Five and a half months' paid paternity leave

[joinerjohn]

Christ, when my oldest daughter was born, it was all I could do to get the shift off (without pay) to see her being born. Second daughter, I didn't see until she was 6 hours old. (employer wouldn't allow time off. under threat of the sack!!!)

I reckon this new maternity and paternity pay, could put employers off setting younger people on. It's not just the pay aspect, the employer may well have to set someone on to cover paternity leave as well.

 

[thatbloke]

Look on the bright side , my missus got sacked for being pregnant. No maternity leave, no pay , left us in a right mess.
I dont think its a burden on employers at all, its a burden on any parent having to work and look after small babys and does effect their productivity in the work place.
Would you want your employees turning into work after sitting up all night nursing a baby? Thats a liability right there.
In my view it should be two years maternity pay.

What a ridiculous post.

Explain please?

 

[joinerjohn]

I think what sooey is getting at is ,
1..... There are laws to protect women at work from wrongful dismissal. Being pregnant and your employer dismissing you for your condition is against the law. Any employer doing this would run the risk of the ex employee winning at an industrial tribunal. Why didn't your wife consider an industrial tribunal?

You then go on to say that you don't think a woman's pregnancy and subsequent maternity leave, isn't a burden on employers. How can this not be a burden on employers is beyond me.

2..... They perhaps stand to lose a key employee for up to two years. Have to pay that employee, whilst they're off and possibly or probably, have to set someone else on to cover that employee's absence.
During the 2 yrs maternity leave, the woman may well decide to have yet another child, and so it continues.
Small companies could probably go out of business very quickly, by employing a large proportion of women of child bearing age..

So in these two respects, sooey has the right to say, your post was ridiculous.

 

[thatbloke]

She had been forced to take on her position on a self employed basis within the first month of pregnancy , she was then sacked afterwards.

The only burden on the employer is finding and training a substitute, the government meets the other costs.

At present, although the Government meets the direct costs of maternity pay, employers are left footing the bill for recruiting and training temporary cover, as well dealing with the loss of a key member of staff and not knowing when they are likely to return.

http://www.dncc.co.uk/your-chamber/792/employers-need-more-help-with-pregnancy-laws

Who pays?
Maternity pay is met by the employer and refunded by the government. Depending on the size of the organisation, the Department of Work and Pensions repays between 90% and 105% of the figure to the employer, with smaller organisations getting greater compensation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/sep/29/discriminationatwork.workingparents

105% or more, not much of a burden there.
If the pregnant person didnt return to work (a lot of them dont) they would still have to find and train a substitute.

 

[mypetearthling]

Most smaller businesses can claim the majority of maternity pay back.
When I was off work after having my son (I worked until two weeks before he was born, then I was back in work when he was 5 1/2 months old) my employer claimed back almost 95% of what I was paid. For small businesses who would not be able to cover the costs of an employee on maternity leave there are already systems in place to minimise impact.
And before anyone starts on the "on taxpayers money blah blah blah" The alternative is I'd have been pushed out of the workplace altogether, and forced to live on more taxpayers money on benefits. The aim is to make it more appealing for mothers to go back into the workplace and keep contributing to the economy. This is less likely if they are forced to go back too soon, or do not have the support of a partner who is also able to take time off.

K

 

[joinerjohn]

She had been forced to take on her position on a self employed basis within the first month of pregnancy , she was then sacked afterwards.
.

So your now saying , that as soon as your wife became pregnant, her employer immediately changed her terms and conditions of employment??
I can safely tell you that this in itself is against the law. Surely your wife had a contract of employment setting out terms and conditions of employment?
There wouldn't have been any terms in there saying " Within a month of becoming pregnant, an employee will become self employed." (or words to that effect)
I think there's something your not telling us thatbloke.

As it is, most employers do have to set on staff to cover maternity leave. Thing is, if maternity leave is extended and paternity leave becomes 5 1/2 months (whether the government picks up the tab or not), most employers are going to have to take a long hard look at peoples suitability for employment. They'll be setting on post menopausal women, or castrated eunuchs, in an attempt to get out of replacing workforce who may claim mat and pat leave.

Please do tell further what actually happened in your wife's situation, I'm intrigued to see how an unscrupulous employer gets round maternity leave.

 

[thatbloke]

She works in childcare, her employers told her they would have to drop her wages and hours for tax reasons so she became self employed through mutual agreement without thinking, she needed the job. It was either that or they would have let her go because the new hours and pay would not have been enough to warrant keeping the job.

Put it this way , you cannot be sacked for being pregnant but you can still be laid off whilst pregnant. There are no laws to say you cannot sack a pregnant woman, unless you sack her because she is pregnant.

 

[LooPrEvil]

Nay lad, forget the fore play.

 

[sooey]

Put it this way , you cannot be sacked for being pregnant but you can still be laid off whilst pregnant. There are no laws to say you cannot sack a pregnant woman, unless you sack her because she is pregnant.
Back to top

What are you whinging about? You made her pregnant and rendered her unable to work, you should then be prepared to keep her, not rely on her poor employer to do it for you.
If you don't think training staff and having to hire and train more to cover for the already trained but now absent staff is a burden, you don't think.

 

[joinerjohn]

She works in childcare, her employers told her they would have to drop her wages and hours for tax reasons.

This constitutes a very big change in terms and conditions. If she was contracted to work say 30 hrs a week and was paid £6 an hour, then approached her employers to say she is pregnant then, within a short amount of time, they turn round and say "Sorry, we'll have to drop your hours and rate of pay for tax reasons.", first thing I'd have done is to have contacted the tax office for verification and asked them, "Is this right that an employer can drop your hours and rate of pay for tax reasons?"
I'm sure HMRC would have pricked their ears up straight away.

It does sound like her employers have played a fast one. Specially with it being childcare. Did they replace your wife shortly after she left? How long ago was this? I really think your wife has been very hard done by, from an unscrupulous employer and perhaps if this was in the last few years, should seek legal advice on this. Consider taking them to a tribunal and seek compensation for the treatment she has received.

 

[thatbloke]

Its not that easy John , there are emotional ties to consider , when you look after someones children 5 days a week 12 hours a day for 4 or 5 years you do get attached to them. They did pull a fast one , the tax reasons were because in her field your wages specified are nett, so the job specified £600 a week nett then the employer has to pay tax ontop of that. It was costing them a fortune, although they weren't short of a few quid anyway.
They also arnt stupid enough to put them selves in jeopardy and most likely consulted someone before making any decisions.
We were glad to be honest , although we needed the extra cash we had loads on at the time so it kind of worked out for the best anyway.

Sooey are you always this defensive or is it just on the internet?
You need to take a chill pill bubba.

 

[corgiman]

Nay lad, forget the fore play.

i get your idea of foreplay is "brace yerself"

 

[joinerjohn]

Nah,,,, Loo is a Wham , Bam , thankyou Maam person.

 

[thatbloke]

Is it in yet?
What you talking about love , ive finished already.

 

[joinerjohn]

Is it in yet?
What you talking about love , ive finished already.

Says Loo lighting his cigarette.