Employer has changed maternity policy - please advise

titanflux

I believe it's highly likely that maternity (or paternity) benefits over and above the statutory minimum will not be contractual and it would be rare for this to be written into Terms and Conditions or Statements of Particulars of employment.

Often non-contractual benefits will be withrawn with a notice period published to all employees out of fairness.

On the equality issue, I think it's gender discrimination to force men to wear suits / shirts / ties in the workplace when women can wear a whole plethora of options. If female employees can wear open necks down to their cleavage, why can't I do so to my moob cleavage (sob).

Seriously though, treatment of maternity and paternity benefits being different is wholly allowed under EU law due to the radically different needs of women after childbirth and to promote 'breast is best' policy.

zimm143

Jdturk you are hilarious!! Thanks for brightening my day with your crazy ideas! You have made me realise how lucky I am to be woman and get all these wonderful maternity benefits and then be able to return to work and forever viewed with suspicion by my employer as to whether I will be off to have number 2 or 3. For goodness sake, the WHO recommends women breastfeed for 12 months or more, until men develop breasts than making women return to work after 6 months so the men can take the leave is actually impacting a couple's choice to make the best choice for their baby!! Get over it - women have the babies, therefore we need different rights to men, it's just a fact. A shame men don't have them really, you can bet maternity pay would be a lot more generous.

As to the poster who thinks I'll be disappointed - thanks for your support, really. But you haven't met me , I'm a fighter and a very valued employee, I have a good shot at winning.

And thanks to all other posters for their helpful comments.

iamana1ias

zimm143 wrote: »

As to the poster who thinks I'll be disappointed - thanks for your support, really. But you haven't met me , I'm a fighter and a very valued employee, I have a good shot at winning.
.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

mikey72

zimm143 wrote: »

Mike72 - so do you think men should get the right to separate breast-feeding facilities at work also?

To have a decent maternity leave policy is so far from discrimination against men it's not even funny.

Thanks all for your helpful comments. I am going to fight it - as a loyal employee of 5 years I just want what other ladies had before me.

Why?

Good luck with it, I'd like my pension when I'm 50 but I won't get it until I'm 55 now.

jdturk

zimm143 wrote: »

Jdturk you are hilarious!! Thanks for brightening my day with your crazy ideas! You have made me realise how lucky I am to be woman and get all these wonderful maternity benefits and then be able to return to work and forever viewed with suspicion by my employer as to whether I will be off to have number 2 or 3. For goodness sake, the WHO recommends women breastfeed for 12 months or more, until men develop breasts than making women return to work after 6 months so the men can take the leave is actually impacting a couple's choice to make the best choice for their baby!! Get over it - women have the babies, therefore we need different rights to men, it's just a fact. A shame men don't have them really, you can bet maternity pay would be a lot more generous.

I find your tone in the thread derogatory to be honest, you asked for opinions on your situation and I stated it as I saw it and even backed it up but I noticed you decided to ignore this and carry on with your crusade against your employer. Obviously I don't care if you win or lose as it has no effect on me but if you're going to dismiss what I said straight away and ignore the advice even after I backed it up then theres nothing else I can do. (i'm referring to the contract change if it is in your contract!)

The WHO may recommend 12 months for breast feeding and if this is the case then why has the government as far as I am aware pushing/pushed through legislation stating that a woman can give 3 months (from 9-12 months) to the father plus they can take another 3 months unpaid paternity leave.......so not such a ridiculous idea mine seeing as thats the way the government are going

zimm143

My tone is this thread is polite and pleasant to those who are pleasant to me. But I cannot abide by someone's crusade against maternity benefits.

If you believe the government makes decisions based on accurate information rather than what they think we win votes than you are sadly mistaken.

I don't have a crusade against my employer, I like them and they like me. They are generally very fair and a pleasure to work for. However, I believe they have, on this occasion done the wrong thing in changing the policy, hence my decision to question it. But you were scathing from the start, which is not in the spirit of MSE. Thanks once against to those who have offered constructive advice. And good to luck to those gentlemen on this thread with getting their equal maternity rights and also reversing years of evolution :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

jdturk

zimm143 wrote: »

My tone is this thread is polite and pleasant to those who are pleasant to me. But I cannot abide by someone's crusade against maternity benefits.

If you believe the government makes decisions based on accurate information rather than what they think we win votes than you are sadly mistaken.

I don't have a crusade against my employer, I like them and they like me. They are generally very fair and a pleasure to work for. However, I believe they have, on this occasion done the wrong thing in changing the policy, hence my decision to question it. But you were scathing from the start, which is not in the spirit of MSE. Thanks once against to those who have offered constructive advice. And good to luck to those gentlemen on this thread with getting their equal maternity rights and also reversing years of evolution :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm not sure where you think I have been unpleasant to you? I asked you whether you had searched about contract changes on the forum....I would hardly call that scathing? I then went onto further explain my reasoning and even showed you a link to the contract change which you are still to acknowledge that I was correct.

I am glad you have a good relationship with your employer and if this is true you have a better chance of getting your extra pay.

My point on equal maternity also works for women as well though, what if the female is the main breadwinner, surely allowing 6 months for men to take paternity leave is actually better for the couple rather than a woman having 12 months on maternity as she can go back to work?

It may be better to have it as an option rather than compulsory but if your Husband/partner came home and said 'I would like to go on paternity leave for 4-6 months but that would mean you would have to go back to work after 6 months' would you seriously say you wouldn't consider it or would his opinions not count ultimately?

mikey72

zimm143 wrote: »

My tone is this thread is polite and pleasant to those who are pleasant to me. But I cannot abide by someone's crusade against maternity benefits.

If you believe the government makes decisions based on accurate information rather than what they think we win votes than you are sadly mistaken.

I don't have a crusade against my employer, I like them and they like me. They are generally very fair and a pleasure to work for. However, I believe they have, on this occasion done the wrong thing in changing the policy, hence my decision to question it. But you were scathing from the start, which is not in the spirit of MSE. Thanks once against to those who have offered constructive advice. And good to luck to those gentlemen on this thread with getting their equal maternity rights and also reversing years of evolution :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Evolution?
If men gave birth we would have evolved a zip.

3plus1

It sounds to me that the OP's company isn't turning over as much money as it had hoped to, so it's looking at ways to trim down expenses as that's the only option left to increase net profits. All companies are allowed to review their remuneration policies as they see fit and in this case, the OP's company has decided that it can't afford such a generous maternity policy. It's not part of the OP's contract and therefore the OP does not have to consent to the change. The company didn't know the OP was pregnant when it reduced the perk - it really wasn't personal. "Business is business."

I realise how unfair this may seem to the OP, but it isn't illegal. I agree with the poster who said she'd probably be disappointed.

zimm143

3plus1 - Bizarrely my company are actually doing really well, we are extremely fortunate. Which makes their decision to reduce maternity pay (which isn't actually that generous compared with the rest of the sector) particularly baffling.