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

mustrum_ridcully

smk77 wrote: »

Why should those people who chose not to have children have their pensions paid by other people's children?

Because those who don't have children:
Pay for the schooling of children
Pay for hospital/medical treatment of children
Pay for the child benefit given to the parents
Pay for Gordon Browns trust fund thingy for children
Pay for tax credits for people with children

Oh and not everyone chooses not to have children, some people can't and I don't there's such a thing as adoption pay/leave.

Personally I have no problem at all with the principle of maternity pay but it really should come from the state.

Here's an anecdote I've been told about how bothersome the current situation is to companies. Member of staff goes on maternity leave, new worker has to be employed and trained (with an overlap so as to handover the job). After a short while new worker announces they are pregnant as well and will go on maternity leave several months before original member of staff returns! Employer ends up paying the salary of two people not at work and has to get a 3rd person in to cover the gap and have a handover period before and after .

smk77

Really2 wrote: »

Although it is not great for those who do not want to have children they will be unfortunately the ones who will have to be less equal.

but they'll probably be able to afford nicer holidays and a more expensive house. :rotfl:

Tiggergirl

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Because those who don't have children:
Oh and not everyone chooses not to have children, some people can't and I don't there's such a thing as adoption pay/leave.

Personally I have no problem at all with the principle of maternity pay but it really should come from the state.

Adoption pay is the same as maternity pay

90% of SMP can be reclaimed by the employer from the government.

ninky_2

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Because those who don't have children:
Pay for the schooling of children
Pay for hospital/medical treatment of children
Pay for the child benefit given to the parents
Pay for Gordon Browns trust fund thingy for children
Pay for tax credits for people with children

.

But even those of us who don't have children need to remember OUR parents got such benefits for having us once - and I'm sure our lives were much improved as a result. We live in a SOCIETY, remember. And I'd much rather be in one with free healthcare, education system and safety nets to put food into the mouths of all children than one that doesn't.

Tiggergirl

Really2 wrote: »

But what about the covert sexism of that person who does not get a promotion because of a change in the law, like the OP said.

I do not agree with it but I would be a liar if i believed it did not happen.

I agree, it does happen. I have experienced it myself - you have the right to go back to the same job, but there is no rule against having your job changed a month before you go on leave!

However, I think the sexism is not down to the level of maternity pay, but the leave itself being inconvenient and that someone may not be quite so flexible in terms of working hours in the future once they have had children.

Really2

Tiggergirl wrote: »

However, I think the sexism is not down to the level of maternity pay, but the leave itself being inconvenient and that someone may not be quite so flexible in terms of working hours in the future once they have had children.

I agree on that but that would possibly change if it did tripple.

But I agree disruption is the main concern weiging on an employers mind.

smk77

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Because those who don't have children:
Pay for the schooling of children
Pay for hospital/medical treatment of children
Pay for the child benefit given to the parents
Pay for Gordon Browns trust fund thingy for children
Pay for tax credits for people with children

Oh and not everyone chooses not to have children, some people can't and I don't there's such a thing as adoption pay/leave.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/WorkAndFamilies/Adoptionrightsintheworkplace/DG_10029406

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Personally I have no problem at all with the principle of maternity pay but it really should come from the state.

Here's an anecdote I've been told about how bothersome the current situation is to companies. Member of staff goes on maternity leave, new worker has to be employed and trained (with an overlap so as to handover the job). After a short while new worker announces they are pregnant as well and will go on maternity leave several months before original member of staff returns! Employer ends up paying the salary of two people not at work and has to get a 3rd person in to cover the gap and have a handover period before and after .

Sorry but this is clearly not going to happen. The replacement will only be entitled to SMP paid by the state (although it is paid by the employer who then claims it back). Most employers who pay more than than SMP (ie through a enhanced / occupation maternity pay) will have a minimum period that an employer must have worked for before they pay. The company I work for will only pay above SMP for employees of more than 2 years. This is not unusual.

smk77

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Because those who don't have children:

Pay for the schooling of children
Pay for hospital/medical treatment of children
Pay for the child benefit given to the parents
Pay for Gordon Browns trust fund thingy for children
Pay for tax credits for people with children

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.

robin_banks

Tiggergirl wrote: »

Adoption pay is the same as maternity pay

90% of SMP can be reclaimed by the employer from the government.

I get tired of people banging on about the cost to the employer, there is very little cost to the employer.

92% of all SMP is recoverable in the monthly PAYE return, so there isn't even a time lag invloved.

If the employer pays less than £45,000 NIC's they reclaim 100%, and may also be elible to 4.5% compensation.

Kenny4315

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm not saying anything ..............

but it's alot easier to organise a outing to a strip club in an all-male office.