Who would hire a woman worker - Maternity pay to Treble !

Sapphire

smk77 wrote: »

and those who don't have children:

Have their pension paid for by other people's children.
Have their TV licence paid for by other people's children.
Have their winter heating allowance paid for by other people's children.
Have their bus pass paid for by other people's children.
Have their hospital/medical treatment paid for by other people's children (which incidentally will be a lot more than a child's hospital care).

As ninky said we live in a society.

Well, I don't have children and do not want them (the planet is massively overpopulated by the human species, which is squandering its resources at a terrifying rate) – yet I have none of the above and work full time, paying for all the above myself.

smk77

Sapphire wrote: »

You mean the taxpayer (again!), not the government, don't you?

Once again someone forgetting that women who go on maternity leave have probably contributed tens of thousands of pounds in tax.

Sapphire wrote: »

The trouble is, time and time again I've seen women in companies where I've worked go on maternity leave, and not come back while pocketing the money for the maternity leave. In one case a woman worked in the company for a few months, went on maternity leave, came back for a short while, then went on maternity leave again – and then didn't come back.

I think that you find that the 2nd time the person in question was more than likely required to pay back any money that they received during maternity leave other than the SMP.

Sapphire wrote: »

I'm afraid this sort of thing causes deep resentment in those of us who do not breed, and work hard all their lives without receiving any benefits.

You make it sound like women workers go on maternity leave and have 10 children. You also make it sound as though they DON'T work hard. The benefits are there if you need them...That's the whole point! If you loses your job or end up on long term sick then you will get eligible for them.

Instead of aiming your resentment at hard working and tax paying individuals who are doing something to keep population at a level to support you in your old go and do something useful like grass up a benefit cheat.

Rochdale_Pioneers

smk77 wrote: »

No. Paternity Pay is 2 weeks. What your employer decides to do to enhance is an entirely seperate issue.

I said its *effectively* one week, not that it actually was.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, I don't have children and do not want them (the planet is massively overpopulated by the human species, which is squandering its resources at a terrifying rate) – yet I have none of the above and work full time, paying for all the above myself.

And plan on spending your entire life tutting about people less fortune than yourself?

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

You've several months to prepare before the individual actually goes on maternity leave. Should be long enough.

I've always sickness in teams far more difficult to manage than maternity leave.

Depends on the job. The higher up the harder to cover/ train etc.

smk77

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, I don't have children and do not want them

That's your choice. What else can I say!

Sapphire wrote: »

yet I have none of the above and work full time, paying for all the above myself.

No, you are paying for those things for the generation above you. And in turn my son will pay for those things for you.

smk77

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I said its *effectively* one week, not that it actually was.

Yep, I know.

Still 2 weeks though!:D

robin_banks

Pennywise wrote: »

That's only the SMP cost to the employee. The business incurs probably as much again if not more, in terms of advertising/recruitment, interview time, training replacement, potentially higher wages cost for replacement, less productivity from replacement, etc. The smaller the business, the hardest hit they'll be - if it is literally a owner managed business, the owner is losing potential custom for all the time he is spending on recruitment and training.

Which is why small employers can get compensation. Not all jobs are half page spreads in the gaurdian, small employers in particular still rely on 'word of mouth' and may use an agency. I'll concede the interview time (though you should never interview more than 5 individuals, and not last more than 45 mins).

Higher wages for replacements?. How, even the cash guzzling public sector don't do this. New staff appointed at bottom of grade.

There are several reasons why companies lose custom and time spent on recruitment wont really be one of them.

Sapphire

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And plan on spending your entire life tutting about people less fortune than yourself?

So you are implying that those who breed are 'less fortune [sic] than' myself? :T

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

There are several reasons why companies lose custom and time spent on recruitment wont really be one of them.

Sorry I disagree there if you lose a valuble member of a team (best sales person, director etc.) the cost and loss of business to a small company could be massive.