Discrimination during maternity leave

[PurpleMoonlight]

I have a friend whose employee has advised him she is now pregnant with her second child, while she is still on maternity leave with her first child.

She will be back at work for a day or so before leaving again .....

[BaronVonVaderham]

_dobbo_ said:

You realise maternity leave doesn't exist to benefit the individual - it exists to benefit society as a whole, including you?

Think about it - if huge numbers of people in employment stopped having children because they couldn't afford it, or it impacted their career prospects, or lost them their jobs, what would happen? Clue: nothing good.

How does maternity leave benefit society? Are we running out of people and so need to incentivise procreation? Or do we have record youth unemployment and crime levels?

[Devil2575]

Durzel said:

Moonhawk said:

No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).

Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.

This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)

To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12

That's one rather cynical way of looking at it I suppose. The other - more empathetic, practical way that is backed up by the Law - is that couples having children is a fact of life that businesses have to work around, not stymie or illegally punish.

Indeed. Another way is that couples having children is desirable for society, in fact society needs people to have children in order not to wither and die. Any company that wants to continue opeating in a society needs it to survive and so needs to do it's but to support those who choose to have children.

It's actualy quite simple.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

BaronVonVaderham said:

How does maternity leave benefit society?

Your wife's view on ML might be interesting in a few months time; yours too. Will be interesting to see if it changes (assuming your wife works?)

[Actus Reus]

Apart from anything else maternity pay is usually contractual - statutory maternity pay is very low indeed.

[Devil2575]

BaronVonVaderham said:

How does maternity leave benefit society? Are we running out of people and so need to incentivise procreation? Or do we have record youth unemployment and crime levels?

Do we have record youth unemployment and crime levels?

Society needs educated and employed people to have children

[GP335i]

Well done OP, you've very eloquently dealt with pistonheads usual bottom feeders!

[BaronVonVaderham]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

Baron - the 1950s called; it's for you...

Yes I'm rather old fashioned and was raised to believe that life is about choices and sacrifices as opposed to wanting everything and feeling entitled to it.

[Vaud]

BaronVonVaderham said:

Yes I'm rather old fashioned and was raised to believe that life is about choices and sacrifices as opposed to wanting everything and feeling entitled to it.

So how do you feel about those that have little choice - for example, single mother on low a salary whose partner walks out on them? What can they choose and/or sacrifice?

[RobinOakapple]

Moonhawk said:

Breadvan72 said:

Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not.

No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).

Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.

This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)

To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12

Seems a very reasonable point of view. Why do people keep forgetting that they don't have to have children, and that if they do, they should be the parents' problem not the employer's?

[jimbobs]

Holy Moly there are some idiots on here...

Employers (should) want to employ the best, most able, most creative people in their businesses.

As it happens some of these able, creative people (of both genders) will go on to procreate. It's what human beings do, generally.

Employers (should) want to keep these people in their business. Why lose your able, creative people just because they have sproggified?

Thus you incentivise your able, creative people to stay. You work with them to enable them to stay on through pregnancy and beyond. You offer them flexible working when they return. Otherwise they will just go on to work somewhere else and take their talents to your competitors.

It's not about rewarding spongers or those playing the system, it's about ensuring that your most able employees stick with you.

So, smart businesses should work to ensure that their prospective parents are supported. Otherwise you're just left with a bunch of stupid men working for you...

[Actus Reus]

Indeed. And they just spend all day on car forums whingeing about how good it used to be before hatchbacks could cost £30k and have four exhaust pipes.

[PurpleMoonlight]

jimbobs said:

So, smart businesses should work to ensure that their prospective parents are supported. Otherwise you're just left with a bunch of stupid men working for you...

Are you saying that the only good employee is a parent?

[Actus Reus]

• smashes face into desk*

Yes, I can totally see that that's what he was saying. Jesus fking wept.

[Corpulent Tosser]

RobinOakapple said:

Moonhawk said:

Breadvan72 said:

Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not.

No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).

Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.

This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)

To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12

Seems a very reasonable point of view. Why do people keep forgetting that they don't have to have children, and that if they do, they should be the parents' problem not the employer's?

I agree, it is the law but I do not agree with the level of maternity/paternity leave that employers are required to give, my thoughts on this are irrelevant though.

The fact is the company did not fully comply with the law and they have paid the price, literally.

[PurpleMoonlight]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed, I'm not an employee.

[RobinOakapple]

Corpulent Tosser said:

RobinOakapple said:

Moonhawk said:

Breadvan72 said:

Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not.

No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).

Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.

This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)

To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12

Seems a very reasonable point of view. Why do people keep forgetting that they don't have to have children, and that if they do, they should be the parents' problem not the employer's?

I agree, it is the law but I do not agree with the level of maternity/paternity leave that employers are required to give, my thoughts on this are irrelevant though.

The fact is the company did not fully comply with the law and they have paid the price, literally.

Well, AIUI the company did break the law, but I thought the discussion had moved on to whether or not it was a good law?

[_dobbo_]

BaronVonVaderham said:

_dobbo_ said:

You realise maternity leave doesn't exist to benefit the individual - it exists to benefit society as a whole, including you?

Think about it - if huge numbers of people in employment stopped having children because they couldn't afford it, or it impacted their career prospects, or lost them their jobs, what would happen? Clue: nothing good.

How does maternity leave benefit society? Are we running out of people and so need to incentivise procreation? Or do we have record youth unemployment and crime levels?

If you can't get it from what I wrote, then you won't get it. Sorry.

EDIT: actually sorry no, that's not helpful as a reply.

Try this - if only the very rich and very poor are having children, and all the people in the middle are not because they make a reasoned judgement that they can't afford it, what happens?

Edited by _dobbo_ on Thursday 8th October 15:38

Edited by _dobbo_ on Thursday 8th October 15:40

[JustinP1]

OK, you create a new role and ideally want to fill from within.

Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?

[_dobbo_]

JustinP1 said:

OK, you create a new role and ideally want to fill from within.

Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?

No no no that's different see - because being sick is not a choice, and being pregnant is a choice, and women who get pregnant don't deserve anything except to be at home cooking and cleaning and breastfeeding and basically doing as they are told.