Is it ethical for Women to resign after Maternity Leave?

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-->
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Does an employer have no responsiblity to the employees who make their profit possible?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
No. But why should the employer. Should the employee have no responsibilities??
 
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.
 
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
 
But your post does demonstrate my point that employers are likely to offer the minimum they need to attact and keep employees.
Click to expand...

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
 
Hi MissRibena,
We don't share the same ethos at all it would seem.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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!
 
Wow, men who can breastfeed - I'm impressed!
Click to expand...
It's not that hard really. I've it myself (with a little help from one of [broken link removed].
 
Wow, men who can breastfeed - I'm impressed!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top