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

ninky_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Maternity leave is about the mother (whether you like it or not) as she is the one who has to recover from pregnancy and childbirth, before returning to work.

Actually, I thought it was about the baby. The mother could pretty much get on with things - in many cultures people give birth and go back to work in the field. The baby, however, might not fare so well if left to it's own devices.

I think a lot of women worry about giving equal rights to the father in childcare because they see it as their "territory". It's the reverse of the same small mindedness that stopped women getting the vote or getting equal pay.

Equally some men worry that if the duty of childcare is not enshrined in legislation to women they might have to pull their fingers out more.

Ultimately, the choice is up to the individuals concerned. But the state shouldn't constrain this choice on the lines of gender. Given that gay male couples and single people are allowed to adopt, why shouldn't men be given post-birth assistance to take over the childcare?

baileysbattlebus

Sapphire wrote: »

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

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'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.

I used to work for a large corporation with excellent benefits and mat leave - mat leave amongst other things, was costed in to the running costs of the business, as was sickness (forecast sickness ofcourse, no one knows if there will be flu epidemic). employers pension contributions, employers NI contribution, time of in lieu, compassionate leave, training days, holiday pay, these costs were allocated by the number of heads employed.

Mat pay was repayable to the business if the employee did not return to work. Statutory Maternity Pay was not repayable. Almost all women returned to work, some stayed the minimum required period (about 13 weeks) so that mat pay was not repaid to the company.

Most large companies who operate a benefit system which includes mat pay operate like this, including the NHS and local councils. Most people will find this in their terms of and conditions of employment.
But the gov't currently pay 90% of earnings for 6 weeks and £117.18 for 33 weeks - if you get more than this and don't return to work it can be claimed back by your employer.

Some women opt not to take company maternity pay, if they are not sure if they want to return to work.

SingleSue

LilacPixie wrote: »

With my latest baby I had her on the friday evening, out saturday morning and was in tesco on the monday doing the shopping. I am still on maternity leave. I am very lucky my employer gived full pay for 26 weeks then SMP for 13. I work in the private sector. I am allowed to work 10 KIT days which I have been doing. I am also only a phone call away if i am really needed.

My OH really enjoyed paternity leave because he got to bond with littelest pixie as well as do some feeds to let me rest or give 100% attention to our eldest child so as she would not resent her little sister.

Blimey, wish it was like that for me! Eldest son, in hospital Friday morning had him Sunday morning...was not allowed out until the following weekend with instructions not to work/overdo things for at least 6 months due to complications.

Middle son, in on Wednesday morning, had him Thursday night (10 mins to midnight so almost Friday), out Saturday morning .....back in Saturday night, out again Sunday night with instructions to return Monday, back in again Monday and out again Tuesday(that was fun!)

Youngest, in on Monday, had him Wednesday morning and out Friday.

As to paternity leave, although we didn't have the allowances that are now usual, it was one of our most frequent moans at the time. The non availability of paid paternity leave (or even unpaid leave) caused a huge amount of stress, especially once we had more than one child.

The allowances now for paterntiy are, I feel, a great step forward and eases the transition of a new baby arriving into the family.

SingleSue

PasturesNew wrote: »

In my 20s, I was asked outright "do you have children, do you plan to have them" at interviews. Of course, whatever you answer they think you will have them.

In my 30s it was hinted at strongly, you knew what they were after...

In my 40s it's still hinted at - including yesterday at an interview, it was OBVIOUS what they were asking when they emphasized the word "flexibility" about working hours.

In your 40s it's tinged with a hint of "surely now you might be desperately fitting one in before it's too late"

As a woman you're penalised if you don't have kids because of those who do choose to have them. Choosing to have them is a choice. Not having them isn't a choice and being female isn't a choice.

And don't get me started on being judged by the size of my bazoomers, how much cleavage I showed at interview, or the fact that: quite simply, you're not as HOT looking as the other totty who applied.

Although I have children, I still get asked in a roundabout sort of way (as obviously they cannot ask directly), if I am likely to need time off for any future padding of tiny feet (as I am still of childbearing age)....I can reply, hand on heart that there is no chance whatsoever of that happening.

Strangely, it also seems to worry a fair few prospective partners too! :rotfl:

leveller2911

ninky wrote: »

I also think the payment should come from the government and not the business. Welfare benefits are the duty of the state not individuals / private institutions.

I don't agree, children are a luxury and as such should be paid for by the parents and NOT the taxpayer, welfare benefit is sickness,disability and losing your job, thats what the taxpayer should pay for.

Maternity is a choice... we have 2 children , average income and didn't accept maternity pay...

mewbie_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

I don't agree, children are a luxury...

I suspect you haven't had any yet if you think that. Wait till you're changing nappies after no sleep and the place smells like Glade have produced a mentalist air freshener consisting of poo, baby milk, baby food and Dettol.

Luxury, oh yeah.

ceridwen

I think the only way this whole argument is ever going to be resolved once and for all is for everyone (ie of both sexes and both those who have children and those who dont have children) to have this "maternity leave" allowed for twice in a working lifetime (divvied up between the couple whichever way they choose - be it one spell each over a lifetime or splitting it 50/50 per those two children). From that - for the government (not the firms themselves) to pay for these two spells of "maternity leave".

We will have to find some other title for it than "maternity leave" though - as it will also be given to those who dont have children (for whatever reason).

With that - people could take their two spells of "sabbatical leave" (shall we call it that for the sake of argument?) when they have just had children. For those who dont have children - then they (we - as I am one of them) will have those 2 spells of "sabbatical leave" at some other time of our choice during our working life.

With that - there would not be the current unfairness of those who remain childless being made to subsidise those who choose to have children on the one hand - but those who choose to have children would have some time off from work allowed on the other hand. There would be the added advantage that people would not receive extra spells of "leave" should they go on to have a 3rd or subsequent child (ie any further time off work they required for those children would be at their own expense - as they would have had the "replacement two people" for themselves) - which would be a bit of a disincentive to having more than two children - ie people would not be prevented from doing so, but the fact that they would not receive "sabbatical leave" for this would serve somewhat as a discouragement to doing so if they knew they had to take this as unpaid leave.

With this - everyone would be treated totally equally - and the cost of covering the "sabbatical leave" for childless people could be offset by only covering two spells of "sabbatical leave" for those who choose to have children.

......and no...I dont want to see that "old chestnut" trotted out yet again that childless people "should" pay for other peoples children because.....etc.....etc.....We've already had that one brought out and aired on this thread......<where's a "yawn" smiley when one wants one?:cool: > I'm sure we're all fed up to the back teeth with hearing that one........:rolleyes:

leveller2911

mewbie wrote: »

I suspect you haven't had any yet if you think that. Wait till you're changing nappies after no sleep and the place smells like Glade have produced a mentalist air freshener consisting of poo, baby milk, baby food and Dettol.

Luxury, oh yeah.

LOL we have 2 mewbs, 10yr old boy and 4yr old girl, my point is it was our lifestyle choice to have children, why should everyone else pay for maternity,I think we all have a vested interest in the next generation but I think we should draw the line and NOT have materinity at all, it just isn't a necessity....(not sure I spelt that right)..

PS Im proud to say I was the one who was awake twice a night to bottle feed, strangely my misses learnt to sleep through the night after we had the children............strange that:rolleyes:

mewbie_2

ceridwen wrote: »

where's a "yawn" smiley when one wants one

smk77

ILW wrote: »

So if your son turns out to be a complete waster, should you be liable to return the thousands spent on him?

What a weird thing to say.

As an above average earner I'll have paid more in taxes that his education will have cost. So, no I don't think so! And I don't expect a refund on my taxes from low income parents whose children are wasters.

I do however expect others to contribute to the education of future doctors and scientists who they will undoubtably require in the future.