Should Maternity Pay and Leave be abolished?

[said]

The legislation that provides Maternity pay being paid to women for a lengthy period and then the right to return to work is highly damaging.

An employer is forced to pay out a lump sum payment plus wages for a lengthy period plus finding someone to train and cover for the maternity leave until the mother returns to work. This has resulted in far fewer jobs being offered to women of child bearing age. As an employer, I would favour male employees for this very reason.

[gsgsgs]

Company my nephew works for has 'pupernity' a weeks paid leave to be with your new puppy!

[K-T]

Maternity leave should be shared between both parents. That might stop discrimination of employers like the OP against women. Whether you have your own children or not, it is the next generation who will be working and supporting us in our old age. It is the duty of us all to make bringing up children as uncomplicated as possible.

[silver fox]

Back in the day when our children were born and pre-school my wife stayed home to look after our little ones, at the time I could earn enough to provide for our family, but in today's world many if not most families, need two incomes in order to survive, plus of course would you deny a women the opportunity to continue a career because she is now a mother.

Not that long ago as soon as an employer knew that a female employee was pregnant, dismissal under any pretext was the name of the game and in any event the female employee was expected to just leave with no guarantees as to future employment.

Granted to a small employer this can be a serious drain on resources, but what is a fair solution? Some will say "if you can't afford to raise your children don't have them", in effect that would mean only high earners or conversely those wholly on benefits could have families, the large middle group would remain childless, not a good solution.

[rare-pepe999]

Why have children at all when the shortfall in the population or labour market can be made up by encouraging mass immigration?

[said]

Back in the day when our children were born and pre-school my wife stayed home to look after our little ones, at the time I could earn enough to provide for our family, but in today's world many if not most families, need two incomes in order to survive, plus of course would you deny a women the opportunity to continue a career because she is now a mother.

Not that long ago as soon as an employer knew that a female employee was pregnant, dismissal under any pretext was the name of the game and in any event the female employee was expected to just leave with no guarantees as to future employment.

Granted to a small employer this can be a serious drain on resources, but what is a fair solution? Some will say "if you can't afford to raise your children don't have them", in effect that would mean only high earners or conversely those wholly on benefits could have families, the large middle group would remain childless, not a good solution.

It would rather depend on where one's priorities lie - is a family more important or a career? Should children be allowed the full support of their parents or should they become doorstep children to fit in with a parents working commitments? Is part of this the reason why there are so many young people running wild in gangs on the streets?

[Ceam]

It's a difficult one to get right. We have created an environment that has put most families in a position where both parents have to work to provide for their family. I'm in the unusual position of being a sole provider due to the fact I have a disabled son. There is no way my wife could go out to work. We are supported by the government in as far as carers allowance etc. But it's a laughable amount, About £65 a week I think.

I'd think as a small business it could be catastrophic position to be in. Although I think business can claim the money back from the government? but that doesn't solve the problem of finding temporary staff.

[Ceam]

It would rather depend on where one's priorities lie - is a family more important or a career? Should children be allowed the full support of their parents or should they become doorstep children to fit in with a parents working commitments? Is part of this the reason why there are so many young people running wild in gangs on the streets?

SOME children. I'd guess no more and probably less than previous generations.

[Mr. Brightside]

This has resulted in far fewer jobs being offered to women of child bearing age. As an employer, I would favour male employees for this very reason.

Fair enough as long as you pay your male employees enough to support a wife and family. I somehow doubt you do though.

[silver fox]

It would rather depend on where one's priorities lie - is a family more important or a career? Should children be allowed the full support of their parents or should they become doorstep children to fit in with a parents working commitments? Is part of this the reason why there are so many young people running wild in gangs on the streets?

So you feel the choice is either or, yet for many the choice is far more basic, not so much a career, but simply earning enough to give a decent standard of living.

As far as kids running wild this stems from a lack of discipline at home, in school and in general life.

I'm not referring to some sort of Victorian or militaristic regime, more simply that boundaries must be made, put simply youngsters will always push the boundaries,
we did, they wouldn't be young if they didn't, but if there are no limits, behaviour will progressively get worse.
'

[dav]

Torn on this one: we need to encourage ethnically and culturally European adults of childbearing age to have more babies to ensure that we aren't living in an overwhelmingly Islamic Europe within 20 years, but I don't really approve of the state paying (or forcing employers to pay) benefits for anyone's lifestyle choices.

Europe and its culture is being replaced. Native Brits are allowing that to happen and future generations will reap the whirlwind.

[VB123]

Employers can claim 92% of SMP back and small employers who paid less than £45k in Class 1 NI in the previous tax year can reclaim 103% back. Women don't get a lump sum, they get 90% of earnings for the first 6 weeks and £140.98 (90% of earnings if lower) per week for the remaining 33 weeks. Men can now share the parental leave with their partner too. It is in the government's interest to make it easier for women to return to work after having a child, as they will continue to pay tax. Their children are also future taxpayers. When I had my children, we only had 4 months maternity, and if I hadn't had my mother to help, I would not have liked to leave 4 month old babies with strangers, plus it saves on nursery costs. Young babies are better staying with their parents during the first year rather than in a nursery where it isn't one to one care. I had twins and it is hard caring for two young babies at once. I do understand the difficulties faced by small businesses with regard to organising temporary cover (especially if you employ lots of women and you need to train the temporary person up alongside the pregnant employee before she leaves, so paying two wages for the same role for a period), but it is right that it is made easier for women to return to their jobs. 4 months maternity leave was not enough - especially when I had twins who still wanted feeding through the night - I was like a zombie in work :-) . I have paid plenty in tax and NI over the last 30 years to cover the cost of SMP.

[Mr Saxon]

Back in the old days there was no such thing but when I didn't have a job in the late 80's / early 90's I used to go for jobs that were advertised as being for both Male and Female on the job centre description things. And yet , more often than not, the company that I had filled the form in for and sent off and even had an interview with, would rather employ a woman. The logic behind it still baffles me to this day.

[Albion102]

SOME children. I'd guess no more and probably less than previous generations.

More likely to the products of hombre where one or other parents have plenty of time inn their hands.

[Alikado]

Back in the old days there was no such thing but when I didn't have a job in the late 80's / early 90's I used to go for jobs that were advertised as being for both Male and Female on the job centre description things. And yet , more often than not, the company that I had filled the form in for and sent off and even had an interview with, would rather employ a woman. The logic behind it still baffles me to this day.

Women were always a lot easier to get rid of, give them a hard time and they would just leave. A man was usually the main breadwinner and needed to keep the jobwhilst women were often part time and a secondary income earner.