Employers are *****

Halfmad said:
Might not have been planned, should she be forced to have an abortion to keep her job? That's a pretty heartless idea. What next? Execute children at birth if they are disabled as they'll be unlikely to pay their way in life. Let morals slip and it's not long before we're in the gutter, I'm proud that the UK takes such good care of most of it's citizens, shame we're not managing too well with older folks.
Click to expand...

Talk about twisting my words.

No, she shouldn't be forced to have an abortion. Are you mental? It was a planned second pregnancy, and whilst I was happy for her it must have been hard for the employer to keep paying her when she'd only just returned from a 9 month break.

As mentioned, getting rid of someone for having children is wrong but having them back to back and expecting to keep your job (in this climate) is dangerous as more and more employers look to squirm their way out if it saves them money.

We've just had a daughter but I wouldn't feel secure for my wife's job if she got pregnant now again so soon.
 
Blue160 said:
This.

My wife is on maternity leave at the moment. She is going back full time in April. I don't think some of the posters on this thread realise how vital maternity leave is to middle income familys. Without it only the rich and those on benefits would be able to afford to have children.
Click to expand...

Or those who are capable of saving money...

I would like 6 dogs but I can't afford them, so I don't have them, simple.
 
The majority of maternity pay comes from the government due to a lot of employers giving crap all. So the saving part is kinda pointless.

It's about having the opportunity to go back to your job and continue where you left off rather than being cast aside and having to get a new job somewhere else, which in itself would be hard as a new mother.
 
Energize said:
Or those who are capable of saving money...

I would like 6 dogs but I can't afford them, so I don't have them, simple.
Click to expand...

He's not saying he can't afford to have a child, only that the months on full income and then some on reduced help him get through the months until his wife gets back to work.

People on here are carrying on like you get a year off on full pay. The only people I know that get near that are the poor underpaid woe is me nurses.
 
Morba said:
The majority of maternity pay comes from the government due to a lot of employers giving crap all. So the saving part is kinda pointless.
Click to expand...

SMP is the part I have the major issue with, it isn't difficult to save up that much money so saying "it's the only way middle classes can afford to have children" simply is not true, to think that tax is squandered so readily.

dannyjo22 said:
He's not saying he can't afford to have a child, only that the months on full income and then some on reduced help him get through the months until his wife gets back to work.
Click to expand...

Without it only the rich and those on benefits would be able to afford to have children.
Click to expand...
 
Energize said:
Or those who are capable of saving money...

I would like 6 dogs but I can't afford them, so I don't have them, simple.
Click to expand...

The money is one part of it as saving the 18k of salary she would lose wouldn't be easy. The main thing though is knowing she's got a job to go back to.

Oh and equating children with dogs? Come off it.
 
Energize said:
SMP is the part I have the major issue with, it isn't difficult to save up that much money so saying "it's the only way middle classes can afford to have children" simply is not true, to think that tax is squandered so readily.
Click to expand...

tax is "squandered" in far, far less effective ways elsewhere.
 
Having babies is an important part of a successfully society for obvious reasons. Even more important is the people having children are capable of supporting them and being a good roll model. Is it better that they just quit work and claim hand outs or should only people who have rich husbands be able to have a family?

Some girls do take advantage and it shouldn't be allowed. However any girl who is genuine and needs some time off to have a child and return to full time employment should be fully supported by the company.

In this instance if the employer was a little better at hiring "the best person for the job" in the first place they wouldn't be in the situation they are. I've got no sympathy for them and I think she's have a very good case if it ended up at a tribunal.
 
Last edited:
Have to say that I can entirely see Fox's angle on this. Yes it's not nice, and no I don't necessarily agree with all he said, but you have to see that it can be harsh on the employers. If they're Intel we probably don't care, but for the small guys....


I hope I'm never in the position where it's my job to make such a decision, but if there were two equally good people for one job (be it a new position or making one redundant) and the only difference was that one was a woman of child-bearing age and the other was a bloke....... the thought that the odds of one person messing you about for a year are considerably higher than the other person could possibly enter my mind.
Though, again I hope I'm never in a managing-people job and always just a programmer, I am a firm believer in the idea that if you look after your employees they'll look after you...


Though I guess we have to remember that not every woman just uses/abuses their maternity leave and comes straight back - some quit and then only start working part-time when the kids are at school, some don't ever go back to work and become Homemakers.

Fortunately the idea of me ever having kids is a long long way away!*



* - SWMBO has other ideas though :/
 
Westyfield2 - That's entirely why fathers should be allowed to take part of the maternity leave from mothers, then you wouldn't really be able to pick and choose as both sexes could be off.

Must admit I had a similar view before I actually had a wife who was up the duff! It's strange how quickly your views change, I have a feeling that I'd have a similar shifting of views over unemployment benefits should I ever be unfortunate enough to find myself unemployed for the first time in my life.
 
Blue160 said:
The money is one part of it as saving the 18k of salary she would lose wouldn't be easy. The main thing though is knowing she's got a job to go back to.
Click to expand...

SMP works out at closer to £5k not £18k. I don't have as much of a problem with having a job to go back to.

Oh and equating children with dogs? Come off it.
Click to expand...

Both are luxuries.

Halfmad said:
tax is "squandered" in far, far less effective ways elsewhere.
Click to expand...

So that makes it ok to squander even more then, heard of the two wrongs make a right fallacy?
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
SMP works out at closer to £5k not £18k. I don't have as much of a problem with having a job to go back to.



Both are luxuries.



So that makes it ok to squander even more then?
Click to expand...


It's very similar to the "quoting lots of people at once and not debating any of the points" fallacy, you're more of an RSS feed than a participant at the moment. How can taxes be squandered on people who've earnt them? That child will also eventually be paying taxes too. In supermarket terms it's a BOGOF offer!

Take your time, which I'm sure you have plenty of.
 
It's one story if girls are PA's or sales assistants, but just imagine if you're small company employing specialized work force with either specific skill or specific training.

Let's say you're running investment company, have 10 people on the floor, you've just lost emerging market analyst to 9, maybe 12 month maternity leave and one of your foreign exchange specialists is growing in waste as well. Both of them cannot be replaced from temp agency pool, finding suitable highly skilled replacement to fill the position for a relatively short contract is going to be nightmare, and if you find someone with skill, interested in 9 to 12 month position literally babysitting someone else's clients, you have very, very little time to test if the potential replacements are actually up to the job and won't loose you few millions of someone else's money. And here comes the punch in the teeth - after both girls come back to you after 12 months, they will actually be useless, as you can't really expect them to follow markets and crunch numbers while they feed and change nappies, so most likely they will be dangerously out of touch with their respective field.
 
Last edited:
Halfmad said:
It's very similar to the "quoting lots of people at once and not debating any of the points" fallacy,
Click to expand...

The thing that exists only in your head then? Because I certainly haven't see that in this thread.

How can taxes be squandered on people who've earnt them?

That child will also eventually be paying taxes too. In supermarket terms it's a BOGOF offer!
Click to expand...

The word "squander" is self explanatory, I don't understand how you want me to answer that. List every possible way that tax can be wastefully spent?

SpeedFreak said:
Bit of a stretch there, more a necessity to humanity's survival than a luxury.
Click to expand...

In the context of this thread, which is the small % of people requiring maternity leave, it is not a necessity for the survival of the human race or UK society.
 
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
I'm going to stick up for Fox here and how much damage it can do to a company.
Let's take the NHS and 80% of the staff are women.
A lot of these women go on to have babies which means that we the taxpayer have to pay double the wages for one job.
A woman gets her full pay for 6 months and then half pay after 6 months up to 12 months while somebody is now being paid full wage to do the job.
I believe smaller businesses still have to pay the same amount and that's why a lot don't hire women or hire women that have gone past child rearing age.
Click to expand...

my mrs works for the nhs god i wish she got 6months full pay, you clearly have no idea what your on about.

its 13 weeks full pay, then half pay with SMP for 26 weeks, then its no pay!

the full pay element is based entirely on contact, most small businesses will only pay SMP for which they get back from the government

This thread is full of people who have no idea :rolleyes:
 
Note I never once talked about how much the woman gets paid so Im not sure why he is agreeing with me when he says what he does about pay.
 
Castiel said:
If I were the Director of that company then I would not be attempting this while she is on maternity, this is what I would do.

Leave her job as is, create an Accountant Managers position with a salary equal to the current position and employ the woman currently covering maternity when the woman returns from maternity.

Wait until the woman has returned and after 4-5 months make the position redundant, pay her redundancy and move the workload to the account manager with the requisite pay increase.

All it has cost is the extra salary for a few months and in fact it would give the new woman time to readjust and prepare to absorb both positions anyway.

Messing with women on maternity is a legal minefield and tribunals almost always side with the employee in these case because in the vast majority of them the employee has been removed because of the pregnancy or similar circumstances to the OP.
Click to expand...
That sounds so caniving....

I like it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom