Maternity leave will owe money if i don't go back to job

jessbrown100

surreysaver wrote: »

A lot of families would. It would also go a long way to closing the gender pay gap, as women would no longer be seen as the main carer.

If you no longer wish women to be seen as a baby's main carer for the first few months of it's life then why bother having maternity leave at all. It would seem that in your opinion any interested party (grandparents, aunties and uncles, nursery staff, nannies) could do the 'caring,' leaving the woman to pop a few paracetamols for a couple of weeks then head back onto the coalface. This could be taken as SSP and no-one would lose their incomes. This would also be one in the eye for the 'breastfeeding brigade' who you obviously don't have any time for!

pinkshoes

Viper_7 wrote: »

People seem to want everything, a family and a career and a job on their door step, and two holidays a year and for everyone else to help them out.

Viper actually does have a good point that when it comes to maternity, men do get a very bum deal! He just has a very untactful way of expressing it!

As a female, I often wonder why I was employed when they could have had a bloke do my job. I'm good at what I do, and no doubt employed on that basis, but they must realise that at some point I'm going to be having a baby (or 2!!), and disappearing for 9 months at a time!! I think they should encourage more men to take an equal share of the maternity leave, so that it would become less of an issue employing women of child bearing age, particularly in a small company where replacing those on maternity leave can be somewhat financially crippling!!

jessbrown100

I think that my main worry is that women would feel pressured into returning back to work before they are physically or emotionally ready. There is already a very counter productive psuedo-feminist work ethic that is inherent within many industries now, I have had several women looking very strangely at me because I have 'dared' to go on maternity before 'my first contraction' (their words not mine!). This competitiveness about who can work the longest into their pregnancy is worrying to me as women will start to be expected to push themselves beyond what is natural or healthy and this can only be detrimental to both their and their baby's health. This trend would, I feel, be noticed as well after the birth with regards to returning to work. If a woman does not return to work as quickly as her colleague will she be put at a disadvantage career wise by her bosses ('well if employee A can come back after 4 weeks why can't B? is she really as commited to her job as A? etc). My job isn't particularly competitive (residential care work) but I still feel the pressure about returning to work from my bosses so I can't imagine what it must be like for women in more competative industries

onlyroz

jessbrown100 wrote: »

I think that my main worry is that women would feel pressured into returning back to work before they are physically or emotionally ready. There is already a very counter productive psuedo-feminist work ethic that is inherent within many industries now, I have had several women looking very strangely at me because I have 'dared' to go on maternity before 'my first contraction' (their words not mine!). This competitiveness about who can work the longest into their pregnancy is worrying to me as women will start to be expected to push themselves beyond what is natural or healthy and this can only be detrimental to both their and their baby's health. This trend would, I feel, be noticed as well after the birth with regards to returning to work. If a woman does not return to work as quickly as her colleague will she be put at a disadvantage career wise by her bosses ('well if employee A can come back after 4 weeks why can't B? is she really as commited to her job as A? etc). My job isn't particularly competitive (residential care work) but I still feel the pressure about returning to work from my bosses so I can't imagine what it must be like for women in more competative industries

The decision about who stays at home with the baby should be based on what is best for the child and the family, taking financial considerations into account. If the woman is the chief wage-earner (as is the case in our family) then surely it is best for the father to stay at home. In other families the situation will be different. But nobody should be pressured into going back to work before they want to, and I don't see how allowing more flexibility into the system would affect that.

We're planning on putting our child into a nursery at 6 months, because I don't think it's fair on the child to do it sooner. At the moment the plan is for me to take 4 months leave and then for myself and hubby to alternate taking a week's holiday for the next 2 months.

If hubby was able to take proper paid leave then we'd probably be able to keep the child at home for even longer, with me taking, say, 4 months off and hubby taking another 3-4 months. Surely this would be better for the child than the current situation?

As for breast-feeding, I'm all for it. The plan is to breastfeed exclusively for 4 months and then to do combined breast+bottle+pumping for as long as possible after I return to work (I managed for 7 months with child #1, until his teeth arrived...)

jessbrown100

That's great if it works for you, however if a husband could take over maternity leave at four weeks like Surrey saver suggested then would a woman that is a higher wage earner than her husband feel pressurised into doing this for 'the good of the family' and go back before she's ready. At least with the optional six month threshold then the woman is entitled to this time at home to recover physically and mentally. I am not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to go back to work when they choose (far from it) but I am concerned that culturally we are eroding the importance of being able to take time out after birth and that employers encourage this as much as they are able to.

onlyroz

Surely, as far as employers are concerned, it will even itself out. For each child they will lose up to a year's work for an employee. Just that now some of those employees will be men instead of women. If they try to force women to come back to work early, then surely that will be conterbalanced by men asking to stay off for longer...

jessbrown100

Suppose it depends what industry the mother is in. the company I work for is pretty much 75/25 in favour of female employees at the moment so maternity leave is more of a problem if women take it then men. Think the new law will ruffle a few feathers in the more 'traditionally male dominated industries' though as maternity leave is not as much of a problem for them now.

jessbrown100

Although, I think my company is not benefitting from women coming back to work too

soon at the mo, we've had several women recently come back early from maternity

(several after a couple of months), either for financial or 'career' reasons and have

promptly gone off sick with stress, depression etc (which is soooo much more of a

pain in the butt for the company then SML). This may be something to do with the

nature of the industry that I work in as you really can't do the job successfully if your

heart's not in it 100% and you really don't want to be there. (never mind with leaky

nipples and receeding pregnancy hormones )

traveller

Only Roz ,
thanks for posting as I've found your comments very helpful.I have an 8 week old and am due back to work in january.Luckily, i was able to work until 40 weeks, so have all of my leave off with him.Looking at nurseries, I don't know if i will be able to go back on the exact date I gave as the waiting lists for under 2's is pretty high.At least, taking time off and working or alternating this would be a workable option.
I have to go back as soon as I can really, due to being a lone parent(ex didn't want 4 children) and was really worried as well as feeling emotional at having to leave him so young at all.

onlyroz

:rotfl:

surreysaver wrote: »

These companies have equal opportunity policies that say things like "...we do not discriminate whether it is legal or not..." , but when it boils down to it is a load of b*ll*cks.

I think the reason that companies won't pay men for additional paternity leave until they have to is because at the mo they'd end up out of pocket. They can reclaim SMP back from the government, but until the law changes they won't be able to do the same for any men wanting to take additional paternity leave. Maybe a few of the more enlightened employers would now, but I think they must be in the minority. Hubby thought that his employer was one of the more enlightened ones - they let him stay off on full pay for 6 months when he had his last knee replacement - but it seems that their generosity only extends so far.

Jessbrown has a point about how these changes will affect male or female dominated companies in different ways. I work in software engineering, which is male dominated - infact I think I'll be the first ever person in my team to take maternity leave. I can just imagine, say, the bosses at a car workshop scratching their heads in bemusement when all the men start asking for extended paternity leave...