Maternity leave... leaving woman unemployable?

Kelter

I'm a big believer in family. I'm a big believer in kids having their parents around. I'm a big believer in equality.

I'm also a big believer in the real world.

At what point will employers view potential female employees as less desirable than their male counterparts, due to the fact that they are likely to take maternity leave.

While the employer does not need to pay them, they do need to replace them. Assuming they are doing an important job, this is not really satisfactory

I fear that by making maternity leave too good, woman will be restricted to jobs which have less responsibility.


I hope this does not spark a sexist argument, its not (well I hope its not). Its just a concern I have. I have come accross two examples of it happening already, and fear for the future

Boggle

While the employer does not need to pay them

Do they not get a certain amount of paid maternity leave??

Trouble is that many smaller companies just cannot afford to pay 2 people to fill 1 position and so I would suspect that this already works against them. I also suspect that you would find that womens careers often takes a hit when they take maternity leave as they may find it hard to get back into the swing of things or people may have gotten used to dealing with the replacements...

homeOwner

Very interesting question and I think that yes women suffer in the workplace as a result of having kids. But employeers need to have someone they can call on when the going gets tough and a person (male or female) that leaves work every day at 5pm to to pick up the kids is not going to be considered for promotions in jobs that require you to stay late if the sh1t is hitting the fan. And I think this is power for the course. You cant have it both ways.

IMO when you have kids they have to be top priority. When they get older then you can go back to building your career.

seamus

It's an interesting one. An for a long time, many women have believed that they have to refrain from having children at all, to succeed.
Certainly where I am, there's no issue about women and the potential for maternity leave. The only thing I do notice is that most of the women who have taken maternity leave are a little older (by a couple of years) than other men and women at the same level.

Do they not get a certain amount of paid maternity leave??

No. They're entitled to Maternity Benefit from the Government. Some employers do choose to augment/top-up the benefit though.

Nuttzz

@ Boggle: companies dont have to pay mat leave it is paid by the government. some companies i worked in used to give the employee full wages while on mat leave so long as the employee gave them the government cheque

I have talked to a number of employers both male and female and they have told me off the record that they would hire males before females because of the whole mat keave issue.

ronbyrne2005

its inevitable that businesses especially small ones are gonna take liklelyhood of maternity leave into consideration when hiring although technically this is illegal you cant blame them choosing a person who wont be having kids and wont be heading home early most nights to look after kids but more men are staying home so in future maybe choosing a man wont guaranteee longer working hours and absence of paternity leave.
i think if i woman wants to make it to the top in most careers she has to saccrifice having kids completley or at least till well into thirties, then you get sucessful career women in their 50's regreting not having kids but its their choice!

Hobbes

http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_leave.html
http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_benefit.html

Some companies will pay employees while on maternity leave. However the way the system works it would not be that big a deal to get a temp in while the person is on leave.

ionapaul

If only employers could tell by looking at me during the interview that I have no intention of working more than the scheduled 8 or so hours each day, children or no!

annR

There was a piece on this on the Have Your Say section of the BBC's website. I can't find the link now. It was so vitriolic I was surprised and worried. I had no idea that some people resent women getting maternity leave so much and are so angry about it.

Nevyn

The government is getting worried about the delining birth rate esp amoung those that are college educated professionals and it is thier way of trying to
enough those type of couples/women to have kids.
The additional 4 weeks paid leave will help bring the leave closer to what it is
in other EU countries.

MrPudding

Simple solution. Give men equal paternity rights. Then it won't matter as both will be equally likely to take leave.

MrP

seamus

MrPudding wrote:

Simple solution. Give men equal paternity rights. Then it won't matter as both will be equally likely to take leave.

MrP

Then you start finding biase against married men & women in terms of promotion.

Nevyn

Who said you have to be married to have kids ?

seamus

Thaedydal wrote:

Who said you have to be married to have kids ?

Nobody, but you're more likely to have to have to take maternity/paternity leave if you're married. Perhaps the same biase will also start against those in long-term relationships too.

The Corinthian

Kelter wrote:

I'm a big believer in family. I'm a big believer in kids having their parents around. I'm a big believer in equality.

Traditional, yet suitably right-on.

At what point will employers view potential female employees as less desirable than their male counterparts, due to the fact that they are likely to take maternity leave.

Statistically women in their late twenties to early thirties are more likely to have children. I have also been told that they are statistically as likely to not to return to the work place as they are to do so. Typically if they don’t return to the workplace, they’ll tend to hold their job until the last minute.

How this affects an employer is that a potential employee may be a bad long-term investment. If you look at a CV and see that someone has never held for a position for longer than six months, you’re less likely to invest the time and training into them and if you find yourself in a position where you are faced with hiring a, say, thirty-two year-old woman who’s married for one year - you’re in a not dissimilar position.

All this is before we consider the HR implications of having to hold a job of someone for months at a time, with no guarantee they’ll even come back.

Of course it’s not the woman’s fault - she’s not even pregnant - she’s simply the victim of being in a bad demographic. It’s not dissimilar to being male and in your twenties and looking for car insurance, you may be a responsible driver, but your demographic says otherwise and so the insurance company will end up charging you more.

Of course the difference between these two is the former is illegal while the latter is, or at least until recently was, not.

I hope this does not spark a sexist argument, its not (well I hope its not). Its just a concern I have. I have come accross two examples of it happening already, and fear for the future

It depends on what you mean by that. You yourself brought up the principle of equality and that does cut both ways. It’s just not terribly politically correct to mention that, though.

Nuttzz wrote:

I have talked to a number of employers both male and female and they have told me off the record that they would hire males before females because of the whole mat keave issue.

Yes, it’s regrettably very true.

MrPudding

Seamus, I though you were modern and progressive. I am very disappointed:(

Does anyone have figures for children born outside of marriage. I know I am doing my bit to boost them but I have no idea how many there are.

If companies started to show bias towards married people in order to get around paternity & maternity leave issues they would then need to think about anyone that could potentially have a child, Just to be sure. I'm not sure it would be practical.

MrP

seamus

MrPudding wrote:

Seamus, I though you were modern and progressive. I am very disappointed:(

I'd like to think I am
I would assume though that the bulk of births in the employed sector are to young people in long-term relationships or marriages. (Thaed caught me on that )

Gurgle

Its only ever going to be an issue in a tiny company.
Anywhere with more than about 6 employees should be well enough set up that they don't depend on having a particular person in order to function.

Kelter

Its only ever going to be an issue in a tiny company.
Anywhere with more than about 6 employees should be well enough set up that they don't depend on having a particular person in order to function.

Staff who are in roles which don't have much responcibility are easily replace. Staff who are in management positions are hard to replace.

Image if the manager of your department/company/whatever leaves for 6 months, then comes back. Their replacement needs a few months to get up to speed in the area you work in. Until they are up to speed they are trying to manage something they don't understand. The staff below them know better and need to guide them. This is not a good strategy.

When the main employee come back you face the same problem

Mine is an organisation of 40 people. While it does not close down due to anyone going on maternity, it runs massively less efficiently without any member of technical staff.

A friend who has just moved to France to marry her bf tells me that she can't get a job which is anything like the level she left in Ireland. How could you blame the employers? She has just gone to france to have babies. She is the first to knock their system of maternity leave (which demands the job be kept for about 3 years or so)

Similarly my sister (who works on her own) did not emply someone because she told her in her interview that she had just got engaged.

Gurgle

Kelter wrote:

Similarly my sister (who works on her own) did not emply someone because she told her in her interview that she had just got engaged.

I wouldn't tell too many people about that.
Its blatant discrimination, and there is miles of legislation against it.
That kind of thing should have been left behind in the 19th century.

Believe it or not, you generally will get around 6 to 7 months notice that somebody is going on maternity leave.

Thats plenty of time to arrange cover and training.

Any properly organized company can cope seamlessly with someone going on maternity. Its just stupidity to only have one person capable of performing any given role.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Believe it or not, you generally will get around 6 to 7 months notice that somebody is going on maternity leave.

Thats plenty of time to arrange cover and training.

Any properly organized company can cope seamlessly with someone going on maternity. Its just stupidity to only have one person capable of performing any given role.

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

Nightwish

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

Yes, actually.
I ran a department of 6 people for 2 years.


And one woman was in and out pregnant and sick for 4 months, then on maternity for 6 months, then sick for 3 more months, then back part-time.

And I made sure I knew how to do her job while she was out - shipping, logistics, accounts and billing as it happens. Very much not my area of expertise but she had good systems and contacts in place and was able to leave it manageable for me.

In the rest of the company, consisting 400 or so, theres almost always somebody out on maternity. Some are easily replaced, some spend a couple of months training up their replacement. You just have to apply some common sense.

And yet I know of places where girls went out on maternity and the entire section they were over fell apart, due to the incompetence of seagull managers*.

*fly in, flap around, shìt on everything, fly away

Gurgle

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

The children should be of higher priority to both parents than their careers.
So fathers should be overlooked for promotion too ?

MrPudding

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Most kids have two parents. Should fathers be overlooked as well or do they have no responsibilities at home?

I suppose you think removing the rule that forced "females" to leave civil service jobs once they got married was a mistake?

My GF would love to pack in her job and look after our kids full time. Of course that would mean we would have to live on the streets as it is almost impossible to maintain any standard of living with only one salary.

So both of us working is a requirement in order to fulfill our responsibilites to our kids.

MrP

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Yes, actually.
I ran a department of 6 people for 2 years.

That's a team, not a department.

MrPudding

The Corinthian wrote:

That's a team, not a department.

Is there a minimun number for a department?

MrP

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

That's a team, not a department.

Fair enough, thanks for the semantics lesson.

(Though it was in 2 sections (sub-teams i guess) and operated separately from the rest of the company.)

Besides, the point was that its easier to cope in a larger organisational structure.
You only get one months notice when someone leaves, but at least 6 months notice of maternity leave.
People change jobs all the time. If anything a new mother will be less likely to go job-hopping around the city/country.

btw, are you taking either side of the 'dont employ women of childbearing age' discussion or just here for the nit-picking ?

Calina

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Oh really? Parent only describes "mother", is that it? Jesus all those fathers desperately looking for access to their kids after divorces and separation will love you.

On the other hand, if males were endemically discriminated against for having kids, then there is some chance that discrimination against "parents" might be dealt with.

****************

Collectively as a society we need a next generation. It'd be nice if we made it an attractive option for people - both the primary carers (be they male or female) and the primary income earner (be they male or female) to actually produce one. Who do you think is going to pay your pension?

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

God, you’re funny. You’ve never had to run a company or department, have you?

They are required to give at least 6 months notice for maternity leave. If a company can't make arrangements in that time there is something seriously wrong with the management there. Especially considering most people only have to give 2 weeks - 1 months notice when leaving.

Edit.. incidently maybe my company is the exception then the rule but of the numerous people I know who have had babies in the company only one has left after maternity leave, and then because she was changing professions.

Everyone else stayed.

The company also gives paternity leave (2 weeks paid vacation) and even allows leave for things like adoptions which would equate to the same as maternity leave.

Keeping a good employee is less to do with if they are child bearing age and more to do with how you treat that employee.

simu

Nightwish wrote:

I am of the belief that once you have kids, they are the primary responsibility of the parent, not their career, so I have no issues with females being overlooked for promotion, because of commitments at home.

Yeah, but you actually need a fair bit of money to raise kids. :rolleyes: Not to mention that fathers have parental duties too.

Any employers who try to avoid hiring women of child-bearing age are just losing out on some very good candidates for the job tbh and it's time for them to raise their heads out of the 1950s.

Although, I don't think it's such a big issue. It doesn't seem to be an enormous problem in the career I'm pursuing, at least.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Besides, the point was that its easier to cope in a larger organisational structure.

Not really, because it’s not really to do with the size of the company as it is with the ease with which there is to replace or train a resource.

You only get one months notice when someone leaves, but at least 6 months notice of maternity leave.

Yes, but to begin with you cannot hire someone new to replace them as you can when someone leaves. You can get in a temp or a contractor to fill in for them or try and get along without them, but that’s about it. Additionally there is the question of how long someone is likely to remain in a company to begin with, and I already covered that in my first post, where - incidentally - I made my views on the topic abundantly clear.

btw, are you taking either side of the 'dont employ women of childbearing age' discussion or just here for the nit-picking ?

Don’t get upset because someone points out you don’t know what you’re on about.

Hobbes wrote:

They are required to give at least 6 months notice for maternity leave. If a company can't make arrangements in that time there is something seriously wrong with the management there. Especially considering most people only have to give 2 weeks - 1 months notice when leaving.

Perhaps so, but the larger the organization, the more likely that you’re going to find something like that happening. I’ve worked in multinationals that take six months to hire someone, and that’s got nothing to do with the line managers on the ground, that’s to do with the fact that multiple departments will end up being involved in the process (finance, HR, etc.) - the joys of corporate governance.

Even in smaller companies, it might not be so easy to replace a resource, as the position might be senior or specialized. And even if replaced (only temporarily, I might add) it doesn’t change the fact that it costs money to hire people - adverts, recruitment commissions, time lost on interviews, etc.

Keeping a good employee is less to do with if they are child bearing age and more to do with how you treat that employee.

Keeping an employee is about a lot of things, of which how you treat them is only one. Some people are just flakes and will have CV’s that list out five positions over a two year period. You’re not going to keep that person, regardless of how you treat them.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps so, but the larger the organization, the more likely that you’re going to find something like that happening.

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

As I said if a company can't handle a resource gone which is planned six months in advance then it is a piss poor company.

Freelancer

Hobbes wrote:

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

As I said if a company can't handle a resource gone which is planned six months in advance then it is a piss poor company.

And I've worked in small and medium sized companies where finding specialist staff to take over isn't and hasn't been an issue.

These are companies with no HR department of note.

Like you said if it takes you six months to find a replacement you have management issues.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I work in a multinational. There has never been an issue with a woman taking maternity leave. At least two of them have been senior members of a team/department. They have had a temp hired in, a doubling up of someones role or shuffling people around.

I never said a resource cannot be found, although in some cases it can be difficult. The anecdotal evidence and opinion on the quality of companies management that people are expressing here is sweet, but is frankly only anecdotal and opinion. There are a lot of companies that do find difficulty filling, in particular, senior positions for numerous reasons - most of which fall outside the anecdotal evidence presented here.

Primarily, however, even if a resource can be found, there is still the overhead of recruitment, induction and training. Would you hire someone who is likely to be with your company less than a year, is really the question? Add to this the added complexity that you will not be able to replace them, only find a (more expensive) stand in.

It’s not really that difficult to comprehend. So I can understand why a company would shy away from hiring someone who could fall into that demographic, even though I would not agree with it.

samb

MrPudding wrote:

Does anyone have figures for children born outside of marriage. I know I am doing my bit to boost them but I have no idea how many there are.
P

1 in 3 outside now, I'm doing my bit too

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Primarily, however, even if a resource can be found, there is still the overhead of recruitment, induction and training. Would you hire someone who is likely to be with your company less than a year, is really the question? Add to this the added complexity that you will not be able to replace them, only find a (more expensive) stand in.

I have already mentioned examples of how to counter this. Your comments are just as anecdotal and opinion.

But the simple fact is if your project/company is unable to plan for a confirmed resource gone in 6 months time then there is something seriously wrong with the management there. Also if you have one person in a project that is so mission critical that they can't be temporary replaced then you may as well just fire management altogether.

To discriminate against a demographic because managment are incompentent.. well probably better off not working there to begin with.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

I have already mentioned examples of how to counter this.

No you haven’t. You’ve at best suggested that companies should be preparing for this, but that’s all. It does not counter the additional hassle or cost.

Your comments are just as anecdotal and opinion.

Opinion, perhaps, but not anecdotal. Gurgle, freelancer and yourself have all claimed that based upon your own experiences and perspective that companies should not have a problem with this. I accept that companies can and do deal with this every day, but that’s not the point - which you seem to have quoted, but apparently not read.

To discriminate against a demographic because managment are incompentent.. well probably better off not working there to begin with.

To hire someone new, especially a temp or contractor, costs a company money and resources, regardless of whether they’re prepared for it or not. As I said, it’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Kelter

If this thread were intended to be about competency in management, it would be going really well. Maybe threads are meant to wander off on a tangent which has tenuous links to the original point, but if that’s the case I think it is reasonable for me to push the topic away from “I’m a better manager than you” to “are the changes in maternity leave rules going to affect women’s ability to get jobs of in positions of responsibility”.

Now you could take a few arguments

1. Women who have kids have always been “less good” employees, so a few weeks extra in maternity won’t make a difference
2. Relative to the amount of good having young woman employed in positions of responsibility in your organisation does, the maternity thing is small and not a significant factor for employers decisions when looking at candidates. So it doesn’t really matter
3. The current trend to improve maternity leave will result in employers seeing woman of child bearing age as a risk.


The argument that if a manager can’t manage employees going missing for 5 months, their crap, is a bit pointless. A manager will weigh up all the risks involved in choosing an employee when they are taking them on. If they see the costs and challenges of maternity leave as being too great, then they will go with the man/older woman. If they don’t see it as significant, then we are all on a level playing field.

My opinion is that the women (and fair minded men) of Ireland should be protesting against these rules which may push back women’s liberation by 100 years.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

To hire someone new, especially a temp or contractor, costs a company money and resources, regardless of whether they’re prepared for it or not. As I said, it’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Then you don't hire a temp in, you have other people train up for the work. There are many senarios to help make a temporary transistion easy. Citing that it costs a company money and resources is just sugarcoating discrimination at the initial interview process.

Now I am sure there are companies out there that can't manage such a process and I say again that such a company has bad management.

Keltar wrote:

The argument that if a manager can’t manage employees going missing for 5 months, their crap, is a bit pointless.

It is not pointless at all. The whole basis for the argument is that in somehow having 6 months minimum notice to have a resource out of the office for a set time is discrimination if you believe that it cannot be managed. People go sick with less notice then that.

Heck I took 2 months holidays 3 years ago (with 3 months notice) and work had no issue with me taking the time off. I documented everything up, trained up two people already in work with what I was doing and away I went. There is another guy in work who has taken a year off currently and we are all filling in for his work, it has no adverse effects.

But to somehow believe that the second a woman claims she has to deliver a baby in 6-8 months that your company is going to fall to pieces.. now that is pointless.

ronbyrne2005

sack all pregnant mothers!









one year maternity leave for everyone!

Kelter

Heck I took 2 months holidays 3 years ago (with 3 months notice) and work had no issue with me taking the time off. I documented everything up, trained up two people already in work with what I was doing and away I went. There is another guy in work who has taken a year off currently and we are all filling in for his work, it has no adverse effects

You are a very good employee. I applaude you. I'm not sure if that is the what I was trying to get at but if this tread has show what a good emplyee you are, well that is a good thing.

If there are no adverse effects to the guy being away, then surely he is unnecessary? Why will he be taken beack?

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Then you don't hire a temp in, you have other people train up for the work. There are many senarios to help make a temporary transistion easy.

Then, as Keltar has suggested, why if you can make do with your existing resources, then why is that person employed in the first place? It seems that you can get along fine without her. Your reasoning simply does not make sense.

Citing that it costs a company money and resources is just sugarcoating discrimination at the initial interview process.

I suggested the scenario of someone with a CV where they’ve gone through five jobs in the last two years. All other things being equal, I would discriminate against that person on the basis that they can’t seem to stick a job for too long - they might have had one bad experience, but five?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is acceptable to discriminate against women in the ‘maternal demographic’ (for lack of a better term), but you seem to be entirely in denial that there are actually practical reasons that would explain why this discrimination comes about.

Kelter

As Corinthian said

Of course it is discrimination. I have no doubt about it, and disapprove of it.

But If you put rules in place which force the hand of emplyers, then thay are likely to repond (although completely unofficially of course)

annR

Companies weigh up the advantages of employing that person with the potential costs, as they always do I guess. An employer will have to decide what contribution that person will bring to the company, and if they're worried about her getting pregnant, how they can plan for that with minimum cost/hassle, and whether it is still worth employing her.
That would mean that women of childbearing age would have to prove themselves in the interview process more.

>>If you look at a CV and see that someone has never held for a position for longer than six months, you’re less likely to invest the time and training into them and if you find yourself in a position where you are faced with hiring a, say, thirty-two year-old woman who’s married for one year - you’re in a not dissimilar position.<<

As I said companies have to weigh up the risks but I don't think the example above is similar at all. If someone has never held for a position for longer than six months, that's evidence that they cannot hold down a job for unknown reasons. That's a step in the dark.
With a woman of childbearing age, you are interviewing her because of evidence that she can do the job well, maybe better than anyone else. The possibility of her getting pregnant (and not coming back) is something you know about and can plan for or not plan for and weigh up it up accordingly.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Then, as Keltar has suggested, why if you can make do with your existing resources, then why is that person employed in the first place? It seems that you can get along fine without her. Your reasoning simply does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense. The person isn't leaving forever. If we were to follow that line of logic then why allow anyone to have a holiday? And again it boils down to you should never have an employee that is mission critical.

they might have had one bad experience, but five?

Again senarios are easy to speculate. For example how do you know that person was only contracted for each job? Or that one or more of those companies failed through no fault of him. Or if you were to look at that same CV around 1995-1998 it would be considered normal for a person to move that often.

but you seem to be entirely in denial that there are actually practical reasons that would explain why this discrimination comes about.

Correct there is no practical reason.

Kelter wrote:

If there are no adverse effects to the guy being away, then surely he is unnecessary? Why will he be taken beack?

Assuming you work for a good company that company would be investing in its employee beyond simple salary+benifits. Having someone temporary covered is less of a burden then a straight out replacement.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

It makes perfect sense. The person isn't leaving forever. If we were to follow that line of logic then why allow anyone to have a holiday?

Holidays only last a few weeks and during that time responsibilities can be postponed until the holiday is over or passed on to others. This is vastly different to an absence of a number of months where those same responsibilities cannot be postponed or the additional burden on others cannot be borne without some determent (and if it can, we’re back to why the individual is needed in the first place). You simply cannot make the same comparison.

And again it boils down to you should never have an employee that is mission critical.

Who ever said the employee is mission critical?

Again senarios are easy to speculate. For example how do you know that person was only contracted for each job?

If, for example, all of those were fixed term contracts, sure. But that’s not the example I gave - I was discussing permanent roles. I suggested a very straightforward example to illustrate a point and you’re now trying to redefine it because you didn’t like that point.

Or that one or more of those companies failed through no fault of him.

One, even two, sure. Five? Not bloody likely.

Or if you were to look at that same CV around 1995-1998 it would be considered normal for a person to move that often.

Five jobs in two years? No, it was not.

Correct there is no practical reason.

Is that an attempt at wit?

Assuming you work for a good company that company would be investing in its employee beyond simple salary+benifits. Having someone temporary covered is less of a burden then a straight out replacement.

Actually it’s not. If it were no one would bother contracting.

Kelter

Fair enough Hobbes, AnnR. If you don’t think it is a problem, and don’t think it is going to be a problem in the future, then that’s cool. Infact that would be the preferred result. I do fear however that you are mistaken. The world is not fair and equal place.

As for your suggestion that it it makes sense for a company to employ someone on an ongoing basis that they do not have work for, well I fear that your business savvy will not get you too far… but best of luck in the future.

annR

Kelter, if you look back at my post, I was agreeing with your post below.

But If you put rules in place which force the hand of emplyers, then thay are likely to repond (although completely unofficially of course)

I fear that by making maternity leave too good, woman will be restricted to jobs which have less responsibility.

That's what I meant when I said that maybe childbearing women will have to prove themselves more to get decent jobs, going from what others have been saying about employers having to taking potential pregnancies into account. I don't think that sort of thing is necessarily fair and equal however it seems to be the way things are.

I do think it is very bad news if it means that women will be restricted to jobs which have less responsibility.

That's what will happen unless something is done to change the system and help men share childrearing and domestic work. More women will move into positions of power and responsibility if they don't have to do most of the domestic work as well. This argument that women should just forget about their careers if they have babies is daft as it means the world will become even more of a boy's club than it already is. I suppose not everyone would think that's a problem.

As for your suggestion that it it makes sense for a company to employ someone on an ongoing basis that they do not have work for,

I don't know what you mean by this.

simu

annR wrote:

That's what will happen unless something is done to change the system and help men share childrearing and domestic work. More women will move into positions of power and responsibility if they don't have to do most of the domestic work as well. This argument that women should just forget about their careers if they have babies is daft as it means the world will become even more of a boy's club than it already is. I suppose not everyone would think that's a problem.

Mandatory parental leave for men and women would help imo.

Nevyn

Mandatory paid parental leave for men and women would help imo.