MEPs vote to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay

rumour

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1021/1224281621949.html

Does anyone have opinions on this?

If I consider my responsibility to reflect on this extends no further than my individual needs this is good news. However I cannot help think this is bad news on many fronts.

• Small Business

It assumes that margins are there to cover this additional cost. I am not so sure perhaps in time we can manipulate margins to reflect this.

• Large Business

For example in manufacturing it will never compete with the chinese indians brazillians or russians. At an EU level this is not good. Ultimately I can only conclude a demise in production. For example Renault have already started moving their manufacturing capability to Russia.

• The Equality/Gender Industry

I don't know how this will play out. The rationale while popular forces small business into a difficult place. Financial pressure will force many of them to employ women on temporary contracts. i expect many arguments on discrimination here, good news for the equality business. However in small business's the subtle practice of temporary contracts for women exists already so I don't know if it means any change. It will however force more women into larger companies and the public sector who are probably the only ones who can afford this. But the private sector as explained above will inevitably move business elsewhere. That leaves a public sector with a distortionate female workforce which in time will be subject the reverse discrimation claims due to bias against males. Future market for the equality business.

• Women In Business

For me more disturbingly, in the risk taking infancy of any business when margins are tight this has two consequences:

1. The law will be an incentive for women to avoid this crucial embroyonic stage of business creation.
2. The law will encourage men to develop business's without female involvement.

These two issues do nothing to advance women in business. The googles and facebooks of the future will generally not have women involved at the start, hence director level. This does create a glass ceiling. I don't think this is the intention but I do think it will be a consequence.

I would really like to hear views on this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think its good for children but bad for career women. It is re-enforcing the notion that women should be the main carer of children.

Amusingly it wouldnt surprise me if many of those who voted for it have in the past complained that women are underrepresented at senior management and political level.

rumour

Well I think it's bad for women, but as a bloke I feel these days I'm not qualified or indeed politically permitted to comment on such issues, I guess there's other guys here of the same opinion and have shied away. Its a pretty big issue.

Would love to hear from the any women on this subject?

Ponster

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think its good for children but bad for career women. It is re-enforcing the notion that women should be the main carer of children.

They don't have to take it of course. In France we had a MP last year who was back to work 2 days after giving birth

CIE

Does anyone have opinions on this?

More social engineering to inflame the far right?

msteiner

This is all absolutely absurd. End social wellfare for the elite. They do not need it. Let's incentivize charities with subsidies and lessen the level of "the wellfare state."

southsiderosie

rumour wrote: »

Well I think it's bad for women, but as a bloke I feel these days I'm not qualified or indeed politically permitted to comment on such issues, I guess there's other guys here of the same opinion and have shied away. Its a pretty big issue.

Would love to hear from the any women on this subject?

Well, since you asked...

I think it is bad for both women and men. It's bad for women in that, whether we like it or not, managers will think twice before hiring a young woman of childbearing age because they know that this woman is quite likely to disappear over the next year or two. However, it's also bad for men in that, once again, the focus of the leave is solely on the mother, reiterating the belief that it is the duty of the mom to stay at home while the father goes back to work, and making it harder for those dads who do want to be at home when their children are newborns.

What I would like to see are policies that focus on family leave, rather than solely maternity leave. Let's say that each baby (or "birth event") comes with six months of leave (this is all a hypothetical). Both parents would be required to take the first month off, and then after that they could split up the time however they wanted: they could both stay home for 3 months, or Dad could go back to work while Mom stayed home for another 4 months - or vice versa. This would have two benefits: 1) by mandating the first month for both, it normalizes family leave for both men and women (and hopefully lessens the baby penalty for women), and 2) it gives parents the flexibility to use family leave in a way that makes the most sense for them. This second point is increasingly important as younger women are actually out-earning men in some countries, and therefore it might make sense for them to go back to work first.

There was an article in today's NY Times about this very issue, and they used Sweden as a case study.

Anyway, that's my crazy idea for the week.

Oh, and why do you (or any of the men on this thread) feel like you can't comment on these kinds of issues? Most baby-making involves a man, as far as I know.

rumby

i am a female in her late twenties who is hoping to have children. i am the main earner and so paid maternity leave would be a dream come true. i totally agree that it would put huge pressure on businesses and would prehaps prevent businesses employing young females. the paternity leave is a a great idea also. it annoys me that females who get fuuly paid during maternity leave do not appreciate it and take it for granted. it would have a massive infuence on family planning whether i got paid or unpaid maternity leave

Denerick

Why not have a 'maternity option'. E.G. statutory 4 weeks paid holiday for the mother around date of birth, with an additional 16 weeks paid holiday that can either go to the father or mother? This is one of those issues were feminazi's have yet another appaling double standard, men and women should have full equality with regards to raising their children.

CokaColumbo

As a theoretical question, if I was a business person, why on earth should I take the risk of hiring a woman if there was a possibility that she would become pregnant and be able to sponge off my company for a ludicrously long 20 weeks?

Why is it the responsibility of an employer to help raise a child who doesn't belong to him/her?

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

Why not have a 'maternity option'. E.G. statutory 4 weeks paid holiday for the mother around date of birth, with an additional 16 weeks paid holiday that can either go to the father or mother? This is one of those issues were feminazi's have yet another appaling double standard, men and women should have full equality with regards to raising their children.

Let's not make this a 'feminazi" debate, since there are plenty of women, particularly in Europe, who have been calling for this for a while now, especially given the positive social outcomes from the Swedish and German models.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

As a theoretical question, if I was a business person, why on earth should I take the risk of hiring a woman if there was a possibility that she would become pregnant and be able to sponge off my company for a ludicrously long 20 weeks?

Why is it the responsibility of an employer to help raise a child who doesn't belong to him/her?

If there was family leave, rather than solely maternity leave, that would spread the risk.

As for the obligations of the employer, it is not your job to raise a child. But most companies that have invested in training workers would like to see them come back after maternity family leave.

Avns1s

CokaColumbo wrote: »

As a theoretical question, if I was a business person, why on earth should I take the risk of hiring a woman if there was a possibility that she would become pregnant and be able to sponge off my company for a ludicrously long 20 weeks?

And for this very reason, I feel that this initiative is a negative move and if those who feel they want to advance either the right of women or the family don't resist it, they are making a huge mistake.

Manach

Whilst it is difficult as CokaColumbo pointed out to justify this on a purely business ground, having family friendly policies boost the working atmosphere and from a social point of view they would encourage the demographic trends for the future.

Lemming

CokaColumbo wrote: »

As a theoretical question, if I was a business person, why on earth should I take the risk of hiring a woman if there was a possibility that she would become pregnant and be able to sponge off my company for a ludicrously long 20 weeks?

I have heard (relayed as anecdote by a fellow employee, albeit HR), the above as an question raised by a company MD in a place I used to work. So it's not so theoretical and more like reality. And that was with the existing legislation, when times were "good" so to speak. In the current economic climate, the new legislation is most likely not going to have the result its backers think it will have. Officially it'll have muted effect, but unofficially will be quite another story I fear.

rumour

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, since you asked...
...........................
Anyway, that's my crazy idea for the week.....

I don't think its crazy. I see the only way this can be applied is universally, i.e. its a right for men and women. Distinguishing causes a mess that ultimately serves no one. However I would advocate one cavaet, it should be optional as one poster pointed out a french minister was back at work within two days and why not?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Oh, and why do you (or any of the men on this thread) feel like you can't comment on these kinds of issues? Most baby-making involves a man, as far as I know.

Ah you know, men are neutered on commenting on anything to do with women as it usually decends into 'its my body'...bla bla bla...reason out the window..argument futile. Entirely different issue but fast becoming an economical one in the west. Can we afford all these women equality rights?

southsiderosie

rumour wrote: »

I don't think its crazy. I see the only way this can be applied is universally, i.e. its a right for men and women. Distinguishing causes a mess that ultimately serves no one. However I would advocate one cavaet, it should be optional as one poster pointed out a french minister was back at work within two days and why not?

Going back to work two days after having a baby is insane. You are lactating like crazy, not to mention the physical trauma of birth, raging hormones, etc. Most women do not get cleared to resume all normal activities until 6 weeks after giving birth.

However, the reason I see to make it mandatory is precisely because some women will go back after two days, and managers will then say "Well MARY was back after two days, why aren't YOU?"

rumour wrote: »

Ah you know, men are neutered on commenting on anything to do with women as it usually decends into 'its my body'...bla bla bla...reason out the window..argument futile. Entirely different issue but fast becoming an economical one in the west. Can we afford all these women equality rights?

Some women may say that, but those are the same kind of women who painted the rest of us into a corner with maternity leave. Personally, I think we need to stop talking about what is best for women in these kinds of matters, and start talking about what is best for families, and especially children. Fathers need time to bond with their children as well, even though they do not have the same physical imperative as women do (recovering after birth and lactating to name the two biggies). I would also extend this critique to family court and custody matters, but that is a topic for another thread.

rumour

southsiderosie wrote: »

Going back to work two days after having a baby is insane. You are lactating like crazy, not to mention the physical trauma of birth, raging hormones, etc. Most women do not get cleared to resume all normal activities until 6 weeks after giving birth.

However, the reason I see to make it mandatory is precisely because some women will go back after two days, and managers will then say "Well MARY was back after two days, why aren't YOU?"

Good point, I'm not in favour generally of limiting someones freedom but on this aspect I think you're right on balance. Apply it universally then the negative effects become equalised or levelled. Affordability is a problem in a competitive sense since only less than 5% of worlds population would be introducing this law, however if the costs have to be spread across the whole economy it becomes only a fraction of the effort of the workforce to cover this. That I think in theory works, however I still don't see how the policy works for small business.

southsiderosie

rumour wrote: »

Good point, I'm not in favour generally of limiting someones freedom but on this aspect I think you're right on balance. Apply it universally then the negative effects become equalised or levelled. Affordability is a problem in a competitive sense since only less than 5% of worlds population would be introducing this law, however if the costs have to be spread across the whole economy it becomes only a fraction of the effort of the workforce to cover this. That I think in theory works, however I still don't see how the policy works for small business.

I know that in the US, most small businesses are exempt from family leave laws (and they define small as less than 50 employees within a give geographic area). That's why I think the EU bill will inevitably get watered down: the countries that don't already have these kinds of policies are also the ones where small, family-run enterprises are more common (as is working off of the books).