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

davilown

Piggles12345 wrote: »

Maternity leave is absolutely abhorrent- if you are not at work, you should not be paid!

A tad OTT I feel?

There are some times when I've noticed people who have been employed and paid to train on a very good wage for five years. They then get pregnant when they are due to deploy and then leave a few years later when they are due to deploy again. This can really grate those of us who then have to pick up 'their' tours (both male and females). Unfortunately, I also see this as part of life which will happen in most jobs.

With regards to pay on maternity leave? Yes it should be given as it ensues a better quality of life for that child to be bought up in. I would far rather the taxes we all pay to goon Maternity pay than on social welfare payouts and housing for those who deliberately get pregnant at 16/17/18 to get somewhere to live.

I'm not perfect, My OH and I had a kid at 18 and had benefits (I was working full time as well) for six months until I joined the Forces.

Pennywise

mbga9pgf wrote: »

One would hope most of the pay would be claimable from the government if they go ahead with this.

That's not the full picture though is it? What about the costs of finding a temporary replacement - advertising, interviewing, training, etc. Temp may well cost more and not be as good. It's fine for larger firms who can absorb or easily replace, but for the smallest businesses, i.e. an owner and a PA it could very easily cost a lot in terms of cost and lost productivity, meaning less profits, and maybe even business failure. I think the smallest businesses should be given say 150% of the SMP costs by Govt so that the wages can be covered and towards the additional costs faced.

Graham_Devon

Every business I have worked in does, in a way discriminate against women with very young children. They are all small business's and I do a lot of consulting work for them. They will literally shy away from younger women with maybe 1 young child, as odds are, they are likely to have more. And the maternity part does cripple them. One job, which you have to pay 2 people to do.

It's the reason nearly every GP surgery you go into, most of the receptionists etc are middle aged.

Its wrong, yes, but I can kind of see the reasoning. Maternity cover is notouriously hard to find for a small business too. Often the person needs training, for 9 months to a year cover, which is more expense, and you got to find someone willing to take a 9-12 month contract knowing they will more than likely be out of a job at the end of it, in the first place...again, difficult to find, and you can understand why from the person that covers maternity!

In a larger business, with more staff, its a completely different ballgame, and you will often have people already working there, who can just cover that job. But in smaller business, most of the jobs seem to specialise in a certain area, and theres one person doing it. That person goes on maternity, and you have to train someone else up to do that job.

ninky_2

The only way to get rid of this type of sexism and prevent employers shying away from women of childbearing age is to make parental post-birth leave available to either parent.

Obviously the minimum requirements before you are legally allowed to go back to work after physically giving birth would need to remain (iIthink this is two weeks). The right to take time out to look after a newborn should apply to any adult in the primary parenting role - this would include the partners of same sex couples, as well as fathers or even grandparents if all concerned wished them to be the primary carer and they needed to give up employment to do this. This would get rid of ageism as well.

ninky_2

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.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

The only way to get rid of this type of sexism and prevent employers shying away from women of childbearing age is to make parental post-birth leave available to either parent.
.

Of course, this might be more practical if men could choose to breastfeed!

In essence I agree that there is inherant restriction to women's employment with this inequality, but I also wonder..and it is wonder, not judge, whether this is really the right thing for women, for society...for all of us. Letting, for example, property prices escalate to the point where two salaries are pretty much requisit has in many cases, simply doubled the burden, not shared it.

ultra10

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

More quality scare-mongering from the newspaper that supported Hitler.

It's got a good TV guide though...

Need I Point out that Numerous Labour Party Members & some Members of Parliament were Strong sympathisers / apologists of the Murderers in Sinn Fein / IRA .. But that was a lot more recent than the 1930's !!!!!! !

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

I had my children at the wrong time......even the current maternity leave/payments are very generous compared to what we got.

I didn't think you had a job have I misssed something?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Of course, this might be more practical if men could choose to breastfeed!

quote]

err...pumps and bottles. it's not pretty but it has been done! and despite all the advise, a lot of women do not breastfeed or continue with it for very long. families should have a choice over who stays home with the baby. at the moment sexist laws mean they don't.

Cannon_Fodder

If there was not such a dependancy upon the second (sometimes main) wage in a household, then the demand for decent maternity policies would not be so great, or necessary.

And it is the joint incomes in the economy that have boosted demand, and therefore prices, especially the housing boom.

In another 5 years further improvements will be seen, and paternity policies will become mainstream/generous as well.

By then the new housing boom will be kicking in, so even more expectations will be raised.

= A never ending cycle of false growth.