# Is it ethical for Women to resign after Maternity Leave?



## MOB (6 Dec 2004)

The solicitors profession is currently debating whether it should be obligatory (or at least recommended practice) to pay full salary while on maternity leave.  

I have my own (fairly fixed, I must admit) views, but would be interested to hear what others think.

This interesting debate is a spin off from a question by MOB about "top up maternity payments" in Careers and Emploment..ajapale


----------



## purple (6 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

If the recipient can be legally bound to come back to work for at least one year from the end of the maternity leave or return the top up payment made by their employer then I think it should be done (an exemption could be applied for in the case of businesses who cannot afford to pay it or in this case the law society could have a fund etc.).
My company pay top up maternity leave and in 2 out of the last 3 cases the recipient had handed in their notice two weeks before they were due back.
I regard this as theft by the employee.


----------



## ClubMan (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*I regard this as theft by the employee.*

It's not. "Top-up" maternity pay is a  between the employer and the employee and is not a statutory right. 


> Payment during maternity leave is normally provided through Maternity Benefit, which is a Department of Social and Family Affairs payment. Some employment contracts allow for additional payment rights during the leave period, for example, that the employee will receive full pay, less the amount of Maternity Benefit payable.


The employee is at liberty to negotiate terms under which they do not pay this. However if they agree to an employment contract which guarantees to pay it then they are obliged to do so even if the employee decides to time a resignation to tie in with the end of the maternity leave.


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

You are right Clubman but it is a nasty and mean thing to do and IMHO it is no better than theft. The employer is paying a top up payment in order to support an employee while they are away from work, not while they have no intension of coming back. In a small business it can cause a big financial strain to pay a replacement and top up a salary. Integrity has to cut both ways.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Employers that don't like it are free to offer contracts of employment which don't include top-up maternity pay and recruit employees who are happy to accept such contractual terms & conditions. I don't consider nasty, mean or tantamount to theft for an employee to avail of the mutually agreed terms and conditions of the contract of employment.


----------



## rainyday (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

If somebody really doesn't want to come back to work, would you really want to have them sitting at their desk for 6 or 12 months just to meet some contractual requirement?


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

so you think it's OK to accept payment for time off when you have no intention of coming back?


> would you really want to have them sitting at their desk for 6 or 12 months just to meet some contractual requirement


 What's that got to do with it? I am saying that the individual who accepts three months payment from their employer after they have effectively left the company (since they have no intension of going back to work for them) is being dishonest at the very least.
Many people complain about social welfare fraud where people accept dole payments when they have no intension of working. This is the same thing. If you are leaving your job you shouldn't get three months pay for nothing after you are gone.
In my company there is nothing about extended sick pay when someone is out for a few weeks but we pay people their wage when we know that they need it. We used to give interest free loans to employees who got into financial trouble 'till the revenue people told us to stop. We pay for training courses, match 1 for 1 all payments into the social club by employees, offer a subsidised canteen etc etc and we are not unusual. I would hate to think any employee would be so unethical that they would behave like that.


----------



## rainyday (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Hi Purp - I didn't make any comment on the rights or wrongs of the issue. Don't assume that you always know what I'm thinking. I don't think your comparison to SW fraud holds water. In that case, there are specific legal regulations stating that the recipient must be 'looking for work'. In the case of maternity benefit, the person who accepts the benefit & does not return to work is not breaking any law.

But back to my earlier post - I was simply pointing out that any attempt to prevent this scenario by legal/contractual means (i.e. committing the employee to remain as such for a period of time) may be self-defeating.


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Right, fair enough rainyday. We are approaching this from different sides. I think everyone has a duty to do what is morally right and being within the letter of the law does not negate this responsibility. I think for an employer to use the law to take advantage of an employee is wrong and I think that cuts both ways. I accept that it is within the law to behave in that way but that doesn't make it right. We now live in a society that places no value on right and wrong and looks only at what is legal and illegal and I think we are poorer for it.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*I think for an employer to use the law to take advantage of an employee is wrong and I think that cuts both ways.*

If you boil it down to that then of course emlpoyers always take advantage of employees and vice versa. That's the nature of a contractual agreement into which both parties willingly enter. I don't see how this situation (claiming maternity pay with no intention of returning to work) is any different since it is simply a contractual arrangement between some employers and their employees. Employers who don't like the idea of that happening can always remove the discretionary payment of wages (in part or full) during maternity leave from contracts of employment on offer to prospective employees. Where employers have entered into a contractual agreement to pay this then they can't really complain if the employee simply takes advantage of this aspect of the contractual agreement.


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> If you boil it down to that then of course employers always take advantage of employees and vice versa


I strongly disagree with you there Clubman, there are many people working here who give their time over weekends and evenings working on projects and do not look for payment because they know that if they need help or latitude at a later date they will get it. Then again maybe that's why we have been in business for 37 years without any strikes or even the threat of a strike and have a workforce that has rejected all attempts at unionisation.
I know it sounds a bit idealistic but it does come down to mutual respect and trust and without that a lot of a companies energy, both management and workers, is used in a nonproductive way. Just look at An Post and Irish Ferries for examples.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

By "take advantage" I did not mean to imply anything nefarious. I meant that the contractual arrangement between employer and employee is generally symbiotic with both parties gaining some advantage from the relationship (e.g. employer benefits from the creation of wealth through the surplus value of the employee's labour while the employee benefits from a salary etc.). Paid maternity is simply one benefit of some employments and employers are at liberty to offer it - or not - as they see fit. They are not under any statutory obligation to offer it. If it is offered as a benefit of employment then it's hardly fair to criticise an employee for availing of it regardless of the circumstances. Anyway, I think I've laboured this point quite enough at this stage...


----------



## rainyday (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Hi Purp - Have you considered using the carrot instead of the stick? While it sound like you are a fairly enlightened employer, could you do a bit more to entice the mothers to stay at work? For example, flexible working hours, work from home for knowledge workers, maybe even an in-house creche (one of the very few benefits you can offer your employees without them being BIKed).


----------



## purple (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Hi Rainy, I am not talking from personal experience, there are 3 women and 75 men here so it's not something that comes up much here. I have no problem with women who intend to go back to work when they go on maternity leave but find that they can't when the baby is in hand, so to speak.
I do have a problem with women who have made a decision early in their pregnancy that they will give up work when the baby is born but take maternity leave anyway. I have a problem because to them it's not leave, it's three months pay under false pretenses.
As for using the carrot instead of the stick, there is no stick nowadays! Using the stick is called bullying and getting rid of someone by using the stick is called constructive dismissal.
And that's the way it should be, but it has to cut both ways.


----------



## rainyday (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> My company pay top up maternity leave and in 2 out of the last 3 cases the recipient had handed in their notice two weeks before they were due back.





> I am not talking from personal experience, there are 3 women and 75 men here so it's not something that comes up much here.



Now I'm confused....


----------



## purple (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Sorry rainy, both cases where people left date back nearly ten years, the recent one came back to work. I wasn't involved in that area of the business at that time.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*I do have a problem with women who have made a decision early in their pregnancy that they will give up work when the baby is born but take maternity leave anyway. I have a problem because to them it's not leave, it's three months pay under false pretenses.*

Not it's not. They are simply availing of a mutually agreed/negotiated contractual benefit of employment.

*I am not talking from personal experience, there are 3 women and 75 men here so it's not something that comes up much here.

...

both cases where people left date back nearly ten years, the recent one came back to work. I wasn't involved in that area of the business at that time.*

So, basically, this issue does not represent any major/immediate problem for your business? In which case it seems odd that this issue seems to agitate you so much.


----------



## purple (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> So, basically, this issue does not represent any major/immediate problem for your business? In which case it seems odd that this issue seems to agitate you so much


 I am agitated (mildly) about this because I think that everyone should act in an honourable and ethical way, regardless of what the letter of the law says and I regard this behaviour as nether ethical or honourable.
It's not that big a deal and my opinions on this seem to agitate you ClubMan, I intent no offense and apologies if any is caused.


> Not it's not. They are simply availing of a mutually agreed/negotiated contractual benefit of employment.


 so anything that is legal is OK? If so than you must have no problem with tax avoidance etc because it's legal.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*It's not that big a deal and my opinions on this seem to agitate you ClubMan, I intent no offense and apologies if any is caused.*

I'm not agitated and no apology required. I'm simply rebutting your mistaken assertions that somebody claiming a mutually agreed contractual benefit of employment such as maternity pay, albeit while not intending to return to work, is variously a thief, nasty, mean, dishonourable, unethical, operating under false pretences etc. Don't forget that a woman on maternity leave (whether the employer is paying her in part or full) is still an employee of the company so all of the normal rules apply, including the ability of either party to give normal notice of termination (with the exception of the employer giving notice on grounds related to the pregnancy or at specific times during the pregnancy). 

*so anything that is legal is OK?*

Yes - I suppose so. After all the law is effectively a codification of the generally accepted rules of society and reflects the ethics and values of that society.

*If so than you must have no problem with tax avoidance etc because it's legal.*

Yes - I have no problem with tax avoidance once it is done within the limits of the relevant tax laws and _Revenue_ anti-avoidance rules. Obviously I would not condone tax evasion.


----------



## rainyday (11 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> Sorry rainy, both cases where people left date back nearly ten years, the recent one came back to work. I wasn't involved in that area of the business at that time.


That's a great memory you have there - remembering the fine detail of two cases from ten years ago in an area in which you weren't involved. Two cases in ten years (or in 780 working years) doesn't seem like a huge problem to me.


----------



## zag (11 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

rainyday/clubman - the individual details of this particular issue in one persons company does not prevent them from holding a view on the issue or lessent the value of their contribution.

Are you aware of the ratio of returners to non-returners of people on maternity leave in your repsective employers ?  Do you think this knowledge (or lack of it, whichever is the case) impacts your right to hold a view on the subject ?  Why should it impact purples right to argue his point ?

There is logic to both sides of the argument - on one hand if there is no stipulation about returning to work when giving the top-up payment then the employee is contractually entitled to take the pay and not return.

However, it seems fair that someone benefiting from an facility provided by their employer might feel some sense of loyalty to their employer and might feel that they ought not to take advantage of the employers generosity.  It may be a contractual right, but it is still given by the employer and may well be withdrawn.  This may not affect the current person but could affect her colleagues.

I came across a case recently where a company had a generous sick leave policy which was abused and subsequently withdrawn.  If you were out sick you got paid regardless of the period.  This was handy for those peoplpe who were out for a week or maybe two or three.  The company looked after them and they in turn looked after the commpany.  Pay was not deducted and it was assumed that the employee was not abusing the situation.  However, one individual went out sick and stayed out sick.  For months.  After the first month it was assumed he would be back soon.  After the second month it was realised he wasn't, but the policy stood.  Eventually the policy was officially withdrawn entirely and in addition maternity top-up which used to be made without question was also withdrawn.

While maternity leave top-up *may* be included in some peoples contracts it may not be there forever.

z


----------



## zag (11 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

To answers MOBs initial request -

I don't think it is a good idea to have it obligatory.  This would place a significant strain on an employer.  They have to pay for the replacement employee (on contract, presumably more expensive when dealing with professionals) and if the top-up were obligatory they would also have to pay their non-productive employee.

The fact that the employee is non-productive is not the issue here - they are on statutory leave which they are entitled to - but the fact that the employers outgoings would be further increased is relevant.  This could have an adverse impact on some employers profitability.

I think it would be a good idea to recommend it as suggested practice, but not to make it obligatory.

z


----------



## ClubMan (11 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*rainyday/clubman - the individual details of this particular issue in one persons company does not prevent them from holding a view on the issue or lessent the value of their contribution.*

I never disputed anybody's right to express an opinion on this matter. I certainly do not feel the need to apologise for rebutting erroneous comments thought.

*It may be a contractual right, but it is still given by the employer and may well be withdrawn. This may not affect the current person but could affect her colleagues.*

Obviously it cannot be withdrawn from an individual to whom it was already offered without a renegotiation of the contract of employment. I presume that you mean that perceived "abuse" of such a benefit may result in an employer withdrawing from offering it to other individuals in the future? I suppose that this is possible but ultimately it is a matter for negotiation (collective or individual depending on the circumstances).

*However, it seems fair that someone benefiting from an facility provided by their employer might feel some sense of loyalty to their employer and might feel that they ought not to take advantage of the employers generosity.*

I don't really see how "generosity" is relevant when matters are underpinned by a legally binding contractual agreement.

*However, one individual went out sick and stayed out sick. For months. After the first month it was assumed he would be back soon. After the second month it was realised he wasn't, but the policy stood. Eventually the policy was officially withdrawn entirely and in addition maternity top-up which used to be made without question was also withdrawn.*

So what? Some people unfortunately are affected by long term illness and, in a case such as this, are simply claiming benefits of employment to which they are entitled. Presumably the employee was required to provide evidence/proof of their illness and inability to work (e.g. doctor's certs)? If an employer withdraws a benefit from future employees on the basis on individual incidents of employees actually availing such benefits then that's their prerogative. Of course it's also a potential employee's prerogative to decline to work for employers who may offer restricted benefits of employment.


----------



## purple (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> Yes - I suppose so. After all the law is effectively a codification of the generally accepted rules of society and reflects the ethics and values of that society.


 Well, we have different views on what's right and wrong so ClubMan. I believe in the notion of natural justice and that individuals have a responsibility to have a personal moral code that constitutes more than "if it's legal it's OK".


> Two cases in ten years (or in 780 working years) doesn't seem like a huge problem to me.


 That's a bit childish rainy, if you don't mind me saying so. I get the impression that you think the practice is OK. If so it doesn't square with your otherwise high moral standards.
The have been plenty of things down the years that were legal but wrong, I'm glad the people who fought to change them were able to tell the difference.


----------



## rainyday (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

I didn't say it was OK, though I can understand how a working mum could take such a decision. However, given that it happens once in every 380 working years, I'd hazard a guess that you've lost more on paper clips & biros being taken home from the office than you have on maternity payments for the 2 ladies who didn't return to work.


----------



## purple (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

Rainyday, you are (deliberately?) missing the point. 


> I can understand how a working mum could take such a decision


 So can I. 
I can understand why people exaggerate their insurance claims as well, it doesn't make it right though.


> I'd hazard a guess that you've lost more on paper clips & biros being taken home from the office


 we search everyone leaving the building for pens etc but we do find that there is far too much toilet roll being used...


----------



## ClubMan (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*I believe in the notion of natural justice and that individuals have a responsibility to have a personal moral code that constitutes more than "if it's legal it's OK"*

Fair enough. But it seems a bit prejudicial to assume that people who don't happen to concur with your view of things are wrong or, worse still, thieves, nasty, mean, dishonourable, unethical, operating under false pretences etc...

*I can understand why people exaggerate their insurance claims as well, it doesn't make it right though.*

This comparison (of fraudulent inflation of insurance claims versus the legitimate claiming of mutually agreed contractually binding benefit of employment) is completely fallacious.


----------



## purple (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*



> This comparison (of fraudulent inflation of insurance claims versus the legitimate claiming of mutually agreed contractually binding benefit of employment) is completely fallacious.


 yes your honour.

While this (maternity leave "abuse") behaviour is within the letter of the contract it is not within the spirit of the contract. There are many places (my own included) which does not have top up maternity payment within the contract of employment but pays it anyway. I admit that I'm being a bit moralistic but you are being very legalistic. Life is not that black and white.

Can you honestly say that if you employed two or three people, whom you got to know and treated well and one of them went out on maternity leave and you said, "look, don't worry about your salary, I'll top up the payments" and that person gave you their two weeks notice two weeks before they were due back that you would say to yourself, fair play to them, they were within their rights to do that.


> it seems a bit prejudicial to assume that people who don't happen to concur with your view of things are wrong or, worse still, thieves, nasty, mean, dishonourable, unethical, operating under false pretenses etc...


 It's not legal to smoke in your company car. I don't do it but I don't see the big deal about others doing it. 
It's perfectly legal to export weapons components to some of the most repressive countries in the world but I think anyone who does so is reprehensible.
Right does not always mean legal.
Wrong does not always mean illegal.
Much of what Liam Lawlor, CJH, Ray Bourke etc did in the 70's and 80's was not illegal but I still think it was wrong.
I am sure that you have a personal moral code that does not begin and end with the letter of the law.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Dec 2004)

*Re: Paid Maternity Leave*

*While this (maternity leave "abuse")  behaviour is within the letter of the contract it is not within the spirit of the contract.*

How so? Would the same apply to pay in lieu of holidays accrued but not taken in your view?

*I admit that I'm being a bit moralistic but you are being very legalistic.*

I don't accept that.

*Can you honestly say that if you employed two or three people, whom you got to know and treated well and one of them went out on maternity leave and you said, "look, don't worry about your salary, I'll top up the payments" and that person gave you their two weeks notice two weeks before they were due back that you would say to yourself, fair play to them, they were within their rights to do that.*

If I (as an employer presumably?) entered into a contractual agreement then I would expect to honour it and for others to abide by the agreement. If I was concerned about not being able to cover such costs then I would not offer maternity top-up pay as a benefit of employment.

* It's not legal to smoke in your company car. I don't do it but I don't see the big deal about others doing it.
It's perfectly legal to export weapons components to some of the most repressive countries in the world but I think anyone who does so is reprehensible.
Right does not always mean legal.
Wrong does not always mean illegal.
Much of what Liam Lawlor, CJH, Ray Bourke etc did in the 70's and 80's was not illegal but I still think it was wrong.
I am sure that you have a personal moral code that does not begin and end with the letter of the law. *

I think you're straying off the topic a bit there.


----------



## MissRibena (13 Dec 2004)

*Maternity Leave*

Why did these two mothers not return to work purple?  How do you know this was "pre-meditated" (crime-free) fraud?

You are summarily accusing all women who don't return to work after maternity leave of (natural law!) fraud on the flimsiest of evidence.  As already pointed out again and again, it's within the law, but as a follower of the "natural law" living in the real world, what advice would you offer to a mother suffering from post natal depression, to a mother who has a child with health problems or had an unexpected multiple birth or other complications, or whose husband/partner is not around?  What if she's just finding it harder to cope than she expected or finds that she's better at childcare than she hoped?  Do you expect that such a woman should have to trot out personal details to an employer when her circumstances change in ways that are far beyond her control?

In any case, regardless of why the decision is made, in the case of a couple, isn't the woman's partner just as "guilty" as her - what sanction do you propose for him?

I have no problems with anyone putting their family and loved ones before their employer. Thankfully the law protects the majority of honest women dealing with an unpredicable situation from being tarred with the same brush as purple's phantom maternity payment abusers.

Rebecca


----------



## Crunchie (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

Just to look at this from another perspective...

My company tops up Maternity Benefit with no minimum service requirement. In the last few years we've recruited women on 3 occasions to later discover that they were already pregnant and they went on Maternity Leave within a few months of recruitment.

1 of the 3 resigned on completion of her ML.


----------



## rainyday (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Maternity Leave*

Here's another perspective entirely - How come there are only 3 female employees in the workforce? In this day & age, there seems to be a fair percentage of female employees even in the most traditionally male employements of security, building sites etc.


----------



## purple (14 Dec 2004)

Hi MissRibena, you said;





> You are summarily accusing all women who don't return to work after maternity leave of (natural law!) fraud on the flimsiest of evidence


earlier I posted;


> I have no problem with women who intend to go back to work when they go on maternity leave but find that they can't when the baby is in hand, so to speak.
> I do have a problem with women who have made a decision early in their pregnancy that they will give up work when the baby is born but take maternity leave anyway. I have a problem because to them it's not leave, it's three months pay under false pretenses.


 Does this answer your question? For the record, I have no problem with women receiving maternity top up payments from their employers. In fact I think that they should receive them when the employer can reasonably afford them.


> In any case, regardless of why the decision is made, in the case of a couple, isn't the woman's partner just as "guilty" as her - what sanction do you propose for him?


 I agree that the partner is just as wrong. I don't see how you can stop this abuse without hurting the vast majority of women who do not behave in this manner.



> I have no problems with anyone putting their family and loved ones before their employer..


 either do I, in fact I would recommend it.


> Thankfully the law protects the majority of honest women dealing with an unpredicable situation from being tarred with the same brush as purple's phantom maternity payment abusers.


 There is an implication that I am telling lies there, I don't appreciate that. As for the substance of your comment; again I agree with you.



> Here's another perspective entirely - How come there are only 3 female employees in the workforce? In this day & age, there seems to be a fair percentage of female employees even in the most traditionally male employements of security, building sites etc.


 So how many female toolmakers and fitter/turners qualify every year rainyday? Every advert that we place specifies that we are an equal opportunities employer. The fact it that we have never had a female applicant for a shop floor job. There are six non technical positions in the company, three of them are filled by women.
Stop with the mud throwing rainy and stick to the topic. (typical bloody socialist   )


----------



## casiopea (14 Dec 2004)

*maternity leave*

Hi Purple.

Ive been following this thread with interest and I can see where you are coming from. There definitely is a bit of a grey area here allowing some people (male and female as correctly pointed out by Miss Ribena) to abuse this necessary benefit.



> For the record, I have no problem with women receiving maternity top up payments from their employers. In fact I think that they should receive them when the employer can reasonably afford them.



My problem is that, it seems to me, in order to deal with the people who are "morally" abusing this benefit you have to punish everyone...tar everybody with the same brush. Including the women you refer to above, including me, Miss Ribena, your partner, sister(s), female friends, all women who legally and morally follow the law and are entitled to the above benefit.  That too is morally wrong.  I cant give you exact figures but I know many working women and I dont know one that falls into this category of knowingly not returning to work after claiming pregnancy leave. In fact most of us cant afford not to!

Personally Im not against a company putting in a clause in a contract ensuring that the women returns to work after claiming pregnancy leave, should they do that however they might also need to provide creche facilities as in some cases it might simply not be feasible for the women to return....financially a company might find it was more cost beneficial in that scenario for the woman simply not to return.

Im rambling a bit now...my point is though I would be very disappointed to see this benefit withdrawn due to a few "offenders".

cas.


----------



## MissRibena (14 Dec 2004)

Purple, how do you know that these women you speak of premeditated their non-return to work?  Would you like them to have to justify why they did and how much is the employer entitled to know - do you not think that this is way too Dickensian?   These women that you claim take the decision in early pregnancy are only something you suppose exists; I doubt they do in any numbers that warrants any change in the status quo.

I never implied you lied by the way, but I do imply that you are using a red herring to bolster up your views.  You have no stats other than annecdotes from your own workplace, which (i would suggest) may be equal opportunities to the letter of the law but if your attitude is typcial and the gender ratio is correct, then maybe it is not "equal opportunitistic" to the spirit of the law.  Perhaps women would prefer to work in an environment where there are clear rules and contracts about what is paid when, rather than wooly employer understandings. I imagine this type of security is particularly important if you're facing into the uncertainty of motherhood.  

I worked in a factory in the SME sector for three years.  There were far more women on the factory floor than men, although the men did have the majority of supervisory positions (another day's debate).   It was a very family un-friendly environment but at least the rules were clear.  Nonetheless, I hope it was no more typical than purples.


Rebecca


----------



## purple (14 Dec 2004)

MissRibena, I know that these two women planned to leave because they told their work colleges afterward. One of them said that she would look for a job closer to home.      


> Would you like them to have to justify why they did and how much is the employer entitled to know - do you not think that this is way too Dickensian? These women that you claim take the decision in early pregnancy are only something you suppose exists; I doubt they do in any numbers that warrants any change in the status quo.


 I don't think that they should justify why they leave and I don't think that their employer should put anything into their contract about coming back to work because as was rightly pointed out it would penalise the majority that operate in good faith. I am just making the point that people should have a moral code that sees the spirit of the law/rule/contract and not abuse it.


> It was a very family un-friendly environment but at least the rules were clear. Nonetheless, I hope it was no more typical than purples.


 I'm not sure what you mean there, can you clarify?


----------



## Monsieur Bond (14 Dec 2004)

*so you think it's OK to accept payment for time off when you have no intention of coming back?
*


> would you really want to have them sitting at their desk for 6 or 12 months just to meet some contractual requirement



Some points, if I may add my 5 cent worth:
1. First of all, if employers don't treat their female staff properly when they are expecting children, including, in many cases, offering "top up" pay, how can they expect the staff to WANT to come back to work?

2. I am sure that many women do not decide immediately if they are going to come back to work or not. Families have to take stock of their financial position, childcare needs, etc. etc. and can only then decide on what makes sense as regards one or both parents working. In this situation, how can you regard it as "theft" when the decision is not made?

Obviously, a mother-to-be is going to take whatever benefits you are entitled to and have negotiated with your employer, in this expensive and sometimes personally difficult time.

3. Any employee can decide for any reason to leave a job but may not tell anyone until they have secure a new job. Could this also be considered to be "thieving"? Productivity is down and the employee is not giving his/her all.

But who is going to tell his/her employer that they are looking around for a new job, and take the risk of no further advancement in work, even if it takes over a year to find a job?

Why pick on expectant women - this is just a special case of one of a number of reasons why employees decide to leave a job. See also point 1 above.

4. Employers have a social responsibility to support mothers and families. 

5. It is precisely this "bottom line only" financial thinking that results in women not being able to advance in the workforce, as evidenced by the CSO survey yesterday.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (14 Dec 2004)

*Mat leave top up*

Why not put in a clause in the contract of employment that says that the top up will be claimed back if the woman decides not to return to work?  So long as it's clear, I don't see what the problem is?  If it wasn't for the top up I would have been in serious trouble as DH is not working (in these circumstances there was no question of not returning to work of course!), but to get rid of the top up completely would make life very difficult for single parents and breadwinners.

That being said, if there is nothing in the contract, then of course women can decide not to inform their employers that they're not coming back to work at the last minute.  Otherwise it's the same situation as saying to an employee that they can have holidays in their contract, but they're realy not supposed to take them.


----------



## purple (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*



> Why not put in a clause in the contract of employment that says that the top up will be claimed back if the woman decides not to return to work?


 because most women who don't return to work do so because of the huge life changes that come with parenthood. I have no problem with women who don't come back to work after maternity leave as long as it was not their intention from the start. 


Monsieur Bond,
point1, I agree totally.

Point 2, I have made it clear that I do not consider anything wrong in these circumstances. It's all about intent.

Point 3, 





> Why pick on expectant women - this is just a special case of one of a number of reasons why employees decide to leave a job.


 because this topic came up, that's all!

Point 4, with you 100% there as well.

Point 5, This has little effect on the bottom line for most companies, I am just making a point about personal integrity.
It has nothing to do with money.



> Otherwise it's the same situation as saying to an employee that they can have holidays in their contract, but they're realy not supposed to take them.


 I see your point but it would be more like someone getting a job and taking (by agreement) their full years holidays in the first three months and then quiting. It might be within their contract but to me it's not ethical.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

*It might be within their contract but to me it's not ethical.*

Seems to me that this is the nub of the problem here. You don't like other people operating to a different code of ethics to those in which you believe. Unfortunately that's life and, thankfully, people are free to choose how they live and operate. I personally don't see anything untoward in employees claiming benefits of employment in the circumstances that you mention for example. If employers want to protect themselves against perceived abuse of non statutory benefits then they can restrict them or decline to offer them at all. Perhaps the "clawback" clause mentioned above might be a runner if the employer and employee are agreeable?


----------



## terrysgirl33 (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*



> Quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why not put in a clause in the contract of employment that says that the top up will be claimed back if the woman decides not to return to work?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



I see what you mean, but how would you enforce it?  And is it really fair to say to one employee that they can be paid, and to another employee that they can't be paid, just because of what they think, not because they have done anything different to each other?  How do you know that the employee never meant to return to work, but being clever never said that untill the last minute?



> Quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Otherwise it's the same situation as saying to an employee that they can have holidays in their contract, but they're realy not supposed to take them.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



AFAIK (and I haven't changed jobs for many years, so I may be waaay out of line, most employers do have a clawback clause in the contract of employment for these circumstances.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

*And is it really fair to say to one employee that they can be paid, and to another employee that they can't be paid, just because of what they think, not because they have done anything different to each other?*

Good point. I can't really see this being of any use in practice when you put it this way.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

Actually, what you could do is have the clawback clause in place, but the employer could waive it in cases where they believe it best to do so.  However, I'm not sure that the equality tribunal (if that's the correct name) or a union would see things the same way.


----------



## Henny Penny (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

Following the birth of my first child, I returned to work ... for various reasons I decided to give up work after 8 months  ... I was obliged to repay my maternity pay top up and also a Y2K bonus I received (worked as a programmer) ... I do not regret my decision to quit, nor do I regret paying back what was not mine to keep ... my dear husband thought I was a fool ... stating that my employer would never have invoked the claw back clause of my contract in court ... but I we all have to live with our choices.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (14 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*



> Following the birth of my first child, I returned to work ... for various reasons I decided to give up work after 8 months ... I was obliged to repay my maternity pay top up and also a Y2K bonus I received (worked as a programmer) ... I do not regret my decision to quit, nor do I regret paying back what was not mine to keep ... my dear husband thought I was a fool ... stating that my employer would never have invoked the claw back clause of my contract in court ... but I we all have to live with our choices.



Moneypenny, sorry, Henny Penny  , this is scandalous. :mad 

Was this clawback in your contract?

I agree with your husband, they would never have followed up in court. And as for taking back your Y2K bonus - this is _unbelievable_, as the bonus was presumably for working over the switchover period - I can't see how they can justify taking this back.

All this smacks to me of employers abusing women in this vulnerable position.


----------



## flinch70 (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

Is it ethical that (according to the Irish Indo today, but hardly news!) women are more educated and less well paid? They are also more likely to do unpaid / voluntary work inside and outside the home and so much more likely to be "givers" rather than "takers" in society.  We don't have much to complain about when compared to many women around the world, but being legally entitled to work, vote and participate in society doesn't mean that you are given equal status by the decision makers - still overwhelmingly male (white, middleclass and middle aged).  

I'd say there's a percentage of women who take advantage of generous companies, but there are also the majority of women who don't get paid top ups to maternity benefit. Also, I think companies take a calculated risk on this issue -  it can be a very cheap way to win a good employee's loyalty and the risk is sometimes you can lose out.

F


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

*Also, I think companies take a calculated risk on this issue*

That's the bottom line in my view. It's up to a company to make a judgement call on whether or not they think that they should provide maternity pay as a benefit of employment. It's also up to employees to decide whether to operate by the letter of the law (contract) or some other code of ethics (extraneous to the contract) when deciding in which circumstances it is OK to avail of this.


----------



## daltonr (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*



> being legally entitled to work, vote and participate in society doesn't mean that you are given equal status by the decision makers



Well now let's not rush to any hasty conclusions here.  There is no evidence that women are unable to reach the top of their profession. It is true that women tend not to reach the top in the same proportion as Men.

However this might simply mean that women have different priorities and a more balanced approach to life.  There are all sorts of reasons why people do and don't achieve things.  It's more often about our own attitude than that of others.

I'm not saying that everying is sorted on the equality front.  I'm sure there are still problems for women.   I'm just saying don't accept reports like the recent ones as absolute evidence of descrimination.  It's not that clear cut.

-Rd


----------



## purple (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

Clubman, you have just hit the nail on the head. I reckon I would have needed another 6 or 7 posts to put it that succinctly.
daltonr, you are starting another topic (just as well as this one is dead). I agree with you though.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: Mat leave top up*

Does this mean that we don't get a chance to descend into throwing personal abuse at each other?


----------



## Marie (15 Dec 2004)

*The solicitors profession is currently debating whether it should be obligatory (or at least recommended practice) to pay full salary while on maternity leave.*

Yes it should be obligatory on employers to pay full salary to women employees whilst on maternity leave.  Anything less is an implicit initial discrimination against women becoming employees of that particular firm/organisation or on a secondary level of having to abandon a job or career when the couple chooses to have a family since the birth and the infant's subsequent early needs could not be accommodated within ordinary "annual leave".

However in the case of a woman/couple benefiting from paid maternity leave there should - surely? - be a clause in the contract of employment requiring that she return all monies received during that absence if she does not subsequently return to her post since this decision has major efficiency and financial implications for the employer - especially if the employing firm is a small one.  Her job cannot be filled by anyone else, employer contributions are still paid to cover state pension etc.

I work in a semi-state body (health service) and the issue of women on maternity leave has serious effects on service delivery.  I strongly advocate rigorous maintenance of equal opportunities and access to career ladders for women.  However the biological "given" is that it is the woman/mother, not the male/father who requires the break from employment and this needs to be respected and accommodated.  Employees need to be equally aware of their responsibilities to their employing organisation.

It is not a matter of "clawing back" maternity benefit payments in the financially sensitive period after the birth of a child if the clause that these benefits are available only to women who return to work for a minimum period of - say - 2 years! after the birth.


----------



## purple (15 Dec 2004)

> Does this mean that we don't get a chance to descend into throwing personal abuse at each other?


That's the only down side to this I'm afraid. Maybe next time.


----------



## rainyday (15 Dec 2004)

> However the biological "given" is that it is the woman/mother, not the male/father who requires the break from employment and this needs to be respected and accommodated.


Yes & No - the guys haven't mastered the act of childbirth yet, but it is not necessarily a given that mum should be the one with the six months off. There is no good reason (apart from the absence of enlightened employment legislation) why mum shouldn't be back in work after a month or two and dad does the baby minding for the initial period.


----------



## MissRibena (15 Dec 2004)

> It is not a matter of "clawing back" maternity benefit payments in the financially sensitive period after the birth of a child if the clause that these benefits are available only to women who return to work for a minimum period of - say - 2 years! after the birth.



Hi Marie, could you spell out how you see this working for me?  It's this "paying back" that I don't understand because it effectively means that even if your employer pays you while you are on maternity leave, you daren't spend it in case you have to return it, which clearly puts added pressure on the couple who have to figure out a way to pay their bills.  What happens if you can't return to work (for example if your child has health problems); how could it be right for the employer to add to the problems?  The system needs to be flexible; what if you have the child and need more time off than maternity leave for whatever reason but after a year or two can go back to work; do you get your clawed-back maternity pay back then?  

I don't agree that the clawback should be written in the contract and leaving it to the employer's discretion whether or not to pursue it, as suggested by someone else.  I don't like the idea of an employee having to furnish an employer with detailed personal information to justify their decisions; it's too close to grovelling to me and what one employer sees as a good case, might not be how another employer sees it.  

I understand that SMEs would have serious difficulty paying maternity leave and I believe most of them just don't offer it.  As others have said, it's a calculated risk.  I also believe that this is why there are vast numbers of women employed by local authorities etc where maternity leave (and flexi-time, flexible parental leave, job sharing etc) is fully supported.  To me this is one of the major reasons that you don't see women equally represented in many jobs and organisations and at higher levels (for example, even local authorities withdraw flexi-time from Grade 6 and up).  I believe to right this type of descrimination in legislation, we would probably end up taking the flexbility that exists in the status quo and making life more difficult for more mothers/couples.  

Rebecca


----------



## Kildrought (15 Dec 2004)

*really....?*

"There is no good reason (apart from the absence of enlightened employment legislation) why mum shouldn't be back in work after a month or two and dad does the baby minding for the initial period"

Wow, men who can breastfeed - I'm impressed!


----------



## Rabbit (15 Dec 2004)

Is it ethical for Women to resign after Maternity Leave?

In a word , no.    It is stealing from everyone else.


----------



## Kildrought (15 Dec 2004)

*...*

So suppose someone is sick, is paid in full during their illness, returns to work and then resigns - is that wrong also?


----------



## Monsieur Bond (15 Dec 2004)

Marie, I am surprised by your post

*I work in a semi-state body (health service) and the issue of women on maternity leave has serious effects on service delivery. 
*

Pun intended, presumably.  

I do agree with your point, but I think that in this male-centric society - and speaking as a male, I might add - with a jobs culture that is anti-family, cultivated by an ignorant _laissez-faire_ government, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater, to mix metaphors.

*It is not a matter of "clawing back" maternity benefit payments in the financially sensitive period after the birth of a child if the clause that these benefits are available only to women who return to work for a minimum period of - say - 2 years! after the birth.*

A 2 year commitment? That sounds a bit harsh - is that why you put in the exclamation mark?

2 years additional commitment seems a bit long, in the 21st Century. I thought the "jobs for life" idea had gone out in the 20th Century.

Perhaps not in the Health Service, though.  
(This is not a personal dig, just a wry comment.)


----------



## jem (15 Dec 2004)

I have read this tread with interest.
IMO it should NOT be obligatory or even recomended to pay full salery while on maternity leave. 
In fact I cant for the life of me see why it should. The couple decided to have a baby that is their right and their choice. I cant understand why the employer should have to pay for their choice.Remember in all likelyhood the employer will have to pay someone else to do the job while the woman is out anyway.


----------



## MissRibena (15 Dec 2004)

Jem,
"The couple" is not the only entity capable of having a baby.  Not all babies are "decided" upon.  No contraceptive is 100% safe. Rape and sexual assault are still a very serious problem.  Life is far more complicated than you suggest for many women.  Women are far more likely to live in poverty as it is and as (rightly or wrongly) the main carer for children, it means that the kids share the penury.

Are you also against all sick payments? Do you expect the state to bolster every situation and are you prepared for substantially higher taxes to cover all this?  Does an employer have no responsiblity to the employees who make their profit possible?

Rebecca


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2004)

My personal opinions...
<!--EZCODE LIST START--><ul><li>Maternity pay should not be mandatory.</li><li>Employers decide for themselves whether they want to provide it as part of the contractually agreed benefits of employment. Employees decide for themselves if they are happy to accept a job which does not offer this benefit.</li><li>Once it is granted then the beneficiary is entitled to claim it, without prejudice, even if she does not return to work after maternity leave. I certainly do not consider this theft or unethical etc.</li><li>I wouldn't agree with a clawback clause but there is nothing that I can see to prevent employers and employees negotiating one on an individual or collective basis if they see fit. The clawback clause (particularly where it may be waived by the employer in certain circumstances as mentioned earlier) suggests to me an element of prior restraint which some people might consider unacceptable.</li></ul><!--EZCODE LIST END-->


----------



## MissRibena (15 Dec 2004)

I agree with your views on this Clubman.

I think that the status quo, while not ideal, is better than any other suggestion I've heard.   However, there are a number of difficulties with leaving the policy-making to the individual company.  I imagine that the poorer socio-economic sectors are most likely to be excluded since there is less job choice available and extra benefits in these jobs are very limited.  

Even in better paid jobs the "optional" maternity payments would make them easy to cut in the event of an economic downturn exactly at the same time that the woman/couples effected would find it difficult to find more suitable work.  It does also mean that women's entitlement to maternity benefit is subject labour supply in their particular employment sector; which is a fairly precarious situation.

All that said, I don't know how this could be improved upon.  A compulsory materntiy payment would most likely lead to compulsory clawback, which I would certainly not be in favour of.

Rebecca


----------



## Marie (15 Dec 2004)

It is a very very difficult and complex issue!  Though a number of posters feel optimistic that womens' careers are not prejudiced by their gender I don't buy that!  An automatic de-selection process operates during interviews and assessments which favours the male of the same age, ability and training over a woman - especially during the 20's and 30's, child-bearing age.  For service provision the employer/the business requires continuity.  People are indeed the firms most important resource and asset.  Women have babies.  Having babies is labour-intensive (OK OK more puns......is it possible to talk about this without?)  

Perhaps there is such divergence of views here because the best solution for the female employee is possibly not the best solution for the employer? For other employees who cover during maternity leave?  I do think there should be an adequate basic state-subsidised maternity leave provision available to *all* women.  It isn't possible to legislate for all random possibilities, Rebecca, and of course these things work out uniquely depending on all the parents' circumstances.  However the situation in large organisations such as my own is that a great deal of selfishness is evident in the area of maternity leave.  One colleague had two babies within an 18 month period (6 months maternity leave per pregnancy - statutory entitlement + self-funded).  Three years later in her late 30's she was promoted to a senior management role.  Three months later the division she headed was in chaos trying to put contingencies in place for her imminent departure for a further 6 month maternity absence.  There _are_ aspects of manipulation and deception in operation in many cases.  It is a complex issue.


----------



## MissRibena (15 Dec 2004)

Hi Marie

Complications on either the part of the mother or the child in childbirth are not random.  They are a fact of life and need to be considered properly if the area is to be tackled at all.

I agree that there is a deselection process and that there is in-build discrimination.  You do seem to contradict yourself by highlighting the issue surrounding a woman who was promoted and the *organisation's* incapacity to operate around it.  It is not selfish to accept a fairly won promotion, nor is it selfish to plan your family however you see fit.  Surely a large organisation can accept the likelihood of pregnancy and maternity leave and can plan around this fact of life.  If the woman (or man!) had been seriously ill for a year (and I believe there is some generous pay in many state organisations in this regard) people would just have to find a way around it.  If they were ill as a result of their own contributary actions; smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, extreme sports, nobody would pass comment.  

Rebecca


----------



## jem (15 Dec 2004)

> Does an employer have no responsiblity to the employees who make their profit possible?


Yes the employer has a responsibility to pay his employees their agreed wages, to treat them within the law, to give them their statutory holidays etc.



> Are you also against all sick payments?


Basically Yes. Even though I have paid my employee for the odd day out on the swings and roundabouts basis, would I pay for being out 2 weeks or more - definatly not.



> Do you expect the state to bolster every situation


No. But why should the employer. Should the employee have no responsibilities??


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2004)

*Yes the employer has a responsibility to pay his employees their agreed wages, to treat them within the law, to give them their statutory holidays etc.*

They also have a responsibility to adhere to the letter of the law in terms of the mutually agreed contract of employment and to ensure that all benefits guaranteed under this are met. If this includes the maternity pay, regardless of the woman's plans after maternity leave has completed, then so be it.

*Should the employee have no responsibilities??*

Many do in this context - e.g. the many who do not have maternity (top-up) pay included as a benefit of employment etc.


----------



## MissRibena (16 Dec 2004)

Hi Jem

We don't share the same ethos at all it would seem. 

Of course the employee has responsiblities, at the very least they have to raise a child on more or less the same income that they had before.  Obviously the ideal is to be part of a stable couple that can plan and save for the baby but that's just not the real world for lots of people. 

But your post does demonstrate my point that employers are likely to  offer the minimum they need to attact and keep employees.  You are either in a situation where your employees are interchangeable with new ones or where work is scarce and employees settle for the bare minimum.  This minimum changes over time and can leave the employee in a precarious situation. 

Mind you, I'd sooner work for someone with your clear rules than the wishy washy "you might get it, you might not get it" type.  But thankfully I work for neither  


Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

> But your post does demonstrate my point that employers are likely to offer the minimum they need to attact and keep employees.



That sounds fair.  That's the essence of Business.
If there are other ways to earn a living where more generous options are available then men and women are both free to avail of those, but I'm still at a loss to see why Businesses should be legally obliged to subsidise child birth.

Can we just clear up just how Family Friendly people think companies should be "obliged" to be.

1. Do you believe that a persion should be able to leave work and return 6 months later as if they'd never left?   

2. Do you believe they should be entitled to promotions/pay rises they'd have gotten if they had worked those 6 months?

3. Do you believe they should be entitled to full pay from their employer during those 6 months.  If not what level of pay should they get?

4. Do you believe the legal obligations of a company should be different towards Male and Female Employees?

5. Do you think there should be exemptions for small businesses?

6. Who should pay for the Parental Leave for the self employed?

-Rd


----------



## jem (16 Dec 2004)

Hi MissRibena,


> We don't share the same ethos at all it would seem.


Of course we don't , you are and employee , I am an employer.

Thankfully my employee is quite happy here. I have given her a lot of training and while she could be replaced I would not like to. She would tell you I belive in give and take, if she has to go a few min early I don't mind but likewise I would expect that if she had to stay 5-10 min late to get something finished she would do so without charge. I pay her the rate we agreed and gave her a pay rise when she didn't expect it.Because I felt she deserved it. 
However this is totally different to paying someone for months and no work being done.


----------



## jem (16 Dec 2004)

Great post Rd


----------



## MissRibena (16 Dec 2004)

I am happy with the status quo.  I don’t believe that employers should be legally obliged to pay for maternity leave as I already stated.  I do point out that there are some inequalities thrown up by leaving it to the discretion/benevolence of individual firms.  Some companies do have a more “societal” approach to doing business seeing themselves as part of a community than others.

The problem with your questions 1, 2, 3, is that you are comparing a leave of absence or holiday with pregnancy which doesn’t make sense.  Pregnancy and childbirth are facts of life, to state the obvious.  Many women have no option but to go ahead with unplanned pregnancies.  Men just don’t.  To treat men and women equally, we need to allow for that (which covers point 4).   Producing and caring for the future workforce at such an early stage is a physically, financially and emotionally exhausting service to society and far from some kind of sabbatical.  

5.  See above. Nobody should be legally forced to, so no exemption necessary.

6. The self employed have access to their own profit and can provide from this as they see fit.  They could pay someone else to continue their work for them or stay working or use a mixture of both.  The choice is theirs.  

Anyways, I've said all I can, I think. This thread has thrown up some depressing points of view.  I'm off to ask Santa for liathroidi for Christmas  

Rebecca


----------



## MissRibena (16 Dec 2004)

Jem, you know what they say about assuming ..  

I am actually both.  I work fulltime but am heavily involved with the (small) family business, an employer of 4.  Only one female employee, who returned from paid maternity leave.  We also have one employee for 15 years that was seriously ill last year and we paid him for three months. 

Our difference in ethos is more likely from being male and female or our outlook on life I suspect and not employer/employee.

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

> 6. The self employed have access to their own profit and can provide from this as they see fit. They could pay someone else to continue their work for them or stay working or use a mixture of both. The choice is theirs.



Employees have access to their own profits as well, they can save up and live off their savings.   I'm self employed and certainly couldn't hire someone to do my work if I suddenly found I had to take time out.  The fact that I'd be taking time out to look after a child wouldn't magically make my work or financial situation any better.

Furthermore my "profits" are taxed with surcharges to bring them more inline with an employees income.  So, unless the state is going to refund me those surcharges, I'm in a far worse position than you might think.

If being Self Employed were such a Panacea to the Child/Career balance, then anyone who wanted to have both could go off and become Self Employed.



> I do point out that there are some inequalities thrown up by leaving it to the discretion/benevolence of individual firms.



No. No. No. There are inequalities thrown up by women predominantly being the ones who take time out of work to care for children.  This isn't the employers fault.

You need to direct your attention to sharing that responsibility 50/50 with men if you want to tackle the true cause of inequality.  

There are probabably issues with employers discriminating against women on the presumption that they "might" leave to have kids.   This is covered by legislation and that should be enforced.

Bottom line.  Your employer might be delighted for you on a personal level when you have a child, but they should be no more expected to pay for that child than Your Doctor, Your Priest, Your Neighbour or Your TD.  After all,  you're child doesn't work for them.

If you want to see who should pay for a child, look at who benefits from the child.  In the long run the people who benefit are:  You, and the State.

-Rd


----------



## elderdog (16 Dec 2004)

Well Miss,

I'm not so far away from your ethos so may not be a male and female thing either.

What gets me is the way that the state system seems to be set up to steer employers away from anything other than a 'hard' attitude.

Anyone know of an employer ( departments in larger companies ) that celebrates in some way when one of their number reveals she is pregnant ?



eDog


----------



## Henny Penny (16 Dec 2004)

> Anyone know of an employer ( departments in larger companies ) that celebrates in some way when one of their number reveals she is pregnant ?



A friend of mine worked in Tescos in Stillorgan many years ago ... 6 of the 8 check out ladies were pregnant at the same time!


----------



## rainyday (16 Dec 2004)

> Wow, men who can breastfeed - I'm impressed!


It's not that hard really. I've it myself (with a little help from one of [broken link removed].


----------



## purple (16 Dec 2004)

> Wow, men who can breastfeed - I'm impressed!


 As someone who did every night feed on our first two children I would like to point out that the use of glass, and later plastic, bottles with rubber (and later silicone) teeth's as receptacles for the storage and dispensing of breast (and synthetic) baby milk had been common for quite some time..... you really need to get out more.


----------



## MissRibena (16 Dec 2004)

daltonr .... 50/50 sharing of childcare responsibility would be fantastic if a) men could have 50% of the babies and b) 100% of men stayed with their partners and wanted to be actively involved in childcare.  While some of us may be lucky to live in this lovely cosy world with happy partnerships and well-planned pregnancies and finances, it's not the reality for most.  I think you need to direct your attention to the basic facts of life.

Rebecca


----------



## Kildrought (16 Dec 2004)

*Depressing really....*

Purple, that's called artificial feeding - not breastfeeding.  

I also have found this discussion some what depressing.  

Having suffered from discrimination in the past in relation to pregnancies and breastfeeding (and I expressed in work in the Ladies loos at a time when b/feeding and anything associated with it was effectively considered disgusting, Purple); I'm surprised we haven't (as a society) moved on from this.

I'm willing to bet (and I'm sure someone will find the stats for this) that the cost of absenteeism, back-pain, sick leave etc., etc., far outweighs the cost of paying maternity benefit.  

So far as I can remember, SW pays 90% of the previous years salary to women on maternity leave?

If we believe as a society that we want the best for our children, then I don't see that the cost of maternity pay to maintain the primary carer for a short space of time is a particularly high price to pay.


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

Miss Ribena,

I've very sorry that people with unplanned pregnancies end up making sacrafices in their career.  I'm very sorry that this affects women more than men, and if the state can do anything to minimise the impact then this should be done.

But no-one has yet explained to me why the employers are the ones expected to pick up the tab.  No-one has yet explained how small business could foot the bill.  And no-one has yet explained who will bail out the self employed with an unplanned pregnancy.

What's so special about employers?

-Rd


----------



## Kildrought (16 Dec 2004)

*Am I missing some thing here?*

Who said employers have to pick up the tab for maternity pay?   

Offering 'top-up' maternity pay is a benefit to employees that any company can choose to pay or not, just like VHI/BUPA, Annual Bonus etc., etc.,


----------



## terrysgirl33 (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Am I missing some thing here?*



> As someone who did every night feed on our first two children I would like to point out that the use of glass, and later plastic, bottles with rubber (and later silicone) teeth's as receptacles for the storage and dispensing of breast (and synthetic) baby milk had been common for quite some time..... you really need to get out more.



Yeeees, but the World Health Organisation advise breastfeeding to two years, our own government recomends breastfeeding untill at least six months, and AFAIK, most packets of formula have the health warning 'not intended to replace breastfeeding' on them.  FWIW


----------



## purple (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Am I missing some thing here?*

Yeeeees but there are also lots of women who for lots of reasons can't breast feed (medication that might be transferred to the baby, infection etc) and there are women who find the disruption to their sleep too much to bare. There are also women who just can't produce enough milk.
As rainyday pointed out there is also the option of using a breast pump.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (16 Dec 2004)

*breastfeeding rates.*

There are many women, for many reasons who can't breastfeed.  And they do the best for their children as women who can breastfeed do the best for their children too.  However, in countries that strongly encourage breastfeeding, 80-90% of mothers breastfeed.  So you would make breastfeeding harder to discourage mothers from doing that?  As you know parenthood is hard enough without people making it difficult to feed your child  .  

Using a breastpump is an option, but in the first few weeks particularly a baby is much much more efficiant at getting the milk out.  As a mother who has breastfed/formula fed/pumped, pumping is by far the most stressfull and the hardest work of feeding options available.  While you can do it, it's very very difficult with a young baby, it's much better for mother and child to be together and nurse as much as possible.


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*

I'm not sure of the relevance of this breastfeeding argument other than to prove that there are some things that men can't do.   That's pretty much a given when you consider the actual issue of giving birth.

So yes, the actual giving birth to a child does require the woman to be present.  The actual level of involvement that absolutely MUST involve the woman will vary from person to person.

I think we've answered the first question that started this thread.  No it isn't unethical for women to resign after maternity leave.  If the employer agreed to the contract then the woman is entitled to all the benefits of the contract.

Similarly Employers aren't obliged to compensate female employees for the impact of child bearing on their careers.

We can disagree on whether employers should be obliged to compensate women for this impact.

And at the end of all that we're no further along.  We still all agree that figuring out who should pay for children is a difficult question with no easy answers.

-Rd


----------



## terrysgirl33 (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*

Agreed.  At the end of the day, employers shouldn't be penalised for employing women, OTOH women shouldn't be penalised for having children, but someone has to have them!!


----------



## MissRibena (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*

It's the same situation for sick pay: some employers pay, others won't, some will pay for longer (far longer than maternity periods!) than others, the state contributes, some people save or use insurance and some people resign afterwards.  But there's no curfuffle about that - maybe because men get sick too.

Rebecca


----------



## daltonr (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*



> But there's no curfuffle about that - maybe because men get sick too.



Touche.  Well done.    

OTOH.  There isn't a curfuffle about women resigning after Maternity leave either, just one person asking a question, and nearly everyone else disagreeing.

-Rd


----------



## purple (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*

Jasus, I'll say it again;
I think that women who decide in advance of taking maternity leave, where their employer pays top up pay, that they will give up work just after/as they come back are not behaving in an ethical way. 
Issues of legality, contracts, claw-backs etc have nothing to do with the point I was making. I am just saying that people should be true to themselves. That's it, it's not a question it's just my opinion. Sorry if I upset anyone...


----------



## daltonr (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: breastfeeding rates.*

I don't think you upset anyone Purple.   I just think the general concensus is if the employer is willing to take that chance and offer it, then they have to accept that it will be used in this way by some people.

There are lots of situations like this.   Is it ethical to accept severance pay if made redundant, but you find a job that you can start immediately?  Most people would say it's perfectly ethical.

If I'm going to be consistent in saying that it's not the employers problem if you get pregnant, then the flipside of that is that it's not your problem if the terms of your contract allow you to do this.

In in ideal world yes,  people wouldn't do what you suggest.  But in an ideal world they wouldn't need to.  It would be easy to balance family and work etc.

In practice, even in small firms I have seen a lot of give and take in the area of Maternity leave.  I don't know if that's the norm.

-Rd


----------

