Maternity doctor visits

LegacyUser

Quick question. I work 5 days a week monday to saturday with one weekday off. My days/dayoff is rostered the week before each week.

Now I am having to take time off for doctor visits for my pregnancy, no problem there.

On one hand I'm being told I should be paid while on any visit but my employer is now rostering me so that my day off coincides with my doctor visit and saying I won't be paid as my visit is not during my working hours. Is this right? I'm not sure either way but everybody is telling me different things!

How Strange

OP, I would imagine your employer is probably within their rights to schedule your day off to coincide with your ante natal visits considering you have a day off during the week. It's not a nice thing to do from an employees perspective but from the employers perspective they aren't losing you for a half day.

I'm pregnant at the moment but I work Mon-Fri so I take paid time off work to attend the visits.

If in doubt contact citizens information by phone and speak to someone there.

wmpdd3

Same here, when I send in my next visit, I am always put down for that day off.

Once I had to go during lunch time to the hospital and the doctor remarked it was a lovely day to be going home at 16:30, I had to back to work till 10pm!

How Strange

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Same here, when I send in my next visit, I am always put down for that day off.

Once I had to go during lunch time to the hospital and the doctor remarked it was a lovely day to be going home at 16:30, I had to back to work till 10pm!

You do know you're entitled, by law, to paid time off work to attend ante natal appointments including travelling there and back to work. There is no limit to it so an employer can't say you only get paid time off for x amount of visits and they can't make you work the time back up.

I've got some appointments coming up for early afternoon so I'll start work earlier than normal so instead of taking 4 hrs I'll only be taking 2 hrs paid time off. That should keep everyone happy :rolleyes: but I certainly won't be apologising or making excuses for having to attend the hospital during working hours. It's not as if I have the choice to attend on a Saturday. I did book my ante natal classes for a Saturday as I don't want to take the p1ss either.

Clauric

OP, if you had a fixed day off each week, for the last 13 weeks before your first ante-natal check, then that is considered to be your paid day off. Your employer may not change your day off, just to suit their need to have you work the full 5 days. If this is the case, you can tell your employer that you will be sticking with the same 5 day roster that you have been on, and still take your paid ante-natal check up.

If, however, you do not have the same day off each week, for the last 13 weeks, your employer is allowed (legally, maybe not morally), to schedule your day off for the date of your appointments.

To the poster who said that they had to work until 10 pm after taking a paid ante-natal appointment, I would seriously consider asking for Health and Safety leave, based on the late hours of work. That my stop them asking you to do such ridiculous hours. Also, remember that the time taken to go to and from the appointment, as well as the appointment, is considered working hours, which may not go above 49 hours per week.

Kid Curry

Can someone tell me why an employer has to pay an employee when they are not working???

Clauric

Kid Curry wrote: »

Can someone tell me why an employer has to pay an employee when they are not working???

Are you serious?

The reason ante-natal appointments and classes are to be paid, and are statutory entitlements is protect the health and well-being of mother and child.

Before the Maternity Act became law, pregnant women were often victimised, prevented from attending ante-natal classes or appointments, on pain of being fired. More often than not, they were forced to resign from work by their employers, before they would show, and with no legal protections (e.g. unfair dismissal, etc). It was also, partially, a stigma thing - in that they were working while pregnant, therefore their husband's couldn't provide for them.

99% of employers have no problem with the women in their workforce taking time off to attend ante-natal classes, as it is important for the mother, and child. Also, by going to these appointments, the women ensure that their baby is healthy, and thereby reduce the amount of time they spend out of work on the otherside of the birth, which allows them to return earlier to their employer, if they want, meaning greater continuity of staff and expertise for the employer.

Kid Curry

Clauric wrote: »

Are you serious?

The reason ante-natal appointments and classes are to be paid, and are statutory entitlements is protect the health and well-being of mother and child.

Before the Maternity Act became law, pregnant women were often victimised, prevented from attending ante-natal classes or appointments, on pain of being fired. More often than not, they were forced to resign from work by their employers, before they would show, and with no legal protections (e.g. unfair dismissal, etc). It was also, partially, a stigma thing - in that they were working while pregnant, therefore their husband's couldn't provide for them.

99% of employers have no problem with the women in their workforce taking time off to attend ante-natal classes, as it is important for the mother, and child. Also, by going to these appointments, the women ensure that their baby is healthy, and thereby reduce the amount of time they spend out of work on the otherside of the birth, which allows them to return earlier to their employer, if they want, meaning greater continuity of staff and expertise for the employer.

Sounds fairly wishy washy stuff to me. I've never seen or heard any evidence of a co-relation between ante natal classes and "greater coninuity of staff and expertise"

Also, I seriously doubt that 99% of employers are happy to pay their staff while they're not in work. Just sounds like more of a reason not to hire a woman over a man: For example, a man and a woman apply for the same job, both are 30yo same qualifications and work experience. Make a managerial decision, who do you hire? It's easy, you would hire the man because you know that he's not going to go on maternity leave for the next three years while you hire and retrain someone else to do their job all the while keeping their job open for them to come back to at which stage it is almost impossible to make them redundant because the employer would be hauled over the coals at the labour court.

gerrycollins

Kid Curry wrote: »

Sounds fairly wishy washy stuff to me. I've never seen or heard any evidence of a co-relation between ante natal classes and "greater coninuity of staff and expertise"

Also, I seriously doubt that 99% of employers are happy to pay their staff while they're not in work. Just sounds like more of a reason not to hire a woman over a man: For example, a man and a woman apply for the same job, both are 30yo same qualifications and work experience. Make a managerial decision, who do you hire? It's easy, you would hire the man because you know that he's not going to go on maternity leave for the next three years while you hire and retrain someone else to do their job all the while keeping their job open for them to come back to at which stage it is almost impossible to make them redundant because the employer would be hauled over the coals at the labour court.

its actually very easy to deal with maternity.

firstly its sexist to base your decision on the future prospect of a woman getting pregant. How do you know she will? how do you know she is capable? you cannot use that excuse and if the female candidate challenged you in the high court you would be ruined if you publically used that statement.

when they leave you can offer a short term contract to another to cover their position. If their leave extends you can extend the contract and eventually there are various medical issue that arise where you can get cover. Its sad to say but everyone is replaceable so just because someone is out on maternity is not to the detriment of your company.

if their pregancy affects their ability to do their job physically you can put the on Health and safety leave where thay will recieve help from social welfare.

if it affects their job mentally you can change their job role within reason to suit their needs.

there are so many ways to deal with issue that arise from pregnancy and even though it stigmatised it is possible to legally fire a pregnant woman.

I cannot believe your comments and find them immature and would like to believe that you are neither an employer or in management or you are somone over the age of 19.

Kid Curry

gerrycollins wrote: »

its actually very easy to deal with maternity.

firstly its sexist to base your decision on the future prospect of a woman getting pregant. How do you know she will? how do you know she is capable? you cannot use that excuse and if the female candidate challenged you in the high court you would be ruined if you publically used that statement.

when they leave you can offer a short term contract to another to cover their position. If their leave extends you can extend the contract and eventually there are various medical issue that arise where you can get cover. Its sad to say but everyone is replaceable so just because someone is out on maternity is not to the detriment of your company.

if their pregancy affects their ability to do their job physically you can put the on Health and safety leave where thay will recieve help from social welfare.

if it affects their job mentally you can change their job role within reason to suit their needs.

there are so many ways to deal with issue that arise from pregnancy and even though it stigmatised it is possible to legally fire a pregnant woman.

I cannot believe your comments and find them immature and would like to believe that you are neither an employer or in management or you are somone over the age of 19.

It may be sexist but that's the reality. If you had to choose between a man and a woman, all things being equal, you'd be lying if you said you would not contemplate the idea of a woman getting pregnant.

I don't know how you would describe dealing with pregnancy as easy, I have children and my wife never had an easy pregnancy. She found dealing with work life balance caused her a little stress.

How Strange

Well luckily for society in general men with attitudes like you no longer have free reign to blatantly discriminate in the workplace and national and EU equality legislation has been put in place to ensure they don't.

For your information it is just as easy to make a pregnant employee or one returning from mat leave redundant as it is for all other employees however it must be fair and consistent and cannot be because she is pregnant or returning to work.

Employers do nit gave to pay employees on maternity leave. That is discretionary.

As a pregnant woman who has studied in university and worked since I was 18 I am very glad to have legislation to protect me from the backward, outdated ideas such as you've spouted. If you ever find yourself in a management position you'd do well to keep those opinions to yourself otherwise you could find yourself rightfully before the labour courts.

gerrycollins

Kid Curry wrote: »

It may be sexist but that's the reality. If you had to choose between a man and a woman, all things being equal, you'd be lying if you said you would not contemplate the idea of a woman getting pregnant.

I don't know how you would describe dealing with pregnancy as easy, I have children and my wife never had an easy pregnancy. She found dealing with work life balance caused her a little stress.

sorry I should have stated that the ease I was referring to was from the perspective as an employer which I have dealt with many times.

also I have 3 under 4 and to be honest on a personal level it was the cost of childcare that would affect our work/life balance another thread.

again I reiterate that you cannot and I do not assume that a woman will be pregnant after I hire her for a job.

if we were to discriminate like that women who god forbid are not able to give birth would be discriminated against is that fair?

Kid Curry

gerrycollins wrote: »

sorry I should have stated that the ease I was referring to was from the perspective as an employer which I have dealt with many times.

also I have 3 under 4 and to be honest on a personal level it was the cost of childcare that would affect our work/life balance another thread.

again I reiterate that you cannot and I do not assume that a woman will be pregnant after I hire her for a job.

if we were to discriminate like that women who god forbid are not able to give birth would be discriminated against is that fair?

Fair has nothing to do with it. Life isn't fair but that's the reality and I know that what I said might upset or annoy people but that's the reality. I'm fully aware that there's legislation to protect women from these type of scenarios and I'm fully aware that I couldn't make a statement like that openly. But as a business owner and not someone who works in a HR dept of a multinational or a plc. The fact is that most women and men want to have kids and a family. The fact is that the older women get the harder it is to have kids and the reality is that a woman in her thirties who does not have children will more than likely want to have them within the next couple of years. Correct me if I'm wrong so far.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have kids but as a business owner I don't want to hire someone, particularly one in a senior position, who is going to be on maternity leave for six - ten months of the year while I have to find a decent candidate who is interested in a job for ten months, retrain them while she's on maternity leave, keep her position open and then go through it all again the following year. We all know the hassle of picking up kids and dropping them off to creche's, you have to be out the door at 5.30pm to pick them up from the creche at 6 and you get that dirty look from the staff at the creche if your late because they can't leave until every child is collected, and I know what I said above is not right and it's unfair but the fact of the matter is that the burden of childrens care invariably falls on the mother, and every mother is going to give her children priority over their job.

dudara

Kid Curry That argument has been done to death numerous times in the Work & Jobs and Work Problems fora.

Please leave it be - your points are not related to the OP's original question.

dudara

Mrs OBumble

Clauric wrote: »

Are you serious?

The reason ante-natal appointments and classes are to be paid, and are statutory entitlements is protect the health and well-being of mother and child.

However it is very unfair that pregnant women get paid time off to go to the doctor (midwife-led services are few and far between in this country, so they're mostly seeing a doctor) BUT non-pregnant people who are sick do not (generally) get any paid time off. Remember, there is NO statutory paid sick leave in this country, and in many companies "sick leave" simply means that you are allowed to not attend work if you are sick.

In the OP's case, I think it is right that they are being enabled to attend appointments outside work time by re-scheduling the work at other times. Yes, it is unfair that other women whose work cannot be rescheduled the same get paid leave. But life is unfair (eg my point about about non-pregnant people and doctors visits).

Whether it's legal or not, who knows! Certainly no one here can give legal advice on the topic.