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

Sapphire

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

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.

In my experience (publishing), it didn't work that way – the employers did not pursue the former employees for the payments they owed because it would have involved too much aggravation.

SingleSue

smk77 wrote: »

What a weird thing to say.

And I don't expect a refund on my taxes from low income parents whose children are wasters.

Erm not all of them are!

smk77

SingleSue wrote: »

Erm not all of them are!

Sorry, that didn't come out right at all did it! Some of the most influencial people have come from low income backgrounds. I'm happy to pay taxes for educating all children.

I meant I don't expect a refund from those people whose income doesn't generate high tax revenues to pay for the education of their children if their child turns out to be a waster.

The reason for the income distinction is that high earners could argue that they have contributed enough tax over the years and if their children turn out to be wasters then it's their tax that has been wasted.

smk77

leveller2911 wrote: »

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...

If you have an average income you are entitled to child tax credits and child benefit plus the Child Voucher thing. May I ask if you claim these? If not I'll have them! :rotfl:

lostinrates

smk77 wrote: »

If you have an average income you are entitled to child tax credits and child benefit plus the Child Voucher thing. May I ask if you claim these? If not I'll have them! :rotfl:

Some people don't. The astonishing is they make one jump through hoops to get a NI number if your parents didn't claim child benefit.

leveller2911

smk77 wrote: »

If you have an average income you are entitled to child tax credits and child benefit plus the Child Voucher thing. May I ask if you claim these? If not I'll have them! :rotfl:

Your welcome to ask, WFT credits we did claim , over paid us and we had to pay back(WFT credits are NOT designed for self employed:eek: ) after we re-paid we now don't bother to even fill the forms in , we have lost all trust in the system and don't claim.The ONLY benefit we do get is child benefit which goes into savings plans for the children.Child voucher thing for our 2nd child £250-00..........

olly300

leveller2911 wrote: »

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)..

You are actually talking nonsense as it's a legal requirement under Health and Safety Legislation that women take a minimum of 2 weeks of after birth and 4 weeks if they work in a factory. And they have to be paid for it.

And depending on the job the woman does she may legally have to take more weeks off under Health and Safety Legislation before, during and after pregnancy if breast feeding - and have to be paid for it.

I know a woman who once she told her employer she was pregnant at 3 months was not allowed to work due to dealing daily with violent teenagers.

leveller2911

olly300 wrote: »

You are actually talking nonsense as it's a legal requirement under Health and Safety Legislation that women take a minimum of 2 weeks of after birth and 4 weeks if they work in a factory. And they have to be paid for it.

And depending on the job the woman does she may legally have to take more weeks off under Health and Safety Legislation before, during and after pregnancy if breast feeding - and have to be paid for it.

I know a woman who once she told her employer she was pregnant at 3 months was not allowed to work due to dealing daily with violent teenagers.

I wondered how long it would be before you joined in,lol good evening olly......

My only comment is "Health and safety legislation" says it all.For centuries women have had babies and gone back to work within a day or so, I dont have a problem with women having time off, take as long as they need.I don't think the taxpayer or employer should pay them for it.

Oh and just because its LAW doesn't make it right, so many "laws" are wrong.Why is that nonsense?

SingleSue

leveller2911 wrote: »

Your welcome to ask, WFT credits we did claim , over paid us and we had to pay back(WFT credits are NOT designed for self employed:eek: ) after we re-paid we now don't bother to even fill the forms in , we have lost all trust in the system and don't claim.The ONLY benefit we do get is child benefit which goes into savings plans for the children.Child voucher thing for our 2nd child £250-00..........

I used to call them !!!!!!! credits as that was the expression you came out with when you got a letter from them.:rotfl:

leveller2911

SingleSue wrote: »

I used to call them !!!!!!! credits as that was the expression you came out with when you got a letter from them.:rotfl:

Totally agree single, when we had trouble with them we phoned and phoned, someone said phone around 9am when most parents are taking their children to school ,so I went home phoned..............and phoned............and phoned and still couldn't get through.... NFFP..........Not fit for purpose:rolleyes: