Maternity and the small business

Shelflife

Not necessarily a problem as such, more an observation of a situation.

Friend of mine, small business finding the going tough but surviving was chatting to me last week. He had a girl start a full time position last feb, good worker no problems. She informs him in june that she is pregnant, goes on leave a few months later and says that its her intention to return.

He replaces her with an employee on a six moth contract.

Pregnant girl has her child and all good, she informs him a few weeks before she is due to return that she wont be back and hands in her notice. The employee on the 6 mth contract has another job lined up so he has to re advertise the job.

Now all involved have been fair in their dealings with each other, but he crunched some numbers and was suprised.

2 weeks paying replacement of pregnant while training her up, two weeks training replacement of the replacement and two weeks holiday pay for the pregnant employee as well as the 5 BH to be paid as well.

So in all the pregnancy has cost him 7 weeks wages which is over €3k plus the time and costs involved in interviewing and advertising the posts plus another €200 in uniform costs for the different employees.

So he reckons it cost him close on €4k to sort out a situation that is totally out of his control. Its only when you crunch the numbers on it that you realise that a third parties decision to start a family will cost you a lot of money.

Neyite

He would have had to pay those costs irrespective of the employee's reason for leaving.

Nody

Neyite wrote: »

He would have had to pay those costs irrespective of the employee's reason for leaving.

Not really; one training of replacement (who'd not line up another job due to being permanent vs. 6 month contract) and no 2 weeks of holiday and BHs leaving him down 2 weeks rather then 7 and 200 EUR rather then 400 on uniform.

Mrs OBumble

Yeah, but it depends on how long the average staff member lasts for. A "permanent" replacement could easily start, and then leave again with three months when they find a better job.

I have a perception (maybe unfair) that turnover in small business workplaces that wear a uniform is pretty high in general.

In general, women n Ireland do seem to go back to work after maternity leave. And there have been studies which show that women with children usually stay in jobs for longer on average. (no, I don't have links).

imitation

The practicality of materity leave does mean that it will never be something an employer likes. At the end of the day though, people have to have the freedom to start a family. It just has to be factored as a risk/possible cost alongside somebody leaving job or becoming ill.

Tordelback

What you're dealing with here is people.

Some people will decide a job or the situation it puts them in isn't for them, others will stick at the one gig for 40+ years: the birth of a child gives you a massive nudge towards making a choice one way or the other, or somewhere in between.

I was on the board of a small business before the Dark Times, and maternity and its costs to us was an endless source of discussion and dissent at board meetings. My own experience was that some women left after maternity leave (because even with the best of intentions you do not know in advance how you will feel about your circumstances once kids enter the equation), while others came back either full-time or part-time and became even more solid and focused than previously - because when every minute you're away from the kid is some hugely variable combination of (a). guilt and regret; (b). relief; (c). outrageous opportunity cost of childcare, you tend to view your work choices in a more considered and serious fashion. We certainly benefited from the greater maturity of several returning mothers, and for that matter new fathers.

Equally we had a succession of (for example) 'round-the-worlders' in their 20's and early 30's that were just as disruptive of staffing, and just as likely to come back (if there was a job still there) or not. Then there were those whose training or further education we subsidisied or facilitated, who would either stay and be even more useful, or piss off to work for the competition. All of these things beyond just turning up every day can be a plus, or a minus. The key issue really is the person in question. Of course we went out of business eventually, so caveat emptor.

That there are costs involved for a business is undeniable: the simplest way to deal with this would be for equal paternity entitlements, and then this becomes a level playing field of costs for all businesses, rather than a situation where only women in certain age brackets present a greater risk. A situation which helps no-one.

People need to continue having babies, otherwise your business has no-one to sell stuff to. Staff need to be happy with their work-life choices or you end up with moaning, bitching and hangovers. Maternity is both a cost and an opportunity.

Mrs OBumble

imitation wrote: »

The practicality of materity leave does mean that it will never be something an employer likes.

Actually ...

I was (just) in the workforce when the right to take unpaid parental leave and have your job held for you for a limited period was introduced.

There were lots of predictions of doom and extra cost, as per the OP.

Yes, there can be extra costs.

But at the same time, many companies noted benefits, in terms of it opening up opportunities for employees to develop new skills while covering temporary vacancies, and uncovering work-practices that weren't as expected. It also opened up positions to people who wouldn't necessarily have been hired for a permanent role but were ok on a trial basis - and thus could be paid less. (This was in a country without probation in employment contracts - and admittedly where employees do not clock up annual leave while on maternity leave, which IMHO is madness).

Shelflife

My friend wasnt complaining about the girl leaving or the maternity leave in general, but he was very suprised at the direct cost to him.

even in a situation where the employee comes back, you still will have the extra pay of training in a new employee and the three weeks pay to an employee thats delivering nothing to the business.

Accrueing holiday pay while on maternity leave is a big expense on a small business and very unfair on a business thats just breaking even, he said that having to pay the extra week for the accrued BHs was a real kick in the teeth.

Basically hes peeved that a private and personal decision by an employee has resulted in substantial extra costs to him in his business.

Tefral

Shelflife wrote: »

My friend wasnt complaining about the girl leaving or the maternity leave in general, but he was very suprised at the direct cost to him.

even in a situation where the employee comes back, you still will have the extra pay of training in a new employee and the three weeks pay to an employee thats delivering nothing to the business.

Accrueing holiday pay while on maternity leave is a big expense on a small business and very unfair on a business thats just breaking even, he said that having to pay the extra week for the accrued BHs was a real kick in the teeth.

Basically hes peeved that a private and personal decision by an employee has resulted in substantial extra costs to him in his business.

I hope i'm not going to open an absolutely massive can of worms here, but i'm wondering, if he is going to hire someone to fill the vacancy would the above influence his decision to maybe take on a male as apposed to a female?

Tordelback

Shelflife wrote: »

Basically hes peeved that a private and personal decision by an employee has resulted in substantial extra costs to him in his business.

Yup, it's a pain, and it's one of those things that I think could more fairly be handled as part of the supposed role of PRSI contributions (which would presumably permit government to ratchet up PRSI again). However, note that things could be a lot worse: for example, employers could be forced to make up the difference in wages between statutory and salary, or some proportion thereof. At least all that remains voluntary.

However, having employees and the pesky lives they insist on having is full of costs: that's just the reality of being in business. Maternity leave at least has some positives, although again I'd suggest that its gender-specific nature makes it particularly irksome for everybody. If all your employees were able to avail of the same type of leave, you possibly wouldn't even notice.

Frigga_92

I'd like to see a system introduced in Ireland, something like they have in the Netherlands (I think) whereby if a woman does not return to work after maternity leave they have to repay the maternity benefit or at least a portion of the maternity benefit they were paid.
<snip>

Shelflife wrote: »

Accrueing holiday pay while on maternity leave is a big expense on a small business and very unfair on a business thats just breaking even, he said that having to pay the extra week for the accrued BHs was a real kick in the teeth.

I think it's crazy that you accrue holidays while on maternity leave but not while on sick leave.

xalot

A lot of the larger companies do have it in your contract that if you do not return to work after maternity leave then you have to pay back any maternity top up.

Many women intend to go back to work after having their baby but it's often just not possible. I dont think you can criticise someone for leaving a job that no longer suits their personal circumstances.

GarIT

I wouldn't ever discriminate against somebody based on their gender but the laws in this country would make it difficult for me to ever see employing a female as a financially viable option.

Frigga_92

xalot wrote: »

I dont think you can criticise someone for leaving a job that no longer suits their personal circumstances.

I wasn't talking about someone like that.

wrote:

<snip>

I was talking about someone who specifically pretends that they are going to be returning to work just so they can get their maternity benefit while all along having no intention of returning to work.

I know there are plenty of women who have every intention of returning to work but when the time comes they find they cannot for one reason or other.

Mrs OBumble

GarIT wrote: »

I wouldn't ever discriminate against somebody based on their gender but the laws in this country would make it difficult for me to ever see employing a female as a financially viable option.

I'm in my late 40s. The chances of me getting preggers are pretty much nill. So what exactly have you got against me?

GarIT

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm in my late 40s. The chances of me getting preggers are pretty much nill. So what exactly have you got against me?

You, probably nothing. Younger women likely to have kids would worry me though, especially in a small business it can be the difference between being viable or not. If the state wants to have maternity leave, they can pay it themselves, it should have nothing to do with the employer at all.

Chattastrophe!

GarIT wrote: »

You, probably nothing. Younger women likely to have kids would worry me though, especially in a small business it can be the difference between being viable or not. If the state wants to have maternity leave, they can pay it themselves, it should have nothing to do with the employer at all.

Maternity benefit you mean? The state does pay it ... some employers give salary top-ups; most don't.

GarIT

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Maternity benefit you mean? The state does pay it ... some employers give salary top-ups; most don't.

Yeah, maybe its my complete ignorance but I thought the employer was required to pay some of the benefit.

Chattastrophe!

GarIT wrote: »

Yeah, maybe its my complete ignorance but I thought the employer was required to pay some of the benefit.

Nope, absolutely not.

The maternity benefit is paid directly to the employee by the Department of Social Protection.

Some companies choose to pay a "top-up" which will bring the employee up to their usual salary. In this case, the employee sometimes has the maternity benefit paid directly to the employer instead, and the employer pays their salary as usual. However this would generally be considered the exception rather than the norm in the private sector, especially with smaller businesses.

The cost involved for the employer is the cost of recruiting a replacement for the period of maternity leave. However quite often (in my experience) the replacement will be paid less, so in fact the employer can actually save money by the employee going on maternity leave.

Of course, in quieter periods, some employers choose not to get maternity cover, or to get a maternity replacement on a part-time basis. Thus saving even more money.

In addition, you're bringing new ideas and experience into the company.

I hope this might help you reconsider your stance of not hiring female employees? Because by doing so you're halving your choice of employees for no good reason, and probably missing out on some exceptional candidates.

TimeToShine

GarIT wrote: »

I wouldn't ever discriminate against somebody based on their gender but the laws in this country would make it difficult for me to ever see employing a female as a financially viable option.

I am inclined to agree with this.

If it was a straight choice between an engaged/newlywed 20-30 something year old girl vs a guy the same age it's pretty much a no brainer. I realize that you won't take a financial hit but it's definitely less efficient in the long run.

Diziet

I can't help thinking that the phrase 'I wouldn't discriminate but…' is very reminiscent of 'I am not a racist but…'

You either discriminate or you don't.

wmpdd3

I work in a company with 85% women. Out of 200 staff there are often about 10 pregnant employees and 10 on maternity leave.

We plan for this. Just as we plan for holidays etc.

meeeeh

It's like when someone gets injured. You notice the cost of replacement for crap employees. When good ones go on maternity you deal with it and you are glad when they are back.