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

smk77

chopperharris wrote: »

And remember the man can have the maternity leave , it doesnt have to be the woman.

That would be fantastic but this is unfortunately not the case. It's just 2 weeks paternity for men...although some people on this board would probably be happy for this to be abolished!

robin_banks

Alan_M wrote: »

Here we have the crux of the problem.......It was only Recently I found out Sir Alan Sugars views on this very point are quite controversial.

Consider the following....

You own a small business, you have two possible prospects for a job, one male, one female both recently married. Which one do you choose?

Obviously you're not allowed to ask if either intend to have children, I've not doubt that would be sexist.....

It's a no brainer if you ask me....the cost of people not being present can outweigh their salary considerations in multiples.

It's a simple operational decision, it isn't sexist. I have nothing personal whatsoever against women of child bearing age. What I'm interested in is employing someone who isn't go to go on extended leave and threaten the operation of my business. That isn't unreasonable.

Why do they threaten the viability of an organisation?.

As stated before it's not financial, 92% of SMP is recoverable, for small employers 100% is recoverable.

Rochdale_Pioneers

smk77 wrote: »

That would be fantastic but this is unfortunately not the case. It's just 2 weeks paternity for men...although some people on this board would probably be happy for this to be abolished!

Its effectively one week. As with Maternity Leave the statutory rate paid in week two is a crippling loss of salary if you have a decent job. All the guys in my office (myself included) had to take the 2nd week off as annual leave as we couldn't afford the take it as Paternity.

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

Why do they threaten the viability of an organisation?.

As stated before it's not financial, 92% of SMP is recoverable, for small employers 100% is recoverable.

I think what he is saying it is the disruption to the company loss of business etc. Not the cost in outlay terms.

ninky_2

Alan_M wrote: »

It's a no brainer if you ask me....the cost of people not being present can outweigh their salary considerations in multiples.

It's a simple operational decision, it isn't sexist. I have nothing personal whatsoever against women of child bearing age. What I'm interested in is employing someone who isn't go to go on extended leave and threaten the operation of my business. That isn't unreasonable.

That's why it's essential that man could gave entitlement to a woman to become the primary carer - so that employers wouldn't be able to make these assumptions. Then the employer wouldn't automatically pick the man....

robin_banks

Really2 wrote: »

I think what he is saying it is the disruption to the company loss of business etc. Not the cost in outlay terms.

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.

Pennywise

robin_banks wrote: »

Why do they threaten the viability of an organisation?.

As stated before it's not financial, 92% of SMP is recoverable, for small employers 100% is recoverable.

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.

Sapphire

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.

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.

smk77

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its effectively one week. As with Maternity Leave the statutory rate paid in week two is a crippling loss of salary if you have a decent job. All the guys in my office (myself included) had to take the 2nd week off as annual leave as we couldn't afford the take it as Paternity.

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

smk77

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.

This is a different issue though. The thread is about employers having to pay additional amounts for maternity pay. It doesn't matter if they pay nothing or 12 months on full pay they'll still have to spend the same amount of money on recruitment and training.