Is it ethical for Women to resign after Maternity Leave?

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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Click to expand...

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Re: Mat leave top up

Does this mean that we don't get a chance to descend into throwing personal abuse at each other? ;)
 
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.
 
Does this mean that we don't get a chance to descend into throwing personal abuse at each other?
Click to expand...
That's the only down side to this I'm afraid. Maybe next time.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

So suppose someone is sick, is paid in full during their illness, returns to work and then resigns - is that wrong also?
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top