it.
If you want anything other than a straight-up work/pay transaction you are an evil socialist and anti-business.
Despite all the arguments about why ML is good for business being put forward on this thread.

What I absolutely hate is the anti-business sentiment, the evil socialist ideas, whereby it is seen as morally right to take money from someone and give it to those who haven't done anything to earn it, yet it's morally wrong for someone to want to keep the money they've earned.

You have this the wrong way around. Employees aren’t taking anything, employers are offering them enhanced terms in a bid to be a more attractive employer.

It may surprise you, but some employers want to treat their employees well to be an attractive place to work and attract / retain the best people. One way of doing that is to offer enhanced terms - enhanced parental leave, medical insurance, company car etc.

It isn’t an employee taking the piss by taking advantage of what the employer has offered to them.

And most employees don’t think of their employer in a hateful, anti-business way

There are some sectors where there are maybe enough male candidates to fill all the available positions, but a lot would not be able to.

You misunderstood my point Santa, which was that we can't rely on companies needing women. Companies will discriminate against women if it suits them to, including in industries where there are enough men to fill all he available positions. Saying "they can't cope without us, they need us more than we need them" suggests that women have the power in this situation, and that legislation to prevent discrimination therefore is unnecessary.

I'm saying it's very necessary.

Perhaps the employer of any man who gets a woman pregnant should have to equally share the additional "cost" to the woman's employer (or, ideally, the Government-funded statutory pay, at a higher rate than now) caused by the pregnancy and birth, whether the man takes paternity leave or not.

It would recognise that there is an overall cost to be borne, and it is one which has been caused by the man's (either intentional or careless) deposit of sperm near a woman's egg. Therefore it makes sense that the cost to the woman's employer should also be contributed to by the man's employer, as the cost arose due to their male employee's choices.

And as for the "how am I meant to cover my female lawyers in a niche area of law" person who hires lawyers but apparently doesn't understand discrimination law...

Here is a solution - you train someone junior up to a level where they can absorb some of the lower levelq tasks that your higher-paid female lawyers are doing, so that you have some redundancy build into your team.

Assuming your niche lawyers are paid (eg) 75k, you hire someone at the start of their career on 25-30k and they learn from working in the team. This will also help when your (typically less-loyal) male team members leave you to go to a competitor who treats them better.

@PearPickingPorky

Perhaps the employer of any man who gets a woman pregnant should have to equally share the additional "cost" to the woman's employer (or, ideally, the Government-funded statutory pay, at a higher rate than now) caused by the pregnancy and birth, whether the man takes paternity leave or not.

It would recognise that there is an overall cost to be borne, and it is one which has been caused by the man's (either intentional or careless) deposit of sperm near a woman's egg. Therefore it makes sense that the cost to the woman's employer should also be contributed to by the man's employer, as the cost arose due to their male employee's choices.

Excellent idea! 👍🏻

I think a hugely important step in reducing discrimination against women in the workplace would be to make change shared parental leave so that men have an equal entitlement on a use it or lose it basis (not dependent upon the woman sacrificing some leave) so that men take equal amounts of parental leave.

That way there would be an equal risk that a man might go on parental leave. In fact employing a man would be even more risky as they can have babies into older age and don't show any visible signs of pregnancy.

Sorry for not replying sooner, I've been busy.

It IS sexist to discriminate against one sex by not allowing them back to their jobs because of a biological function unique to them.

I feel like we're going around in circles, so I'll say this for the final time. Women have certain biological disadvantages (and advantages - ditto with men). One of which is their unique ability to give birth, and in the process be incapable of doing work.

This is a biological issue. Not societal in any way. It is just how nature made them. To acknowledge this, and specifically for an employer to acknowledge that due to pregnancy and birth the female employees will be out of action, is not sexist. For an employer to try and protect themselves from this extra cost, is again not sexist but prudent.

As for choice, it's been done to death, but do men not get involved in the choice to have children?

Once again, for the final time as it's been done to death, it's irrelevant who got involved. As long as we can all agree the employer didn't get involved in any way, it's unfair to force them to support the pregnancy.

"I feel like we're going around in circles," and yet you continue this by posting the same points that have been patiently explained to you many times over, again. We all understand that you don't comprehend what people have been explaining to you. That's ok. You don't have to understand it.

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that there is a simple natural basis for the employer/employee relationship. That isn't true and never has been. Society has always laid out what is required on both sides. Sometimes they have favoured one side over the other but they generally do what they percieve as just. They also tend to be structured in a way that supports their social function.

Thank you for a reasoned response.

First of all I don't necessarily agree that we need to correct for disadvantages. In all other areas we accept that some jobs require specific talents or characteristics, and we have no problem as a society when a short fat person will likely never play sports professionally.

But even if I were to accept your premise, the problem here is that we're taking what would be a collective burden and placing it on the individual.

Two employers, one employed a man the other a woman. Both employers have the same societal obligations, yet the actual burden of supporting the pregnant woman falls only one of them.

I wouldn't have a problem with the government paying mat leave directly to birthing women, and even for there to be some grant or monetary support to help them get back into the labour market. In that case the burden would be fairly distributed across society (via taxation). But when we place this obligation solely on the employers, that seems to me to be quite unfair. It's a collective issue, and should be down to the collective to fix it.

This is a biological issue. Not societal in any way. It is just how nature made them. To acknowledge this, and specifically for an employer to acknowledge that due to pregnancy and birth the female employees will be out of action, is not sexist. For an employer to try and protect themselves from this extra cost, is again not sexist but prudent.

We live in a society. Employees and employers are part of society. A career/job is one very fundamental way an individual interacts with society. It might be a biological fact that only women give birth but the discrimination they experience is societal.
As an employer you are part of society and you don't get to opt out of that.

As a society we should be challenging inequality. It 100% is sexist (and illegal) to discriminate against women due to pregnancy. You may not agree, but it is sexist. That is a fact. There's not a court in the country that would agree with you.... thankfully!

We need to remember that equal doesn't mean the same. If one group of people are routinely disadvantaged then as a society, we need to be looking at ways to mitigate this disadvantage. This might mean having legally enforceable policies in place ( such as maternity leave) or it could mean affirmative action such as guaranteed interviews for job applicants who meet all essential criteria or contextual admissions at universities.

@SpinsForGin

It's clearly every able bodied, healthy man for himself 🤷🏼‍♀️

If you're a woman who has children you are less worthy of employment and certainly shouldn't expect any legislative protection to stop you being routinely discriminated against and disadvantaged.

The thing is, they actually are less worthy of employment - at least as far as the employer is concerned.

Imagine two candidates applying for a job, both with 3 years' experience. The man actually has 3 full years of doing whatever it is he does, while the woman spent these 3 years on two mat leaves plus annual leave, meaning she only actually worked about six months.

Are you seriously suggesting they are factually equally qualified? That both their 3 years' experience are equally valid?