Again, it says they 'should' be supported etc but doesn't say they are actually entitled to anything longer then the 6 month period.
Time off to breastfeed
- Thread starter liaconn
- Start date
Again, it says they 'should' be supported etc but doesn't say they are actually entitled to anything longer then the 6 month period.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
The article would make no sense if you did not get the entitlements past 6 months. Have you read it in its entirety? Including the benefits to the employer of supporting breastfeeding mothers?
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
In the government dept that I work for it is possible for breastfeeding mothers to leave 30 mins early or come in 30 mins late for breastfeeding purposes until the child is 2 years old. I think it is a fantastic arrangement and I'll be encouraging my wife (Baby due in 13 days!
) to avail of it, should she still be breastfeeding.Gotta laugh as well as the men on the thread talking as if using a breast pump is just as 'simple' as breastfeeding a baby. A lot of women have great difficulty using a pump, and are unable to do so. We as a society should be encouraging breastfeeding whenever and wherever possible.
I have read the article and I take from it that the 6months is your maternity leave, after that it states that 'many workplaces' support breastfeeding ..... it doesn't mention anything about workplaces having to support this after six months - obviously they would hope that workplaces would support it longer than the six months - perhaps the civil service support longer than the six months?
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Found it!
I knew there was something about 2 years somewhere. Its the civil service.
The document is called An Introduction to the Irish Civil Service. From Chapter Three
Terms and Conditions of Employment:
[broken link removed]
So it looks like civil service mothers get the 2 years, all others get the 6 months. If youre in the civil service Liaconn, that might explain it? (sorry for the stupid question but is the civil service the public sector or is it different?)
It might also explain confusion about various article online where proper sources are not checked etc...
I knew there was something about 2 years somewhere. Its the civil service.
The document is called An Introduction to the Irish Civil Service. From Chapter Three
Terms and Conditions of Employment:
[broken link removed]
So it looks like civil service mothers get the 2 years, all others get the 6 months. If youre in the civil service Liaconn, that might explain it? (sorry for the stupid question but is the civil service the public sector or is it different?)
It might also explain confusion about various article online where proper sources are not checked etc...
As an ex-small businessman I can tell you that having to talked to several of my ex-colleagues about this and similar proposed laws that ,increasingly, there is a greater incentive to take on older women, men and -especially - overseas employees (generally, if unmarried, they tend not to get pregnant whilst here).
Small businesses just cannot bear the burden of ever increasing rights for pregnant staff, sick staff etc (e.g. a proposal to pay for the fist four weeks of sick pay -disaster), paternal leave etc etc
Unless you have spent your life risking every penny ,with no govnt fallback, struggling to support a small business you have no idea of the devastating effect some of these proposals will have.
If the rights of pregnant women, new parents, sick people are so important then ,fine, let the govnt -i.e. the general population,pay. there are no proposals how to help employers in situations where ,say, 2 or 3 staff out of ten are suddenly sick or pregnant.
People working in large companies or are public servants do not understand how in small enterprises of, say 2- 10 people these proposals will affect those businesses. "Well, the bosses shopuld cost it in" , they reply -without thinking of the cost.
So, yes, in order to get cheaper stuff we can always import from Asia. I wonder how many people supporting the employee rights here spurn purchases from China,India and other countries on the grounds there are awful working conditions there .
I'm guessing almost nobody.
Small businesses just cannot bear the burden of ever increasing rights for pregnant staff, sick staff etc (e.g. a proposal to pay for the fist four weeks of sick pay -disaster), paternal leave etc etc
Unless you have spent your life risking every penny ,with no govnt fallback, struggling to support a small business you have no idea of the devastating effect some of these proposals will have.
If the rights of pregnant women, new parents, sick people are so important then ,fine, let the govnt -i.e. the general population,pay. there are no proposals how to help employers in situations where ,say, 2 or 3 staff out of ten are suddenly sick or pregnant.
People working in large companies or are public servants do not understand how in small enterprises of, say 2- 10 people these proposals will affect those businesses. "Well, the bosses shopuld cost it in" , they reply -without thinking of the cost.
So, yes, in order to get cheaper stuff we can always import from Asia. I wonder how many people supporting the employee rights here spurn purchases from China,India and other countries on the grounds there are awful working conditions there .
I'm guessing almost nobody.
Yes, I'm in the Civil Service. Civil Service is part of the Public Sector which also includes semi state bodies.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess thats why she gets the entitlement. As opposed to law, its policy.
For what its worth, I think you should claim back your bank holidays.
Personally, I do believe that it's all about preparation and planning.
Being self-employed, I returned to work when my son was 4 weeks old. I worked part time so I could spend time with him too BUT, even before he was born, I knew that I simply couldn't afford to not work for more than four weeks and made a decision to bottle feed.
To be quite honest, I don't understand all the fuss about breast feeding. The baby gets the nutrition which mother gives it through her own diet. If a new mother lives on curry and chips, the baby is being deprived of good, essential nutrients. That's my non-professional opinion. On the other hand, bottle feeding had so many benefits for our entire family - my son got into a feeding routine very quickly, we always knew if he ate (drank) enough and my husband was able to help with night / early morning feeds on occasion. My son is now a thriving 2.5 year old, he's never been ill, talks like a grown up and nobody will convince me that he was in any way deprived by not having been breast fed.
In my humble opinion, it appears that entitlements and especially their use grow arms and legs in an environment where somebody else is footing the bill. It also appears to me that women like my former PA and a lady in the OP are the ones who give all women of child bearing age a bad name. It takes just one to teach an employer / manager to steer clear.
Being self-employed, I returned to work when my son was 4 weeks old. I worked part time so I could spend time with him too BUT, even before he was born, I knew that I simply couldn't afford to not work for more than four weeks and made a decision to bottle feed.
To be quite honest, I don't understand all the fuss about breast feeding. The baby gets the nutrition which mother gives it through her own diet. If a new mother lives on curry and chips, the baby is being deprived of good, essential nutrients. That's my non-professional opinion. On the other hand, bottle feeding had so many benefits for our entire family - my son got into a feeding routine very quickly, we always knew if he ate (drank) enough and my husband was able to help with night / early morning feeds on occasion. My son is now a thriving 2.5 year old, he's never been ill, talks like a grown up and nobody will convince me that he was in any way deprived by not having been breast fed.
In my humble opinion, it appears that entitlements and especially their use grow arms and legs in an environment where somebody else is footing the bill. It also appears to me that women like my former PA and a lady in the OP are the ones who give all women of child bearing age a bad name. It takes just one to teach an employer / manager to steer clear.
People should get paid and advance in their job according to their skills, input and their value to the organisation. If I don't want to work overtime/be on call over the weekend/ travel etc then I shouldn't get paid as much as someone with equal skills who is willing to do those things. It would be completely unfair to expect that I should.
Women who have recently given birth should be accommodated as much as possible. If someone wants to come in late because they are breast feeding then they should work late to make up their hours. It's not their employers concern what their domestic arrangements are.
The real sexism here is women expecting that they should be the ones to drop kids off in the morning or collect in the evening, go to the PTA or the dentist etc. Where's the father's in the equation? Why can't they do it?
None of my children were breast fed so I did all of the night feeds. I still had to go into work and didn't expect anyone else to do my job for me because I chose to have children. That would also be unfair.
On the issue of women's careers being impacted after they have children; yes, in many cases of course they are. That's because those women have changed their priorities and work is now further down the list. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is unreasonable to expect such a reordering of your priorities not to have an impact on your career.
The same would apply if any other factor caused someone to place less importance on their job. The gender of the individual and the reason of the change in priorities in irrelevant.
Women who have recently given birth should be accommodated as much as possible. If someone wants to come in late because they are breast feeding then they should work late to make up their hours. It's not their employers concern what their domestic arrangements are.
The real sexism here is women expecting that they should be the ones to drop kids off in the morning or collect in the evening, go to the PTA or the dentist etc. Where's the father's in the equation? Why can't they do it?
None of my children were breast fed so I did all of the night feeds. I still had to go into work and didn't expect anyone else to do my job for me because I chose to have children. That would also be unfair.
On the issue of women's careers being impacted after they have children; yes, in many cases of course they are. That's because those women have changed their priorities and work is now further down the list. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is unreasonable to expect such a reordering of your priorities not to have an impact on your career.
The same would apply if any other factor caused someone to place less importance on their job. The gender of the individual and the reason of the change in priorities in irrelevant.
I absolutely agree with you on this, from what I see between friends and colleagues breast feeding has become something of a competition between them, who is breastfeeding, who isn't who could last the longest.....
I spoke to one friend this morning who has a 4 day old baby and is absolutely killing herself to try to get this breastfeeding thing right. She is in pain from a c-secton and is struggling to feed the baby yet feels that she is letting the baby down if she doesn't struggle on with it. It doesn't help that her cousin is raving about how her baby is breastfeeding and how she loves it etc - friend feels like a complete failure at the moment and nothing will convince her otherwise!
On the topic of the workplace breastfeeding laws, small businesses could not possibly afford to lose somebody for 20 hours a month on top of the maternity leave etc, it's just not doable, I work in small enterprise and have a family business so I know just how it would impact us.
For the record I don't agree that this entitlement should run until the child is two. That's 20 hours a month for two years - paid?. By the time the child is two I would have thought that a routine could be put in place to feed the child before work. Sure at that age they are not solely depending on breast milk for nutrition unless it's for their cornflakes
I agree with this. If I had children work would definitely become a lower priority . It's not a crime to move your career down your priority list. But decisions have to be made. For instance, I worked with someone who changed to part time hours and could no longer travel for meetings once she had a baby. So far, so good. Practical decisions that she was in a financial position to make. However, she then complained when a full time colleague who could travel to meetings got promoted ahead of her. I couldn't understand her attitude. She had made a decision regarding her availability to work, based on other factors going on in her life. But she didn't seem to carry that decision through when it came to career advancement.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Just for context I was made redundant after 14 years in a company.
The company 'culture' was to come in early and stay past the contracted time. I gave at least 30 minutes extra a day, for free, every day.
So at least 2.5 hours a week. Sometimes I also gave weekends and evenings, and many many times I took phone calls out of hours or worked from home if I was out on a certified sick (once after surgery where it was extremely uncomfortable for me to use the laptop) or worked through lunch.
I probably gave the company 200 extra hours a year, for 14 years. So did most other people btw.
I really dont think it would have been too much for me to ask or been cheeky of me to avail of breastfeeding time if I had had the need to.
I think its important that there is give and take in work environments.
I wonder does the subject of the OP stay late without complaint, put in extra hours when needed. I suspect so because Liaconn has mentioned working from home before so it could well be part of the company culture.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
I actually meant prior to having the baby.
Youre entirely entitled to have a rant - regardless of how much me or anyone else agrees or disagrees with you. Thats what the interweb is here for
All Id say on the above is that none of us knows the inner working of anyones marriage either financially or otherwise and what may seem like a choice to you may not be the case at all.
Im sure the childless colleague could complain or refuse to do the extra travel.
I have alot of sympathy for small businesses trying to keep afloat while also trying to comply with the legislation surrounding maternity leave.
It must be incredibly hard to deal with a small amount of staff if several are pregnant at the same time. As a young mother i wouldn't blame any employer of a small business who is reluctant to hire a woman of child baring age, i'd agree with old nick that the state should carry some of this burden (although suppose in practical terms they can't!)
Yachtie i can't agree in relation to feeding, Breast is best, that's just a fact of life, the milk is biologically tailored to feed baby and prevents a host of short and long terms health problems, it also gives huge health benefits to both mother and child, i don't think i need to post links, google will give a plethora of articles supporting this, the WHO recommend breastfeeding as best for baby.
Where a problem arises is if feeding is difficult, as a mother of one who had a section and diffiulties breast feeding i turned to formula after a month of expressing. It was a decision that made life easier and me alot happier (was getting into dark days at the time) but i don't kid myself that formula is as good as breast milk. It has many benefits (giving mothers a break, longer between feeds) but i'll never be convinced that anything is as good for a baby as breast milk.
It must be incredibly hard to deal with a small amount of staff if several are pregnant at the same time. As a young mother i wouldn't blame any employer of a small business who is reluctant to hire a woman of child baring age, i'd agree with old nick that the state should carry some of this burden (although suppose in practical terms they can't!)
Yachtie i can't agree in relation to feeding, Breast is best, that's just a fact of life, the milk is biologically tailored to feed baby and prevents a host of short and long terms health problems, it also gives huge health benefits to both mother and child, i don't think i need to post links, google will give a plethora of articles supporting this, the WHO recommend breastfeeding as best for baby.
Where a problem arises is if feeding is difficult, as a mother of one who had a section and diffiulties breast feeding i turned to formula after a month of expressing. It was a decision that made life easier and me alot happier (was getting into dark days at the time) but i don't kid myself that formula is as good as breast milk. It has many benefits (giving mothers a break, longer between feeds) but i'll never be convinced that anything is as good for a baby as breast milk.
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
I used to be like that.
Then I copped on....
Now the company can whistle if they want after hours from me.
But that is probably for another thread.
If a woman is entitled to time off for feeding then she she avail of every possible minute.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577