Maternity pay not enough!

Googlewhacker

You should be thankful at the fact that there is any maternity pay which is paid by the employer (yes some get this back from the government) for women to bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time.

It is a generous amount of money and also there is the addition of accruing holiday pay on top.

Don't be so ungrateful

HappyLiving

Googlewhacker wrote: »

You should be thankful at the fact that there is any maternity pay which is paid by the employer (yes some get this back from the government) for women to bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time.

It is a generous amount of money and also there is the addition of accruing holiday pay on top.


Hi,
just to reply:
It's true you keep accrueing your holiday, but companies can claim back the maternity pay paid to the employee.
And we are lucky in so much that you can claim up to 9 months.

I appreciate it could be inconvenient for an employer to have to find a replacement, especially in a smaller firm, but to say that "women bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time"..... It doesn't cost them anything either apart from maybe having to recruit a replacement.

Googlewhacker

HappyLiving wrote: »

Googlewhacker wrote: »

You should be thankful at the fact that there is any maternity pay which is paid by the employer (yes some get this back from the government) for women to bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time.

It is a generous amount of money and also there is the addition of accruing holiday pay on top.


Hi,
just to reply:
It's true you keep accrueing your holiday, but companies can claim back the maternity pay paid to the employee.
And we are lucky in so much that you can claim up to 9 months.

I appreciate it could be inconvenient for an employer to have to find a replacement, especially in a smaller firm, but to say that "women bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time"..... It doesn't cost them anything either apart from maybe having to recruit a replacement.

This is wrong I am afraid, only smaller employers can get the maternity pay back, once you hit a certain threshold then as an employer you lose out.

It costs the employer in a few different ways, including holiday pay, cost of recruiting another employee, cost of training that employee, cost of uniform if there is one, cost of the employee not getting to the required speed of performance etc.

Ultimately a woman on maternity leave doesn't bring any added value to an employer and actually costs an employer (which is why unfortunately there is discrimination*).

*As I have said before, if all costs were bared by the government and there was a slight increase in tax to all employer to cover this so that each employer paid for maternity/paternity leave as standard rather than the companies that abide by the law often forking out for more than those that deliberately flout it (because the law abiding companies will be the ones to hire women that are likely to go on maternity leave) then I feel discrimination would be alot less. Also I would be pro reducing maternity leave to 6 months and increasing paternity leave to 6 months. Both at the same rate of pay as each other which would help reduce discrimination.

Just my views...

kingfisherblue

I appreciate it could be inconvenient for an employer to have to find a replacement, especially in a smaller firm, but to say that "women bring nothing to the company in terms of added value for up to 1 year at a time"..... It doesn't cost them anything either apart from maybe having to recruit a replacement.[/QUOTE]

It can cost for advertising (possibly more than once), which is expensive. Our local paper charges over £500 for a modest box style advert.

It costs in terms of managers spending time reading applications, shortlisting and interviewing instead of carrying out their day to day activities.

It costs in terms of letters to applicants (although most firms only send to those shortlisted), not just postage, but again, time that is usually otherwise spent on other duties.

It costs in terms of training - maybe not sending someone on a training course, but at the very least showing a new person the ropes at your particular company.

It costs in terms of staff cover whilst the pregnant employee attends ante natal appointments.

I'm not saying that these costs should not be shouldered by the company, but it is naive to say that there is only the cost of having to recruit a replacement (which can be quite costly in itself). In terms of small companies, these costs can be quite costly and can cause problems with cash flow.

MrsManda

Whether you're entitled to any other benefits while receiving Statutory Maternity Pay depends on your household income. When looking at finances it's worth seeing if your employer offers an enhanced maternity package.

You need to look at your total joint income and outgoings and see where you can cut down - better to start saving before trying to conceive where possible in order to reduce financial stress once you've conceived.

You do not necessarily have to take a year off or the 39 weeks you get paid SMP. It may be better for you to just take the 6 weeks off that you get 90% of your salary.

Or if you don't want to pay childcare that early, as you're the main breadwinner it could be better for your family if your husband takes additional paternity leave while you go back to work.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Congratulations on thinking about the financial consequences BEFORE getting pregnant!

It's surprising how many come on here with the story "I'm pregnant and I've just found out......"