Maternity leave

sniffy · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:05

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?

Raymond Lin · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:06

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.

Abraham · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:07

i think there should be a minimum length of service to be entitled, which i'm not sure there is?
something like 2 years
maybe it should only be paid where there is some assurance of them returning to work as well, the last 5 people who've gone on maternity from my company havent come back

Raymond Lin · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:13

Abraham said:
i think there should be a minimum length of service to be entitled, which i'm not sure there is?
something like 2 years
maybe it should only be paid where there is some assurance of them returning to work as well, the last 5 people who've gone on maternity from my company havent come back

Someone in my work did that, she was due this month and in the Christmas party just gone she let it slip that she just bought a house back home in Liverpool (150 miles away), obviously going to live there. She was just going go AWOL. Luckily that slip she made in the party caused the partners to ask her directly and then let her go. Now she's probably having her baby with no maternity leave. If only she was more honest with her intent at first, they even have to ask the person who was going to fill her roles for 6 months to start 6 weeks early and became permanent.

Vonhelmet · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:20

Abraham said:
i think there should be a minimum length of service to be entitled, which i'm not sure there is?
something like 2 years
maybe it should only be paid where there is some assurance of them returning to work as well, the last 5 people who've gone on maternity from my company havent come back

There's certainly a limit for paternity leave... I'd guess there's a similar one for maternity leave.

camels5 · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:23

I'm sure if you don't return to work you have to pay back your maternity pay and you have to work for a certain amount of time after you have returned before you leave or else again you have to pay back the money.

ste_bla · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:25

camels5 said:
I'm sure if you don't return to work you have to pay back your maternity pay and you have to work for a certain amount of time after you have returned before you leave or else again you have to pay back the money.

Normally only for enhanced/employer increased payments

vonhelmet said:
There's certainly a limit for paternity leave... I'd guess there's a similar one for maternity leave.

1yr unless employer agrees more but under no obligation to do such

Bomag · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:34

Raymond Lin said:
Someone in my work did that, she was due this month and in the Christmas party just gone she let it slip that she just bought a house back home in Liverpool (150 miles away), obviously going to live there. She was just going go AWOL. Luckily that slip she made in the party caused the partners to ask her directly and then let her go. Now she's probably having her baby with no maternity leave. If only she was more honest with her intent at first, they even have to ask the person who was going to fill her roles for 6 months to start 6 weeks early and became permanent.

Community Chest - Go strait to Employment tribunal and get taken to the cleaners

Its absolute nothing to do with the employer what somebody is going to do during their maternity leave (except undertake paid work).

Bomag · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:35

Raymond Lin said:
Someone in my work did that, she was due this month and in the Christmas party just gone she let it slip that she just bought a house back home in Liverpool (150 miles away), obviously going to live there. She was just going go AWOL. Luckily that slip she made in the party caused the partners to ask her directly and then let her go. Now she's probably having her baby with no maternity leave. If only she was more honest with her intent at first, they even have to ask the person who was going to fill her roles for 6 months to start 6 weeks early and became permanent.

Community Chest - Go strait to Employment tribunal and get taken to the cleaners

Its absolute nothing to do with the employer what somebody is going to do during their maternity leave (except undertake paid work).

They probably paid her off or sent her on gardening leave if they were smart.

Raymond Lin · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:39

Bomag said:
Community Chest - Go strait to Employment tribunal and get taken to the cleaners Its absolute nothing to do with the employer what somebody is going to do during their maternity leave (except undertake paid work).

unfortunately for her she worked in a law firm and i don't think she got a cent, one of the partners specialises in employment law and i am sure they wouldn't have let her go in such a way where she has any come back whatsoever.

Wicksta · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:53

Raymond Lin said:
unfortunately for her she worked in a law firm and i don't think she got a cent, one of the partners specialises in employment law and i am sure they wouldn't have let her go in such a way where she has any come back whatsoever.

So what was she sacked for?

Raymond Lin · 10 Mar 2008 at 20:54

Wicksta said:
So what was she sacked for?

i don't know the details, but i don't think she's being paid maternity and she doesn't work there anymore.

Bomag · 11 Mar 2008 at 21:13

Employment Tribunals love finding for claimants on maternity cases, even if the case is borderline (and particularly with law firms). Since the mother doesn't have to make a decision about coming back to work or quitting until the end of maternity period you can have no intention of returning to work an still get paid for the statutory period.

A likely outcome was that she was offered the equivalent cash plus a bit more as a severance payment. The firm saves on the disruption of switching personnel twice.

sniffy · 11 Mar 2008 at 23:02

Raymond Lin said:
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.

Makunouchi · 11 Mar 2008 at 23:12

Nuke all ovaries from space.

Solved.

SB118 · 11 Mar 2008 at 23:18

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

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

Dolph · 11 Mar 2008 at 23:19

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...

sniffy · 11 Mar 2008 at 23:26

SB118 said:
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.

Dolph said:
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.

Bomag · 12 Mar 2008 at 00:07

Well you could ban them from getting pregnant :cool:

Seeing as a large proportion of women work who do you think will be paying for our pensions in 40 years time, the sprogs of teenage mothers who have not been weaned off the social? An alternative is not to allow women to work at all.

As for restricting promotions and pay rises, we could return to the old times where men in their 50s get paid more money for less work than women of the same age.

stoofa · 12 Mar 2008 at 10:38

Maternity leave works fine.
The place of work get money back from the government, the idea that the company can use that money to get it a temporary worker for the duration of time that the person is away for.

As for going back to work - you do have to go back to work for a certain amount of time after your maternity leave or else you have to pay the maternity pay back.
If I rememebr correctly it is something like 6 weeks as that would give a company the time to find a permanent replacement for you.