Maternity leave... leaving woman unemployable?

Kelter

I'm a big believer in family. I'm a big believer in kids having their parents around. I'm a big believer in equality.

I'm also a big believer in the real world.

At what point will employers view potential female employees as less desirable than their male counterparts, due to the fact that they are likely to take maternity leave.

While the employer does not need to pay them, they do need to replace them. Assuming they are doing an important job, this is not really satisfactory

I fear that by making maternity leave too good, woman will be restricted to jobs which have less responsibility.


I hope this does not spark a sexist argument, its not (well I hope its not). Its just a concern I have. I have come accross two examples of it happening already, and fear for the future

Boggle

While the employer does not need to pay them

Do they not get a certain amount of paid maternity leave??

Trouble is that many smaller companies just cannot afford to pay 2 people to fill 1 position and so I would suspect that this already works against them. I also suspect that you would find that womens careers often takes a hit when they take maternity leave as they may find it hard to get back into the swing of things or people may have gotten used to dealing with the replacements...

homeOwner

Very interesting question and I think that yes women suffer in the workplace as a result of having kids. But employeers need to have someone they can call on when the going gets tough and a person (male or female) that leaves work every day at 5pm to to pick up the kids is not going to be considered for promotions in jobs that require you to stay late if the sh1t is hitting the fan. And I think this is power for the course. You cant have it both ways.

IMO when you have kids they have to be top priority. When they get older then you can go back to building your career.

seamus

It's an interesting one. An for a long time, many women have believed that they have to refrain from having children at all, to succeed.
Certainly where I am, there's no issue about women and the potential for maternity leave. The only thing I do notice is that most of the women who have taken maternity leave are a little older (by a couple of years) than other men and women at the same level.

Do they not get a certain amount of paid maternity leave??

No. They're entitled to Maternity Benefit from the Government. Some employers do choose to augment/top-up the benefit though.

Nuttzz

@ Boggle: companies dont have to pay mat leave it is paid by the government. some companies i worked in used to give the employee full wages while on mat leave so long as the employee gave them the government cheque

I have talked to a number of employers both male and female and they have told me off the record that they would hire males before females because of the whole mat keave issue.

ronbyrne2005

its inevitable that businesses especially small ones are gonna take liklelyhood of maternity leave into consideration when hiring although technically this is illegal you cant blame them choosing a person who wont be having kids and wont be heading home early most nights to look after kids but more men are staying home so in future maybe choosing a man wont guaranteee longer working hours and absence of paternity leave.
i think if i woman wants to make it to the top in most careers she has to saccrifice having kids completley or at least till well into thirties, then you get sucessful career women in their 50's regreting not having kids but its their choice!

Hobbes

http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_leave.html
http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_benefit.html

Some companies will pay employees while on maternity leave. However the way the system works it would not be that big a deal to get a temp in while the person is on leave.

ionapaul

If only employers could tell by looking at me during the interview that I have no intention of working more than the scheduled 8 or so hours each day, children or no!

annR

There was a piece on this on the Have Your Say section of the BBC's website. I can't find the link now. It was so vitriolic I was surprised and worried. I had no idea that some people resent women getting maternity leave so much and are so angry about it.

Nevyn

The government is getting worried about the delining birth rate esp amoung those that are college educated professionals and it is thier way of trying to
enough those type of couples/women to have kids.
The additional 4 weeks paid leave will help bring the leave closer to what it is
in other EU countries.

MrPudding

Simple solution. Give men equal paternity rights. Then it won't matter as both will be equally likely to take leave.

MrP

seamus

MrPudding wrote:

Simple solution. Give men equal paternity rights. Then it won't matter as both will be equally likely to take leave.

MrP

Then you start finding biase against married men & women in terms of promotion.

Nevyn

Who said you have to be married to have kids ?

seamus

Thaedydal wrote:

Who said you have to be married to have kids ?

Nobody, but you're more likely to have to have to take maternity/paternity leave if you're married. Perhaps the same biase will also start against those in long-term relationships too.

The Corinthian

Kelter wrote:

I'm a big believer in family. I'm a big believer in kids having their parents around. I'm a big believer in equality.

Traditional, yet suitably right-on.

At what point will employers view potential female employees as less desirable than their male counterparts, due to the fact that they are likely to take maternity leave.

Statistically women in their late twenties to early thirties are more likely to have children. I have also been told that they are statistically as likely to not to return to the work place as they are to do so. Typically if they don’t return to the workplace, they’ll tend to hold their job until the last minute.

How this affects an employer is that a potential employee may be a bad long-term investment. If you look at a CV and see that someone has never held for a position for longer than six months, you’re less likely to invest the time and training into them and if you find yourself in a position where you are faced with hiring a, say, thirty-two year-old woman who’s married for one year - you’re in a not dissimilar position.

All this is before we consider the HR implications of having to hold a job of someone for months at a time, with no guarantee they’ll even come back.

Of course it’s not the woman’s fault - she’s not even pregnant - she’s simply the victim of being in a bad demographic. It’s not dissimilar to being male and in your twenties and looking for car insurance, you may be a responsible driver, but your demographic says otherwise and so the insurance company will end up charging you more.

Of course the difference between these two is the former is illegal while the latter is, or at least until recently was, not.

I hope this does not spark a sexist argument, its not (well I hope its not). Its just a concern I have. I have come accross two examples of it happening already, and fear for the future

It depends on what you mean by that. You yourself brought up the principle of equality and that does cut both ways. It’s just not terribly politically correct to mention that, though.

Nuttzz wrote:

I have talked to a number of employers both male and female and they have told me off the record that they would hire males before females because of the whole mat keave issue.

Yes, it’s regrettably very true.

MrPudding

Seamus, I though you were modern and progressive. I am very disappointed:(

Does anyone have figures for children born outside of marriage. I know I am doing my bit to boost them but I have no idea how many there are.

If companies started to show bias towards married people in order to get around paternity & maternity leave issues they would then need to think about anyone that could potentially have a child, Just to be sure. I'm not sure it would be practical.

MrP

seamus

MrPudding wrote:

Seamus, I though you were modern and progressive. I am very disappointed:(

I'd like to think I am
I would assume though that the bulk of births in the employed sector are to young people in long-term relationships or marriages. (Thaed caught me on that )

Gurgle

Its only ever going to be an issue in a tiny company.
Anywhere with more than about 6 employees should be well enough set up that they don't depend on having a particular person in order to function.

Kelter

Its only ever going to be an issue in a tiny company.
Anywhere with more than about 6 employees should be well enough set up that they don't depend on having a particular person in order to function.

Staff who are in roles which don't have much responcibility are easily replace. Staff who are in management positions are hard to replace.

Image if the manager of your department/company/whatever leaves for 6 months, then comes back. Their replacement needs a few months to get up to speed in the area you work in. Until they are up to speed they are trying to manage something they don't understand. The staff below them know better and need to guide them. This is not a good strategy.

When the main employee come back you face the same problem

Mine is an organisation of 40 people. While it does not close down due to anyone going on maternity, it runs massively less efficiently without any member of technical staff.

A friend who has just moved to France to marry her bf tells me that she can't get a job which is anything like the level she left in Ireland. How could you blame the employers? She has just gone to france to have babies. She is the first to knock their system of maternity leave (which demands the job be kept for about 3 years or so)

Similarly my sister (who works on her own) did not emply someone because she told her in her interview that she had just got engaged.

Gurgle

Kelter wrote:

Similarly my sister (who works on her own) did not emply someone because she told her in her interview that she had just got engaged.

I wouldn't tell too many people about that.
Its blatant discrimination, and there is miles of legislation against it.
That kind of thing should have been left behind in the 19th century.

Believe it or not, you generally will get around 6 to 7 months notice that somebody is going on maternity leave.

Thats plenty of time to arrange cover and training.

Any properly organized company can cope seamlessly with someone going on maternity. Its just stupidity to only have one person capable of performing any given role.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Believe it or not, you generally will get around 6 to 7 months notice that somebody is going on maternity leave.

Thats plenty of time to arrange cover and training.

Any properly organized company can cope seamlessly with someone going on maternity. Its just stupidity to only have one person capable of performing any given role.

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

Nightwish

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

Yes, actually.
I ran a department of 6 people for 2 years.


And one woman was in and out pregnant and sick for 4 months, then on maternity for 6 months, then sick for 3 more months, then back part-time.

And I made sure I knew how to do her job while she was out - shipping, logistics, accounts and billing as it happens. Very much not my area of expertise but she had good systems and contacts in place and was able to leave it manageable for me.

In the rest of the company, consisting 400 or so, theres almost always somebody out on maternity. Some are easily replaced, some spend a couple of months training up their replacement. You just have to apply some common sense.

And yet I know of places where girls went out on maternity and the entire section they were over fell apart, due to the incompetence of seagull managers*.

*fly in, flap around, shìt on everything, fly away

Gurgle

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

The children should be of higher priority to both parents than their careers.
So fathers should be overlooked for promotion too ?

MrPudding

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Most kids have two parents. Should fathers be overlooked as well or do they have no responsibilities at home?

I suppose you think removing the rule that forced "females" to leave civil service jobs once they got married was a mistake?

My GF would love to pack in her job and look after our kids full time. Of course that would mean we would have to live on the streets as it is almost impossible to maintain any standard of living with only one salary.

So both of us working is a requirement in order to fulfill our responsibilites to our kids.

MrP

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Yes, actually.
I ran a department of 6 people for 2 years.

That's a team, not a department.

MrPudding

The Corinthian wrote:

That's a team, not a department.

Is there a minimun number for a department?

MrP

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

That's a team, not a department.

Fair enough, thanks for the semantics lesson.

(Though it was in 2 sections (sub-teams i guess) and operated separately from the rest of the company.)

Besides, the point was that its easier to cope in a larger organisational structure.
You only get one months notice when someone leaves, but at least 6 months notice of maternity leave.
People change jobs all the time. If anything a new mother will be less likely to go job-hopping around the city/country.

btw, are you taking either side of the 'dont employ women of childbearing age' discussion or just here for the nit-picking ?

Calina

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Oh really? Parent only describes "mother", is that it? Jesus all those fathers desperately looking for access to their kids after divorces and separation will love you.

On the other hand, if males were endemically discriminated against for having kids, then there is some chance that discrimination against "parents" might be dealt with.

****************

Collectively as a society we need a next generation. It'd be nice if we made it an attractive option for people - both the primary carers (be they male or female) and the primary income earner (be they male or female) to actually produce one. Who do you think is going to pay your pension?

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

They are required to give at least 6 months notice for maternity leave. If a company can't make arrangements in that time there is something seriously wrong with the management there. Especially considering most people only have to give 2 weeks - 1 months notice when leaving.

Edit.. incidently maybe my company is the exception then the rule but of the numerous people I know who have had babies in the company only one has left after maternity leave, and then because she was changing professions.

Everyone else stayed.

The company also gives paternity leave (2 weeks paid vacation) and even allows leave for things like adoptions which would equate to the same as maternity leave.

Keeping a good employee is less to do with if they are child bearing age and more to do with how you treat that employee.

simu

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Yeah, but you actually need a fair bit of money to raise kids. :rolleyes: Not to mention that fathers have parental duties too.

Any employers who try to avoid hiring women of child-bearing age are just losing out on some very good candidates for the job tbh and it's time for them to raise their heads out of the 1950s.

Although, I don't think it's such a big issue. It doesn't seem to be an enormous problem in the career I'm pursuing, at least.