Million pregnant womenface discrimination-EOC

LONDON (Reuters) - A million pregnant women in the country face discrimination at work in the next five years, including being sacked, demoted or bullied for having a baby, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission on Thursday.

The EOC said its investigation had found that 30,000 women each year lost their job because of their pregnancy while 200,000 -- almost half of all pregnant women -- faced some form of discrimination.

Sacked women lose out on 12 million pounds in statutory maternity pay every year while replacing them costs employers 126 million pounds.

"Pregnancy discrimination has a huge impact on their lives, but the harm it does to our economy affects us all," said Jenny Watson, acting EOC chairman.

The report said seven out of 10 women treated unfairly by their bosses did not speak out.

The problem arose because of a lack of knowledge from businesses about maternity rights, a lack of planning and negative attitudes towards pregnant women such as viewing them as less committed or suitable for training.

The EOC called for the government to provide a written statement of maternity rights for pregnant women and employers.

It also said employers should be able to ask pregnant women to give a clear indication of when they will return to work and called for greater financial support for small businesses.

Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson said he would consider the recommendations.

"The EOC has some valuable suggestions for encouraging employers to stay in touch with women during maternity leave, and ideas for raising awareness of rights and responsibilities," he said.

it splits 2 ways for me.

I know a fair few women who disappear off on maternity leave saying that they will be back in 6 months when they know that they aren't going to.

The impact on small businesses is completely different to large ones. I know if I ran a small business I would actively seek to not employ anyone who I believed would become pregnant in the near future (although how I'd tell with women I have no clue)

A lot of large organisations do discriminate against pregnant women but I think if you have that kind of break you should expect this to happen to a certain degree. After all having a family is a choice.

I believe that if 2 people are working in a company and doing an equally good job and one decides to have a baby then there is no problem favouring the one who hasn't.

same goes for men who take long paternity leaves.

I fully understand and appreciate the difficulties faced by small employers, even though I disagree with any discrimination they undertake.

However, in this day and age, any form of discrimination is short-sighted and unacceptable.

It would probably be more helpful if small employers could make some sort of 'compensation' claim from the Government if they are facing financial difficulty which would adversly impact on the viability of their business.

The difficulties faced by pregnant women and new mothers with regard to employment and child care are imense. Particularly with the lack of family support that was more readily available in the past when people moved around the country less and stayed close to the extended family.

That said, this country is facing a dramatic reduction in the birth rate. The reasons for this are varied, but potential discrimination in the workplace for women who have a career must be one of the many factors.

The falling birth rate should be the concern of everyone in this country because as we already know, this country has an increasingly 'aging population' and the number of people in work and paying taxes will be outnumbered by those of pensionable age.

Increases in house prices and the ability for women to choose whether or not to have a child all have an adverse impact on the birth rate.

In Germany, the Government now pays a 'bonus' to any family when they have a child, because they are aware of the lon term impact of the falling birth rate. The Government in this country will (as usual) act far too late. The businesses who now complain about employing women who become pregnant will potentially face difficulties in recruiting people in the future unless they treat their employees well and retain them. Recruiting a new employee and training them is false economy.

How I see it is that the more supportive an employer is during a woman's maternity leave then the more likely she is to return afterwards. Companies can give financial incentives to come back. For instance they can offer maternity pay at a higher rate than the statutory minimum, but only on the condition that the woman returns to work for a minimum period of time (6 months in my organisation) or she has to pay back the difference.

I do agree that smaller companies should get help, I think it should probably be up to the government to pay the maternity pay to reflect the fact that the company is having to pay a temporary member of staff to cover.

Any company that discrimnates against pregnant women, or against women of child-bearing age is playing with fire. I have read some comments on the BBC's website from small-businessmen who say they never recruit women under the age of 45. Just because no one has taken them to court yet, doesn't mean it will never happen. People are becoming more and more aware of their rights all the time, and there is unlimited compensation available for any woman who has been discriminated against because of her sex or because of her pregnancy.

We also have to remember that the children born to these women are going to be supporting all of us when we are older. And surely a working mother provides a good example to the child, who will grow up with a strong work ethic, rather than slouching around on benefits once they're older?

And just how do those who discriminate/agree with discrimination against preganant women think that the human race is going to survive? Hello? You were all inutero one day, remember? I can't believe this is even an issue...

The sex discrimination act was passed in the '70's and now there are more men than women claiming sex discrimination.

It's quite easy for employers to 'get round' sex discrimination, particularly in recruitment because a woman won't necessarily know she has been discriminated against.

I know there are many women who are discriminated against on the promotion/demotion side of things but who do not take the employer to court.

The rules about employment tribunals mean an application must be made within 3 months of the discriminatory act occurring and that in itself can be an obstacle particularly for a new mum.

Bringing up a new baby and taking your employer to court is very time consuming and that's if people are fully aware of their rights. A lot of people don't want to cause a fuss and think it will make things worse for them.

It's just so short-sighted of employers to put their employees in this position and if they actually sat and did a business case they would realise it's bad practice morally, legally and business wise. But, some people are so stuck in their own mind set that even if they are taken to a tribunal and lose - they still won't believe they did anything wrong!

Originally posted by lizzmobile
And just how do those who discriminate/agree with discrimination against preganant women think that the human race is going to survive? Hello? You were all inutero one day, remember? I can't believe this is even an issue...

and would you like to explain how if I work with someone who spends a year on matgernity leave. If she comes back and I've worked one year more at the company than her why I should not get a job ahead of her?

afterall she is getting ht benefits of having a child whilst I will have no children.

Robbie!!!

Everyone should get promoted on merit, not length of time served.

This is another area where women are disadvantaged - God i wish men could have babies (mind you, the human race would be in short supply then)!

The average female salary is a lot less than the average male salary - why?

Well we're not talking about all those women who work part-time here, we are talking about full time workers. Women who take time out to have children are more often than not seen as 'no longer committed to a career' - whether they are or not.

It's all based on assumptions and long held steriotypes.

OK, so put even more women off having children (quite often you know it's the man that wants children)! Then where will we be? Where will employers be who keep promotin people because they've not taken maternity leave - irrespective of whether they are the right person for the job?

Oh and while we're at it, what about people who are off sick for 6 months? Should they be passed over for promotion too?

I'm talking about my work being as good as that of the person who is off.

surely if a person works a year more for a company at a standard of the person not working they should get preference?

If two people are equally good at their job, then the person who is interviewing for promotion (or deciding on promotion) should consider all things relevant to the work of each individual, as well as potential to progress.

The fact that someone has taken a year out (for whatever reason) should not be the deciding factor.

Obviously, if you've been working whilst a colleague has been off work, you have got the advantage because you have had more opportunity to learn the job, develop in the job and demonstrate your abilities.

Then the final decision is down to the employer. Any employer worth their salt will not promote simply because one person has been off and the other one hasn't. Who'se to say you're going to be at work and not involved in an accident or something which means you'll be off work in the future?

If you were off work through a road accident for example (heaven forbid - I really would not want that to happen) but, if it did, would you expect someone who has not been off work to be promoted over you - despite how good you are at your job?

yeh but if two people are equally as good at their job but if one has had a year out for whatever reason I would always employ the one who has been constabtly working.

Especially with pregnancy. Injury is a slightly different matter.

Originally posted by robbie
yeh but if two people are equally as good at their job but if one has had a year out for whatever reason I would always employ the one who has been constabtly working.

Especially with pregnancy. Injury is a slightly different matter.

But if you are going for a promotion then it's for a different job than the one you are doing now. You would have to prove during the selection process that you are capable of doing the new job. Any good manager with any kind of morals would not take account of the fact that one person has taken time away from work to have a baby, because it has absolutely nothing to do with actual work performance. I hope you are never a manager in this position, because you may find yourself getting taken to tribunal and putting your company out of business from the damages that can be awarded to a woman who has been so blatently discriminated against.

And the whole idea that someone gets promoted simply because they have been around longer than someone else is a HUGE flaw in British organisations - it often leads to highly unsuitable people being put into jobs they are not capable of.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for some men to understand - what exactly do they expect women to do? - either have children and always be stuck in the same job (or no job at all by the sound of some men!), being passed over for jobs they are more than capable of excelling in; or not having children and living for work? Why should it be only men who can have a career AND children, just because they are not the ones who have to physically have those children? Why should women be over-looked and underpaid for the rest of their lives just for being a woman?!?

sorry, the promotion thing was an example.

I meant same ability to do the job that they were going for.

All I want is a fair playing field.

if you have time off work that should be able to count against you.

Its not just about maternity leave tho - women who are pregnant are likely to be the primary care givers for a pre-school child for the next 5 years, and will need time off for illnesses, when the childminder is ill, etc.

don't get me started on parents taking time off work for kid's illnesses.

some of it goes beyond a joke.

14-15 year old kids with colds.

wtf?

Take it you've not got kids then robbie!

I don't understand your point about saying having a family is a choice - it is, individually, but not collectively, we can't all stop having families there would be disaster! So you're condemning loads of women to a life of little job prospect and low wages cos they made the mistake of choosing a family over a merc!

no I'm saying that if someone (male or female) decides to have a long period of time off of work in order to start a family they should expect it to effect their career prospects.

No I haven't and won't have children.

I'd don't begrudge my taxes going towards child tax credit etc (as I got child benefits myself) but I do begrudge people taking time off work for minor child illnesses.

And if people cannot afford the childcare then you shouldn't have had the child in the first place. It is called responsible planning which a lot of people seem incapable of doing nowardays

Robbie wrote" If you have time off that should be able to count against you" (Sorry I don't know how to do that insert thing)

If you are skiving then of course, but I cannot think of any better reason to stay home from work than to bring up children.

Babies and toddlers up until the age of 3 NEED their mothers with them, not nursery workers, baby sitters or childcarers, however gorgeous they may be, as many of them are, and full of love and good experience, but they are not the mother. I have just done a course in York about the care of children up to three years old and believe me, the rightful place of the child is with the mother.

We learned about the effects on the young child of not being with the mother and believe me there are plenty of delinquents and dysfunctional people around who either know or don't know that this is a result of their needs not being properly met when they were in a key developmental stage.

We have a baby sitter we use sometimes for various occasions, though not frequently and the children LOVE her to pieces. She is gorgeous, lively, fun and she makes them laugh the whole and she's a blonde babe (!!!) but when I am here, right next to her, but doing something, they want ME not her.

Mothers are bringing up the next generation, whichever that generation may be and if they are not allowed to do their job properly, the effects will be far reaching.

Yes, I completely take your point about the older kids with colds. WTF is right (LOL)! A few herbs, bit of lemon honey and hot water and off you go. Sheesh.

It a 'Parents' responsibility to bring up their children. Another one of the reasons women don't progress as they should in the workplace is they often (though this is changing) have to take the primary care role, taking children to the Doc's, Dentist or whatever.

My brother-in-law is a house husband. He was the one who particularly wanted children and gave up his job to look after them (the oldest in now 11). My sister wasn't as keen to have children and did not want to give up her career - she'd trained for many years and worked hard to get where she was. As she was the one with a secure regular income, they decided that she would remain working. She had to take maternity leave (couldn't avoid that bit)! and she loves her children to bits. However, having their dad look after them has, I think, been a great success and better for the children as he seems to have more patience.

My sisters three children have good manners, they are polite, friendly and well-adjusted. They don't need a mother full-time, children need a caring parent - whether that is the mother or the father. Strangely, when I was at work, people commented less when a father took time off to care for the children, most people thought it was really good of him?!

PS: how come fathers 'babysit' their own children? Never could quite figure that one out! It's about time both mothers and fathers had equal rights and responsibilities for their children.

Sorry - this seems to have gone off thread a bit :blush:

Originally posted by robbie
no I'm saying that if someone (male or female) decides to have a long period of time off of work in order to start a family they should expect it to effect their career prospects.



But that attitude affects more women than men, and therefore it is the very essence of indirect discrimination.

And for any new job you go for (promotion or not) you still have to prove that you can do the job - if two people are both equally matched to a job (never happens by the way, no two people are identical - you might have two people who are equally strong, but those strengths will be different and that is how you make the selection decision) then absence from work for having a child is nothing to do with anything.

Let me ask you Robbie - if you were a woman, who had worked hard for her career, just as hard as any man, but you were passed over for a job you were perfectly capable of doing because you had taken 6-12 months away to have a baby - would you really accept that as being fair enough? If you think you would see that as fair then I don't believe you are being completely honest with yourself.

What message does this discrimination you are condoning send out to young women? For example, you're telling me, as a young childless woman, that all my hard work so far should count for nothing if one day I decide to have a family. Why should I have bothered trying hard at school? Why should I have gone to university? Why should I have funded myself through an expensive postgraduate course in order to enhance my career prospects? Why should I bother doing the best I can in my present job? Why should I do any of these things if the moment I become pregnant it all goes out of the window and some equally qualified man gets preference for everything (whilst no doubt at the same time starting his own family)? Can you imagine what sort of potential is lost through this kind of discrimination?

Originally posted by banesmabes
But that attitude affects more women than men, and therefore it is the very essence of indirect discrimination.

And for any new job you go for (promotion or not) you still have to prove that you can do the job - if two people are both equally matched to a job (never happens by the way, no two people are identical - you might have two people who are equally strong, but those strengths will be different and that is how you make the selection decision) then absence from work for having a child is nothing to do with anything.

Let me ask you Robbie - if you were a woman, who had worked hard for her career, just as hard as any man, but you were passed over for a job you were perfectly capable of doing because you had taken 6-12 months away to have a baby - would you really accept that as being fair enough? If you think you would see that as fair then I don't believe you are being completely honest with yourself.

What message does this discrimination you are condoning send out to young women? For example, you're telling me, as a young childless woman, that all my hard work so far should count for nothing if one day I decide to have a family. Why should I have bothered trying hard at school? Why should I have gone to university? Why should I have funded myself through an expensive postgraduate course in order to enhance my career prospects? Why should I bother doing the best I can in my present job? Why should I do any of these things if the moment I become pregnant it all goes out of the window and some equally qualified man gets preference for everything (whilst no doubt at the same time starting his own family)? Can you imagine what sort of potential is lost through this kind of discrimination?

it shouldn't count for nothing but if 2 people of the same ability go for the same job and one has been off of work for a period of time (maternity or paternity) the person who has spent the extra time working for the company should get the job.

Remember I'm comparing 2 people of equal workrate, ability, etc etc.

Just trying to say that if you have time off to have a kid you should expect to fall back in the pecking order for promotions.

Originally posted by robbie
it shouldn't count for nothing but if 2 people of the same ability go for the same job and one has been off of work for a period of time (maternity or paternity) the person who has spent the extra time working for the company should get the job.

Remember I'm comparing 2 people of equal workrate, ability, etc etc.

Just trying to say that if you have time off to have a kid you should expect to fall back in the pecking order for promotions.

And what I'm saying is that is blatent discrimination and hence is illegal and, in my book, immoral. Just because you have had time off work doesn't mean you are unsuitable for a job and should not come into a selection decision - it should not be the deciding factor in who gets a job - it should not even be a factor! And as I said, no two people are identical, therefore it never happens that you have two people of equal workrate, ability etc - different people have different strengths and that is what should decide who gets the job!

Why shouldn't a woman expect the same treatment when going back to work after maternity leave? Why has her capacity to do the job diminished in the meantime? She hasn't lost her brains and ability whilst she's been away, therefore she should not be patronised in this way.

I notice you didn't answer my questions about how you would feel if you were a woman and you were passed over for a job for this reason, or about why women should even both trying if this sort of attitude is allowed to prevail?!?

Originally posted by robbie
trying to say that if you have time off to have a kid you should expect to fall back in the pecking order for promotions.

Archaic? Yes.

Illegal? Yes.

Immoral? Yes.

As a woman who someday hopes to be a solicitor and have a brood of my own, let me tell you: If an employer tries to discriminate against me for training hard for my position for over 5 years and then choosing to start a family, I'll drag them through the courts under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and have them for everything they're worth.

Let that be a warning to them :)

I guess if two people are considered equally capable of doing a particular job on promotion, and one person gets it over the other - then there is probably something about that individual that sets them apart from the other one - no matter how the 'loser' may feel they are equal.

The fact that one of them has had time off work to have a child is not the issue.

Often some people think they are as good as others - when in actual fact they are not quite as good as they think :thumbsup:

Originally posted by banesmabes
And what I'm saying is that is blatent discrimination and hence is illegal and, in my book, immoral. Just because you have had time off work doesn't mean you are unsuitable for a job and should not come into a selection decision - it should not be the deciding factor in who gets a job - it should not even be a factor! And as I said, no two people are identical, therefore it never happens that you have two people of equal workrate, ability etc - different people have different strengths and that is what should decide who gets the job!

Why shouldn't a woman expect the same treatment when going back to work after maternity leave? Why has her capacity to do the job diminished in the meantime? She hasn't lost her brains and ability whilst she's been away, therefore she should not be patronised in this way.

I notice you didn't answer my questions about how you would feel if you were a woman and you were passed over for a job for this reason, or about why women should even both trying if this sort of attitude is allowed to prevail?!?

I agree about blatant discrimination. That poor white man who has worked his ass off for a company and never taken time off doesn't get a promotion because someone decided to have a kid and take a year off work. When they came back their manager was so scared of being accused of discriminating against the woman that she got the job ahead of the man.

And if I was a woman (or man after paternity leave) I'd expect that I would have fallen behind in the pecking order at work. However, I would still have the same job in the same postion I left at. I' also would be thankful that I lived in a country where I can have time off of work in order to have a child and still go back to the same job.

people seem to think that a lot of benefits they get in this country are their rights. I'll not even go on about whining over not getting free childcare. Some of us wonder why we have to pay to bring up other people's children.

Originally posted by robbie
I agree about blatant discrimination. That poor white man who has worked his ass off for a company and never taken time off doesn't get a promotion because someone decided to have a kid and take a year off work. When they came back their manager was so scared of being accused of discriminating against the woman that she got the job ahead of the man.

And if I was a woman (or man after paternity leave) I'd expect that I would have fallen behind in the pecking order at work. However, I would still have the same job in the same postion I left at. I' also would be thankful that I lived in a country where I can have time off of work in order to have a child and still go back to the same job.

people seem to think that a lot of benefits they get in this country are their rights. I'll not even go on about whining over not getting free childcare. Some of us wonder why we have to pay to bring up other people's children.

Well Robbie, I can only hope that you never have a wife or a daughter who you have to explain your sexist views to! Does this 'poor white man' you describe usually have a family at home - yes, I think you will find they usually do. So why should a woman be persecuted for having the same thing?

And I have certainly not said anywhere in my posts that a woman should be given preference for a job if she has had time off - I have only said that any break from work for child bearing should not be taken into account. But the following could also be argued: Anyone who hasn't had a break (your 'poor white man' for example) already has the advantage because he has had longer to gain experience and skills. If he's still only equally matched to a job despite having more experience, then he obviously hasn't utilised that opportunity as he should - some would argue it shows a weakness if they are only equally matched! And I think you will find the statistics speak for themselves - women are very definately discriminated on a daily basis - they earn much less than men in similar jobs and are much less likely to be promoted to management positions. Your 'poor white man' doesn't really exist because he runs the organisations that keep women 'in their place' as you seem to be indirectly advocating.

A woman cannot get away from the fact that if she wants a family she has to physically give birth to them. Again I ask you what message your attitude sends out to young women? Why should women even bother trying if they are going to be immediately disadvantaged when they have a child? And again I ask you how you would feel if you were a woman and knew you had been passed over for a job because you had taken maternity leave - even though you were as strong a candidate as anyone else. Believe me, you would not just shrug your shoulders and accept it as the natural order of things. Please try and suspend your masculine view of the world for a moment and really think about how devalued as a human being you would feel.

And for information, yes women are entitled to return to a job - but it doesn't have to be the same job. I agree that a woman should expect to fall back into the pecking order when going back to work - but her maternity leave is not a factor for deciding where she stands in that pecking order. I just find the idea that women should be thankful for what they get extremely patronising. Yes Britain is better than some other countries, but we still have a long way to go.

that would be positive discrimination in favour of the woman and would be just as wrong.

There is no reason that time off should alter someones promotion prospects, when being compared to someone of equal ability.

If two people started at the same time, and the woman takes a year out, the man has the advantage of a years extra experience, so either that should make him the better candidate for the promotion or otherwise he was already inferior to the woman (maybe she just does the job better).
Time off for sickness is a different issue, but depends on the exact pattern, so there's no point in going into it now.

I have the option of taking a sabbatical from my job if I want. (Which could be considered as pretty similar to maternity leave from the companies point of view). I wouldn't expect the fact that i'd had a year off to make any difference to a promotion when I got back, although I would expect my peers who didn't take a year out to be in a better position than me simply due to their extra years work.

Possible a little off topic, but several times people have said promotion means a different job. That's not always the case, especially in technical careers. Both myself and my SO have been promoted several times, but the nature of our work hasn't changed at all, the difference in my case, is slightly more responsibility, an assumption about the amount of supervision and management I require and things like that. So getting a promotion isn't down to proving that I can do a different job, it's more about proving that i'm already working at the level expected of the next grade.

Originally posted by robbie
I agree about blatant discrimination. That poor white man who has worked his ass off for a company and never taken time off doesn't get a promotion because someone decided to have a kid and take a year off work. When they came back their manager was so scared of being accused of discriminating against the woman that she got the job ahead of the man.

And if I was a woman (or man after paternity leave) I'd expect that I would have fallen behind in the pecking order at work. However, I would still have the same job in the same postion I left at. I' also would be thankful that I lived in a country where I can have time off of work in order to have a child and still go back to the same job.

people seem to think that a lot of benefits they get in this country are their rights. I'll not even go on about whining over not getting free childcare. Some of us wonder why we have to pay to bring up other people's children.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Babies and toddlers up until the age of 3 NEED their mothers with them, not nursery workers, baby sitters or childcarers...Mothers are bringing up the next generation, whichever that generation may be and if they are not allowed to do their job properly, the effects will be far reaching.

I think I see a problem here. Doesn't every child have a mother and a father (barring the terrible case of the death of one or both)?

A major problem that I have experienced time and time again is that women shoulder the entire responsiblity of child care even when a father is living in the same house-hold. Examples include women not turning up or leaving work early because a distressed partner cannot cope with whatever crisis their child has presented them with; women making special arrangements to start work late and finish early so that they can drop their children at school (in one case a child was at VI form college); women forming cliques at work and spending more time talking about the development stages their various offspring.

If we are to have equity with regard to promotion and pay then we must have a commensurate equity of contribution. A woman on maternity leave gives nothing to an organisation, neither does a man on paternity leave, and the same is true for a person on long term sick-leave. None of these people have learned how to do their job better or kept in touch with the changes that occur in all fields of work.

Pregancy and childcare is the responsibility of both parents and that is why sex is not to be undertaken lightly (I assume we all understand the links between sex, pregnancy and children) Not that I'm at all puritan about things, but you know; "Do the crime, do the time" and all that...

Back to the point, if you want to have children, that is essentially your choice. Your employer should not have to supoprt that choice...Imagine asking for six months paid leave to climb Mount Everest because it was something you and your lover had always wanted to do and you weren't going to need maternity leave because you had a hysterectomy at 16. That's not going to happen, but it's no more or less any of your employer's business than someone else's choice to have a child. How is that fair and equitable?

Devils advocate: Perhaps women of childbearing age should be asked to sign a declaration stating they will not get pregnant whilst working for a particular employer? That way they can ensure they are given equal chance when applying for jobs or promotion?

Devils advocate: Or should we (as a nation) actively discourage women from having children (and therefore maternity leave) as it will have an adverse impact upon their career and job prospects and thus the productivity and efficency of the employer?

Devils advocate: Maybe it would be a good idea for all female graduates to be sterilised and that way their education will not be wasted on trivial things such as having children?

Originally posted by dirtybristow
Back to the point, if you want to have children, that is essentially your choice. Your employer should not have to supoprt that choice...Imagine asking for six months paid leave to climb Mount Everest because it was something you and your lover had always wanted to do and you weren't going to need maternity leave because you had a hysterectomy at 16. That's not going to happen, but it's no more or less any of your employer's business than someone else's choice to have a child. How is that fair and equitable?

Your arguement that employers should not have to support someone through maternity leave would affect women and not men, therefore it is still discrimination. The fact is it IS in an employer's interest to support a woman through her maternity leave, because they will then get that woman back to work, and will then not lose all her knowledge and skills (potentially to a more progressive thinking competitor). There have been numerous studies that show that generous maternity policies are good for business. Employing people is not just about getting bums on seats, it's about having people who are right for your organisation - and any company that alienates an experienced employee because she has had a child is cutting off its nose to spite its face, especially in today's tight recuitment market.

And it is certainly of benefit to society for women to be supported through maternity leave - because we need a next generation! And we need the contribution that women make to the economy!

No, you wouldn't get paid for going off travelling for 6 months - but you could argue that that is not an ordinary life decision, whereas having children is. And having time off unpaid for travelling does not affect one sex more than another, therefore it is not discrimination.

I think you are right that there needs to be equality between mother and father when it comes to responsibility for the child. But there needs to be a huge shift in attitudes of men, women, employers, and society as a whole before that happens. I would be interested to see the reaction of men if they were told they had to take the same amount of leave as their partner and would then have to face the consequences of a much diminished career, regardless of ability!

The fact that men are offered considerably less paid leave than a woman after the birth of a child discriminates against men, I agree, but that's another issue entirely.

Also, the fact that a large number of men expect their life to be largely unchanged by the birth of a child while a large number of women tcitly or overtly work to perputuate that expectation is a damning indictment of the way British people socialise their children.

I honestly believe that the state should match pound for pound the salary and national insurance contribution of both parents for six months after a child is born. I don't believe that employers should be forced to shoulder the financial or administrative responsibility for somehting that will have no direct net benefit to their business. If we had an industry where having babies brought in revenue, for instance organised surragate motherhood, then I could understand how an employer or agent would be expected to invest in the time spent unable to work.

Just a thought experiment, imagine that four women got together and opened an office. Childless couples could apply for a place on the list and one of the women would have a baby for them. The other three would take the role of office manager, accountant and secretary by rotation every six months while the fourth was ending their pregnancy, delivering and recovering. This really is a business where pregnancy is the employer's responsibility, then I would say it fair that the women get full salary for six months where the only expactaiton is that they will be pregnant and deliver a child.

maybe everyone should be allocated an amount of time that they can in their lifetime take as paid leave, men and women both.
If they choose to have children, they take the time then, if they don't they can take it to go and climb a mountain.
Given that we need 2 children/family to maintain the population it should be 2 * normal maternity leave. Anymore than that and you can work it out for yourself as you've already done your bit for society.

The other issues that people keep raising, time of to care for sick children, special arrangement working hours. These aren't an entitlement, so whatever a particular person negotiates with their business is down to them, as is managing how that impacts their career. If a woman has a particularly good career, there's nothing to stop her and her partner from reversing the traditional roles once she's back at work and the father being the one who arranges special hours and all the rest.

Can anyone explain whether a company with people on maternity leave gets compensation from the government?

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe everyone should be allocated an amount of time that they can in their lifetime take as paid leave, men and women both.
If they choose to have children, they take the time then, if they don't they can take it to go and climb a mountain. Given that we need 2 children/family to maintain the population it should be 2 * normal maternity leave. Anymore than that and you can work it out for yourself as you've already done your bit for society.

Now that's good sense! I like that idea.

Originally posted by Cyclone

Can anyone explain whether a company with people on maternity leave gets compensation from the government?

From the DTI website:

"Existing arrangements for employers to recover Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) continue – employers are able to claim back 92% of the payments they make, with those eligible for small employers’ relief able to claim back 100% plus an additional amount in compensation for the employer’s portion of National Insurance contributions paid on SMP. "

So the vast majority of SMP can be reclaimed from the government - so if an employer only pays SMP it actually costs them very little - just the 8% plus NI contributions for large employers, and nothing for small employers. Of course, if they pay more than SMP then they have to stump up the difference - but most employers who offer this make the woman sign a clause saying she will come back to work for a minimum period of time, otherwise she pays back the difference.

it has recently amazed me that discrimination against preg women exists, i presumed it you didnt take the micky and treat it like an illness, that ur employers would be cool. how wrong i was. :(

I am not surprised that it still goes on, but I was surprised that more women don't follow it up with legal action. But on speaking to a colleague at work the other day I can understand some of the reasons why.

His wife has worked for the same company since leaving school 20 years ago. Up until having children she was a relatively well-paid Administration Manager. However the firm obviously took exception to her taking time off for maternity leave. Under the law the employer does not necessarily have to leave the old job open, but they do have to ensure that a job of similar status and the same pay is available. However on returning to work my colleague's wife found that her job had changed considerably. Even though they said it was the same, gave it the same title and salary, she suddenly found herself doing the work of an office junior, not directly managing anyone as she had done before, no management of resources as she had before, instead she was doing the same sort of admin work she had done when she first joined the company (some 15 years before), and was expected to do everyone's filing.

Even though she has the same title and salary she feels completely devalued - but she also feels like there is nothing she can do. She is finding it hard to find a job elsewhere because she has been with her current employer so long - and she keeps getting comments about it showing a lack of ambition. She feels she can't take action against her employer because they would treat her even worse, because she simply can't afford the legal fees, and even if she won she feels she could not go on working there, so again she would be struggling to find a job elsewhere.

I just can't understand employers like this. They are paying someone to do a managers job, but not letting her do it - just because she had the nerve to have a baby! They are letting her extensive knowledge of the company, built up over 2 decades, go to complete and utter waste. It just makes absolutely no business sense whatsoever.