Maternity leave... leaving woman unemployable?

seamus

The Corinthian wrote:

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

Parental not paternal
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/employment/holidays_and_leave/parental_leave.html

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Secondly, how many men take 14 weeks parental leave with only 6 weeks notice? How many companies offer 14 weeks parental leave?

If its in Ireland. Then all of them. 6 weeks is the minimum notice. Although the company is allow delay it by up to 6 months. So kind of puts the guys in the same boat.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote:

Parental not paternal

Well, I didn’t know that. I wonder if having kids under the age of five mitigates against you in an interview and if so if it is legal (given it’s no longer sexual discrimination)?

Hobbes wrote:

If its in Ireland. Then all of them. 6 weeks is the minimum notice. Although the company is allow delay it by up to 6 months. So kind of puts the guys in the same boat.

Not really. You’ve not answered as to how many guys actually take 14 weeks parental leave (or for that matter women)? After all, they’re completely unpaid, so I’d find it difficult to believe that both parents could afford to take three months off every year.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Not really. You’ve not answered as to how many guys actually take 14 weeks parental leave (or for that matter women)? After all, they’re completely unpaid, so I’d find it difficult to believe that both parents could afford to take three months off every year.

Both parents wouldn't. It can also be mitigated by how you take that time off. Again one woman in work that I do know who took this took it as 2 days a week off. Basically meant she was still working but money was less but how the time is taken off is open to negotiation.

In Europe (don't have Irelands figures) 90% of women take parental leave while 1%-10% of men do (who have children). Reference is the page you posted.

Of course it factors down to money. If the wife is making more cash then it is certainly possible the father can take the time off or if they have income from elsewhere (eg. Stocks).

However I will say again in regards to your interview comment. If a company is discriminating based on this law then it is probably a piss poor company to work for anyway.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Both parents wouldn't. It can also be mitigated by how you take that time off. Again one woman in work that I do know who took this took it as 2 days a week off. Basically meant she was still working but money was less but how the time is taken off is open to negotiation.

Yes, but as I repeatedly asked how many men and how many women avail of this? All you and others hove repeatedly come out with is anecdotal evidence. I have too, but at least I’m asking what are the actual figures. Additionally this does not change the fact that women have additional leave in terms of maternity leave.

If a HR manager interviews a man and discovers that he recently married a thirty-something, do they immediately think “this guy is going to be taking three months leave within a year”? If not, why not?

Another suggestion that was made earlier is that mothers make worse employees - I can’t comment, as I’m not familiar with this alleged correlation.

However I will say again in regards to your interview comment. If a company is discriminating based on this law then it is probably a piss poor company to work for anyway.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Doesn’t change the fact that it happens for a reason and that if you ignore that reason it’ll probably continue happening.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, but as I repeatedly asked how many men and how many women avail of this All you and others hove repeatedly come out with is anecdotal evidence.

I have already just given you the figures from the very website you just posted from eariler (change paternal to parental in the URL)

If a HR manager interviews a man and discovers that he recently married a thirty-something, do they immediately think “this guy is going to be taking three months leave within a year”? If not, why not?

Well if they were proper HR they would know the law that you cannot take time off within the first year for parental leave. And with companies discretion it means they can hold off for 1.5 years before giving it to them from start of employment.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Doesn’t change the fact that it happens for a reason and that if you ignore that reason it’ll probably continue happening.

I will tell you why it is a piss poor company. Because if they discriminate at the interview process then they will discriminate in the job.

If they are already thinking how they can bleed as much time out of an employee at that stage then they are already going to care little for that person if the situation changes within the job.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I have already just given you the figures from the very website you just posted from.

Where did you give the figures for how many men and how many women avail of parental leave?

Well if they were proper HR they would know the law that you cannot take time off within the first year for parental leave. And with companies discretion it means they can hold off for 1.5 years before giving it to them from start of employment.

Then you’ve answered your own earlier point - it would be several years before they could, unlike maternity leave. Additionally the question of how many men, versus women, use up the full 14 weeks has yet to be addressed.

I will tell you why it is a piss poor company. Because if they discriminate at the interview process then they will discriminate in the job.

Of course they discriminate at the interview process. What do you think happens in interviews?

If they are already thinking how they can bleed as much time out of an employee at that stage then they are already going to care little for that person if the situation changes within the job.

Who’s bleeding whom? Do you think it unreasonable to discriminate against a candidate who has a history of not sticking around in a job too long? Or that even if they left, you couldn’t legally replace them for six months (unless they agreed they were not going to return)?

So I can understand why they are doing this, even though I would not agree with them doing so. You appear not to comprehend this.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Where did you give the figures for how many men and how many women avail of parental leave?

90% of women vs between 1-10% of men avail of parental leave.
http://www.rollercoaster.ie/pregnancy_birth/parental_leave.asp

Then you’ve answered your own earlier point - it would be several years before they could, unlike maternity leave.

No I didn't answer my point. It is not serveral years before you can take parental leave, it is 1 year + 6 weeks to 1 year and 6 months.

Now while someone who is currently pregnant in an interview process I can believe will bias thier attempt, basing your interview on something a person may do years down the line is totally different.

Do you think it unreasonable to discriminate against a candidate who has a history of not sticking around in a job too long? Or that even if they left, you couldn’t legally replace them for six months (unless they agreed they were not going to return)?

Well for starters someone with a history of bad employment does not equate to a woman who may get pregnant in the unseen future. Unless shes dropping babies like there is no tomorrow.

As for legally replacing someone. Seeing as you are not paying for that person while they are away it is not like they are costing you money. So you could certainly get a replacement in during that time.

Even so they would be required to give the usual termination notice (as per companies contract) so it is no different then if they were at work and then decieded to up and leave.

As I said. If a company feels that an employee taking time off to look after thier children at the interview process is a bad for the company then the company is going to feel the same way when your in it. In which case it is a piss poor company. It might still make money, doesn't make it a good company to work for.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

90% of women vs between 1-10% of men avail of parental leave.

Sorry, missed that.

No I didn't answer my point. It is not serveral years before you can take parental leave, it is 1 year + 6 weeks to 1 year and 6 months.

It’s not. Remember we’re talking about two equal situations - we’re assuming either is in an interview and simply newly wed from a certain thirty-something demographic. From the moment pregnancy occurs, the man will have to wait up to 18 months plus the term of pregnancy - up to 27 months before taking any time off. The woman could be on maternal leave in less than a third of that and for a lot longer.

Then we have the other difference that you yourself cited, that even given equal parental leave rights, a man is far less likely to use them. Making a man a better bet at staying in the job.

Now while someone who is currently pregnant in an interview process I can believe will bias thier attempt, basing your interview on something a person may do years down the line is totally different.

Perhaps, but if the statistics back the premise that a woman in a certain demographic is going to get pregnant and leave within two years of joining you, then it becomes reasonable from a utilitarian point of view.

Well for starters someone with a history of bad employment does not equate to a woman who may get pregnant in the unseen future. Unless shes dropping babies like there is no tomorrow.

It does to a great extent. In both cases it’s something that neither has done yet, but both (for differing reasons) have a propensity to do. How do you think insurance is calculated?

As for legally replacing someone. Seeing as you are not paying for that person while they are away it is not like they are costing you money. So you could certainly get a replacement in during that time.

Contractors and temps cost more money. In many cases a lot more. And that’s before we consider recruitment and induction costs.

Even so they would be required to give the usual termination notice (as per companies contract) so it is no different then if they were at work and then decieded to up and leave.

Except they’re not. They’re holding onto the job for six months, after which they may or may not return. If you give notice, that’s it. You’re gone.

I’ve already raised this and the previous point - you don’t appear to be taking it in though.

As I said. If a company feels that an employee taking time off to look after thier children at the interview process is a bad for the company then the company is going to feel the same way when your in it. In which case it is a piss poor company. It might still make money, doesn't make it a good company to work for.

Grand. Don’t work for them and they won’t employ you. Problem solved.

Praetorian

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

It's a real job. I did some interviews today for it.

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.

The government may pay the woman who is pregnant, but they won't pay for the cost to train the temporary person, they won't pay the recruitment companies fees or the fact that you have to pay much more per week for the temp staff. It all adds up.

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.

I'd say it's common from what I've heard, and I'd say it's likely in our situation in both cases unfortunately for us.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

From the moment pregnancy occurs, the man will have to wait up to 18 months plus the term of pregnancy - up to 27 months before taking any time off. The woman could be on maternal leave in less than a third of that and for a lot longer.

However I think you are misreading it. They cannot use parental leave until they are in the company 1 year and the baby is born. So 1 year and 6 weeks is the absolute minimum time a man has to wait before parental leave can kick from day 1 of employment (in assuming they have a kid already).

Making a man a better bet at staying in the job.

Parental leave using it or not does not effect if the person will stay in the job. Bare in mind that parental leave is per child, so if you have an employee with 3 children under 5 they can stay out of work for 42 weeks on parental leave, or combinations there of.

In both cases it’s something that neither has done yet, but both (for differing reasons) have a propensity to do.

You have no way of knowing during an interview if a woman is planning on mass breeding unless you ask her, and last time I checked that opens you up for a lawsuit asking.

Except they’re not. They’re holding onto the job for six months, after which they may or may not return.

Which applies to parental leave as well. The parent may or may not return. However in both instances if they weren't planning on coming back they would still be required to give you notice of termination. You can't just take pernatal/parental leave and then not show back up for work without informing your employer.

Grand. Don’t work for them and they won’t employ you. Problem solved.

*Shrug* Still does not condone discrimination.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

(in assuming they have a kid already)

We’re not discussing people who already have kids. We’re discussing why tow people in the same circumstances and similar ages (newly wed, thirty-something and before they have kids) are discriminated upon because of gender.

Parental leave using it or not does not effect if the person will stay in the job.

Statistically it would appear you are wrong.

You have no way of knowing during an interview if a woman is planning on mass breeding unless you ask her, and last time I checked that opens you up for a lawsuit asking.

You don’t have to ask her, she just happens to be in a bad demographic. Like under-thirty male drivers.

Which applies to parental leave as well. The parent may or may not return.

This would be the parental leave that 90% of women take and less than 10% of men take again? It might apply to both, but if only one gender takes parental leave, your point becomes moot.

*Shrug* Still does not condone discrimination.

Who said it did? All that others and I have pointed out is that there are practical reasons for this discrimination and that it’s not based upon some irrational prejudice that can be re-educated or reformed. You can put your hands over your ears and simply repeat that it’s wrong, but that is not going to convince the numerous (more often than not female) HR managers out there who carry out this discrimination.

simu

Praetorian wrote:

It's a real job. I did some interviews today for it.

Well done. You're breaking the law. :rolleyes:

nesf

Making it unappealing to couples to have children early has serious problems in the long run for the economy as a whole. Lower birth rates are a serious issue in Europe (though less so here, but are going that way). I appreciate that it is not a short term problem and that company sights are very rarely set on long term goals.

If there is a culture in our workplaces that encourages people not to have children this is only going to cause issues in the long run. If, as a whole, companies do not accept and encourage their employees to have children then we are in for serious economic issues in the long run. Sacraficing short term efficiency, ie not granting parental leave and being hostile towards maternal leave, is not sustainable. We are not living in an environment that the average industrial wage can comfortably support a family with 3+ children along with a mortgage and a decent standard of life for all concerned. Increasingly families are forced into needing two incomes. If barriers exist that inhibit women from working if they have children, or could possibly become pregnant, then we have a serious issue. Couples cannot afford to have large families and a lot of the time need to postpone having children until one of them gets high enough up the career ladder to be able to support the family on their own. The longer couples leave this the less children they will realistically on average have. Again we're back to the birth rate issue.


When we are discussing maternity leave and children, in general, then we are not just dealing with small issues like the hiring discrimination patterns practiced by an individual firm or a small group of firms. The policies put in place now and the reaction that is given to them will have long lasting reprecussions in this country's future.

Praetorian

simu wrote:

Well done. You're breaking the law. :rolleyes:

It wasn't my decision. Company policy was set and I interviewed several people. How dare you insinuate that I’m breaking the law. It's very easy to make such a comment behind the cloak of an online alias.

We just offered a woman the job and the girl who wants to work 5 hours every second day after her maternity leave has been let go.

So to the op, maternity leave doesn't leave women unemployable. I'd say it's a consideration for a company and it goes against women. Most other factors go for women, the fact that they are generally more diligent, there seems to be less staff turnover with women, there are definitely less personality clashes etc.

simu

Praetorian wrote:

It wasn't my decision. Company policy was set and I interviewed several people. How dare you insinuate that I’m breaking the law. It's very easy to make such a comment behind the cloak of an online alias.

Well, initially, you said you or your company or whatever was looking for a man specifically and that would seem to me to be a blatant breach of equality legislation. I'm not insinuating anything - it seemed to be stated quite clearly in your first post. Later on, you say the job was given to a woman so it would seem the company did not stick to its own advice. Really, I don't care - you and your company are as much phantasms on the internet to me as I am to you.

I'm not naive enough to think discrimination doesn't happen in the real world but such practises make Ireland a worse workplace overall so I'm not exactly going to clap and cheer if I hear of it happening.

Most other factors go for women, the fact that they are generally more diligent, there seems to be less staff turnover with women, there are definitely less personality clashes etc.

It's certainly a bit more complicated than being faced with two candidates for a job who have the exact same qualifications, experience and inter-personal skills except that one is male, the other female.