Is it ethical for Women to resign after Maternity Leave?

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 It may be a contractual right, but it is still given by the employer and may well be withdrawn.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I came across a case recently where a company had a generous sick leave policy which was abused and subsequently withdrawn.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 Eventually the policy was officially withdrawn entirely and in addition maternity top-up which used to be made without question was also withdrawn.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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Re: Paid Maternity Leave

Rainyday, you are (deliberately?) missing the point.
I can understand how a working mum could take such a decision
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
we search everyone leaving the building for pens etc but we do find that there is far too much toilet roll being used...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
earlier I posted;
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?
Click to expand...
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..
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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 )
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean there, can you clarify?
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register