Maternity pay ... need help

Nub

clairec79 wrote: »

Basically you have to be working for them before you conceive

You have to be working for them for 26 weeks before you are 25 weeks pregnant (ie 15 weeks before you are due = 40-15 = 25)

For clarity, due dates are calculated as if you conceived on the first day of your last AF (I hope this is the right acronym) before getting pregnant - essentially going back ~2 weeks. The new year should be more than fine though. (for statutory maternity, company rules could entitle you to more if you've been there longer)

Red-Squirrel_2

andydownes123 wrote: »

Making sure said new person falls within the scope of employer maternity contributions to the day seems more ruthless than sensible to me !

Ruthless? Why?

gettingtheresometime

Kynthia wrote: »

It's very sensible. You would criticize someone who had a baby when they couldn't afford to and criticize someone who tries to make sure they are in employment and entitled to a workplace benefit. Women can't win. Employers are business and have many costs and responsibilities, yet rather than expect a business to meet their obligations you'd rather have a go at individual women? Do you encourage people not to join their workplace pension as that costs employers too? I hope you've opted out as why should your employer fund your retirement?

1 in 9 pregnant women unfairly lose their job when pregnant, 1 in 5 face harassment and negative comments at work and 1 in 10 are discouraged from attending essential antenatal appointments. It's harrowing enough to face all this without being accused of being mercenary just for trying to be as secure as you can be, especially when you don't even know if you can conceive and it might take a year or more. It's very easy to criticize when you'll never be in that position.

I can see your argument but we're not talking about someone who has been in their job for a while...the OP has been in her position for less than a month (& yes I do appreciate that it may take sometime for her to conceive).


Again we don't know the size of the business involved - it may be a multi national who can easily absorb the disruption that having a member of staff going off for a year would cause or it may be a small concern where it will have greater impact especially so soon after being employed.


I understand the position of the OP and would probably be asking the same question if I was in her position but I wish people would see that this sort of situation is why some employers are put off employing women in the first place.

Red-Squirrel_2

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

I can see your argument but we're not talking about someone who has been in their job for a while...the OP has been in her position for less than a month (& yes I do appreciate that it may take sometime for her to conceive).


Again we don't know the size of the business involved - it may be a multi national who can easily absorb the disruption that having a member of staff going off for a year would cause or it may be a small concern where it will have greater impact especially so soon after being employed.


I understand the position of the OP and would probably be asking the same question if I was in her position but I wish people would see that this sort of situation is why some employers are put off employing women in the first place.

Wow! No, just no.

System

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Wow! No, just no.

And you think it doesn't happen...

Red-Squirrel_2

andydownes123 wrote: »

And you think it doesn't happen...

Of course it happens, but it is not the fault of women for daring to have babies!

System

Kynthia wrote: »

It's very sensible. You would criticize someone who had a baby when they couldn't afford to and criticize someone who tries to make sure they are in employment and entitled to a workplace benefit. Women can't win. Employers are business and have many costs and responsibilities, yet rather than expect a business to meet their obligations you'd rather have a go at individual women? Do you encourage people not to join their workplace pension as that costs employers too? I hope you've opted out as why should your employer fund your retirement?

1 in 9 pregnant women unfairly lose their job when pregnant, 1 in 5 face harassment and negative comments at work and 1 in 10 are discouraged from attending essential antenatal appointments. It's harrowing enough to face all this without being accused of being mercenary just for trying to be as secure as you can be, especially when you don't even know if you can conceive and it might take a year or more. It's very easy to criticize when you'll never be in that position.

Ahh the classic victim shaming. May I just say that OP has recently joined a place of employment and is actively calculating the exact time she can cash in on the maternity policy - I say, as I have, that's pretty ruthless behavior to expect, and plan for that matter, for an employer to pick up the tab.

Red-Squirrel_2

andydownes123 wrote: »

Ahh the classic victim shaming. May I just say that OP has recently joined a place of employment and is actively calculating the exact time she can cash in on the maternity policy - I say, as I have, that's pretty ruthless behavior to expect and plan for that matter for an employer to pick up the tab.

She's in her mid thirties and she wants a child. She was made redundant from her last job.

What do you think she should have done?

Maybe her new employers are not Neanderthals and will actually be supportive. She'll probably only be entitled to maternity allowance anyway, and if the business cant cope with that then it isn't going to survive anyway.

System

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Of course it happens, but it is not the fault of women for daring to have babies!

Did I say that? :think:

Comms69

andydownes123 wrote: »

Did I say that? :think:

No I agree with you.


It does put employers off.


I'm still on the fence with regards to maternity vs parental leave (and the role of business in supporting the personal choices of their employees)