Reforms proposes "Women and Motherhood Protection Act"

[IwantToRetire]

Reform UK has announced plans to become the most pro-family government in British history, with its Women and Motherhood Protection Act.

The Act would bring together key protections currently scattered across different laws, including equal pay, sex discrimination, employment rights, unfair dismissal and maternity leave. Consolidating these in one clear legal framework will give women, mothers and families stronger protections under the law.

Reform UK believes that mothers should be celebrated and protected, not punished for bringing the next generation into the world.

That is why a Reform UK government would increase the time limit for pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims from three months to 12 months, giving new mothers far more time to challenge unfair treatment in the workplace. It would also preserve equal pay, maintain protections against sex discrimination, strengthen safeguards against dismissal during pregnancy and maternity leave, and enhance redundancy protections for new mothers.

The Act would also go beyond existing maternity protections by introducing explicit rights for breastfeeding mothers, protections for women undergoing fertility treatment, and new leave rights for parents who suffer miscarriage or stillbirth.

Reform UK’s Education, Skills and Equality spokeswoman Suella Braverman said: “As the first Cabinet Minister in British history to take maternity leave, and as a working mother of two children, I understand the challenges women face when balancing a career and family life. No woman should ever feel that becoming a mother will hold her back or leave her with fewer opportunities.”

Britain should be one of the best countries in the world to start and raise a family. That means celebrating motherhood, supporting working mothers and ensuring that women are not forced to choose between having children and building a successful career.

As Suella Braverman said: “A Reform UK government will be the most pro-woman, pro-mother and pro-family government in British history."

https://reformparty.uk/news/reform-uk-vows-to-stand-up-for-women-and-mothers

She did not say that though, it was kinder and kareers.

@IwantToRetire
Not buying it have always imagined fungal farage and his chums drooling over the concept of flaxen haired trad wives who are kept firmly in place

Yes, that is precisely why that happens and it's common in many sectors.

People will accept lower pay in return for things like flexibility, benefits, good working hours, and so on.

And people will expect a premium for jobs with high demands, lots of travel, or higher chances of injury (like warehouse work, and I will say here that I think paying retail workers the same is unjust on the face of it.)

One way to increase pay for nursery workers might be to require higher education. Although I think that also has downsides. That's what happens in some places, all or a certain percentage need advanced degrees and therefore demand higher pay. My relative who is in the sciences sees this, there are a lot of women in his part of thf civil services compared to the sand disaplined in industry, or academia. Why? Good work hours compared to those other rmployers, good maternity leave, stable employment and pensions.

I also think we could also reasonably ask if childcare even should be highly paid, if it's role is to facilitate productivity at what point does that no longer pencil out? Should society instead look at supporting more parents to stay longer with small children?

Anyway, that's beyond our scope here but I think the underlying assumption that some work pays less because women are doing it is almost always false. It's because there is some trade off it offers where people are willing to accept lower pay.

I wonder if they are thinking of legislating in a way that is much more tailored to the problems groups have. Rather than trying to create a framework for all.

I have often thought that with such different needs and characteristics, that might be better. In what way is a blind person's problems in the workforce really similar to a gay man's?

If be interested to see what they might come up with though tbh I expect stronger ideas from the Tories at the moment. But more ideas and discussion is better in general.

I see I caused confusion by saying 'right thinking' - I meant you seem to see being homophobic, racist, religious intolerant, ableist and misogynist as the correct way for good people to be. I didn't mean 'votes for right wing parties'.
If you support Labour/Lib dem and Green then yes, you are owning those behaviours, they are a part of those parties' beliefs. That women who are not able to tolerate or cope with men in their spaces - due to disability, trauma, being of different cultures, faiths - are women to be derisive about and dismiss as not worthy of any spaces at all. That's the politics you support.

You are making the error of assuming GC comfort level concerns not being catered for by the left is a result of their homophobia, racism, religious intolerance & misogyny when its really that they don't qualify as discrimination from a leftist standpoint which is their area of interest particularly given defending the endless spectrum of comfort levels would be entirely impractical.

Legally, personal comfort levels and boundaries are not considered discrimination. Discrimination involves taking adverse action or treating someone unfavourably based on protected personal characteristics, such as race, sex, age, or disability which is more the domain of the left.

Edited to add: also noting in this sense you're using 'right wing' meaning 'intrinsically evil' which is equally blindly prejudiced to me. The 'left' parties aren't anywhere near actual 'left' policies now, they just identify as left. I'm not interested in making any party look better than it is, I'm a voter without any home at all. I don't want any of them.

My posts are referring to the current right who indisputably exhibit racism, misogyny, classism, authoritarianism & a raft of other socially damaging beliefs.

Many of these rights exist at a bare minimum of what is required to properly facilitate the lives that women lead in our society - they're almost begrudgingly won from successive governments, with minimum welfare funding attached, and they often come with caveats and opt outs for employers to claim that granting these rights is too disruptive or expensive. The Disability Discrimination Act is along the same lines - in theory it grants rights/protections but in practice it's bloody hard to actually rely on or claim those rights/protections and often organisations get away with ignoring their obligations e.g. transport companies.

I think, unlike the majority of the population, the people who make it as MPs have middle-class earnings and/or family support to keep them in their careers and I don't think that any government has seriously looked at how society has only bent a little bit around the edges to accommodate women's needs while still maintaining the historic slant towards fitting in around the lives/careers of men.

Whether Reform can do something about this or not, I'm highly sceptical because it seems to be composed of the same class of people who are already overrepresented in our political/institutional/business class.

Buying what?

Well obviously. But if they weren't in Government they wouldn't be able to bring in the Women's rights bill, so obviously it would only be when and if Reform was elected the Government.

So just to spell it our IF/ WHEN Reform get into Government and follow through on their proposals for women, there is nothing to indicate they will do anything other than the Work Welfare bill or what ever it is called.

Its all a bit Thatcherite - ie there is no such thing as society, it will be each for themselves.

Which as usual is fine if you happen to be someone who has resources, time or whatever to take legal action.

.... some work pays less because women are doing it is almost always false. It's because there is some trade off it offers where people are willing to accept lower pay.

That is just pie in the sky. Women end up doing inconvenient low paid work because men wont to their share.

And employers take advantage of women not being able to commit in the way that a man can, to underpay them.

As to the idea that there are trade offs. Please provide example of that? Unless of course you are talking about Sweden or Denmark.

there is nothing to indicate they will do anything other than the Work Welfare bill or what ever it is called.

Yet.

And as of a couple of days ago, there wasn't even that.

Legally, personal comfort levels and boundaries are not considered discrimination. Discrimination involves taking adverse action or treating someone unfavourably based on protected personal characteristics, such as race, sex, age, or disability which is more the domain of the left.

Ah, so we don't need to worry about people who don't want to use the spaces for their sex, because their comfort and boundaries don't matter, and it's not legal discrimination? Men with gender identities can just go in male spaces, put up and shut up?

Really?

That was exactly my first thought