Unfair Pay? Any advice please :)

nursegladys_3

I've just been reading the above posts. My wife gave birth to our daughter 1 Feb 2007, and is now on SMP, I am not in work as I intend becoming the sole carer, when my wife returns to work.

My question is.......WHY choose 1 April as a start date for the new regs. In my opinion this discrinimates against those mothers who had their due date before 1 April 2007. Why couldn't the policy people say...OK lets up the length of Mat leave...but...also include a period of time to include those mothers who started mat leave that overlaps the transition date.

A sensible solution to an unfair situation.

Your comments would be welcome.

liney

Because then the new rules wouldnt start in April, they would start in February (for example) and the people with January babies would say it was unfair lol.

tigtag02

nursegladys wrote: »

I've just been reading the above posts. My wife gave birth to our daughter 1 Feb 2007, and is now on SMP, I am not in work as I intend becoming the sole carer, when my wife returns to work.

My question is.......WHY choose 1 April as a start date for the new regs. In my opinion this discrinimates against those mothers who had their due date before 1 April 2007. Why couldn't the policy people say...OK lets up the length of Mat leave...but...also include a period of time to include those mothers who started mat leave that overlaps the transition date.

A sensible solution to an unfair situation.

Your comments would be welcome.

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

Oh I'm sorry - I know I shouldn't laugh but.....

Read what liney has written - sometime the *luck* doesnt always fall our way!!

Savvy_Sue

Because maternity leave arrangements have always been based on the EXPECTED date of delivery, there was never going to be a transitional period.

Mind you, I wonder how many midwives erred on the side of caution and thought babies were due in April rather than late March ...

liney

I thought the first scan actually calculated the precise age of the baby, but babies are not all born spot on 40 weeks hence most are not born on their due date. Of course i'm not a MW, so i could be very wrong.

Savvy_Sue

liney wrote: »

I thought the first scan actually calculated the precise age of the baby, but babies are not all born spot on 40 weeks hence most are not born on their due date. Of course i'm not a MW, so i could be very wrong.

the first scan is supposed to be able to do that, but I've had friends be given an age which means baby was conceived when their partner wasn't in the country, and they weren't up to anything with anyone else! so although they like to think it's accurate, it's not as precise as they think.

Plus, if you were a midwife and you saw a woman whose baby you calculated was due on 31 March 2007, what date would you give for EDD, knowing what a difference it would make to their entitlements?