Discriminatory, unlikely. Crappy, yes.
First things first maybe sort out your PHI so you’re not left out in the cold when the time comes. They might allow you to pay off the remainder of your premium in a lump sum now and put arrangements in place for continuity when you are off e.g. they could take an amount for the premium and pay it for you at renewal time.
From what you said they seem to be meeting their obligations legally. I assume it’s a small company you work for? It’s a tricky area for small business and I’m sure they would love to do more but it’s a significant outlay particularly given current circumstances.
However, if it’s not the above and it’s a healthy business or it’s a business that touts any sort of social credentials/“gender balance” or has published a policy/advertised using the words “diversity” or “inclusion” in it then it’s free fire in my opinion because it’s disgraceful.
In reality you don’t want to go down the discrimination route, it’ll be unpleasant for everyone. You would have to establish if they have a different policy for other types of unpaid leave? Do they pay paternity leave at full pay for example? Even then you’d have to go through a rigmarole that you don’t want.
But on the plus side you you have no obligation to your employer once you’re off the payroll. Do yourself a favour and look for something more suitable for your circumstances.
I was thinking discriminatory because it doesn't just affect meternity leave, it puts anyone who is likely to need to take a period of unpaid leave at a disadvantage.
If it affects everyone on unpaid leave then it's not discriminating against any specific group. As Itchy says, providing cover for unpaid leave is disproportionately expensive for small companies, so many will not provide generous benefits while getting nothing in return. Larger companies can take a longer term view of it and continue to pay for such benefits.
I was surprised that my company halved my bonus during ML, but by all accounts this is allowed.
Well who is going to be availing of unpaid leave? Parents really isn't it? So could it not be seen as unfairly penalizing people on grounds of family status?
Well who is going to be availing of unpaid leave? Parents really isn't it? So could it not be seen as unfairly penalizing people on grounds of family status?
That doesn't really make sense. It could not be considered discriminatory not to pay an optional benefit to someone who is not being paid! I presume there is no one there putting a gun to your head forcing you to take unpaid leave?
But aside from that, I know lots of people who took unpaid leave to go travelling.
I disagree you might have no choice but take unpaid leave to care for someone, or you might be very sick. Very different from going on a lifetime trip. There should be a distinction made?
Unpaid leave is a benefit for parents. You’re complaining that this benefit is not good enough and should be paid?
I think you need to change your mindset. No one is out to screw you.
Wow talk about bias coming out! So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers. That is what this is really about isn't it? Never mind what asset these individuals are and what they bring to the company.You're confusing multiple issues here. There is no entitlement to unpaid time off to care for someone outside of the 3 days permitted in qualifying force-majeure circumstances. Like extended maternity leave, where employers offer enhanced benefits to employees and allow this, it would be unfair to penalise them further by requiring them to pay other benefits.
Wow talk about bias coming out!
So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.
That is what this is really about isn't it? Never mind what asset these individuals are and what they bring to the company.
Why on earth should an employer have to compensate one employee more due to their family circumstances? If someone with no children wants a month off to travel they will take it unpaid. If someone else wants that month off to mind their kids why should the employer have to pay for it?No, work conditions should not put someone at a disadvantage due to their family status. Making one of these benefits (I. E. Paid health insurance) unavailable to individuals who may need to take unpaid parental leave or carer's leave or maternity leave is indirectly discriminating against individuals with dependants.
That is pretty much the attitude; perhaps I'm just getting old and cynical, but don't expect it to improve once your baby is born.So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.
Cases brought to the WRC every single year where employers attempted to do just that - and that's only the cases we know about.If the employer could do without them for extended periods, then wouldn't it be better for the employer if they just let them go and saved themselves the cost?
Of course it is. How could it be anything else? Employees going on holidays is a nuisance. Anything that takes them away from doing their job is a nuisance. That doesn't mean employers don't accept that their employees should get holidays and time off. It doesn't mean that they aren't concerned for their employees at a human level but it's still a nuisance.So employees going on parental or maternity leave is a nuisance and penalty for employers.
Cases brought to the WRC every single year where employers attempted to do just that - and that's only the cases we know about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?