Can anyone expain to me the logic/reason behind maternity leave rules that leave me as a samll businees without one of my key folk for 13months, and then when they finally decide to grace us with their presence again its decided at the last minute that it will be at the princely rate of 16 hours per week, (apparently on the basis that more than that will impact adversely on theri benefits)……… AND then once thats agreed thaT they are then able to claim something in the order of 140 hours of leave entitelment on top of everything else??????? Thus kicking me firmly in the nuts at one of the busiest, but cash flow strapped periods of the year without any warning!!!

Business right on the cliff edge and teetering…. can’t do without the hands, can’t afford to retain the maternity leave cover, and haven’t got the funds currently to pay in lieu.

WTF

go bankrupt, start a new business, don’t employ women of child bearing age.

Can anyone expain to me the logic/reason behind maternity leave rules

It’s to give people the flexibility to have the family setup they want. This is important.

However it’s shite that you as an employer don’t get any warning or help.

Hard times, redundancies before Xmas will suck.

Isn’t it the case that they have to return to pre-leave employment or lose their maternity benefit?

To clarify, for me. Who actually pays them them maternity pay is it you or the state?

Hence the reason many small business shy away from employing women of a certain age for fear of just this situation.

on the flip side though we heavily relied on my wife’s very generous mat cover from the NHS as we have no parents to cover for our child care needs and the cost and hassle of full time child care would have killed us……cue the “why have kids if you cant afford” comments.

Its not fair on small business I agree, but one rule for all must be applied I guess.

I’m confused. Who decided they would only work 16 hours a week?

Berm Bandit – Member

Can anyone expain to me the logic/reason behind maternity leave rules

Political correctness.

go bankrupt, start a new business, don’t employ women of child bearing age.

Do you know what? I’ve always tried hard to be a caring employer, but to be honest I can now see why people might take that view. We’re not big enough to have specialist HR people, and honestly it never even occurred to me that this could happen. I really have tried to be as accomodating as I can, including agreeing to the 16 hour thing, even though its a total pain in the backside, and I’ve had to restructure the way we work to do it. Only after that was agreed and oput in place did the “oh and by the way” line appear…. so its either a lump sum I haven’t got or another two months without her or the cover for her. Won’t be bankrupt, but if the bank decides not to be nice about this it could mean administration, its that finely balanced right now.

However it’s shite that you as an employer don’t get any warning or help.

Surely the OP had several months of warning? People looking for flexible working on returning to work after maternity isn’t exactly rare. Plenty of time to look at the possible scenarios and how to deal with them in plenty of time.

Rachel (who has no kids so not ‘biased’)

Im not sure exactly how it all works but my missus had to give 3 months notice of exactly what maternity leave she would be taking

hindsight etc but good idea for you to check up on all this stuff before she had her baby!

Did you tell her that her asking for 16 hours jeopardises the whole business?

Perhaps if you had a family/any conciensce, you might understand the importance of a mother & maternity leave.

You must have agreed she could come back 16hrs per week no? In which case no point bleating about it, you should have thought about that first.

Milgrips – thats not her issue its the bosses. He could have said “its full time or nowt” AFAIK (and I may be wrong) he’s not pobliged to offer reduced hours if the Job can’t sustain it. He can offer an alternative position, or redundancy – its her decision, but his rules.

Here:

You have the right to ask for part-time or flexible hours and your employer has a duty to seriously consider your request. Your employer must have a good business reason for refusing. You may be able to rely on sex discrimination law if your request is refused and you do not think your employer has a good business reason for the refusal.

Since April 2003 the right to request flexible work involves a clear procedure, which both you and your employer must follow. You should make a written application and your employer must then arrange a meeting with you to discuss it within 28 days, unless your request is agreed at the outset.

Sound’s to me the OP has good business reasons to refuse.

This is one of those issues that is never dealt with in any depth as increased maternity provision is a “good thing”, but as your post illustrates it can cause small employers major problems.

Small businesses are the main drivers of increased employment and the greater the burden of maternity pay and other employee rights, the lesser the incentive to expand and offer new employment opportunities – or the greater the incentive not to employ people of a certain age. Whilst you can have laws to make the latter illegal, in reality it is impossible to prove a case except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore such policies can have the opposite of their intended effect.

The Germans I believe exempt small enterprises from having to provide employees with certain rights and this may be the way to go.

You must have agreed she could come back 16hrs per week no? In which case no point bleating about it, you should have thought about that first.

Yes and as I said, I restructured the way we operate to facilitate it for her. Not becuase it was good for me, but becuase it was important for her. What I overlooked, and yes I did overlook it, is that after nearly 13months absence that I would also have to pay for or alternatively give her holiday based on her previous hours of work agaisnt this new scheme of work, thus 2 months off or cash in lieu that I simply haven’t got at the moment. Like I said it simply didn’t occur to me that could be possible, frankly I wouldn’t have dreamt it in my wildest dreams. For the record my last expereince of maternity issues was when my wife had our last child 24 years ago, so its not something I deal with every day.

Sound’s to me the OP has good business reasons to refuse.

Well actually, no I didn’t, clearly, becuase I was able to resturcture to facilitate it, that apart I have a moral obligation to a person who has worked for me for many years. I have no problem with that and I would always try to accomodate what I can where I can, as opposed to being the facist which you are trying hard to imply that I am.

http://www.beginnersguide.com/human-resources/

😉

She’ll be back to full time before you know it, for just long enough….

…and then off pregnant again.

I’m sorry to say that this is why no women work for me. It’s just far too risky.

I love the idea of the maternity laws but wouldn’t it be great if the business, who has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that employees get pregnant, could avoid the costs.

We could, as the society who has decided this is a good set of values to aspire to, all pay into a central fund of some kind using our tax structure. We’d need to name it something that would denote it was for the good of the society and provided by the state.
We could call it the welfare state.

Oh.

Nice one diggle, what is your firm?

OP, I’m not implying you’re a fascist but I am a little confused with your rantette.

It would appear that whilst trying to do the best for your employee and your business, you’ve made a mistake (or two) which is of detrement to the business by not researching it properly.

You CAN fix it, by either being hard nosed and making the changes for the benefit of the business, which would apparently have consequenses for the employee so you choose to do so, or not.

That isn’t a rant (well, may be an inward rant), its a difficult choice. Only you can decide whats important to you at this point. Live with the consequences, or make her position redundant – running a business isn’t easy as I’m sure you know.

BTW, under what circumstances does she get 40 days (2 months Holiday)? My wife went back part time and her holiday allowance was pro rated…?

I’m sorry to say that this is why no women work for me.

So did you sack them all, or just refuse to even interview them?

Just out of interest, is it possible to get business insurance against this sort of thing?

In my opinion if her returning on reduced hours effects your business enough to warrant a bit of a rant you should probably have refused the request to change the contract for good business reasons and you probably would have been within your rights.

I don’t get the leave bit though. My sister returned to work in October after a year off on maternity leave. Under the terms of her employment she will only be working a 4 day week until March as she uses up the leave she accrued whilst away. I just can’t fathom this one out.

BTW, under what circumstances does she get 40 days

140 hours @ 16 hours per week = 8.75 weeks leave. Thats the point, and the bit I missed. The penny didn’t drop that there would be leave entitlement and that it would be calculated solely on the previous scheme of work. Daft I know, but my last involvement with maternity leave was when I was refused time off to attend the birth of my daughter or to look after my wife 24 years ago,(I had the last laugh though, as she was delivered at home by me :-). Which is what in fact propelled me to work for myself. Its also what is firmly in my mind in my dealings with my staff now. So generally I undertand what its all about, its just that the burden both of administration and cost is disproportionate at the small end of the business scale.

Trust me its not difficult to overlook things when you are trying to keep afloat.

Think : 55 weeks off mostly on paid maternity leave, for which they have now accrued holiday entitlement as well. Seems to me that statutory maternity leave (the clue is in the name), should include annual leave entitlement even if its extended by 4 or 5 weeks to accomodate that, but why would you give someone maternity leave with annual leave on top? Remember even though the maternity leave is state funded, I am also paying for maternity cover and the covers leave at the same time. So the leave element is a double whammy.

just refuse to even interview them?

I willing to be corrected, but this can be discovered by a Freedom of Information request which would leave the employer well and truly stuffed.

140 hours @ 16 hours per week = 8.75 weeks leave. Thats the point, and the bit I missed. The penny didn’t drop that there would be leave entitlement and that it would be calculated solely on the previous scheme of work. Daft I know, but my last involvement with maternity leave was when I was refused time off to attend the birth of my daughter or to look after my wife 24 years ago,(I had the last laugh though, as she was delivered at home by me :-). Which is what in fact propelled me to work for myself. Its also what is firmly in my mind in my dealings with my staff now. So generally I undertand what its all about, its just that the burden both of administration and cost is disproportionate at the small end of the business scale.

Trust me its not difficult to overlook things when you are trying to keep afloat.

Ok, I understood a “week” to be 5 days. So actually you only lose 18 days rather than the statutory of 22(I think). That doesn’t add up so I assume you’ve contractually provide her with an amount of leave over the statutory when she was full time? In which case her leave is equally propotional to her work hours as it was when she was full time.

Anyway, you live and learn, so as when mentioned she’s off again you’ll be able to make the appropriate changes 🙂

I’m sorry to say that this is why no women work for me. It’s just far too risky.

How will that play out for you if/when plans for leave to be taken for either parent come into effect? Or have you ensured that all your employees are sterile? 🙂

If it’s like anywhere I’ve ever worked, you have to let people take holiday, but you can tell them when they are allowed to take it within reason.

So if it’s the busiest time of the year, can’t you tell them that you’re okay about the holiday (you have to anyway, what with it being the law), but that they can’t take it right now and to take the holiday over the next couple of months when it is quieter and you can cope with being short-handed for a bit?

Yep: The issue for me is I’ve pared down her tasks to just the most critical for her skills and farmed out what I can elsewhere to accomodate her needs. Suddenly, having done that I’ve found myself without her for 8.75 weeks, (she actually wants to take the time off, not be paid in lieu). Either way is a total embuggerance, and on balance taking the time is probably the bigger problem, as what slack there was has just been taken up by the reallocation of tasks. Took me flipping ages to sort it out and right now there a smoking hole in my boot and my gun is lying by my side! 🙁

I really have tried to be as accomodating as I can, including agreeing to the 16 hour thing, even though its a total pain in the backside

I don’t get this bit..

Mrs yunki wasn’t up to the job after her maternity leave finished, due to post-natal depression..

game over – she apologised and left her position

I attended a small business start up seminar that was funded by the gov via some quango or other, must be 2 or 3 years ago now.

The lecturer made a point of mentioning that you would be wise to consider the risks to your business of employing women of child bearing age.
He was right, you do need to consider the risks but we all got the impression he meant don’t do it.

but that they can’t take it right now and to take the holiday over the next couple of months when it is quieter and you can cope with being short-handed for a bit

Think about it Joe. We are talking about a couple of months on top of what she is entitled to for next year, In essence that means I will be without this employee for in excess of a quarter of 2013 whenever she flipping takes it!

Mrs yunki wasn’t up to the job after her maternity leave finished, due to post-natal depression..

game over – she apologised and left her position

Shame for her she didn’t work for me then!

well… there just came a point where she thought – ‘bugger this, my employers are very nice folk and I’ve messed them around enough already’

morality or something I think she called it..

just refuse to even interview them?

I willing to be corrected, but this can be discovered by a Freedom of Information request which would leave the employer well and truly stuffed.

I don’t honestly think it’s come up more than once and fortunately someone else was better qualified. Still, I’m not exactly positively discriminating if you want to persue that angle?
Jeez, it’s like you can’t even make sweeping statements on internet forums anymore!

I really feel for Berm Bandit – you are clearly trying to do the right thing and hang on a valued member of your team by bending over backwards. I’ve done this several times myself for a variety of reasons and I’m mostly regret free. I agree with the maternity provision on the whole too. I think every child should be given the opportunity to have a parent on hand. I just don’t understand how to make a sensible connection between paying for it and the employer.

We have a national system in place for things like this and it seem entirely appropriate to use it.

How will that play out for you if/when plans for leave to be taken for either parent come into effect? Or have you ensured that all your employees are sterile?

It’s my second question at interview.

Where I work, although leave accumulates during maternity leave, we are only allowed to carry a maximum of 5 days over into the new leave year. So anyone going on a maternity leave which will cross into a new leave year they have to take some of the leave before they go or they loose it.

I appreciate that this may be too late for you – but you could look at it. If you are only legally obliged to provide the leave accumulated for this leave year, you could maybe negotiate with the employee that the ‘old leave’ be taken at a less busy time…

We do have a accumulation rule. It was all accrued in the current year, and she wants to take it in that same year, (ending 31.3.2103). that is why I am now faced with the problem.

Trust me I’ve thought of every angle to it. Again my view is generally to pay unto Caesars what is caesars and if she is entitled to it then so be it. What I’m having a rantette about is that it just doesn’t make any logical sense. Like I say, maternity leave – is leave surely or otherwise why not call it something else? So having had a years leave, how come there is more to come and why is it funded differently? Surely if there is an argument for state funding for maternity leave, then there is an argument for all of it to be funded?