Maternity leave... leaving woman unemployable?

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Besides, the point was that its easier to cope in a larger organisational structure.

Not really, because it’s not really to do with the size of the company as it is with the ease with which there is to replace or train a resource.

You only get one months notice when someone leaves, but at least 6 months notice of maternity leave.

Yes, but to begin with you cannot hire someone new to replace them as you can when someone leaves. You can get in a temp or a contractor to fill in for them or try and get along without them, but that’s about it. Additionally there is the question of how long someone is likely to remain in a company to begin with, and I already covered that in my first post, where - incidentally - I made my views on the topic abundantly clear.

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

Don’t get upset because someone points out you don’t know what you’re on about.

Hobbes wrote:

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.

Perhaps so, but the larger the organization, the more likely that you’re going to find something like that happening. I’ve worked in multinationals that take six months to hire someone, and that’s got nothing to do with the line managers on the ground, that’s to do with the fact that multiple departments will end up being involved in the process (finance, HR, etc.) - the joys of corporate governance.

Even in smaller companies, it might not be so easy to replace a resource, as the position might be senior or specialized. And even if replaced (only temporarily, I might add) it doesn’t change the fact that it costs money to hire people - adverts, recruitment commissions, time lost on interviews, etc.

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.

Keeping an employee is about a lot of things, of which how you treat them is only one. Some people are just flakes and will have CV’s that list out five positions over a two year period. You’re not going to keep that person, regardless of how you treat them.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps so, but the larger the organization, the more likely that you’re going to find something like that happening.

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

As I said if a company can't handle a resource gone which is planned six months in advance then it is a piss poor company.

Freelancer

Hobbes wrote:

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

As I said if a company can't handle a resource gone which is planned six months in advance then it is a piss poor company.

And I've worked in small and medium sized companies where finding specialist staff to take over isn't and hasn't been an issue.

These are companies with no HR department of note.

Like you said if it takes you six months to find a replacement you have management issues.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

I never said a resource cannot be found, although in some cases it can be difficult. The anecdotal evidence and opinion on the quality of companies management that people are expressing here is sweet, but is frankly only anecdotal and opinion. There are a lot of companies that do find difficulty filling, in particular, senior positions for numerous reasons - most of which fall outside the anecdotal evidence presented here.

Primarily, however, even if a resource can be found, there is still the overhead of recruitment, induction and training. Would you hire someone who is likely to be with your company less than a year, is really the question? Add to this the added complexity that you will not be able to replace them, only find a (more expensive) stand in.

It’s not really that difficult to comprehend. So I can understand why a company would shy away from hiring someone who could fall into that demographic, even though I would not agree with it.

samb

MrPudding wrote:

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.
P

1 in 3 outside now, I'm doing my bit too

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Primarily, however, even if a resource can be found, there is still the overhead of recruitment, induction and training. Would you hire someone who is likely to be with your company less than a year, is really the question? Add to this the added complexity that you will not be able to replace them, only find a (more expensive) stand in.

I have already mentioned examples of how to counter this. Your comments are just as anecdotal and opinion.

But the simple fact is if your project/company is unable to plan for a confirmed resource gone in 6 months time then there is something seriously wrong with the management there. Also if you have one person in a project that is so mission critical that they can't be temporary replaced then you may as well just fire management altogether.

To discriminate against a demographic because managment are incompentent.. well probably better off not working there to begin with.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I have already mentioned examples of how to counter this.

No you haven’t. You’ve at best suggested that companies should be preparing for this, but that’s all. It does not counter the additional hassle or cost.

Your comments are just as anecdotal and opinion.

Opinion, perhaps, but not anecdotal. Gurgle, freelancer and yourself have all claimed that based upon your own experiences and perspective that companies should not have a problem with this. I accept that companies can and do deal with this every day, but that’s not the point - which you seem to have quoted, but apparently not read.

To discriminate against a demographic because managment are incompentent.. well probably better off not working there to begin with.

To hire someone new, especially a temp or contractor, costs a company money and resources, regardless of whether they’re prepared for it or not. As I said, it’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Kelter

If this thread were intended to be about competency in management, it would be going really well. Maybe threads are meant to wander off on a tangent which has tenuous links to the original point, but if that’s the case I think it is reasonable for me to push the topic away from “I’m a better manager than you” to “are the changes in maternity leave rules going to affect women’s ability to get jobs of in positions of responsibility”.

Now you could take a few arguments

1. Women who have kids have always been “less good” employees, so a few weeks extra in maternity won’t make a difference
2. Relative to the amount of good having young woman employed in positions of responsibility in your organisation does, the maternity thing is small and not a significant factor for employers decisions when looking at candidates. So it doesn’t really matter
3. The current trend to improve maternity leave will result in employers seeing woman of child bearing age as a risk.


The argument that if a manager can’t manage employees going missing for 5 months, their crap, is a bit pointless. A manager will weigh up all the risks involved in choosing an employee when they are taking them on. If they see the costs and challenges of maternity leave as being too great, then they will go with the man/older woman. If they don’t see it as significant, then we are all on a level playing field.

My opinion is that the women (and fair minded men) of Ireland should be protesting against these rules which may push back women’s liberation by 100 years.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

To hire someone new, especially a temp or contractor, costs a company money and resources, regardless of whether they’re prepared for it or not. As I said, it’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Then you don't hire a temp in, you have other people train up for the work. There are many senarios to help make a temporary transistion easy. Citing that it costs a company money and resources is just sugarcoating discrimination at the initial interview process.

Now I am sure there are companies out there that can't manage such a process and I say again that such a company has bad management.

Keltar wrote:

The argument that if a manager can’t manage employees going missing for 5 months, their crap, is a bit pointless.

It is not pointless at all. The whole basis for the argument is that in somehow having 6 months minimum notice to have a resource out of the office for a set time is discrimination if you believe that it cannot be managed. People go sick with less notice then that.

Heck I took 2 months holidays 3 years ago (with 3 months notice) and work had no issue with me taking the time off. I documented everything up, trained up two people already in work with what I was doing and away I went. There is another guy in work who has taken a year off currently and we are all filling in for his work, it has no adverse effects.

But to somehow believe that the second a woman claims she has to deliver a baby in 6-8 months that your company is going to fall to pieces.. now that is pointless.

ronbyrne2005

sack all pregnant mothers!









one year maternity leave for everyone!

Kelter

Heck I took 2 months holidays 3 years ago (with 3 months notice) and work had no issue with me taking the time off. I documented everything up, trained up two people already in work with what I was doing and away I went. There is another guy in work who has taken a year off currently and we are all filling in for his work, it has no adverse effects

You are a very good employee. I applaude you. I'm not sure if that is the what I was trying to get at but if this tread has show what a good emplyee you are, well that is a good thing.

If there are no adverse effects to the guy being away, then surely he is unnecessary? Why will he be taken beack?

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Then you don't hire a temp in, you have other people train up for the work. There are many senarios to help make a temporary transistion easy.

Then, as Keltar has suggested, why if you can make do with your existing resources, then why is that person employed in the first place? It seems that you can get along fine without her. Your reasoning simply does not make sense.

Citing that it costs a company money and resources is just sugarcoating discrimination at the initial interview process.

I suggested the scenario of someone with a CV where they’ve gone through five jobs in the last two years. All other things being equal, I would discriminate against that person on the basis that they can’t seem to stick a job for too long - they might have had one bad experience, but five?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is acceptable to discriminate against women in the ‘maternal demographic’ (for lack of a better term), but you seem to be entirely in denial that there are actually practical reasons that would explain why this discrimination comes about.

Kelter

As Corinthian said

Of course it is discrimination. I have no doubt about it, and disapprove of it.

But If you put rules in place which force the hand of emplyers, then thay are likely to repond (although completely unofficially of course)

annR

Companies weigh up the advantages of employing that person with the potential costs, as they always do I guess. An employer will have to decide what contribution that person will bring to the company, and if they're worried about her getting pregnant, how they can plan for that with minimum cost/hassle, and whether it is still worth employing her.
That would mean that women of childbearing age would have to prove themselves in the interview process more.

>>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.<<

As I said companies have to weigh up the risks but I don't think the example above is similar at all. If someone has never held for a position for longer than six months, that's evidence that they cannot hold down a job for unknown reasons. That's a step in the dark.
With a woman of childbearing age, you are interviewing her because of evidence that she can do the job well, maybe better than anyone else. The possibility of her getting pregnant (and not coming back) is something you know about and can plan for or not plan for and weigh up it up accordingly.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Then, as Keltar has suggested, why if you can make do with your existing resources, then why is that person employed in the first place? It seems that you can get along fine without her. Your reasoning simply does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense. The person isn't leaving forever. If we were to follow that line of logic then why allow anyone to have a holiday? And again it boils down to you should never have an employee that is mission critical.

they might have had one bad experience, but five?

Again senarios are easy to speculate. For example how do you know that person was only contracted for each job? Or that one or more of those companies failed through no fault of him. Or if you were to look at that same CV around 1995-1998 it would be considered normal for a person to move that often.

but you seem to be entirely in denial that there are actually practical reasons that would explain why this discrimination comes about.

Correct there is no practical reason.

Kelter wrote:

If there are no adverse effects to the guy being away, then surely he is unnecessary? Why will he be taken beack?

Assuming you work for a good company that company would be investing in its employee beyond simple salary+benifits. Having someone temporary covered is less of a burden then a straight out replacement.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

It makes perfect sense. The person isn't leaving forever. If we were to follow that line of logic then why allow anyone to have a holiday?

Holidays only last a few weeks and during that time responsibilities can be postponed until the holiday is over or passed on to others. This is vastly different to an absence of a number of months where those same responsibilities cannot be postponed or the additional burden on others cannot be borne without some determent (and if it can, we’re back to why the individual is needed in the first place). You simply cannot make the same comparison.

And again it boils down to you should never have an employee that is mission critical.

Who ever said the employee is mission critical?

Again senarios are easy to speculate. For example how do you know that person was only contracted for each job?

If, for example, all of those were fixed term contracts, sure. But that’s not the example I gave - I was discussing permanent roles. I suggested a very straightforward example to illustrate a point and you’re now trying to redefine it because you didn’t like that point.

Or that one or more of those companies failed through no fault of him.

One, even two, sure. Five? Not bloody likely.

Or if you were to look at that same CV around 1995-1998 it would be considered normal for a person to move that often.

Five jobs in two years? No, it was not.

Correct there is no practical reason.

Is that an attempt at wit?

Assuming you work for a good company that company would be investing in its employee beyond simple salary+benifits. Having someone temporary covered is less of a burden then a straight out replacement.

Actually it’s not. If it were no one would bother contracting.

Kelter

Fair enough Hobbes, AnnR. If you don’t think it is a problem, and don’t think it is going to be a problem in the future, then that’s cool. Infact that would be the preferred result. I do fear however that you are mistaken. The world is not fair and equal place.

As for your suggestion that it it makes sense for a company to employ someone on an ongoing basis that they do not have work for, well I fear that your business savvy will not get you too far… but best of luck in the future.

annR

Kelter, if you look back at my post, I was agreeing with your post below.

But If you put rules in place which force the hand of emplyers, then thay are likely to repond (although completely unofficially of course)

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

That's what I meant when I said that maybe childbearing women will have to prove themselves more to get decent jobs, going from what others have been saying about employers having to taking potential pregnancies into account. I don't think that sort of thing is necessarily fair and equal however it seems to be the way things are.

I do think it is very bad news if it means that women will be restricted to jobs which have less responsibility.

That's what will happen unless something is done to change the system and help men share childrearing and domestic work. More women will move into positions of power and responsibility if they don't have to do most of the domestic work as well. This argument that women should just forget about their careers if they have babies is daft as it means the world will become even more of a boy's club than it already is. I suppose not everyone would think that's a problem.

As for your suggestion that it it makes sense for a company to employ someone on an ongoing basis that they do not have work for,

I don't know what you mean by this.

simu

annR wrote:

That's what will happen unless something is done to change the system and help men share childrearing and domestic work. More women will move into positions of power and responsibility if they don't have to do most of the domestic work as well. This argument that women should just forget about their careers if they have babies is daft as it means the world will become even more of a boy's club than it already is. I suppose not everyone would think that's a problem.

Mandatory parental leave for men and women would help imo.

Nevyn

Mandatory paid parental leave for men and women would help imo.

Praetorian

We are specifically looking for a man to fill a position in our company due to 2 of our staff just having kids. If you take into consideration that it will probably cost about €15,000 to replace them while they are on leave, not to mention the fact that it's likely they'll want to come back with part time jobs, it's easy to see this as one major benefit of hiring a young man rather than a young woman. It can especially be very difficult if the company is reasonably small.

simu

Oh, yeah, of course! Forgot to insert that word! You could hardly deprive people of the possibility of earning money!

simu

Praetorian wrote:

We are specifically looking for a man to fill a position in our company due to 2 of our staff just having kids. If you take into consideration that it will probably cost about €15,000 to replace them while they are on leave, not to mention the fact that it's likely they'll want to come back with part time jobs, it's easy to see this as one major benefit of hiring a young man rather than a young woman. It can especially be very difficult if the company is reasonably small.

Who is we? Is this a hypothetical job advert or what?

Gurgle

Praetorian wrote:

If you take into consideration that it will probably cost about €15,000 to replace them while they are on leave

Why?
The government pays for maternity leave, the company is not under any obligation to make up the difference to their full pay, unless it was part of their contract.

Praetorian wrote:

not to mention the fact that it's likely they'll want to come back with part time jobs.

Just how common is that?

In my experience, the vast majority of women when they return to work return full time. Again, there is no obligation to give them part time positions anyway.

Yes, its inconvienent having to provide cover for someone on maternity for a few months but its nowhere near the big deal people are making of it here. It certainly isn't reasonable to discriminate against women when you're looking to hire someone.

Nevyn

With the costs of child care and the inflexibitly of most work pratics to the needs of those with children, we have seen all sort of buzz words about job sharing and teleworking and flexitime but I have yet to see or hear of any parent being able to make use of such pratices unless they were a civil servant or teacher.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

In my experience, the vast majority of women when they return to work return full time.

Oddly, in my experience the opposite is true. Are there reliable metrics that one could cite rather that all this anecdotal fuzziness?

Yes, its inconvienent having to provide cover for someone on maternity for a few months but its nowhere near the big deal people are making of it here.

When you hire someone, you weigh up the pros and cons. If someone is likely to come in half an hour late every morning, it’s not the end of the world, IMO - but it will count against him or her in the selection process. Say you’re interviewing someone you know is likely to be gone within a year - not only that, but you will not be able to hire someone new, but will be forced to hire a contractor while that individual is away and decides whether they will return or not.

Sure you can prepare for it and deal with it. But that does not mean that you would not be inclined not to place yourself in that position in the first place.

It certainly isn't reasonable to discriminate against women when you're looking to hire someone.

No one has suggested it is. All that has been suggested is that on a purely utilitarian level it will often make sense. That doesn’t mean it’s right, but it does mean that unless people realise that it isn’t simply a question of mindless discrimination and address that, it will continue to be an unofficial reality.

Hobbes

I'm curious how someone giving at least 6 months notice for 18 weeks off, that is not paid for by the employer can go against the woman in an interview.

Yet a man can apply for 14 weeks off with only 6 weeks notice (Parental leave) which is again not paid for by the employer and do so for once every year for 5 years.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I'm curious how someone giving at least 6 months notice for 18 weeks off, that is not paid for by the employer can go against the woman in an interview.

Yet a man can apply for 14 weeks off with only 6 weeks notice (Parental leave) which is again not paid for by the employer and do so for once every year for 5 years.

Firstly you’re citing your own personal experience, which hardly constitutes a standard. Secondly, how many men take 14 weeks parental leave with only 6 weeks notice? How many companies offer 14 weeks parental leave?

What you can’t seem to grasp is that simply because you feel a company can cope, it does not mean that they want to cope. Companies can cope with employing people who are habitually half an hour late in the morning - they just prefer not to. Businesses can cope with the risk that the person they’re hiring may not be around in six months - they just prefer not to.

They’re businesses after all, not charities.

seamus

The Corinthian wrote:

Firstly you’re citing your own personal experience, which hardly constitutes a standard. Secondly, how many men take 14 weeks parental leave with only 6 weeks notice? How many companies offer 14 weeks parental leave?

You're entitled to take 14 weeks Parental leave per year for each child you have under five years of age. The difference is that it's unpaid.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote:

You're entitled to take 14 weeks Parental leave per year for each child you have under five years of age. The difference is that it's unpaid.

http://www.rollercoaster.ie/pregnancy_birth/paternal_leave.asp