# Time off to breastfeed



## liaconn (3 Jul 2012)

Someone I know at work is returning from ten months maternity leave (4 months of it unpaid). She has asked for, and got, permission to come in late every morning in order to breast feed her ten month old baby.
Is it just me or is that a bit cheeky?


----------



## DB74 (3 Jul 2012)

She's legally entitled to it up to 12 months AFAIK


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2012)

What is cheeky about it? We are constantly bombarded with medical opinion that its better to breastfeed, in fact I have friends who were made to feel dreadful in maternity hospitals for choosing to bottle feed. So if women are supposed to be doing it, how would they do it when they return to work without being late or nipping out or whatever?

I think its good when companies are encouraging of women who have babies. Too many of them are awful and its discouraged by the culture of the place. I have friends who have told me that the minute a pregnancy is announced in work, that girls career is effectively over.


----------



## blueband (3 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I have friends who have told me that the minute a pregnancy is announced in work, that girls career is effectively over.


well not over as such, just means you are about start a whole new very important career.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2012)

blueband said:


> well not over as such, just means you are about start a whole new very important career.



I apologise, what I should have said was 'the girls career, in that company, is effectively over'.


----------



## d2x2 (3 Jul 2012)

I am very envious of anyone who can interrupt their career, fulfil a personal goal (replace with appropriate word depending on what it is) and is able to come back to their job. I would not call that the end of anyone's career but a fantastic opportunity. It's about priorities, isn't it?


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2012)

d2x2 said:


> I am very envious of anyone who can interrupt their career, fulfil a personal goal (replace with appropriate word depending on what it is) and is able to come back to their job. I would not call that the end of anyone's career but a fantastic opportunity. It's about priorities, isn't it?



I would call it a fantastic opportunity of they could come back to their job and have the same opportunities of career progression and promotion, but unfortunately thats not always the case.


----------



## blueband (3 Jul 2012)

the problem i suppose for the company is that while your are away having a baby, they have to train someone up to take your place, then when you return they have to tell that person they are no longer needed,  then you might decide in a year or two that you want to have another child! problem starts all over again for the company, ......its a hard one to to call.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2012)

blueband said:


> the problem i suppose for the company is that while your are away having a baby, they have to train someone up to take your place, then when you return they have to tell that person they are no longer needed,  then you might decide in a year or two that you want to have another child! problem starts all over again for the company, ......its a hard one to to call.



Oh yeah, I agree totally. Plus, when you come back you may be disinclined to travel or do unexpected longer hours, for example in my last job if something went wrong I was just expected to stay on, til any kind of time, 10pm, midnight etc.... I wasnt paid for it, and I could have refused to do it. But if Id refused every time then I would have been left to one side while someone who was prepared to do it got promoted along. 

Im sure its not easy to juggle both so I think its a good thing when companies make reasonable allowances.

But I can also see how it seems cheeky, because now someone gets a distinct advantage for procreating, while others have to come in at the normal time for not having children!


----------



## ice (3 Jul 2012)

blueband said:


> the problem i suppose for the company is that while your are away having a baby, they have to train someone up to take your place, then when you return they have to tell that person they are no longer needed,  then you might decide in a year or two that you want to have another child! problem starts all over again for the company, ......its a hard one to to call.



So what should women do ??? Stop having babies So as not to make things difficult for their company ? If you take that to its extreme end then the human race dies off ! 

It's this attitude that makes it so hard for women to get equality in the workplace. 

Maternity leave is covered by law so that women aren't discriminated against. Someone has to carry the future tax payers, the future doctors , the future waiting staff.


----------



## Yachtie (3 Jul 2012)

ice said:


> Maternity leave is covered by law so that women aren't discriminated against. Someone has to carry the future tax payers, the future doctors , the future waiting staff.



That's all well and good but there still is and always will be a lot of unspoken but commonly practiced stuff when it comes to female employees with young children. A friend in recruitment told me once that I have much better chances of getting a job if I don't wear my engagement ring to the interview (I was looking for a job and I was engaged) as it is often interpreted as 'Ah, she will be getting married soon and then she'll be having babies'. A lot of companies, especially SMEs don't want the hassle of replacing employees on maternity leave and training temps, and then making allowances for staying at home with a sick child, having to leave at 5.30pm on the dot because a child needs to be picked up from the child minder or the creche,... Realistically, from a company's point of view, this is justified but still unfair to the employee. 

Yonks ago I had a PA who had two small children. She used to turn up for work one week a month as one child would get sick for a week, then the other and then she'd pick whatever it was from them. Her lunch breaks used to be 2 hours because she had to go to PTA / bring a child to the dentist / AND eat and the rest of us were to just put up with it. Needles to say, she never stayed a minute longer to make up for a PTA / trip to the dentist / ... as her childminder was leaving whether she was back home or not. This may be an extreme example, but even as a mother of a young child, I would be very, very reluctant to hire a woman in similar circumstances unless she had one of a kind splecialist skills or knowledge I needed.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> Someone I know at work is returning from ten months maternity leave (4 months of it unpaid). She has asked for, and got, permission to come in late every morning in order to breast feed her ten month old baby.
> Is it just me or is that a bit cheeky?



In this case I also think this is a bit cheeky - I know plenty of women who work and breastfeed was well but they pump early morning and leave bottles - its 'll about preparation.  Just out of interest - how late does she come in at?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> In this case I also think this is a bit cheeky - I know plenty of women who work and breastfeed was well but they pump early morning and leave bottles - its 'll about preparation.  Just out of interest - how late does she come in at?



Thats not a very family friendly attitude!! So although she is already suffering lack of sleep with a new baby and night feeds, you want her to get up early to pump as well??? No doubt she uses the extra hour to do that. The baby is not existing all day on the one morning feed.

It is in law that she can do this and it was enshrined in law to help encourage breastfeeding.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ps/after_your_baby_is_born/breastfeeding.html


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ice said:


> It's very disappointing in terms of women's equality to think these kinds of attitudes still exist.



Of course these attitudes exist - it is naive to think that they dont.

Some workplaces are more accomodating than others. End of.

It probably depends on a number of things, how male oriented or female oriented the workplace is, the ages of the staff, the ability/ease at which someone can be replaced short term etc...

I remember one occasion where 4 women from one department went on maternity leave at around the same time - there were only 7 people in the department. So there was chaos for a while. It happens.


----------



## ice (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Of course these attitudes exist - it is naive to think that they dont.
> 
> Some workplaces are more accomodating than others. End of.
> 
> ...



That's why we need the legislation, and it needs to be enforced. Women are still being discriminated against because of their sex. So I can be brilliant at my job, hardworking and reliable yet not get the job because I am female and might have babies.

The chaos in your department was down to bad management. Women have to give lots of notice to take maternity leave. It's managements responsibility to put a cover plan in place, hire temps, redistribute workloads etc.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ice said:


> The chaos in your department was down to bad management. Women have to give lots of notice to take maternity leave. It's managements responsibility to put a cover plan in place, hire temps, redistribute workloads etc.



No, the chaos was that no one could have predicted 4 highly skilled staff would all be needing maternity leave at the same time. These were staff with professional qualifications, years of experience and on site training and were not easily replaceable - you cant just 'train someone up' in a matter of weeks or months - there is a cost to training too as the trainer is not getting their own job done. Plus, with the qualification set needed it was hard to find someone willing to only cover a maternity leave, people wanted permanent jobs (it was back during boom time as well). Multiply that by 4, at the same time, more than half the dept, and there was chaos.

You dont have to give *lots* of notice for maternity leave, legally you give 4 weeks notice (although in most cases unofficial notice is given by the fact the woman is obviously pregnant - but not always). An employer cant start training someone new until you have given the official notice though, so 4 highly skilled people to be replaced in 4 weeks - no wonder there was chaos!

Here:


> Notice: You must give your employer at least 4 weeks' written notice of your intention to take maternity leave and you must also provide your employer with a medical certificate confirming the pregnancy. If you intend to take the additional 16 weeks’ maternity leave you must provide your employer with at least 4 weeks' written notice. Both these notices can be given at the same time.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Thats not a very family friendly attitude!! So although she is already suffering lack of sleep with a new baby and night feeds, you want her to get up early to pump as well??? No doubt she uses the extra hour to do that. The baby is not existing all day on the one morning feed.
> 
> It is in law that she can do this and it was enshrined in law to help encourage breastfeeding.
> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ps/after_your_baby_is_born/breastfeeding.html



I have no doubt she is entitled to it i'm not questioning that!  For me, I would say that after a 10 month maternity leave a good routine could have been established which doesn't involve taking an hour of each morning to breastfeed - yes you are entitled to it, does that mean you should use every single hour of it? I'm not so sure!  I have worked with various women over the years who have had babies, most of them did not allow it to disrupt work when they returned following maternity leave, they took only what they needed to take.   I did work with one woman who was of the opinion that every single entitlement should be used fully so all sick days were used, force majeure, extended maternity etc, every year she had a significant amount of time off for various reasons.  Her sick days actually became a target for her, she aimed to use each and every one of them and in a small company this bred resentment among staff and management.    I would imagine that there could be an abuse of this breastfeeding entitlement?  I mean what is there to stop an employee who has just had a baby to claim that they are breastfeeding and need an hour off each morning??


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> I mean what is there to stop an employee who has just had a baby to claim that they are breastfeeding and need an hour off each morning??



Nothing at all as far as I know. So maybe all new mothers should be given an hour off to cover feeding or its discriminatory against non breast feeders?

The law actually covers breast feeding and expressing:


> In this section ‘breastfeeding’ means
> breastfeeding a child or expressing breast milk
> and feeding it to a child immediately or storing
> it for the purpose of feeding it to the child at
> a later time.’’.


 - source.


Wonder how long a woman gets to do it for - I dont see it in the legislation - could a women be breast feeding and getting paid time off for - 5 years say?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> yes you are entitled to it, does that mean you should use every single hour of it?



Just on this, why shouldnt you use it if its there for you to use? I mean, if you are genuinely breast feeding (not pretending to!). It was put in place to allow women to use it. Are you suggesting that because some women dont use it, others shouldnt?


----------



## ice (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> No, the chaos was that no one could have predicted 4 highly skilled staff would all be needing maternity leave at the same time. These were staff with professional qualifications, years of experience and on site training and were not easily replaceable - you cant just 'train someone up' in a matter of weeks or months - there is a cost to training too as the trainer is not getting their own job done. Plus, with the qualification set needed it was hard to find someone willing to only cover a maternity leave, people wanted permanent jobs (it was back during boom time as well). Multiply that by 4, at the same time, more than half the dept, and there was chaos.
> 
> You dont have to give *lots* of notice for maternity leave, legally you give 4 weeks notice (although in most cases unofficial notice is given by the fact the woman is obviously pregnant - but not always). An employer cant start training someone new until you have given the official notice though, so 4 highly skilled people to be replaced in 4 weeks - no wonder there was chaos!
> 
> Here:



So what's the alternative ? Don't employ women of child bearing age ?


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Just on this, why shouldnt you use it if its there for you to use? I mean, if you are genuinely breast feeding (not pretending to!). It was put in place to allow women to use it. Are you suggesting that because some women dont use it, others shouldnt?



No, what I am suggesting is that people should take what they actually need rather then what they are entitled to.  Take what you need, cover yourself but don't take it and use it just because it is there.   Do you need to come in an hour late each day for say a year (not sure how long it goes for) in order to feed your child in the morning OR do you want the hour off because it's there for you to take?.  Some women may well need the hour each morning but some will not but will take it anyway.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ice said:


> So what's the alternative ? Don't employ women of child bearing age ?



No but its important to be able to appreciate the situation from all sides.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> In this case I also think this is a bit cheeky - I know plenty of women who work and breastfeed was well but they pump early morning and leave bottles - its 'll about preparation.



Here you appear to be suggesting that women dont need the time - they need to be better prepared.



ney001 said:


> No, what I am suggesting is that people should take what they actually need rather then what they are entitled to.



How do you know some women, and in particular the woman the OP referred to, dont need it?


----------



## liaconn (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> I have no doubt she is entitled to it i'm not questioning that! For me, I would say that after a 10 month maternity leave a good routine could have been established which doesn't involve taking an hour of each morning to breastfeed - yes you are entitled to it, does that mean you should use every single hour of it? I'm not so sure!


 
This would be where I'm coming from as well. She is the only person I know of, in a large Govt Dept., who asked for this yet loads of women go on maternity leave every year and breast feed their babies and then come back to work and do normal hours and don't request this hour or two off every morning.

I know it's not the same but I was out of work for several months recently as I had to have major surgery. I'm back in work now and am entitled to claim all the bank holidays that occurred during my time off back. However, I just can't bring myself to do it. It just seems cheeky when I've already caused huge inconvenience by being out for so long and people had to bend over backwards to accommodate that. 

Anyway, this thread wasn't started with the intention of criticising working mothers. It was this single issue I was saying seemed a bit of an 'ask' to me, although obviously if she's covered by legislation she is entitled to it.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

xx


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Here you appear to be suggesting that women dont need the time - they need to be better prepared.



Well obviously I cannot speak for all women who breastfeed but yes I do believe that a good routine and preparations could be made in a ten month maternity leave.   If the woman (any woman) could be better prepared then I do believe that she should strive for that rather than taking extra time off . 



truthseeker said:


> How do you know some women, and in particular the woman the OP referred to, dont need it?



Silly question - obviously I cannot know this as I don't know the woman or the ins and outs of her life but I am not foolish enough to believe that every woman who takes this entitlement is breastfeeding and particularly needs that hour off every day to do it.  I would imagine that an extra hour would suit people very well in the mornings particularly if they have other children who they can drop to school etc.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

Breastfeeding and employment
Under Section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 certain women in employment who are breastfeeding are entitled to take time off work each day in order to breastfeed. *The provision applies to all women in employment who have given birth within the previous 6 months*. Employers are not obliged to provide facilities in the workplace to facilitate breastfeeding if the provision of such facilities would give rise to considerable costs. At the choice of her employer, the woman may therefore opt to:

Just noted on this that it says women who have given birth in the previous six months? In this instance the baby is ten months old according to OP so is she actually entitled to this leave?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Well obviously I cannot speak for all women who breastfeed but yes I do believe that a good routine and preparations could be made in a ten month maternity leave.   If the woman (any woman) could be better prepared then I do believe that she should strive for that rather than taking extra time off .



So you think that women should strive to be better prepared. Does that mean that a persons job is more important, or should be more important than their children?


----------



## liaconn (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Breastfeeding and employment
> Under Section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 certain women in employment who are breastfeeding are entitled to take time off work each day in order to breastfeed. *The provision applies to all women in employment who have given birth within the previous 6 months*. Employers are not obliged to provide facilities in the workplace to facilitate breastfeeding if the provision of such facilities would give rise to considerable costs. At the choice of her employer, the woman may therefore opt to:
> 
> Just noted on this that it says women who have given birth in the previous six months? In this instance the baby is ten months old according to OP so is she actually entitled to this leave?


 
That would actually make sense as six months is the statutory amount of time you are allowed to take off from work to have a baby - so presumably anyone who goes back before then is actually still entitled to be on leave and therefore entitled to take time off to breastfeed.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> So you think that women should strive to be better prepared. Does that mean that a persons job is more important, or should be more important than their children?



No as I said I just think that people/women should try to be prepared if at all possible.  Petty arguments about jobs more important then kids etc don't interest me..... sorry


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> That would actually make sense as six months is the statutory amount of time you are allowed to take off from work to have a baby - so presumably anyone who goes back before then is actually still entitled to be on leave and therefore entitled to take time off to breastfeed.



Agreed! this does make sense.  Perhaps the person involved has an agreement with management? perhaps not getting paid? either way I don't think she is entitled to it.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

Heres a recent article on it:

http://www.thejournal.ie/teachers-sought-increase-in-breastfeeding-time-allowance-421646-Apr2012/

Looks like you can only do it for the 26 weeks. No fear of David Walliams style 'bitty' happening so 

Mind you, itd be a brave employer who said no and risked getting dragged through the courts for it, definitely could be one of these pieces of legislation just waiting in a challenge for many and varied groups to jump straight onto a soapbox for it.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Petty arguments about jobs more important then kids etc don't interest me..... sorry



I dont see whats petty about asking that question when you have stated that in your opinion, women should *strive* to be better prepared. Are you not prepared to defend your opinion? Or is it that its indefensible


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Agreed! this does make sense.  Perhaps the person involved has an agreement with management? perhaps not getting paid? either way I don't think she is entitled to it.



Weird though, breastfeeding.ie seems to think she is:



> Maternity leave is currently 26 weeks. Many Irish women return to work from the time their baby is 26 weeks. Some mothers take unpaid leave but will return to paid employment before their baby is 2 years old.
> 
> How can I continue to breastfeed?
> It helps to plan ahead before you return to work. You will be making arrangements for childcare. Think about the childcare option that suits you, your working hours and your plans to continue to breastfeed. See the section below for points to consider when making childcare arrangements.
> ...



Talking about 7 month old babies, and 2 year olds? I am confused.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

And my opinion remains - women should strive to be better prepared, if men were doing the breast feeding i'd say the same thing.  As I stated I think 10 months maternity leave is enough time in this instance to get a good routine going that doesn't involve an extra hour off work each day - other workers do it and are obviously better prepared then this woman.  It doesn't have anything at all to do with whether you value your job more then your kids.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> women should strive to be better prepared,



And the question remains - why?

Why should women strive to be better prepared?


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Weird though, breastfeeding.ie seems to think she is:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about 7 month old babies, and 2 year olds? I am confused.



In this instance does the article not just give advice on how to continue to  breastfeed/pump i.e practical solutions - it doesn't mention anything about being entitled to do this by taking time off work??


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> And the question remains - why?
> 
> Why should women strive to be better prepared?



Because they can!


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> In this instance does the article not just give advice on how to continue to  breastfeed/pump i.e practical solutions - it doesn't mention anything about being entitled to do this by taking time off work??



Oh sorry, its in the 'breastfeeding and work' section. Its a large article, I just quoted a bit.

[broken link removed] is the actual link.



> Breastfeeding and work
> 
> It is important that mothers are supported to continue to breastfeed when they go back to work. The WHO, Department of Health and HSE recommend that children are exclusively breastfed for 6 months. Thereafter they should continue to breastfeed in
> combination with appropriate complementary foods to two years of age and beyond.
> ...


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Because they can!



Oh ok. So because we can do something we should do it.

So because women CAN take the time off - shouldnt they?


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Oh sorry, its in the 'breastfeeding and work' section. Its a large article, I just quoted a bit.
> 
> [broken link removed] is the actual link.



Again, it says they 'should' be supported etc but doesn't say they are actually entitled to anything longer then the 6 month period.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Again, it says they 'should' be supported etc but doesn't say they are entitled to anything long then the 6 month period.



The article would make no sense if you did not get the entitlements past 6 months. Have you read it in its entirety? Including the benefits to the employer of supporting breastfeeding mothers?


----------



## Bill Struth (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Agreed! this does make sense. Perhaps the person involved has an agreement with management? perhaps not getting paid? either way I don't think she is entitled to it.


In the government dept that I work for it is possible for breastfeeding mothers to leave 30 mins early or come in 30 mins late for breastfeeding purposes until the child is 2 years old. I think it is a fantastic arrangement and I'll be encouraging my wife (Baby due in 13 days!) to avail of it, should she still be breastfeeding.

Gotta laugh as well as the men on the thread talking as if using a breast pump is just as 'simple' as breastfeeding a baby. A lot of women have great difficulty using a pump, and are unable to do so. We as a society should be encouraging breastfeeding whenever and wherever possible.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The article would make no sense if you did not get the entitlements past 6 months. Have you read it in its entirety? Including the benefits to the employer of supporting breastfeeding mothers?



I have read the article and I take from it that the 6months is your maternity leave, after that it states that 'many workplaces' support breastfeeding ..... it doesn't mention anything about workplaces having to support this after six months - obviously they would hope that workplaces would support it longer than the six months - perhaps the civil service support longer than the six months?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

Found it!

I knew there was something about 2 years somewhere. Its the civil service.
The document is called An Introduction to the Irish Civil Service. From Chapter Three
Terms and Conditions of Employment:



> A mother who is breastfeeding her child/children is entitled to, without loss of pay until the child is 2 years of age, either an adjustment of working hours or where breastfeeding facilities are provided by the employer, breastfeeding breaks. Where such facilities are provided, breaks may be taken in the form of one break of 60 minutes per day.



[broken link removed]

So it looks like civil service mothers get the 2 years, all others get the 6 months. If youre in the civil service Liaconn, that might explain it? (sorry for the stupid question but is the civil service the public sector or is it different?)

It might also explain confusion about various article online where proper sources are not checked etc...


----------



## oldnick (4 Jul 2012)

As an ex-small businessman I can tell you that having to talked to several of my ex-colleagues about this and similar proposed laws that ,increasingly, there is a greater incentive to take on older women, men  and -especially -  overseas employees (generally, if unmarried, they tend not to get pregnant whilst here).

Small businesses just cannot bear the burden of ever increasing rights for  pregnant  staff, sick staff etc (e.g. a proposal to pay for the fist four weeks of sick pay -disaster), paternal leave etc etc

Unless you have spent your life risking every penny ,with no govnt fallback,  struggling to support a small business you have no idea of the devastating effect some of these proposals will have.

If the rights of pregnant women, new parents, sick people are so important then ,fine, let the govnt -i.e. the general population,pay. there are no proposals how to help employers in situations where ,say, 2 or 3 staff out of ten are suddenly sick or pregnant.

People working in large companies or are public servants do not understand how in small enterprises  of, say 2- 10 people these proposals will affect those businesses. "Well, the bosses shopuld cost it in" , they reply -without thinking of the cost.

So, yes,  in order to get cheaper stuff we can always import from Asia. I wonder how many people supporting the employee rights here spurn purchases from China,India and other countries on the grounds there are awful working conditions there .
I'm guessing almost nobody.


----------



## liaconn (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Found it!
> 
> I knew there was something about 2 years somewhere. Its the civil service.
> The document is called An Introduction to the Irish Civil Service. From Chapter Three
> ...


 
Yes, I'm in the Civil Service. Civil Service is part of the Public Sector which also includes semi state bodies.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> Yes, I'm in the Civil Service. *Civil Service is part of the Public Sector which also includes semi state bodies.*



Thanks for the clarification. So I guess thats why she gets the entitlement. As opposed to law, its policy.

For what its worth, I think you should claim back your bank holidays.


----------



## Yachtie (4 Jul 2012)

Personally, I do believe that it's all about preparation and planning. 

Being self-employed, I returned to work when my son was 4 weeks old. I worked part time so I could spend time with him too BUT, even before he was born, I knew that I simply couldn't afford to not work for more than four weeks and made a decision to bottle feed. 

To be quite honest, I don't understand all the fuss about breast feeding. The baby gets the nutrition which mother gives it through her own diet. If a new mother lives on curry and chips, the baby is being deprived of good, essential nutrients. That's my non-professional opinion. On the other hand, bottle feeding had so many benefits for our entire family - my son got into a feeding routine very quickly, we always knew if he ate (drank) enough and my husband was able to help with night / early morning feeds on occasion. My son is now a thriving 2.5 year old, he's never been ill, talks like a grown up and nobody will convince me that he was in any way deprived by not having been breast fed.

In my humble opinion, it appears that entitlements and especially their use grow arms and legs in an environment where somebody else is footing the bill. It also appears to me that women like my former PA and a lady in the OP are the ones who give all women of child bearing age a bad name. It takes just one to teach an employer / manager to steer clear.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2012)

People should get paid and advance in their job according to their skills, input and their value to the organisation. If I don't want to work overtime/be on call over the weekend/ travel etc then I shouldn't get paid as much as someone with equal skills who is willing to do those things. It would be completely unfair to expect that I should.
Women who have recently given birth should be accommodated as much as possible. If someone wants to come in late because they are breast feeding then they should work late to make up their hours. It's not their employers concern what their domestic arrangements are.
The real sexism here is women expecting that they should be the ones to drop kids off in the morning or collect in the evening, go to the PTA or the dentist etc. Where's the father's in the equation? Why can't they do it? 
None of my children were breast fed so I did all of the night feeds. I still had to go into work and didn't expect anyone else to do my job for me because I chose to have children. That would also be unfair.

On the issue of women's careers being impacted after they have children; yes, in many cases of course they are. That's because those women have changed their priorities and work is now further down the list. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is unreasonable to expect such a reordering of your priorities not to have an impact on your career. 
The same would apply if any other factor caused someone to place less importance on their job. The gender of the individual and the reason of the change in priorities in irrelevant.


----------



## ney001 (4 Jul 2012)

Yachtie said:


> To be quite honest, I don't understand all the fuss about breast feeding.



I absolutely agree with you on this, from what I see between friends and colleagues breast feeding has become something of a competition between them, who is breastfeeding, who isn't who could last the longest..... 

 I spoke to one friend this morning who has a 4 day old baby and is absolutely killing herself to try to get this breastfeeding thing right.  She is in pain from a c-secton and is struggling to feed the baby yet feels that she is letting the baby down if she doesn't struggle on with it.  It doesn't help that her cousin is raving about how her baby is breastfeeding and how she loves it etc - friend feels like a complete failure at the moment and nothing will convince her otherwise! 

On the topic of the workplace breastfeeding laws, small businesses could not possibly afford to lose somebody for 20 hours a month on top of the maternity leave etc, it's just not doable, I work in small enterprise and have a family business so I know just how it would impact us.  

For the record I don't agree that this entitlement should run until the child is two.  That's 20 hours a month for two years - paid?.   By the time the child is two I would have thought that a routine could be put in place to feed the child before work.  Sure at that age they are not solely depending on breast milk for nutrition unless it's for their cornflakes


----------



## liaconn (4 Jul 2012)

Purple said:


> People should get paid and advance in their job according to their skills, input and their value to the organisation. If I don't want to work overtime/be on call over the weekend/ travel etc then I shouldn't get paid as much as someone with equal skills who is willing to do those things. It would be completely unfair to expect that I should.
> Women who have recently given birth should be accommodated as much as possible. If someone wants to come in late because they are breast feeding then they should work late to make up their hours. It's not their employers concern what their domestic arrangements are.
> The real sexism here is women expecting that they should be the ones to drop kids off in the morning or collect in the evening, go to the PTA or the dentist etc. Where's the father's in the equation? Why can't they do it?
> None of my children were breast fed so I did all of the night feeds. I still had to go into work and didn't expect anyone else to do my job for me because I chose to have children. That would also be unfair.
> ...


 
I agree with this. If I had children work would definitely become a lower priority . It's not a crime to move your career down your priority list. But decisions have to be made. For instance, I worked with someone who changed to part time hours and could no longer travel for meetings once she had a baby. So far, so good. Practical decisions that she was in a financial position to make. However, she then complained when a full time colleague who could travel to meetings got promoted ahead of her. I couldn't understand her attitude. She had made a decision regarding her availability to work, based on other factors going on in her life. But she didn't seem to carry that decision through when it came to career advancement.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> That's 20 hours a month for two years - paid?



Just for context I was made redundant after 14 years in a company.
The company 'culture' was to come in early and stay past the contracted time. I gave at least 30 minutes extra a day, for free, every day.

So at least 2.5 hours a week. Sometimes I also gave weekends and evenings, and many many times I took phone calls out of hours or worked from home if I was out on a certified sick (once after surgery where it was extremely uncomfortable for me to use the laptop) or worked through lunch.

I probably gave the company 200 extra hours a year, for 14 years. So did most other people btw.

I really dont think it would have been too much for me to ask or been cheeky of me to avail of breastfeeding time if I had had the need to.

I think its important that there is give and take in work environments.

I wonder does the subject of the OP stay late without complaint, put in extra hours when needed. I suspect so because Liaconn has mentioned working from home before so it could well be part of the company culture.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

Yachtie said:


> To be quite honest, I don't understand all the fuss about breast feeding. The baby gets the nutrition which mother gives it through her own diet. If a new mother lives on curry and chips, the baby is being deprived of good, essential nutrients. That's my non-professional opinion.



All it takes is a [broken link removed].



> Breastfeeding has many advantages for babies, their mothers, for society and for the environment. Some of these advantages are listed below.
> 
> Benefits for babies
> The health benefits of breastfeeding for babies include less risk of:
> ...


----------



## liaconn (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Just for context I was made redundant after 14 years in a company.
> The company 'culture' was to come in early and stay past the contracted time. I gave at least 30 minutes extra a day, for free, every day.
> 
> So at least 2.5 hours a week. Sometimes I also gave weekends and evenings, and many many times I took phone calls out of hours or worked from home if I was out on a certified sick (once after surgery where it was extremely uncomfortable for me to use the laptop) or worked through lunch.
> ...


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> No, she flies off early to collect the baby. She also refuses to travel, although it's part of her job and a childless colleague has to do twice as much travel.
> I suppose I sound like I'm having a go. I think one of the reasons is that both she and her husband had managerial positions. Her husband then took a promotion that involved moving to another part of the country. She opted to stay in Dublin and has to look after the baby on her own during the week, collect him from the creche etc. I just think, given that they were doing okay financially anyway, it was a bit selfish of the husband to take a promotion and of her to come back to work full time knowing it would mean leaning unfairly on her colleagues for support. (It would be an entirely different matter if they had no choice, but they did).



I actually meant prior to having the baby.

Youre entirely entitled to have a rant - regardless of how much me or anyone else agrees or disagrees with you. Thats what the interweb is here for 

All Id say on the above is that none of us knows the inner working of anyones marriage either financially or otherwise and what may seem like a choice to you may not be the case at all.

Im sure the childless colleague could complain or refuse to do the extra travel.


----------



## Ciaraella (4 Jul 2012)

I have alot of sympathy for small businesses trying to keep afloat while also trying to comply with the legislation surrounding maternity leave.
It must be incredibly hard to deal with a small amount of staff if several are pregnant at the same time. As a young mother i wouldn't blame any employer of a small business who is reluctant to hire a woman of child baring age, i'd agree with old nick that the state should carry some of this burden (although  suppose in practical terms they can't!)

Yachtie i can't agree in relation to feeding, Breast is best, that's just a fact of life, the milk is biologically tailored to feed baby and prevents a host of short and long terms health problems, it also gives huge health benefits to both mother and child, i don't think i need to post links, google will give a plethora of articles supporting this, the WHO recommend breastfeeding as best for baby.
Where a problem arises is if feeding is difficult, as a mother of one who had a section and diffiulties breast feeding i turned to formula after a month of expressing. It was a decision that made life easier and me alot happier (was getting into dark days at the time) but i don't kid myself that formula is as good as breast milk. It has many benefits (giving mothers a break, longer between feeds) but i'll never be convinced that anything is as good for a baby as breast milk.


----------



## The_Banker (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Just for context I was made redundant after 14 years in a company.
> *The company 'culture' was to come in early and stay past the contracted time. I gave at least 30 minutes extra a day, for free, every day.*
> 
> *So at least 2.5 hours a week. Sometimes I also gave weekends and evenings, and many many times I took phone calls out of hours or worked from home if I was out on a certified sick (once after surgery where it was extremely uncomfortable for me to use the laptop) or worked through lunch.*
> ...


 

I used to be like that.
Then I copped on....

Now the company can whistle if they want after hours from me.

But that is probably for another thread.

If a woman is entitled to time off for feeding then she she avail of every possible minute.


----------



## Shawady (4 Jul 2012)

Breast is definitely best but I'm just wondering if some or all of the benefits higlighted by truthseeker are gained in the first 6 months anyway?
The issue here seems to be the employee breastfeeding beyond the 6 months.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

Shawady said:


> Breast is definitely best but I'm just wondering if some or all of the benefits higlighted by truthseeker are gained in the first 6 months anyway?
> The issue here seems to be the employee breastfeeding beyond the 6 months.



I can only bow to the experts, the World Health Organisation:



> Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age or beyond.


----------



## blueband (4 Jul 2012)

Ciaraella said:


> the WHO recommend breastfeeding as best for baby.
> .


and look how they ended up!


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2012)

The_Banker said:


> I used to be like that.
> Then I copped on....
> 
> Now the company can whistle if they want after hours from me.
> ...


No matter what the impact is on the viability of the business and therefore the job security of the people they work with, of the extra load that has to be carried by colleagues?


----------



## The_Banker (4 Jul 2012)

Purple said:


> No matter what the impact is on the viability of the business and therefore the job security of the people they work with, of the extra load that has to be carried by colleagues?


 

Not my problem buddy.....


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

the_banker said:


> not my problem buddy.....



lmao!!!


----------



## The_Banker (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> lmao!!!


 

Never considered you arrogant truthseeker.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

The_Banker said:


> Never considered you arrogant truthseeker.



Laughing even more 

Its not In My Arrogant Opinion, its Laughing My A$$ Off. Which Im still doing.


----------



## The_Banker (4 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Laughing even more
> 
> Its not In My Arrogant Opinion, its Laughing My A$$ Off. Which Im still doing.


 

ha ha.. fair enough!!

Acronyms were never my strong point!


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2012)

The_Banker said:


> Not my problem buddy.....



I'm glad I don't work with you so.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

Purple said:


> I'm glad I don't work with you so.



I could say the same about a number of posters on this thread. Im truly astounded tbh!


----------



## truthseeker (4 Jul 2012)

'Lactivist flashmob'


----------



## The_Banker (4 Jul 2012)

Purple said:


> I'm glad I don't work with you so.



Likewise.


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

Purple said:


> No matter what the impact is on the viability of the business and therefore the job security of the people they work with, of* the extra load that has to be carried by colleagues*?


 
This is where I would have an issue. If someone is coming in an hour late every morning or disappearing for an hour during the day, someone else is having to deal with their phone calls, attend meetings instead of them etc. on top of their existing work load. While, in principle, the idea of giving breastfeeding mothers time off is worthy, in practice it is often done at the expense of another employee. This is where many so called work/life balance policies fall down. The 'balance' is achieved for one employee by overloading another employee, and that simply isn't fair.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> This is where many so called work/life balance policies fall down. The 'balance' is achieved for one employee by overloading another employee, and that simply isn't fair.



I disagree with this. The same situation arises when someone is out sick, on holidays, on maternity leave, at the doctor/dentist, attending a funeral, got a puncture, whatever.

There are always times in work where things are busier and times where things are slacker. No office should be getting run so tightly that one hour overloads another employee unfairly. There should always be enough slack to cope. And if there isnt enough slack to cope then the person needs to be working that bit harder when they get in to catch up. Its only an hour.


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I disagree with this. The same situation arises when someone is out sick, on holidays, on maternity leave, at the doctor/dentist, attending a funeral, got a puncture, whatever.
> 
> There are always times in work where things are busier and times where things are slacker. No office should be getting run so tightly that one hour overloads another employee unfairly. There should always be enough slack to cope. And if there isnt enough slack to cope then the person needs to be working that bit harder when they get in to catch up. Its only an hour.


 
But those situations are different. Of course there'll be the odd occasion when a colleague is at the dentist or a funeral or somesuch and you just help out in the same way that they'd help you out. 
But someone, day after day, for month after month, not being available at certain times during the day is imposing an extra work load on colleagues on an ongoing basis. While working harder to catch up is one thing, its doesn't solve the matter of phone calls, meetings, urgent queries or simply holding other people up because they have to wait until you get in to have something signed off on or whatever. Obviously, if something can be put into place to ensure the mother has the time off without overly impacting on colleagues who also have commitments/problems/demands on their private time then fair enough. But in my experience that doesn't happen and someone ends up losing out.


----------



## ney001 (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I disagree with this. The same situation arises when someone is out sick, on holidays, on maternity leave, at the doctor/dentist, attending a funeral, got a puncture, whatever.
> 
> There are always times in work where things are busier and times where things are slacker. No office should be getting run so tightly that one hour overloads another employee unfairly. There should always be enough slack to cope. And if there isnt enough slack to cope then the person needs to be working that bit harder when they get in to catch up. Its only an hour.



But in this case isn't it an hour every day?.. possibly up to two years and also OP stated that the person in question doesn't do any additional work or travel , has just had extended maternity break, will obviously still have all the sick days/holidays etc that all employees would have - so when it's all added up it's more than just an hour.  It's two and half days of work a month on top of all other entitlements.  That's quite significant especially in the context of small business.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> But in this case isn't it an hour every day?.. possibly up to two years and also OP stated that the person in question doesn't do any additional work or travel , has just had extended maternity break, will obviously still have all the sick days/holidays etc that all employees would have - so when it's all added up it's more than just an hour.  It's two and half days of work a month on top of all other entitlements.  *That's quite significant *especially in the context of small business.



No I dont think so. Only in the civil service is it up to 2 years, and the civil service is not a small business.

I dont understand why you bring in other entitlements, all employees have them.

Any workplace Ive ever been in Ive just adapted to change like extra staff or less staff. In the last place 4 of us had the same/similar role then they got rid of 2 of them and put one on half days, so I effectively had to absorb the work of 2.5 people. It happens. Its work. 

As far as I can tell its just begrudgery about the entitlements a breast feeding woman has. She is not breaking the law, she is not going against company policy, but some people dont like it because they think women should *strive to be better prepared* (one of the most Orwellian concepts Ive ever heard), or because *they* wouldnt take all their entitlements, or because 'whats the big deal about breastfeeding' (shocking that an adult in 2012 Ireland would honestly think that its just about nutrition) or because it lets the team down.

But mostly it seems to be 'Well I wouldnt do it so she shouldnt'. Which is just begrudgery.


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> No I dont think so. Only in the civil service is it up to 2 years, and the civil service is not a small business.
> 
> I dont understand why you bring in other entitlements, all employees have them.
> 
> ...


 
I can't agree with that. People have given reasons why it is not practical, viable or fair to other staff to have someone take regular time off to breast feed a child after they have come back to work following maternity leave. I know of very few mothers, even those who don't go out to work, who breastfeed a child up to two years of age. While, in an ideal world mothers might do so, it isn't usually practical for all sorts of reasons. If a mother does wish to do this I really don't think it should be at the expense of somebody else's business or the time and workload of another employee, who also has a life outside of work and other pressures and demands on them. My sister in law , who is a stay at home mother, did breastfeed her daugher up to two but only her last feed before she went to bed for the last year. Therefore, even if she had gone back to work, her decision wouldn't have impacted on anyone else. If a baby is at an age where they're having a mix of breastfeeding and ordinary food, surely it should be possible to work out an arrangement that fits in with your work hours.


----------



## ney001 (5 Jul 2012)

This particular woman is obviously not breaking laws/going against policy all that, yes it's an entitlement yes she's allowed to take it.  Do I think it should be an entitlement after the six month maternity leave? - NO  - however if the company think it's doable and an agreement can be reached between mother and employer then fine.  Do I think it should be a paid entitlement in public sector for up to two years? NO absolutely not.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> People have given reasons why it is not practical, viable or fair to other staff to have someone take regular time off to breast feed a child after they have come back to work following maternity leave.



People have mostly given begrudging reasons. *Women should strive to be better prepared - cmon, that cannot be taken seriously.* If you dont like the workplace policies then lobby to have them changed. The civil service is following the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. Ive already linked to sites outlining the benefits to employers of supporting breastfeeding women. The benefits outweigh the downsides of that 1 hour a day.

The reason you dont see many women breastfeeding up to the time that the child is 2 years of age is due in part to the attitudes shown on this thread. Its not made easy or very well supported in our society.

It would be much much better for society at large and for children in particular if women did breastfeed up to the age of 2. The World Health Organisation isnt having a laugh, there is hard scientific evidence to back their findings.


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> People have mostly given begrudging reasons. *Women should strive to be better prepared - cmon, that cannot be taken seriously.* If you dont like the workplace policies then lobby to have them changed. The civil service is following the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. Ive already linked to sites outlining the benefits to employers of supporting breastfeeding women. *The benefits outweigh the downsides of that 1 hour a day.*
> 
> The reason you dont see many women breastfeeding up to the time that the child is 2 years of age is due in part to the attitudes shown on this thread. Its not made easy or very well supported in our society.
> 
> It would be much much better for society at large and for children in particular if women did breastfeed up to the age of 2. The World Health Organisation isnt having a laugh, there is hard scientific evidence to back their findings.


 
But if it did, as you suggest, become a more common practice you could at any time have many mothers in a workplace coming in late, leaving for an hour in the afternoon, or leaving an hour early. It just isn't practical. It's ideal, yes, but not practical. A more practical solution would be for the mother to take an hour off unpaid every day and for that money to pay another employee to take on the extra work. At least that would be fairer and would formalise the situation so everyone knew where they stood and no one felt they were being hard done by.


----------



## ney001 (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> People have mostly given begrudging reasons. *Women should strive to be better prepared - cmon, that cannot be taken seriously.*



Take from it what you will - but in my opinion the woman in particular had 10 months to get into a suitable routine for breastfeeding that doesn't involve an hour off each day and doesn't impact co-workers.  So yes I do believe she should have tried to be better prepared or strive to be better prepared whatever suits.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> But if it did, as you suggest, become a more common practice you could at any time have many mothers in a workplace coming in late, leaving for an hour in the afternoon, or leaving an hour early. It just isn't practical. It's ideal, yes, but not practical. A more practical solution would be for the mother to take an hour off unpaid every day and for that money to pay another employee to take on the extra work. At least that would be fairer and would formalise the situation so everyone knew where they stood and no one felt they were being hard done by.



Ah yeah I can see it from both sides alright, I just do think that as a society we are a bit less supportive than we could be of breastfeeding women. 

Itd probably drive me mad in the workplace too, particularly if the individual was a general slacker anyway.


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Ah yeah I can see it from both sides alright, I just do think that as a society we are a bit less supportive than we could be of breastfeeding women.
> 
> Itd probably drive me mad in the workplace too, particularly if the individual was a general slacker anyway.


 

Fair enough!

Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted because I can't have children so will be unable to take advantage of some of these nifty policies.   (Or maybe I'm just fed up answering her phone!)


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2012)

liaconn said:


> Fair enough!
> 
> Maybe I'm just bitter and twisted because I can't have children so will be unable to take advantage of some of these nifty policies.   (Or maybe I'm just fed up answering her phone!)



Nah, youre not bitter and twisted at all.

Hopefully you feel better for getting it off your chest, if you didnt have me to take the opposing side to draw it all out of you youd still be fuming. Im providing you a good service here lol!!!!


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Nah, youre not bitter and twisted at all.
> 
> Hopefully you feel better for getting it off your chest, if you didnt have me to take the opposing side to draw it all out of you youd still be fuming. Im providing you a good service here lol!!!!


 
I owe you a drink, Truthseeker


----------



## Firefly (6 Jul 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Itd probably drive me mad in the workplace too, *particularly if the individual was a general slacker anyway*.


 
I think this is the crux of it really. There will always be those who take anything that's going....sick on Mondays and Fridays and the like. This benefit is ripe for the picking for these types of people too, and the same people, with a lazy attitude anyway, will probably use the bottle/formula and still take the time off!  I generally don't let these people bother me too much anymore...it's a pretty negative mentality IMO and their lives outside of work can't be too enjoyable either..let them off. 

Sadly, IMO, there are more of these people where poor performance is not addressed by the fear of getting fired and also where top performance is often not rewarded enough either...people in this situation will tend to gravitate toward the middle. I've worked for large banks, semi-states and large companies where I see this happening. There are exceptions but these are in the margins.  I haven't (yet) contracted services to any civil service dept so cannot comment on this but I would imagine this would also hold true too.


----------



## The_Banker (6 Jul 2012)

Firefly said:


> I think this is the crux of it really. There will always be those who take anything that's going....sick on Mondays and Fridays and the like. This benefit is ripe for the picking for these types of people too, and the same people, with a lazy attitude anyway, will probably use the bottle/formula and still take the time off! I generally don't let these people bother me too much anymore...it's a pretty negative mentality IMO and their lives outside of work can't be too enjoyable either..let them off.
> 
> Sadly, IMO, there are more of these people where poor performance is not addressed by the fear of getting fired and also where top performance is often not rewarded enough either...people in this situation will tend to gravitate toward the middle. I've worked for large banks, semi-states and large companies where I see this happening. There are exceptions but these are in the margins. I haven't (yet) contracted services to any civil service dept so cannot comment on this but I would imagine this would also hold true too.


 

But surely if it wasnt for the slackers in an organisation then the people with the "can do" attitude wouldnt look so good?

While the slackers will languish on the lowest rung of the ladder the people who work hard, do all the extra hours humanly possible, come in when sick, neglect their families in the pursuit of advancement will rise to the top and get the recognition they deserve. Wont they?

If everyone worked themselves into an early grave how would management recognise those that deserve to be recognised?

I think the slackers (as someone called them) deserve recognition from those who get promotion/bonuses/share options.
By them sacrificing their careers others can rise to the top.


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2012)

The_Banker said:


> But surely if it wasnt for the slackers in an organisation then the people with the "can do" attitude wouldnt look so good?
> 
> While the slackers will languish on the lowest rung of the ladder the people who work hard, do all the extra hours humanly possible, come in when sick, neglect their families in the pursuit of advancement will rise to the top and get the recognition they deserve. Wont they?
> 
> ...



Brilliant!


----------



## ney001 (6 Jul 2012)

The_Banker said:


> I think the slackers (as someone called them) deserve recognition from those who get promotion/bonuses/share options.
> By them sacrificing their careers others can rise to the top.



Yeah but if you give the slackers recognition then they will have achieved something significant, then they are not slackers anymore they've become achievers - it's a catch 22   I reckon the achievers should just carry on ignoring the work done by the slackers - thereby keeping the status quo!


----------



## casiopea (8 Jul 2012)

ney001 said:


> Take from it what you will - but in my opinion the woman in particular had 10 months to get into a suitable routine for breastfeeding that doesn't involve an hour off each day and doesn't impact co-workers.  So yes I do believe she should have tried to be better prepared or strive to be better prepared whatever suits.



Why do we assume she did not?  I do agree with your point regarding planning - and I think most women (and especially working mums) do.  You are making a mistake though that many make, including myself until I came face to face with it, which is deciding to breastfeed and when to stop breastfeeding is not one persons decision but two. The mother and the baby.

I went back to work after 8 months with number 1. I planned to phase out breast feeding at around 6 months. While trying to phase it out I came down with mastisis and got very sick, as well as antibiotics one of the cures is to keep on breastfeeding.  I made 3 attempts to phase it out and every time got sick finally when my body seemed to cooperate the baby would not and we could not get her onto bottles. So I went back to work still breastfeeding - despite my best plans.

With no. 2 I went back to work after 20 weeks and started phasing out BF much earlier (after 12 weeks) due to my previous experience and after a week the baby and my body cooperated and ironically I stopped breast feeding much sooner than necessary. However when I went back to work baby number 2 got sick and I missed much more work than I ever did with baby number 1.

Number 3 is due in a week.  I will breast feed, I will go back to work, I do have a plan, whether it will come to fruition is up to many factors and not just me alone.

In short - your point is correct - the mother should plan how to manage returning to work, but I firmly believe a very high percentage do and despite best laid plans baby and or body might not cooperate.

To the pump point, made by another poster, definitely viable option, its what I did with baby no. 1 when I went back to work but a pump takes twice as long as baby to extract milk. If you can get to baby (which the lady in the OP post seems to wish to do) its much more efficient.


----------



## Mynydd (17 Jul 2012)

Maybe it mentioned before, but that piece of legislation covers only for babies up to 26 weeks. There are not many women who return to work earlier due to the 6 months maternity leave unless they are class s PRSI. I always expressed during my own time (break), but the company I work for has changed policy and you are not even allowed to express in work if your baby is older than 6 months. 
In most sectors of the civil service you can take extra breaks or leave for breastfeeding until your child turns 2 years of age.


----------

