Forum menu
(or indeed fathers for paternity)
This has been put to me by a few people now, who don't believe that women should get any financial assistance from an employer for taking time off work to have children. By all means keep their job and any benefits associated with it until their return, by why should they be paid when essentially they have made a [i]choice[/i] to raise a family. After all, many employees are not paid for meal breaks or sick leave. Its a system that can be abused, such as women gaining public sector jobs then taking maternity leave after 6 months, knowing that they probably have a job for life.
Now, personally, this is not something I believe in. For one thing, if a woman is raped and subsequently becomes pregnant, for some there is simply no choice when it comes to an abortion. Secondly, having children is a right of life and as such I believe that society as a whole should support those who exercise that right, which of course includes employers offering financial support.
I think its an interesting topic, and probably wouldn't have questioned it if I hadn't met a few people recently who are quite opposed to it!
Back under your bridge! Leave the goats alone!
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
if i ran a small business i wouldn't employ any women. it's odds on they are going to want to leave and have kids, and just think of the money you would save on loo roll.
I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer. I can see how it could be crippling for small businesses and wonder if in the long term that approach would reduce inequality
Off we go back to the Victorian work houses’…
People should stand on their own feet and shouldn’t get any support from the state….
If you want money then you should work for it…
Mmmm…
Don't feed the troll
The only merit for the argument for not paying maternity pay is to reduce the non-productive costs of women in the workforce which makes them less employable.
A more equitable approach to solving that problem would be mandatory paternity pay for fathers on exactly the same terms as women so as to remove the differential.
While that would overall add to the non-productive cost of the UK workforce, the soft benefits of re-emphasising family life would ultimately lead to the harder benefits of increased productivity that comes with a happier workforce and I think would outweigh the costs pretty quickly
After all, many employees are not paid for ... sick leave
Really?
it is - SMP. Some companies will have a policy offering payment over and above that, but it's discressionary.I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer.
I think that there should be some basic provision i.e. the statutory miniumum yes, competition for the best empoyees obviously means that some employers will pay more than that. My mrs is off on full pay for 6 months, then statutory for 3 months, then 0 for 3 months, which I feel is pretty generous given that she is contributing nothing to the company in that period. I imagine that it is in many employers intrests to retain that tallent, but for many small businesses the cost is probably prohibitive unless the slack is taken up by the state, which I belive it should be.
ebygumm - smaller companies have maternity pay paid for by the government (I think through a tax credit or something). However, business disruption to a smaller company is a bigger problem and is not compensated for by any government assistance, and so for smaller companies, employing women of a baby-making age is still not seen as a sound move despite the governments efforts to neutralise the up front maternity pay cost.
'and just think of the money you would save on loo roll.'
LOL. My g/f has experience on this matter and is laughing with me!
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for illegal wars thru my taxes. Who do I see about that?
The cost of Statutory Maternity Pay is small compared to that.
If people decided not to have children we would soon be ranting over the shortage of doctors , nurses, bin men, electricians, bakers etc as we head into old age. Children are the future and even if we dont have our own we will still be grateful for someone else's one day. Maternity pay allows parents the chance to spend time with their babies. Time with parents is what helps make babies into good kids into tolerable teenagers and into decent human beings.
At risk of feeding the troll I would argue that maternity pay encourages discrimination against women when hiring.
Picture the scene, you're a small business, you have 2 candidates who are equally suited to a role, 1 is late 20's/early 30's, female, no children, recently married, looking to settle down. The other candidate is also in exactly the same circumstances but is male.
Who would you employ given the disruption that anyone being away from the business will cause? I know which I would go for.
If people decided not to have children we would soon be ranting over the shortage of doctors , nurses, bin men, electricians, bakers etc as we head into old age.
Haven't you heard of immigrants?
TandemJeremy - Member
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
TJ, many people object to you full stop. But, you know, whatcha gonna do? 😉
At risk of feeding the troll I would argue that maternity pay encourages discrimination against women when hiring.
What are you suggesting instead when a woman gets pregnant? Sacking her if she doesn't come into work the day she has her baby? Or just not paying her for the time she has off? If the latter, then you do realise that most of the cost to a company of a woman on maternity isn't actually what the company is paying her?
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for looking after old people through my taxes.
I object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
Surely at some point when you get older, and you're collecting a pension, other people's children will be paying for your lifestyle through their taxes? Do you not object to that, or did you opt out of the NHS pension scheme thanks due to your moral convictions?
Joe
If I owned a small business I would only employ women and spend all day walking around naked infront of them and making suggestive movements against cushions
aracer
What are you suggesting instead when a woman gets pregnant? Sacking her if she doesn't come into work the day she has her baby? Or just not paying her for the time she has off? If the latter, then you do realise that most of the cost to a company of a woman on maternity isn't actually what the company is paying her?
I'm not really suggesting a solution, merely that it discourages some business from hiring women of child bearing age.
I've met some who believe maternity pay should be paid by the state rather than the employer.
it is - SMP. Some companies will have a policy offering payment over and above that, but it's discressionary.
acutally I should correct myself, it's paid by your employer but they can claim about 90% of it back from govt. iirc.
If I had my way women would be paid full pay for the entire duration of their chosen maternity leave!
If I had my way women would be paid full pay for the entire duration of their chosen maternity leave!
Amen! I've never actually worked anywhere that you get more than smp, though I am led to believe such places do exist!
It's so reasurring to see how far we have come in terms of equality in this day and age when you read some of the postings above. We are in 1950s aren't we??
[i]We are in 1950s aren't we[/i]
Indeed we are, so what the hell do you think you're doing on the internet, bint? Back to the kitchen with you!
At work on the internet probably too 🙄
sheesh.
No humility these modern birds.
My girlfriend has been asked if her childbearing plans at a few interviews before. Guess what? She didnt go on to accept their offers of employment nor did she sire countless bairns either.
I would dispute that having children is a "right of life". Not everyone can, and arguably, not everyone should.
There should be full equality of paternity/maternity rights - no reason a father can't have the time instead of the woman. This *may* reduce the pressure on women.
I quite like the idea of p/maternity being paid by the state to reduce the impact on businesses. But only for the first two (and the same for child benefit) to stop the system being abused by benefit scroungers.
I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the childrens laughter remind us how we used to be
Send the women to work down the mines
Teach them well and save a canarys life
Show them what a hard days work is like
Give them a sense of pride that they've been lacking through having no testes
Let the childrens laughter remind us while they fetch a beer
In this day and age I think that sort of question comes under 'discrimination' so any employer interviewing these days will have to be careful as interviewees can take companies to court if they believe that's why they didn't get a job!
I believe it is a neccessity that mothers are encouraged. Therefore i must also agree with maternity pay. BUT the burden of cost must lie with the taxpayer as it is the taxpayer who will benefit most from it in the future. Call it an investment.
Srangely though, if i was an employer, there wouldnt be a cat in hells chance of a female who i deemed to be looking to start a family being employed by me. Its just to inconvenient and dissrupting.
My wifes emplyer is being put in a difficult position atm. They are a Law firm who from my experience are one of the best employers around. They really do look after their staff with pensions, holidays, pay rises in excess of the norm. When my wife had our 2 kids they couldnt have been more accomodating. They put her days down to 4 when the first came along and then 3 when the second. Also structured hours around school etc. My wife has been there 10yrs and does a lot of extra work which makes her pretty flexible with other departments.
So now she has a collegue in the same dept who is due to come back from a similar situation re her first kid. BUT things arent so clear cut now. Business has slowed (Conveyancing) and they cant justify two people anymore. They have offered her the full time position as they legally have to OR 2 days per week. She is not happy as my wife is on 3 days and she cant see why she isnt getting the same. My wife called yesterday and asked me what i thought of her going 2.5days per week in a kinda sharing arrangement and i said no way. Why should we? They havent asked and she has been assured by her manager that this isnt on the cards but i am waiting for the call to tell me this has been suggested.
Sweeden (or possibly scandinavia in general, or just one of the scandinavian countries).
Paternity and maternity pay/rights are equal for both men and women. Coincidentaly theres is less of a wage differential between men and women as well.................................
I quite like the idea of p/maternity being paid by the state to reduce the impact on businesses.
As I said, 90%ish of smp is claimed back from the government by the employers so it is effectively paid for by the state.
It was designed to help women who want familes but it backfired on them as they can't get work due to this scheme.
Works both ways but mainly for employer unless the woman is an outstanding employee then you would try to keep them but with todays market everyone is replaceable!
Sorry ladies.= no offence.
A colleague of mine went skiing, damaged her knee and had 20 weeks off work on full pay.
I had a child and had 19 weeks off work, 10 of these weeks on half pay!
Speaking with a colleague in Sweden the Father gets 3 months off to be taken during the child's first 3 years.
Kit, nice troll & can I just thank you for all the child tax credit we're getting from you also. My bikes never been so bling.
I would like to see parental leave shared between both parents.
I would also like to see more support given to people who care for sick relatives. People choose to have kids or not, but lots of people have no choice over partners having strokes, long term illnesses or ending up with infirm elderly parents. They deserve as much if not more support than people with choices that are often 'happy choices' rather than harrowing care exercises.
TandemJeremy - MemberI object to paying for other peoples children thru my taxes.
I object to paying for mad old ****ers through my taxes TJ but i wouldn't see you go without food!!
Scrap it and use the money saved to encourage women to stay at home for at least the first five years of the child's life. At a stroke you'll cut down on family break-ups and thereby give the kids a much better start in life.
And yes, I know there are plenty exceptions, but by and large it's generally agreed that it's important for a child to have its mother there in the early years. Might also encourage some of the more ****less dads to take a bit more responsibility too.
And if it decreases the birth rate, well the world has far, far too many folk in it already. No need to encourage any more than is sustainable.
Personally I think you should only have children if you have the time and finances to cover the costs of bringing them up, if that includes having to take 12 months off and not getting paid, so be it - the father should be paying for this. If the mother is the sole breadwinner and the family cannot afford a child if she is off work surely they shouldn't be thinking about having one, thats the choice she made when she chose a career and left the dad at home (or not a choice if the dad left, but tough luck). Seems like common sense to me, I'm not sure why the business should be forced to foot the bill. Having children isnt a universal right, its a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously.
I'm not sure why the business should be forced to foot the bill.
Maybe because otherwise business would lose a lot of very talented people.
Glad to see MC-piggery is alive and kicking!! 😉
Maybe because otherwise business would lose a lot of very talented people.
No they wouldnt, they'd just be glad of having a guaranteed job to come back to afterwards.
People want their cake and to eat it. I'm very much a family person, and would want time off to be with my kid, but I'd find it a joke that I got paid for it.