Maternity rights

BobQ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36185776

Maybe one of the EU Regulations that Brexit supporters will seek to cancel after the referendum?

Soon disappeared off the BBC Home page.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36185776

Maybe one of the EU Regulations that Brexit supporters will seek to cancel after the referendum?

Soon disappeared off the BBC Home page.

Absurd and idiotic

Thrugelmir

Understandable why some employers struggle with such an imposition.

chewmylegoff

the UK is super-equivalent to the EU in relation to maternity rights and pay so it seems rather odd for "in" supporters to suggest that the EU has delivered greater maternity rights to UK residents. If we aligned ourselves with the minimum required by EU directives and regulations, women would only be entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave. You could easily argue that staying in the EU is more of a risk as the EU could pass a regulation saying that women could not have more than 14 weeks paid maternity leave.

That outcome seems as likely as maternity rights being stripped away post-a hypothetical Brexit.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36185776

Maybe one of the EU Regulations that Brexit supporters will seek to cancel after the referendum?

Soon disappeared off the BBC Home page.

It seems strange to me that those advocating the EU because it produces legislation that our national parliament might not can't see how dangerous this is nor imagine the situation where the eu legislates something they don't like that they would then be powerless to overturn.

glentoran99

michaels wrote: »

It seems strange to me that those advocating the EU because it produces legislation that our national parliament might not can't see how dangerous this is nor imagine the situation where the eu legislates something they don't like that they would then be powerless to overturn.

EU impose minimums local parliament would always be able to increase this should they wish

westernpromise

Something the left cannot grasp is that if you encrust some favoured group with economic advantage, you will make it harder for anyone else to join that group, because the advantage is funded by someone who will want to limit his exposure to that cost.

Thus as divorce has become more expensive for men, the incidence of marriage has fallen. If you’re a married woman and you get a divorce you make out like a bandit. Oddly enough, this puts other men off getting married.

If you make it difficult and expensive to reduce your workforce, you benefit all those who already have a job. Oddly enough, you make it harder for people who don’t to get one, because it’s so expensive for employers to get rid of you in a downturn. As a result, the UK regularly creates more jobs than all the rest of the EU put together.

If you insist that women be given all sorts of costly benefits funded by their employer, which disadvantages small firms disproportionately, then those firms find ways to avoid hiring women of childbearing age in the first place.

Conrad

Once again the message is, this great nation that did so much to advance natural law and Human Rights, that bought civilisation and enterprise to much of the world, that writes 15% of all the science papers with 1% of the global population, cannot manage it's affairs as an independent nation.


REMAIN LOGIC > ALL INDEPENDENT NATIONS ARE IMPOTENT AND DESTINED TO FAILURE.

Conrad

westernpromise wrote: »

If you insist that women be given all sorts of costly benefits funded by their employer, which disadvantages small firms disproportionately, then those firms find ways to avoid hiring women of childbearing age in the first place.

LBC ran a discussion on this yesterday, and another one on the new living wage, and caller after caller called in to explain how both these things have back fired.


The only supporter of the living wage was an academic that has 'written a paper on the advantages', which was scoffed at by real people running real business', such as the cake decorator with 4 staff that has had no choice but to cut hours, as customers wont bare the cost increase.


LD's Joe Swinsome contributed to the debate, and I've long been critical of her naïve views on maternity rights. Again her saccharine coated narratives were at complete odds to the many callers out there in the real world battling to keep business afloat - you just cant find temporary covering staff in many instances, and often you end up with more than one woman off at once, and the disruption to other workers can cause great stress, let alone the knock - on service issues, and to cap it all many women string employers along only to then not return - several women I know did this.


Some reported that a new employee would 'announce' the good news they were pregnant just a week into the job. Nice.


As one business owner put it, 'I didn't go into business to become some sort of welfare provider to fulfil parenthood ambitions'

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

Some reported that a new employee would 'announce' the good news they were pregnant just a week into the job. Nice.


As one business owner put it, 'I didn't go into business to become some sort of welfare provider to fulfil parenthood ambitions'

They should probably take the time to look at the Maternity Pay laws in that case.

An employee needs to be employed for 26 weeks before the 'qualifying period' for maternity pay of 15 weeks starts. That makes a total of 41 weeks. As a pregnancy is 40 weeks typically and a pregnancy test won't show a positive for at least 2 weeks after conception there must be at least 3 weeks between a woman starting work and her knowing she's pregnant if she's going to get statutory maternity leave.

As for paying for the leave, that comes from taxpayers' funds not from the employer. In fact, as my friend who had 3 of his farm shop staff declare they were pregnant in short order was delighted to find out, as an employer you get a premium on the staff's wages to compensate you for your efforts in passing on maternity pay.

If people are going to moan about the iniquities of the system you'd think they'd at least bother to find out what the system is.

michaels

Where we work maternity/paternity pay is a fraction of normal pay and the employer makes up at least some of the difference as otherwise the staff would not be able to afford to stay.