Maternity pay ... need help
Comments
-
I didn't have to, they didn't much like the fact I have a crutch and wheelchair either (they were pretty shocking in their response to that too) despite being completely open in my application about my disability. I had got down to the final two so thought they were ok with it but it seems the actual boss of that location was far from ok with it.
Had it been offered, I probably would have turned it down though due to the hours being completely different to that advertised and a few other things, had it been as advertised, I would have found a way to get around their attitude in the short term to enhance my prospects elsewhere in the long term.
See I would turn it down on principle.0 -
Sometimes you have to play the long game. At the time, I was looking for an in after spending a lot of time out of the employment market being a carer for a family member and would have put up with a fair bit just to get that recent bit of employment history onto my CV to allow me to move to where I wanted to be.
I'm lucky in that I am pretty pragmatic about things and don't easily take offence but in that particular instance, I had already decided I wouldn't take the job if offered due to other things which made their attitude pale into insignificance.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
When men are having a baby they are free to change employers, apply for promotions and not lose their jobs. Women just want the same.
But you can't have the same, you're having a baby.
Men are free for promotions etc. this is true, however this allows extra provisioning for the baby too.
You see, many are obsessed with equality of outcome at the moment...this can't happen. Men and women compliment each other, one is freed up to do the caring (usually the women as women are programmed to be more maternal and have a way more caring nature than men). One parent can then provision (men are porgrammed to provision) knowing that the role of caring is fufilled. It's yin and yang. Complimentary.
By having a baby you are effectively giving up the provisioning role yourself, which is usually fine as the slack is taken up the partner (most of the time the man).
You need to think about it without the lense of "I want the same"...you can't, it doesn't work that way, it's been the same for millions of years across many cultures and many species. You're having a baby, it changes your life, you can't have your cake and eat it and if you try to, people suffer as a consequence.0 -
andydownes123 wrote: »But you can't have the same, you're having a baby.
Men are free for promotions etc. this is true, however this allows extra provisioning for the baby too.
You see, many are obsessed with equality of outcome at the moment...this can't happen. Men and women compliment each other, one is freed up to do the caring (usually the women as women are programmed to be more maternal and have a way more caring nature than men). One parent can then provision (men are porgrammed to provision) knowing that the role of caring is fufilled. It's yin and yang. Complimentary.
By having a baby you are effectively giving up the provisioning role yourself, which is usually fine as the slack is taken up the partner (most of the time the man).
You need to think about it without the lense of "I want the same"...you can't, it doesn't work that way, it's been the same for millions of years across many cultures and many species. You're having a baby, it changes your life, you can't have your cake and eat it and if you try to, people suffer as a consequence.
People who claim they want the same; don't.
I don't know anyone who argues that they would prefer higher incarceration rates, with longer sentences.
- Other examples available0 -
Men don't face pregnancy discrimination. They don't face losing their job, harassment, or nasty comments and judgement about claiming smp or having to get a new job when possibly pregnant. When men are having a baby they are free to change employers, apply for promotions and not lose their jobs. Women just want the same.
This is a poor argument. The people you talk of are breaking the law.
The discrimination men face as new parents is written in law. When we had our child it just made sense for me to take the parental leave, she earns a lot more than me. However my say in that matter is null and void unless she is willing to sacrifice her maternity leave. Now, how many women do you know willing to do that? We just want the same.
For what its worth im a 21st century man, i do most of the cleaning, cooking, childcare whilst working full time. My OH does a few hours (4 at most) a week more than me but is less flexible due to shifts. I got two weeks off paid, in those two weeks i did everything for the child after a complicated c-section whilst also looking after OH. When i was back at work i had a few more weeks of the same. My wife would be the first person to say im at least on par with her in terms of parenting ability yet i face discrimination everytime i go out with my daughter. Using the womens toilet in a swanky london bar to changer her nappy. The patronising "daddy's day care" comments when i spend more time raising our child than OH does. And as she earns more its me and my job thats at risk when the inevitable call from nursery or sickness comes along.
Ill be honest its not something i try to go out of my way to complain about. Its the best job ever and i love every second. I dont resent my OH at all for taking advantage of getting paid time off as she says shell probably never get the same opportunity to spend as much time with her daughter as she did. Still, as a dad, that opportunity doesnt exist. So when you say you want the same i highly suspect you dont. You want to be treat the same, well you are, people judge and discriminate against you.
Im of the same opinion that in terms of law i think its wrong forcing companies to pay. The onus should be on the employer to decide what they pay. If they dont offer good parental packages then theyre unlikely to benefit from employing parents. The market should dictate business policy not the government.
I dont see anything wrong with what the OP is doing. Any fault lies with the law and it seems apparent there are issues surrounding parental leave and parental expectations. The majority of people who work for us are parent age women. We have a fantastic retention rate for staff because we offer good flexibility that parents typically like. The business has to be flexible if it didnt then we would struggle a lot more accommodating the at least 10% of the workforce that are constantly on parenting leave (its maternity leave really, we had one guy take a few days off and the reason for that was because he was under the impression blokes didnt get paid for time off after a child!!). Were almost certainly at a big loss financially when it comes to new staff falling pregnant and ultimately never returning. The justification excluding it being a legal requirement is that it makes those who do stay more committed and better employees so there is no issue with us employing pregnant age women, if we didnt wed struggle to employ people.
Out of everyone i know who has got pregnant recently (im early 30's and babies are flyingout everywhere) only one woman earned less than their OH yet every single one took the full SMP. It appears to be an unwritten rule that isnt discrimination?!
To the OP with regards to your question you should be able to start trying now. I dont really know how it works with conception date and or date of first expected period and so on so maybe leave it a few weeks to be sure. With it being a mechanics and a likelihood of little experience in the matter allow them a bit of flexibility in handling it/getting up to speed. just ensure you know what youre entitled to and ensure you get it. Good luck on the conceptioning!0 -
Employers claim back 92% of SMP payments. Very small businesses can claim back 103%. If the company chooses to pay an enhanced package that's up to them.
I'm not denying that it happens but I think the real reason some companies are put off employing women is because many want to return part time and they become more unreliable as it's usually women who do the lions share of childcare.
I do think equality is a long way off because the mindset of society would need to change and we're not there yet.
Most women do want to take maternity leave to spend time with their baby even if they are the higher earner. There's a reason take-up of shared parental leave is estimated to be as low as 2%.0 -
gettingtheresometime wrote: »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.
But at least you are aware that both men and women are legally entitled to PAID time off from their employment following the birth of a child.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)
I know it's going to take a while before many men take advantage of this, but who will employers employ then?Signature removed for peace of mind0 -
andydownes123 wrote: »But you can't have the same, you're having a baby.
Men are free for promotions etc. this is true, however this allows extra provisioning for the baby too.
You see, many are obsessed with equality of outcome at the moment...this can't happen. Men and women compliment each other, one is freed up to do the caring (usually the women as women are programmed to be more maternal and have a way more caring nature than men). One parent can then provision (men are porgrammed to provision) knowing that the role of caring is fufilled. It's yin and yang. Complimentary.
By having a baby you are effectively giving up the provisioning role yourself, which is usually fine as the slack is taken up the partner (most of the time the man).
You need to think about it without the lense of "I want the same"...you can't, it doesn't work that way, it's been the same for millions of years across many cultures and many species. You're having a baby, it changes your life, you can't have your cake and eat it and if you try to, people suffer as a consequence.
Not wanting to be discriminated against is not "having your cake and eating it". Also your views about gender are very outdated. Assuming women are programmed to be more caring than men. :rotfl: We are all individuals and you do men a disservice.
You also seem to assume every pregnant woman is being financially supported by a man so it's okay to not pay her well. What about those who are single, were abandoned or their partner earns less or is disabled? There are probably many other scenarios that don't fit your assumptions of the happy traditional couple with the male provider and the little woman happy to stay at home. It's because of people like you the law was changed to to make pregnancy a protected characteristic.Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!0 -
Not wanting to be discriminated against is not "having your cake and eating it". Also your views about gender are very outdated. Assuming women are programmed to be more caring than men. :rotfl: We are all individuals and you do men a disservice. - studies have shown this to be broadly true. Even as babies and toddlers gender react very differently to stimulus. That aside I do agree we are all individuals, and therefore there are lots of exceptions to this. For example men are generally more assertive and aggressive; but obviously that is a sliding scale.
You also seem to assume every pregnant woman is being financially supported by a man so it's okay to not pay her well. - well two points. 1. whether the partner is male or female isn't the issue. But broadly, yes if you have a child, then you should do so with someone who will support you. 2. Or accept that you will have a financial impact on your income and outgoings as a result of this choice. What about those who are single - don't have a child? , were abandoned - pick a better partner? or their partner earns less - wait to have a child? or is disabled - plan finances accordingly? There are probably many other scenarios that don't fit your assumptions of the happy traditional couple - i'm sure there are, that is no excuse to expect society and your employer to support your personal choices. with the male provider and the little woman happy to stay at home. - whatever works for the people in question, as long as it doesn't impact on others It's because of people like you the law was changed to to make pregnancy a protected characteristic.
Don't have an issue with pregnancy being a protected characteristic. (I don't see anywhere where Andy has said anything about that either).
That doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be discussed, debated and potentially changed.0 -
Not wanting to be discriminated against is not "having your cake and eating it". Also your views about gender are very outdated. Assuming women are programmed to be more caring than men. :rotfl: We are all individuals and you do men a disservice.
You also seem to assume every pregnant woman is being financially supported by a man so it's okay to not pay her well. What about those who are single, were abandoned or their partner earns less or is disabled? There are probably many other scenarios that don't fit your assumptions of the happy traditional couple with the male provider and the little woman happy to stay at home. It's because of people like you the law was changed to to make pregnancy a protected characteristic.
On your first point - discrimination is awful I agree. My reference to 'having your cake and eating it' is to women who think that having a child should not affect anything. The simple truth is it does and it will. Childcare is a long and time-consuming business - how can you expect the same career as someone who doesn't have a child? While your focus is on your child, anyone (man or women) who does not have the same commitments will go higher and progress faster. You can't have everything and those that do shortchange someone/thing somewhere.
Your second point - unfortunately you are completely wrong about my views being outdated. The research is in. Women score way higher than men on agreeableness, which is why women are great at child care and tend to take jobs in the care sector (teaching etc.). Men score way higher than women on aggression and tend to do well in competitive jobs and do well in STEM vocations. I'm not assuming women are more caring than men, they are, it's been proven.
Your point on scenarios is valid, however it kind of fits in with my point of why women can't have the same 'prospects' as those without children, men included. I use prospects loosly but remember...equality of oppotunity is key...we all have the same opportunity to have a career, however if we sideline this for another pursuit (in this case children), we should expect that oppotuntity to then decline. Child rearers don't have the resources to keep up with non-child rearers, nor the time. Simple maths really.
What a lot of women want is equality of outcome. Regardless of the decision to change focus from a career to child, you want the same outcome as someone who doesn't. That's not right, nor will it ever work.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards