Pregnant while on mat leave- apparently I "have some nerve"

[thiskittenbarks]

Coming to end of my year of Mat leave and will be going back 3 days p/w. Have recently found out I am pregnant again. Wonderful news and couldn't be happier. Brought baby to see my parents this weekend and told them we are (fingers crossed) expecting no2. They are pleased but when discussing going back to work etc my mum dropped in that I "have some nerve" do go back from mat leave pregnant. Is it really that bad? Surely lots of people do it? I want to be prepared for telling work as I'm now not sure if I am telling them something terrible and shocking. My boss was actually pretty unpleasant to me while I was pregnant (just rude comments and questioning the regularity of antenatal appts etc) so I am fully prepared for that again - but I would like to know if I'm actually being crazy or unreasonable.
My mum was then questioning me about what work can do and whether they have to give me mat leave for this baby or if they can get out of it on account me be just being on mat leave. She's in her 70s and I know things were unfortunately different for her generation. But she's made me doubt whether I will even get mat leave, which I know is stupid.

I didn't go back pregnant, but going back meant I paused breastfeeding long enough to get my fertility back, and I fell pregnant very soon. So 9 mths ish in work between mat leaves. How is this any worse for work than those that have a 4 year gap? I was only back after the second one for about 9 mths, as I got promoted! No one suggested I shouldn't take the promotion because it left my colleagues in the shit (a secondment initially so my old post wasn't recruited to). And dc2 is infinitely more important than my promotion!
I really don't understand this loyalty to employers. Mine are good, so I stay. I doubt I'll get the pension I've contacted into, businesses are worming out of paying them all over the place. But until I find a better prospect, they have my time and skills. Not a right to dictate my family planning.

I think they probably will be pissed off, but unfairly so. Nearly all the mums I know have had two kids therefore two maternity leaves. Which is really better, having those leaves close together or far apart? The idea that anyone should base their family planning on their employers needs is bonkers. Very few firms show any real loyalty to their employees these days, they put profit before people. So putting your company before yourself/family would just be silly.

Its not immoral of course, but as an employer I would be pissed off.

It's just because of the way the team functions and the type of work. No one is covered when they go on mat leave apart from secretaries.
The people leaving had nothing to do with me being on mat leave. But it could have something to do with the fact that no one is covered when they go on mat leave - which is totally out of my control and a company thing and applies equally to people going off or leaving for lots of other reasons.

Congratulations on your pregnancy

You will be entitled to maternity leave but depending on how pregnant you are and what your earnings are in the qualifying period your entitlement to SMP may be affected.

I work in HR. It doesn't happen all the time but it does occasionally.

I don't see a problem!! You are entitled to this. I really hope work treats you well!

Getting it all done in one hit is kind of PROFESSIONAL in my opinion.

Once again though, women bear all of the {insert as applicable} embarrassment and awkwardness for maintaining the population!

Also, get your H to take whatever paternity leave he is entitled to.

One of my friends did it twice, three babies, within three years.
It's your life, and we are lucky to ave the legal protection to ensure women are free to make those choices.
Morally, it's neither here nor there.
Congratulations. And ignore your mum.

It's not about "society looking down on women for what they're biologically destined to do." It's not a question of "morality." Some people are trying to make this into a bigger thing than it is.

It's simply the case that it's likely to be a massive inconvenience to an employer if a woman takes consecutive long maternity leaves with very short periods actually in work inbetween. Especially so if she then resigns after returning after the final leave for the minimum time requirement.

Surely that's not difficult to see?
I wonder how those who are harping on about the "biological destiny" of women would feel if, for example, their own child had a teacher who was actually out of the classroom for 3 full years during a 5 year period of their child's education? And yes I know the school has a responsibility to manage that situation, but it's pretty damn difficult for them when they can't make a permanent appointment and will inevitably have a succession of temporary ones.

The enhanced maternity rights nowadays can be a double edged sword: great that women have longer maternity leave than many other countries, great that many employers offer enhanced maternity pay... but the downside is that a woman who takes successive maximum leave with very little time actually in work in between is going to be a massive headache for the employer. It's just a fact.

If I was the employer I'd realise how, in the real world, it's extremely difficult to get pregnant according to any kind of planned schedule and would therefore be quite blinkered/unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Would you prefer the employee had trouble in getting pregnant again and had to take time off for fertility treatment? Because this is also very common, just a lot less publicly known.

Also people don't decide to just resign after mat leave because of the work itself - ridiculous childcare and commute costs play a huge part in making working a financial loss - as the OP has said herself.

^(don't always decide)

I did that, my first 2 was not planned. My boss was not happy, pretty much made my life difficult and told me not to have another one again, colleagues were not impressed, made horrible comments behind my back. I went back to work 10 months after my first mat leave for 5 months then my 2nd was born, I took my full maternity leave to decide whether it was worth going back to work due to childcare cost, long working hours (40 hours plus on call) and long commute to work (2 x 1hr each day). I did not return after all, my boss were made redundant before I handed in my resignation.

Yes conceiving is hard and doesn't usually happen at times that fit in with the needs of our employers!
Sorry that happened to you user. Your situation sounds a little similar to how I imagine mine will be! Do you regret leaving or are you happier now?

Thanks dobbyclub.

This would piss me off. Your work might find it impossible to recruit a temp and train them sufficiently in the time you are away. Which means your colleagues end up doing your work and theirs.
They have hired you to do a job - not U to actually want you there to do it! 2 mat leaves in short succession is piss taking imho

Life is too short to try and factor major things like having children around your employer.

They probably won't be chuffed. Tough shit.

Well quite, Alisvolatpropiis

Employers don't own their staff body and soul its none of their damn business how people time their families. And the fact they don't bring in cover is hardly the OP's fault.

Sometimes it's not about choosing not to bring in cover, it's about not beong able to recruit and train a temp for the period of time the staff member will be away.
Which means existing staff have to cover because their salaries/bonuses dr0rnd on the success of the business.
So while staff member is getting lots of time at home with her babies, while keeping all her perks, other employees are getting less time with their babies.

Having a right to do something and it being right to do something are not the same thing.

True aderyn

It's a very naive view to just think it's the employer's problem to sort out. Many employers are very reasonable people, often parents themselves, and they just want to be able to run a viable business which is fair to everyone. Those people who are saying 'the employer just needs to find someone else to cover"... how easy do you think it is to recruit someone to a role which requires a skill set and training, when all you can offer in return is a temporary contract, which will often state 'a year or less, depending on when/if the post holder decides to come back.' The cards are very firmly stacked in the employees favour here... they can take a year off (or decide part way through they want to come back earlier) and then return for a few months and then go off again.

I worked in schools for a big part of my career and the norm now seems to be for women to take a long maternity leave and then come back to work literally 2 days before the summer holiday, so theyre back on full pay for the summer break. Which is absolutely their legal right, but leaves cash strapped schools in the unenviable position of having to make hard choices.... do they employ someone who'll do all the hard work of getting pupils through gcse and a level courses, only to be ditched before the summer holiday? Or do they know that to give the pupils the best chance of a good teacher they need to employ the temp cover until 31st August, therefore paying 2 staff for the holiday?

There isn't a clear right or wrong here, but it's completely understandable that an employer isn't going to be thrilled

I'm planning to do this too op if I possibly can. I'm pushing on in age terms and need to have children quickly if I can.
Good luck with your pregnancy.

Please tell me no one actually plans their family in accordance with their employer's needs?
I have 5 years between my 2-totally my choice, as it would have been if I'd had a smaller gap

No, shesparkles, I don't think anyone is saying they do. Just that it's not quite as simple as 'milk the system to get the maximum benefit to yourself and expect your employer to not be pissed about it.'
Which is a very different thing