Maternity leave

[sniffy]

Ello lads

Maternity leave came up in my business studies lesson today. According to http://www.direct.gov.uk/, a women on maternity leave is entitled to 90% of weekly earnings for the first 6 weeks then £112.75 for 33 weeks. I'm interested in OcUK's opinion on this. Although employers can reclaim most of the SMP, it seems unfair to me but I'm not entirely sure. On one hand you could argue they shouldn't be paid if they aren't inputting anything into the business for such a long duration. On the other hand you could say the same for sick-pay (although duration isn't so much of an issue) which I feel is a good thing.

So, what are your views on this?

 

[sniffy]

It's fine as it is, have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how much and how long to pay someone for technically not turning up for work.

Why though? Why should employees take money out of a business yet put nothing in for such a long duration?

In my opinion sick pay is different as it's unplanned. You don't know a month in advance you're going to need a week off so it's hard to plan (money wise) for that. A baby is different. It's something that should be planned in advance which would involve allocating the required funds for taking 9 months off work.

At the moment I feel employers should simply offer them their job back (if it's still needed within the business) when they return to work.

Maybe I'm woefully naive but I just don't get it.

 

[sniffy]

But they aren't actually hitting he business for that money, the company gets it back from the gov.

Excuse my ignorance...do you know how much businesses get back? That site just says "the majority" of the payments.

Maternaty leave isn't the issue, it's the expectation of trade unions that time taken out of the busines should somehow not matter when it comes to pay rises or promotional opportunities that annoys me...

A good point that didn't occur to me. Long periods out of work should absolutely have a bearing on promotion and what not.

 

[sniffy]

Thanks for the input lads, some interesting points. Although I don't entirely agree with it, it seems to be the lesser of two evils. Giving the option of maternity leave instead of making benefits attractive is absolutely the right way to go.

This cost must be seen as worthwhile or else they wouldn't do it.

I can't argue with that. The companies who do offer extra benefits have more experience with how business operates than I do

Sorry if I did cause offence to anyone.

Maybe you could say that if being a greedy capitalist is your game.

I probably am.