You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
(or indeed fathers for paternity)
This has been put to me by a few people now, who don't believe that women should get any financial assistance from an employer for taking time off work to have children. By all means keep their job and any benefits associated with it until their return, by why should they be paid when essentially they have made a [i]choice[/i] to raise a family. After all, many employees are not paid for meal breaks or sick leave. Its a system that can be abused, such as women gaining public sector jobs then taking maternity leave after 6 months, knowing that they probably have a job for life.
Now, personally, this is not something I believe in. For one thing, if a woman is raped and subsequently becomes pregnant, for some there is simply no choice when it comes to an abortion. Secondly, having children is a right of life and as such I believe that society as a whole should support those who exercise that right, which of course includes employers offering financial support.
I think its an interesting topic, and probably wouldn't have questioned it if I hadn't met a few people recently who are quite opposed to it!
Back under your bridge! Leave the goats alone!
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
if i ran a small business i wouldn't employ any women. it's odds on they are going to want to leave and have kids, and just think of the money you would save on loo roll.
I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer. I can see how it could be crippling for small businesses and wonder if in the long term that approach would reduce inequality
Off we go back to the Victorian work houses’…
People should stand on their own feet and shouldn’t get any support from the state….
If you want money then you should work for it…
Mmmm…
Don't feed the troll
The only merit for the argument for not paying maternity pay is to reduce the non-productive costs of women in the workforce which makes them less employable.
A more equitable approach to solving that problem would be mandatory paternity pay for fathers on exactly the same terms as women so as to remove the differential.
While that would overall add to the non-productive cost of the UK workforce, the soft benefits of re-emphasising family life would ultimately lead to the harder benefits of increased productivity that comes with a happier workforce and I think would outweigh the costs pretty quickly
After all, many employees are not paid for ... sick leave
Really?
it is - SMP. Some companies will have a policy offering payment over and above that, but it's discressionary.I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer.
I think that there should be some basic provision i.e. the statutory miniumum yes, competition for the best empoyees obviously means that some employers will pay more than that. My mrs is off on full pay for 6 months, then statutory for 3 months, then 0 for 3 months, which I feel is pretty generous given that she is contributing nothing to the company in that period. I imagine that it is in many employers intrests to retain that tallent, but for many small businesses the cost is probably prohibitive unless the slack is taken up by the state, which I belive it should be.
ebygumm - smaller companies have maternity pay paid for by the government (I think through a tax credit or something). However, business disruption to a smaller company is a bigger problem and is not compensated for by any government assistance, and so for smaller companies, employing women of a baby-making age is still not seen as a sound move despite the governments efforts to neutralise the up front maternity pay cost.
'and just think of the money you would save on loo roll.'
LOL. My g/f has experience on this matter and is laughing with me!
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for illegal wars thru my taxes. Who do I see about that?
The cost of Statutory Maternity Pay is small compared to that.
If people decided not to have children we would soon be ranting over the shortage of doctors , nurses, bin men, electricians, bakers etc as we head into old age. Children are the future and even if we dont have our own we will still be grateful for someone else's one day. Maternity pay allows parents the chance to spend time with their babies. Time with parents is what helps make babies into good kids into tolerable teenagers and into decent human beings.
At risk of feeding the troll I would argue that maternity pay encourages discrimination against women when hiring.
Picture the scene, you're a small business, you have 2 candidates who are equally suited to a role, 1 is late 20's/early 30's, female, no children, recently married, looking to settle down. The other candidate is also in exactly the same circumstances but is male.
Who would you employ given the disruption that anyone being away from the business will cause? I know which I would go for.
If people decided not to have children we would soon be ranting over the shortage of doctors , nurses, bin men, electricians, bakers etc as we head into old age.
Haven't you heard of immigrants?
TandemJeremy - Member
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
TJ, many people object to you full stop. But, you know, whatcha gonna do? 😉
At risk of feeding the troll I would argue that maternity pay encourages discrimination against women when hiring.
What are you suggesting instead when a woman gets pregnant? Sacking her if she doesn't come into work the day she has her baby? Or just not paying her for the time she has off? If the latter, then you do realise that most of the cost to a company of a woman on maternity isn't actually what the company is paying her?
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for looking after old people through my taxes.
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
Surely at some point when you get older, and you're collecting a pension, other people's children will be paying for your lifestyle through their taxes? Do you not object to that, or did you opt out of the NHS pension scheme thanks due to your moral convictions?
Joe
If I owned a small business I would only employ women and spend all day walking around naked infront of them and making suggestive movements against cushions
aracer
What are you suggesting instead when a woman gets pregnant? Sacking her if she doesn't come into work the day she has her baby? Or just not paying her for the time she has off? If the latter, then you do realise that most of the cost to a company of a woman on maternity isn't actually what the company is paying her?
I'm not really suggesting a solution, merely that it discourages some business from hiring women of child bearing age.
I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer.
it is - SMP. Some companies will have a policy offering payment over and above that, but it's discressionary.
acutally I should correct myself, it's paid by your employer but they can claim about 90% of it back from govt. iirc.
If I had my way women would be paid full pay for the entire duration of their chosen maternity leave!
If I had my way women would be paid full pay for the entire duration of their chosen maternity leave!
Amen! I've never actually worked anywhere that you get more than smp, though I am led to believe such places do exist!
It's so reasurring to see how far we have come in terms of equality in this day and age when you read some of the postings above. We are in 1950s aren't we??
[i]We are in 1950s aren't we[/i]
Indeed we are, so what the hell do you think you're doing on the internet, bint? Back to the kitchen with you!
At work on the internet probably too 🙄
sheesh.
No humility these modern birds.
My girlfriend has been asked if her childbearing plans at a few interviews before. Guess what? She didnt go on to accept their offers of employment nor did she sire countless bairns either.
I would dispute that having children is a "right of life". Not everyone can, and arguably, not everyone should.
There should be full equality of paternity/maternity rights - no reason a father can't have the time instead of the woman. This *may* reduce the pressure on women.
I quite like the idea of p/maternity being paid by the state to reduce the impact on businesses. But only for the first two (and the same for child benefit) to stop the system being abused by benefit scroungers.
I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the childrens laughter remind us how we used to be
Send the women to work down the mines
Teach them well and save a canarys life
Show them what a hard days work is like
Give them a sense of pride that they've been lacking through having no testes
Let the childrens laughter remind us while they fetch a beer
In this day and age I think that sort of question comes under 'discrimination' so any employer interviewing these days will have to be careful as interviewees can take companies to court if they believe that's why they didn't get a job!
I believe it is a neccessity that mothers are encouraged. Therefore i must also agree with maternity pay. BUT the burden of cost must lie with the taxpayer as it is the taxpayer who will benefit most from it in the future. Call it an investment.
Srangely though, if i was an employer, there wouldnt be a cat in hells chance of a female who i deemed to be looking to start a family being employed by me. Its just to inconvenient and dissrupting.
My wifes emplyer is being put in a difficult position atm. They are a Law firm who from my experience are one of the best employers around. They really do look after their staff with pensions, holidays, pay rises in excess of the norm. When my wife had our 2 kids they couldnt have been more accomodating. They put her days down to 4 when the first came along and then 3 when the second. Also structured hours around school etc. My wife has been there 10yrs and does a lot of extra work which makes her pretty flexible with other departments.
So now she has a collegue in the same dept who is due to come back from a similar situation re her first kid. BUT things arent so clear cut now. Business has slowed (Conveyancing) and they cant justify two people anymore. They have offered her the full time position as they legally have to OR 2 days per week. She is not happy as my wife is on 3 days and she cant see why she isnt getting the same. My wife called yesterday and asked me what i thought of her going 2.5days per week in a kinda sharing arrangement and i said no way. Why should we? They havent asked and she has been assured by her manager that this isnt on the cards but i am waiting for the call to tell me this has been suggested.
Sweeden (or possibly scandinavia in general, or just one of the scandinavian countries).
Paternity and maternity pay/rights are equal for both men and women. Coincidentaly theres is less of a wage differential between men and women as well.................................
I quite like the idea of p/maternity being paid by the state to reduce the impact on businesses.
As I said, 90%ish of smp is claimed back from the government by the employers so it is effectively paid for by the state.
It was designed to help women who want familes but it backfired on them as they can't get work due to this scheme.
Works both ways but mainly for employer unless the woman is an outstanding employee then you would try to keep them but with todays market everyone is replaceable!
Sorry ladies.= no offence.
A colleague of mine went skiing, damaged her knee and had 20 weeks off work on full pay.
I had a child and had 19 weeks off work, 10 of these weeks on half pay!
Speaking with a colleague in Sweden the Father gets 3 months off to be taken during the child's first 3 years.
Kit, nice troll & can I just thank you for all the child tax credit we're getting from you also. My bikes never been so bling.
I would like to see parental leave shared between both parents.
I would also like to see more support given to people who care for sick relatives. People choose to have kids or not, but lots of people have no choice over partners having strokes, long term illnesses or ending up with infirm elderly parents. They deserve as much if not more support than people with choices that are often 'happy choices' rather than harrowing care exercises.
TandemJeremy - MemberI object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for mad old ****ers through my taxes TJ but i wouldn't see you go without food!!
Scrap it and use the money saved to encourage women to stay at home for at least the first five years of the child's life. At a stroke you'll cut down on family break-ups and thereby give the kids a much better start in life.
And yes, I know there are plenty exceptions, but by and large it's generally agreed that it's important for a child to have its mother there in the early years. Might also encourage some of the more ****less dads to take a bit more responsibility too.
And if it decreases the birth rate, well the world has far, far too many folk in it already. No need to encourage any more than is sustainable.
Personally I think you should only have children if you have the time and finances to cover the costs of bringing them up, if that includes having to take 12 months off and not getting paid, so be it - the father should be paying for this. If the mother is the sole breadwinner and the family cannot afford a child if she is off work surely they shouldn't be thinking about having one, thats the choice she made when she chose a career and left the dad at home (or not a choice if the dad left, but tough luck). Seems like common sense to me, I'm not sure why the business should be forced to foot the bill. Having children isnt a universal right, its a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously.
I'm not sure why the business should be forced to foot the bill.
Maybe because otherwise business would lose a lot of very talented people.
Glad to see MC-piggery is alive and kicking!! 😉
Maybe because otherwise business would lose a lot of very talented people.
No they wouldnt, they'd just be glad of having a guaranteed job to come back to afterwards.
People want their cake and to eat it. I'm very much a family person, and would want time off to be with my kid, but I'd find it a joke that I got paid for it.
[i]A colleague of mine went skiing, damaged her knee and had 20 weeks off work on full pay.
I had a child and had 19 weeks off work, 10 of these weeks on half pay! [/i]
.........and your point is ?
Presumably it was your choice to have a child. Do you really think you were equally deserving of payment for making that choice, after which you chose not to work, than someone who was physically unable to ?
The country would be screwed without child birth being encouraged, we have an ageing population and this is a long term time bomb. It's not a perfect system, but few things designed for the masses are perfect.
*chuckles to self*
Get over yourself Woody!! 😉
I am over myself.
I merely wondered why you appeared to think you were more, or equally deserving of payment by virtue of producing a child than someone who was injured in an accident ?
I got two issues really. No problem with maternity.
First of all if we're in the mood of saying 'get more kids, they have to pay our pensions!' what happens when they get old? With this thinking there would be a geometric explosion of people to keep the elderly well-cared for. At some point it breaks down.
The main thing I find disagreeable is that child benefit is universal. I know of people on > £100k getting it. They don't need it. The people who are trying to make ends meet do. Greedy ****ers should not be given it. And that "get a kid and we'll set up a savings account with a couple of hundred quid" thing. And child benefit should start reducing as you have more kids. Those people who consider themselves baby-making-machines after two kids should get [b]no[/b] child benefit unless they have triplets.
Bah, humbug!
Woody, your last sentence was a statement, not a question.
Same oold STw - Loads of bell ends with over inflated baseless opinions. If it wasn't for kids/parents none of you would be here - actually as this place is full of {One and only warning on avoiding the swear filter - Mod}
First of all if we're in the mood of saying 'get more kids, they have to pay our pensions!' what happens when they get old? With this thinking there would be a geometric explosion of people to keep the elderly well-cared for. At some point it breaks down.
You don't need a geometric explosion to avoid an ageing population and the problems with pensions etc., you just need people to be born at the replacement rate. If women had to give up careers, this would probably go down even further.
Joe
FoxyChick
No matter which way you look at it there was at least one question but if you don't want to respond to it I couldn't give a monkeys and I am certainly not about to start arguing over semantics 🙄
Hope you enjoyed your time off with your baby and your colleague is fit and well again 😆
Woody, I just think that if you want to look like a pompous ****** you should at least do it in a grammatically correct way!! 😉
PML
Sorry. I shall stand in the naughty corner and study my grammar for future postings 😆
3 posts and still no answer to a perfectly reasonable question. Ho Hum.......
People take paid time off work for a whole host of reasons.
My colleague who went skiing, had aleady injured her knee previously, but she CHOSE to go skiing again. IMO she should not have been paid for the time she took off. Just my opinion.
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who are against maternity pay have benefited from it (because their partners have had it) - in my experience at work, lots of the people who complain have actually directly benefitted.
Anyway, regardless, my view is that while it's a PITA for companies, it's something that most of us benefit from at some point in our lives and I see it as a good thing - particularly speaking as someone whose wife is currently on maternity leave... The fact is that life nowadays is expensive whether that's because we have higher expectations or not the fact remains. I'm lucky enough that we'd saved enough that we could have lived without maternity pay but it certainly means digging less deep into our savings. Besides, as above, my son will most likely be paying for our pensions at some point so it's not as simple as simply saying that kids are an outgoing cost only.
TJ I'd be interested to know if you really are the total hypocrite you seem to be or whether you really believe in everyone for themselves which seems very Thatcherite for someone who often seems to be strongly socialist in every other matter (or maybe it's just when it benefits you). Presumably you think that we shouldn't pay any taxes at all but should have to pay only for every public service that we use and better off people shouldn't pay tax towards supporting others who aren't so well off.
Using choice as a justification is debateable - IIRC you work for the NHS and are a strong advocate for unions. I guess that with your opinion on choice, for example you presumably believe that drug addicts should all be left to fend for themselves (and presumably should pay for treatment), people who hurt themselves doing recreational activities (eg mtbing) should have to pay for treatment and in fact, that the whole concept of the NHS should be scrapped and replaced with private heath insurance. And then presumably unions shouldn't be necessary since anyone has a choice in who for/where they work so can just move if they're not happy.
agree seems odd, just had a guy at work take 2 weeks maternity leave , i mean come on, i agree keep the job open for say 6 months after the sprog is born.must be huge drain on small business.i have 2 kids , both grown up.
tj is just a {and there we go... time to hang out in the cooler for a day - mod}
Maybe we could have a system whereby child benefit was only paid to working fathers in an effort to stop the ****less underclass from breeding. I'm not talking about the folk who are made unemployed for a while through no fault of their own, but instead the "get a baby; get a free house" lot who end up producing the next generation of neds.
That's a totally separate issue Kenny - the sort of people who do that typically wouldn't have a job anyway so wouldn't be getting maternity pay...
Every one gets ssp just like every one gets smp and sap so the state does pay. What an employer choses to offer on top of this is up to them but it is seen as a benifit just like extra holidays.
Good point clubber; hadn't actually occurred to me.
How much is SMP? Fully support it myself but would like to see parity with paternity leave really. The benefits to society are obvious, but you can see why lots of businesses are scared of employing women likely to have children soon. Don't agree with them, but then I don't run a business.
Foxychick, surely if you think your colleague should not be paid then you shouldn't either! After 20 weeks off, wouldn't they be close to SSP anyway? If they were continually off sick this would be held against them. Hopefully your pregnancy would not be held against you (although I accept that it might be by some idiots!).
smp is approx 110 quid per week for 9 months
smp is approx 110 quid per week for 9 months
Wow, that's not enough is it!
those that are self employed get diddly ****ing squat from their employer. i don't know if the state gives you money for being off work coz you're up the duff. would be glad to be informed on that one.
here in germany workers are so over-protected its crazy. if i was to have a business here i would be employing everyone on a self employed basis. employers have to fork out so much (prob much like uk NI payments) and its very hard to get rid of anyone. even leaving my job of six months they wanted me to work six weeks after handing in my notice. i left after two leaving a trail of paperwork behind me.
anyway, back on topic. the GF went for a job interview and the interviewer asked if she had plans for kiddies and how that would work out with her job. she said that they ought to make sure they pay her more than me, that way i'd stay at home and [strike]play frisbee, go riding, sleep in[/strike]..........er, i mean look after the kid and she'd go to work. bloody love my GF.....
although maternity pay here is very generous for both mother and fathers
J
As an employer and a childless person i sort of sit on the fence. One bit of me gets irked that I am via my taxes paying for maternity leave, the other thinks that it probably encourages intelligent individuals to breed. More often than not its the dole bludgers and fecwits that have time to breed inbetween daytime TV programs.
But then as has been said before its a choice - you choose (more ofthen than not) to start a family. I have chosen not to, yet i don't get paid time off work. Its inequality in my opinion for childless couples. But that panders to the 'blame culture' i suppose. Paid sick time is another gripe of mine but i'll leave that for another day. And as said before i would not hire a newly married woman in her 30's over a guy in the same position as i know it would more than likely cost me money. I hire someone because i have the demand to fill a position, paying for it twice could lead to the business failing. Extreme but could happen.
No they wouldnt, they'd just be glad of having a guaranteed job to come back to afterwards.
You seem to be missing the point that the principle cost to business isn't paying their staff during maternity leave (the government covers most of that as mentioned previously) but keeping the jobs open. If you agree the jobs should be kept open then you're agreeing to most of the costs to businesses.
FWIW SWMBO is going off on maternity in a couple of months having only been in her current job for <18 months at that point. However given she started there when first born was 8 months old, they must have known there was a good chance of her going off on maternity again. It's a small company and will impact them, but given current economic circumstances they're not too upset to be down a member of staff for 9 months - a member of staff who will come back very committed afterwards (she's also the only senior female employee, and main USP seems to be being a bossy woman who keeps the blokes in line - note that is something she first suggested was the case!) We're also trying hard not to take the P - she's going to voluntarily be giving up nursery vouchers which could cost the company lots and be free money to us.
those that are self employed get diddly ****ing squat from their employer. i don't know if the state gives you money for being off work coz you're up the duff. would be glad to be informed on that one.
Yes, there is Maternity Allowance which you claim if you are SE and paying the relevant NI, or if you are employed but not eligible for SMP. IIRC it's the same amount at SMP (which is **** all anyway).
I have been looking after one of our twins for a few days whilst the other is in hospital with mum having an operation. I have also been able to maintain about 30% productivity at work too. So I don't see why maternity leave couldn't involve some kind of home working incentive for women?