Employers "want rights to quiz staff about family plans"

charles williams
Member - 2 posts

Employers are, of course, expected to carry the social costs in full of the decision to have a family.
Often the impact of maternity leave is such that, particularly in small businesses,
it puts pressure upon other employees,
can leave a skill gap in the business,
be impossible to cover due to the indeterminate period involved
and of course breeds considerable resentment in the business at the concept of acquiring leave whilst on leave.
Our experience dictates that this concept is not acceptable to staff, management or owners all of whom feel that this together with the concept of staff acquiring leave whilst on sick leave is unacceptable.

Stephen Moore
Member - 1 post

Perhaps a compromise along the lines of companies with more than 20 employees would be exempt from the present rules. The thinking behind this is smaller companies find it harder to absorb this cost to their business.

Anne McAllister
Member - 111 posts

Absolutely Nicholas and quite right too.
I dont accept the argument that maternity leave puts pressure on other employees.
Employers put pressure on other employees by not acting and preparing for the absence in sufficient time.
Ive worked with people before who were not replaced until 2mths before they were due back ?

Phil Lemon
Member - 46 posts

call me cynical, but..... one instance i heard about was a lady who notified the company that she was 6 months pregnant a month after she joined the company, claiming she did not know that she was pregnant before this point

I understand that it can go unnoticed for some time on occasion, but....

Alex Gordon
Member - 12 posts

What I can never undestand is the wholly negative attitude to Maternity rights concerning employment in the UK. Yet across the North Sea in Scandinavia business engages completely and positively with society.
There must be some connection between the way we regard family in this country as a burden and the collapse of families in society in general.

P Browning
Member - 2 posts

Only those employers who (like me) will actually have been duped by a job applicant will know how wrong the law is presently. The lady sat in front of me very sweetly and of course, we could not, and did not, talk 'family' but, having obviously been well aware of her condition, within a week of starting the job, she filed for maternity leave. How unfair was that ?

Further, what is presently to stop any lady from entering a contract of employment and then filing for immediate maternity leave, even before the agreed start-date ?

I am all for fairness in employment matters but fairness is (or used to be) a two-edged sword. Just how much longer should employers be regarded as another branch of the Social Services ?

Craig Stuart
Member - 37 posts

P Browning, your comments concern me. Are you in a relationship? If you are has your other half faced this kind of discrimination? I presume you are male (your comments suggest this) and the law should protect in instances where a female applicant faces a line of questioning that would not be put to a male applicant. If not, should we then move to a line of questioning concerning how many children and exact dates?? Or should we just employ women of above child-bearing age? Of course the concern you may have here is "Are they considering fertlity treatment?(!

Phil Lemon
Member - 46 posts

Craig
Interesting point, i am not aginst pregnancy myself, just duplicity as i presume is the case with PB.
If you were asked to define 'child-bearing age'? would you go as far as 60, with the assistance of feertility treatment, this is now a possibility. Extrapolating your point would mean that we should exclude all female applicants between 16 and 60+

Craig Stuart
Member - 37 posts

You're right Phil - just the point I was making. I do have a certain amount of sympathy with small company employers and would support any call for financial assistance for such. But, I do believe that medium to large enterprises CAN and SHOULD bear the cost of such instances. After all, how often does the extreme example you give really happen?

Noel George
Member - 1 post

This is a topic where there cannot be a proper debate as the majority of people are frightened to give their honest view. Pregnancy is not an illness. What about the person who took regular time off for "illness" but it then transpired that the time off was for IVF followed by time off for giving birth etc then extended complications, finally a month after their planned return date they gave notice. I make no comment.

Craig Stuart
Member - 37 posts

I think you have given your honest view Noel!