Mothers could get up to six months off as a right
Tuesday 16th August 2011, 2:29PM BST.
WOMEN will be legally entitled to take up to 26 weeks’ maternity leave if new draft proposals are accepted.
It is one of the suggestions published today by the Social Policy Group to help Guernsey comply with a UN convention on women’s rights.
Under the plans, all working mothers would be entitled to 10 to 14 weeks maternity leave, without loss of seniority, regardless of the time they had been employed in a job.
Those who had worked for their employer for at least one year before the birth would be entitled to the full 26 weeks.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Its a lifestyle choice. Why should employers have to pay for it.
Report abuse
If this became law: as a small business I would think twice about employing women who haven’t already got kids ……..I simply can’t afford to pay someone half a years wages for doing nothing.
Let the States pay for it as a 0% loan that the parents can then pay back in taxes over time, I am sure there are a lot of people who don’t want or can’t have children who don’t want to pay extra tax for someone else to have kids .
Plus make it compulsory that all employers must state in their employment contract that they “do” or “do not” pay maternity leave.
Report abuse
SS & Mark – this is not about maternity pay, but maternity leave. This only protects the job, so that the mother can return after 6 months. Whether she is paid for those 6 months or not will depend upon the terms of her employment.
Report abuse
If this is law, I will NOT be employing women.
As SS says its a life style choice, why burden the employer with yet more legislation, just as things are starting to get tight again.
We have managed perfectly ok without it all these years!
Report abuse
In the UK model employers are responsible for assessing entitlement for SMP and for paying it via the payroll. The HMRC Employer Guide runs to 38 pages of text, graphs, tables it’s not easy to follow. Employers then get to claim back 92% (or 100% for smaller firms) of SMP paid out.
They also have to keep the job open, find and train a short term replacement or employ a temp. Whilst on maternity leave (or sick leave) employees are all the time building up ‘holiday’ entitlement despite not being at work.
I employ as few people in the UK as possible.
Report abuse
I’m unable to have children and don’t see how it is fair treatment to allow those that can to take half a year off.
Report abuse
It must be devastating not to be able to have children however its not very nice to turn that hurt into bitterness towards those good hard working people who want to be good parents and give their children the best start in life, I don’t see what is unfair about it, I imagine if you were to get pregnant your opinion on this matter would be very different.
Report abuse
We should give some thought, laws or otherwise, to those working ladies who have, or are planning to start a family. It is extremely hard to give over the care of your baby, for those having no choice but to return to work; be it via kindly family or a childcare group, which are very costly.
So much is missed with the childs’ everyday developement – I feel for the parents I see every day in business dress, having picked up their charges, rushing around the supermarkets. The tinies are often fretful and tired themselves, and there cannot be much time or energy for both parents and children to enjoy time together, before they are put to bed.
Report abuse
A lifestyle choice, yes.
But its about securing a role to return to, not a gap year. Six months UNPAID (save for the first few weeks).
The reason this is a good idea is that, as a society, we have allowed families to adapt to two working parents but haven’t allowed work to really adapt to this. It should (and I assume will) be available to either (not both) parent.
Why should we support it, even if we don’t have / can’t have / don’t want kids? Because we’re supposed to be a society, not a random clump of individuals. High on the list of goals of a society should be its own continuity and improvement (ie upbringing of its youth). That’s the social contract.
It is no different than my taxes being used for education. I may not have kids, but its clear that this is something that public money should be spent on.
It is not clear to me what the cost to individual employers would be. I accept that there would be a cost of finding a replacement for those six months, but can someone put a figure on this to put it in perspective?
Report abuse
Should be available to either parent, thereby avoiding any backlash discrimination.
Report abuse
Bringing up childen properly is a full time job. If you want a career, fine, but if you want children dont expect someone else to bring them up for you.
Report abuse
And the likelihood is that within 2 years they will have another child …So that another 6 months
Report abuse
What about the fact that mothers at home, if they are happy, are raising guernsey’s next generation…surely it makes sense to support families in this?? it is proven that children given a good start in life are less likely to encounter social problems, do well at school etc etc…
As for ‘we’ve managed all these years without it’…if i had a pound for every time I here that I would be very rich!
Report abuse
@ Blogger
I have 3 children and unfortunately I have to work to be able to afford them – I find what ever people do there is always someone critising! If I stayed at home and bought my kids up then I would have to claim benefits, If I claimed benefits I would be told if I cant’t pay for my kids I shouldn’t have them!
Give people a break! It is the hardest thing leaving your children with someone else, the feeling of guilt is horrible but you do what you think is right and what needs to be done.
Report abuse
I’m glad to see that they will allow the leave to be transferred to new fathers if needs be, I’ve always felt that paternity leave in most places is fairly measly. Hopefully when I have a child, I’d like to spend as much time as possible being able to bond and look after my newborn.
Report abuse
Working Mum
Good comments, we will happily (myself included) lambast the benefit scrounging baby factories, but at the same time react in outrage to giving to mums who still want to contribute to society some time off work.
Unless we want to continue to edge towards a society that only allows the wealthy and the welfare people to have children easily, then I suggest we give working mums a bit of a break eh???
Report abuse
Well if everyone stops having children, there will be no-one to pay for your old age, so is it really so unfair to facilitate parents in this way?
Also I do wonder how many of the people who claim they would not employ women are fathers themselves
Report abuse
Correct me if I am wrong, it is the present law that if a mother takes unpaid maternity leave they are entitled to their job once they commence work again? it has to be the same job as originally contracted and cannot change (hours/pay etc.) unless by agreement.
In any case, in a society now where we need 2 incomes to pay for a mortgage, some of the highest child care costs in the world, ever increasing fuel bills etc etc etc. To be able to take 6 months off unpaid is a pure luxury that few of us can afford! it is time the existing law is modernised to take into account the modern lifestyle.
As people digest this is about a society choice, whether to take this maternity benefit or not whether they can have a child or not. However those who say bringing up children is a full time job clearly need to open their eyes and realise it is the privileged few (maybe less than 10% of mothers) who in this day and age can consider themselves fortunate enough to bring up children and not work. this hardly resembles freedom to choose for the whole of society.
One final note, those who say they will stop employing women of child baring age, this is discrimination and illegal, so good luck with that stance!
Report abuse
Jonny – re your final para. Prove it! As employers we’re able to adopt that untraceable stance. Already do.
This might make Ms Watson a tad unemployable. Assuming she’s keen on getting a job that is…
Report abuse
You just have to laugh at some of the comments from some people calling themselves employers. Your atttitude and in some case stupidity amazes me you manage to run a business at all. I also suspect your employees (if real) don’t work anywhere near as effiently as they can for bosses with your attitude.
Report abuse
Whilst I am not against statutory maternity leave setting it at a level of 6 months after only one year of employment is ridiculous. After 6 months as an employer I could not guarantee that the same job will be available and this would mean the employee could claim constructive dismissal on her return from work thus costing the employer even more. If it was a long standing employee (say 3 years minimum) I might agree to a longer period of statutory leave but again not 6 months. The larger companies may be able to manage with such absences and offer the same job back on return but there are many businesses that cannot.
So, by all means introduce statutory maternity leave but lets make it a sensible period – say 8-10 weeks and a longer period (poss up to 18 weeks) for those who have worked for at least 3 years.
As for paternity leave, 2 weeks around the time of the birth would be acceptable but no more. People can use their holiday leave for additional time if required.
Report abuse
So this will have a minimum of 1 years employment? So someone can get pergnant after 3 months and then phone up one morning and let the boss know they have given birth and need 6 months off? There should be mandatory monthly pregnancy tests. Employers need to be prepared for it and not have woman all of a sudden dropping it on them last minute. I am an employer also, although the line of work we do, its extremly unlikely I will ever get a female applicant. If I were to need a female employee I would be looking for someone in their forties. Regarding discrimination, this is only the same and reverse of a construction firm looking for a fit strong labourer going for someone in their 20′s over someone in their 40′s.
Report abuse
Oh dear russm. I’m glad that I don’t work for you.
Whilst I agree with your post in regards to the period of employment after which people become entitled to the maximum period available (I always thought that 2 full years was a fairer period for both perspectives) I really disgree with the rest of it.
What kind of employer cannot try and work around 6 months leave of a staff member? If they are a valued and productive member of staff then surely you would do your utmost to take them back again. There are many temp and employment agencies over here that would surely be able to find someone suitable for a 6 month contract. It may mean a shuffle of duties and responsibilities between remaining staff but surely everyone can pull together for this short time.
8 to 10 weeks is no time at all to adjust and bond with a new baby and if you happen to have had a caesarean or complications then it may well be 6 weeks before you even feel remotely human again.
Why shouldn’t the father be entitled to more that 2 weeks off if so needed? They are a parent in the equation too and have just as much of a need to spend time with a new arrival. Mind you 2 weeks in itself would be amazing – my husband only got 2 days and his employer thought that that was generous!
Working mum and undercover guern – very well said from both of you. It does appear that we have employers on the island that still appear to be living in the dark ages and thinking purely of the short-term and of themselves.
See the bigger picture and try to figure out a strategy to work around the problems that this proposed legislation may throw-up instead of the knee-jerk reactions that are being stated on this site.
Report abuse
What about the possibility of more than one member of staff falling pregnant at around the same time? It can and does happen.
Report abuse
Nobody
obviously you are NOT an employer! I am one of those ‘stupid employers’ employ 20 staff most of them for over 20 years, have not laid anybody off through lack of work in over 25 years. ….oh and am also successful! GET REAL. I along with many others are sick of the something for nothing generation. My mother raised 4 of us whilst still working in the growing industry WITHOUT any help, and more importantly would not have expected it.
PS 3 of us now run our own business.
,s employing over 30 between us.
Report abuse
Haha Guern – love the post!
I think that there may be some tell tale signs that a woman is pregnant before they actually just give birth one morning….like a ruddy huge great bump! (or would you attribute that to office cakes?)
A woman dropping it on an employer at the last minute is very unlikely especially as most of us are desperate to know exactly what our arrangements are for maternity/childcare etc. as soon as we can.
And as for mandatory monthly pregnancy tests…do you know how much they cost? The costs for supplying them for all female staff(or sending women to the doctor so that you can be sure that they’re not using someone elses sample to avoid detection) would probably exceed any costs incurred in making arrangements for the 6 month maternity for the person that needs it.
Report abuse
Favouring only mothers or parents by giving them the right to time off work purely because they choose to have children is the same as favouring one person over another purely because of the colour of their skin, i.e. it is discriminatory.
The only way to make it fair is to forget about maternity and paternity leave and to provide every employee with the statutory right to a specified number of periods of sabbatical leave in their working lives.
That way, everybody is treated the same, nobody is discriminated against, and those who want children can decide to use their leave for those reasons, and those who don’t can use their leave as they wish.
Report abuse
Karen
I said I couldn;t guarantee the same position would still be available. If someone takes over the position for 6 mths then it is very possible they will do a good job and I would want to keep them. This would particularly be possible if someone took 6 mths maternity leave having only worked for me for a year.
If it was an employee of long standing (min 3 years) and she made a significant contribution to the company I may well be prepared to keep the job open but I would not do so for everyone. Even you seem to agree with this as you mention surely I would want to take back a “valued and productive member of staff” suggesting that I would be within my rights to not take back a less valued and less productive employee after such a long period of leave.
I am for the introduction of statutory maternity leave I just believe the statutory minimum does not need to extend to such a ridiculous period of time. A larger employee can afford to see the “bigger picture” as you put it but many businesses can’t.
Report abuse
St Marcouf
I’ve been tempted to comment on your posts in the past but have resisted, but I can’t this time. It has to be the most ridiculous, nonsensical post I have ever seen. Comparing maternity leave to racism is idiotic, as is the suggestion of sabbaticals for all.
Report abuse
It’s not just employers who will face increased costs for this either. The tax burden for employees will also be increased.
The Policy Council’s consultation document includes the following [copied and pasted] statement:-
“The Social Security Department has estimated that the additional cost of the Social
Policy Group’s preferred proposals to the social insurance fund (excluding any
paternity/maternity support benefit) would be an additional cost of £1,937,628 on
2009 figures and would necessitate a 0.2% rise in social insurance contributions. This
could be either an increase of 0.2% in employer contributions or an increase of 0.2%
in employee contributions or an increase of 0.1% on employee contributions plus a
0.1% increase on employer contributions.”
The consultation document goes on to note further costs as follows:-
“Other additional costs for the States of the Social Policy Group’s preferred proposals
would potentially include:
· An increase in the States general revenue grant to the social insurance fund
(estimate £300,000 per annum based on the potential 0.2% contribution
increase)
· An increase in social insurance contributions for the States as an employer
(this is estimated to be a net figure of £75,000-£120,000 per annum) based
on a 0.1% employer contribution rise, more if it were 0.2%. This is based on
increased social insurance contributions less the predicted increase in
maternity allowance deductions from employee maternity pay.
· The proposed changes to the maternity benefits would also necessitate
redesign and development for the Social Security Department’s IT system.
This would be a one-off cost of no more than £100,000 and could be funded
from the Guernsey Insurance Fund.”
All from the public purse of course.
Still, it won’t be here in a hurry. As the document points out:-
“It is hoped that a States report on maternity and paternity provisions will be
prepared for consideration by the States of Deliberation in 2012. The
recommendations would then not be implemented until either 1 January 2013 or 1
January 2014 at the earliest due to the legislative changes and administrative
changes required. Sufficient notice, guidance and training would also need to be
given to employers. Plus a States Strategic Plan bid would need to be made to cover
the additional States expenditure as listed in section 10.”
In other words it’ll be batted to and fro for a long time yet.
Report abuse
Forest
You are correct, I am not an employer, anymore. So what is your point exactly.
Please do not pretend to be an employer who has got where you are today through sheer hard work.
I know where I am thanks to employees, I am not selfish enough to say “I did it all myself”
Report abuse
I believe (St Marcouf) has the right idea. But I dare say that only the likes of Specsavers and Healthspan are two of the few local companies that could afford to accept ‘maternity leave’.
Report abuse
ALL companies can afford it. It is just like sick leave or any other type of leave and the arguments for the introduction of those were along the same lines as what I am hearing now. Old England didn’t want to give up child labour because they said “they couldn’t afford it”. They can afford it and they will afford it. If it means increasing costs very marginally for the consumer then so be it. It is a necessary part of modern life. Get over your past prejudices about women having careers- and when i refer to women I mean ALL women not just those who have not had children. Also get over your prejudices about Men looking after babies/children – any “leave” should be equal for both sexes (either parent-of course not both at the same time). I’ve only word for the old schoolers – Adapt.
Report abuse
The jaw-dropping antipathy displayed on this comments thread is shameful. I’d guess most of these misogynist commentators have never won the love of a woman, and that’s why they hate them so much.
If society as a whole wants its birth rates to remain high (hence limiting the need for the importation of labour that you right-wing dinosaurs seem to hate so much) then it has to support families. Since few families can afford to live on one income, that means supporting the long-suffering working mothers as well as the boys, I’m afraid.
Bitter medicine for some, but to be quite frank, if your business can’t withstand the requirements of what is legally common practice in other parts of the UK, then it ain’t much of a business, mate.
Report abuse
New Parent – had you applied reason rather than emotion to my previous post it would have been apparent to you that what I wrote is perfectly logical and far from ridiculous.
Report abuse
Firstly, to those employers who are saying they will not employ women who do not yet have children – its discrimination, and illegal!
Merely asking a female applicant in any way about her family situation is regarded as discrimination, and to be honest, I think it would be noticed in most workplaces if you had a vastly male workforce.
These young mothers should be given the opportunity to pursue their career and support their family where only one income is not enough. And surely it is in everyones interests to ensure that the island’s children – the future – are given the best start in life.
These mothers should be praised for providing for their children, if they chose to sit at home rather than work, and claim benefits from the States, then there would soon be complaints.
Report abuse
FOREST-My mother raised 4 of us whilst still working in the growing industry WITHOUT any help, and more importantly would not have expected it.
I think YOU need to get real, in this day and age you cant ”take your kids to the office” I’ve lost count how many debates there have been on here about women ”sponging off the states with benefits” and now for all mothers who wish to return to work to afford to pay for there kids are getting it in the neck once again…grown up…get a life…im sure as ”employers” you have something better to do then b1tch on here, try spying on your staff to make sure there not ”getting up the duff” or something!
This is not about Maternity pay its Maternity leave and no doubt be WITHOUT pay !
Report abuse
I commented at length about this topic the last time it came up. Hardly surprising that the majority of the posters who are against this proposal are either male or childless.
Yes it is a woman’s prerogative to choose to have children, however if a society is to survive then it must procreate.
I’ve commented before regarding the savings that Maternity ‘Pay’ (not leave) could potentially save the tax payer and I really can’t be bothered to go over old ground so if you’re interested look at the previous threads on this topic.
Yes it is important for fathers to have some time off to bond with their children and in fact the UK has recently brought in legislation that gives them the same rights as mothers as long as the mothers have returned to work. Handy if the woman happens to be the bread winner. However we’re not the UK. France allows full pay for 16 weeks then increases that to 26 weeks for your third child (so actually encourages large families) oh and they can have up to 102 weeks (shared with the father) as unpaid leave in addition to their paid allowance if they want it. What about Sweden where the mother and father can have up to 16 months paid leave per child between them? The cost is shared between the employer and the State.
However the emphasis is on the woman as ultimately it’s her body that’s gone through the strain of carrying a child for nine months then giving birth and having someone who is 100% dependant on you to survive. Despite what some of you may think it’s not like the Carlsberg advert.
These would probably be the same employers who would balk at the fact that it can take up to an hour to express milk several times a day. What if the baby was still being actually breastfed as opposed to being on the bottle?
If you are a decent employer you will realise how important it is to appeal to candidates and how good workers are well sought after and you would want to retain them. If you suddenly demand they come back to work after a few days or a couple of weeks you may find that they look elsewhere. Despite what the unemployment market looks like we all know that there’s not another 10 people queuing up for your job (especially as you’ve probably got no benefits and are an unsympathetic employer). Your business will then fail. Don’t forget that the most important commodity to your business is your staff. If you don’t realise that then you’re in the wrong game and will be out before long.
Report abuse
Ellie
Other parts of the UK? You seem to be suggesting that we’re part of the UK, in which case we can safely ignore the rest of your post.
Report abuse
Sweden 16 months paid leave!!!…. No wonder their cost of living is so high.
With a double dip recession on the horizon we could all be permanent leave
Report abuse
I’m glad I already work for a company where 6 months leave is allowed and my heart goes out to any mother who works for an employer who doesn’t already allow this.
Many working mothers do so out of necessity rather than choice – like myself and this largly goes unrecognized. I thank my lucky stars for a kind boss.
My mother, aunties, grandmothers did not have to work – we do not have a choice and of course we still want to be mothers.
The world has become an unkind place.
Report abuse
I cannot believe how shortsighted some of the posters are on here, and they think that they are maintaining the “pro-business, pro employer” line when opposing the right for mothers to return after 6 months.
Every developed nation recognises the value of women in the workplace and recognises that in order for women to be able to accept a job it is necessary to allow some flexibility on maternity, since it is natural and inevitable that most women will want a family at some point.
If, as an employer, you simply treat your employees as commodities, where it is “bums on seats” which matters and not the quality, then I can see why maternity leave could be an issue. But we have high value employers in this island and most businesses here require quality personnel. For those employers, it is in their own self-interest to be able to attract and keep the best female staff by offering a decent maternity package. Guernsey needs to get with the times and this proposal is long overdue.
Report abuse
Rachel: I beg to differ. Not all companies can afford it. We are a small commpany (12 people)and we have a team of predominantly female employees (only two males), and we accommodate flexible hours for mothers where we can (four out of the 12 staff). As a small business there is a direct impact on the profitablity of our company if a member of staff is pregnant and has leave of 6 months which I accept without an issue. Should two or even three employees take maternity leave at the same time then it would be disastrous.
So your large sweeping statements don’t work for me. This is an emotive subject but small businesses will find this more difficult to accept than the larger ones.
Employees are the most important asset to our business and I would consider us to be a model employer, but it simply isn’t easy to find a solution that fits all sizes of businesses.
Report abuse
Many years ago I worked for a small firm and managed an accounts dept. We employed someone in the uk. months into the job she tells us shes pregnant and was already when she started the job and under uk law entitled to paid mat. leave.
It was hell, my work load doubled because the temps we got in to cover for her needed training. I wasn`t paid any extra as at my position then it was expected to make sure the dept. ran smoothly.
Its all very well having kids, but think about the pressure on your co workers not just the employer when you all decide to take maternaty leave. Also if someone is covering for you in a more senior roll its not really fair on them when you come back to work and want your job back. And yes I have a child my self so I can see both points of view.
Report abuse
in some way it would be nice, i took 5 weeks off last year, i had my baby January. as a casual worker though, i had my blue card an right to work card sent to me just after the birth and told my job was no longer available to me! with no contract i was left to go on sup with 5 kids. As a single mum, it would of been nice to be able to go back to my work. but really 6 months is a bit much really. luckly i start a new job next week <>
Report abuse
Terry Langlois – what you are in effect asking is that, for the good of society as a whole, private businesses should cover the costs of maternity leave for their employees.
As I see it, that cost should be borne by the State – or do you also think that all employers should be forced to pay for their employees social housing, specialist medical care, school fees etc etc etc …..
Report abuse
caz that’s the failings of the company you worked for and not the woman who took maternity leave. Did it just suddenly dawn on you that the temps you got in might need training on the company’s own procedures???
Why should someone have to think about how their co-workers are going to cope when deciding on whether to have children or not? The employer (or you) should have planned better or worked more efficiently and maybe either recruit the right temps or allow time for training before the woman left for maternity. By UK law you don’t have to pay full wages. The first 6 weeks are at 90% earnings then SMP which is about £125 a week which if you’re a smaller employer you can claim back. Therefore the company was most likely saving money by not paying her, not paying you overtime and probably not paying the temp as much either.
Let’s hope that when you want to have kids you’ll pass it by your employer first and plan for a birth which coincides during a less busy work period. Or of course you could just live off benefits and not work at all but take tax payers money instead…
Report abuse
Ousourcing and short contractors are the only way to go.
Report abuse
An entitlement to leave as a parent to bring up one’s child sounds to me a very sensible, civilized thing for a society to guarantee.
I would question loading the right (and the responsibility) only onto mothers.
Providing only maternity leave (and not allowing for transferable rights to the other parent) sends out a message that a) bring up a child is ‘women’s work’, and b) that an employer would be wise to minimize the proportion of staff who are women of childbearing age.
Report abuse
Toby – we are talking about maternity leave, not maternity pay. This only guarantees that the job will still be there when the mother returns.
Report abuse
So. According to some, ‘we’ (by which, you actually mean employers – I’m not one, for the record) should ‘all’ be supporting mums, their right to work and have kids, and bolstering the island’s population to secure it’s future.
I would like to ask those who are so sure of these very noble, idealistic notions a few questions…
What legitimate reason IS there for employers to be altruistic and take one for the rest of the island ‘team’?
What real, positive benefit does the EMPLOYER get from giving certain members of his/her staff 6 month off work?
…and finally, if this could only be voted through if you personally made sacrifices equal to the ones you demand of employers, would you honestly be willing to volunteer…
or would you be up in arms moaning about how unfair it was that you had to support other people’s life choices…?
I wonder.
Report abuse
Please, could all the posters on here who have a business and are anti maternity leave, have the guts to give their full company name so that I can make sure my business never deals with them again?
We run a small business and offer 6 months. My staff is grateful, happy and willing to work extra when needed. Treat your staff well and they will look after you.
Report abuse
Terry – giving somebody unpaid leave, and replacing them with a temp, still costs more money…….
Report abuse
If maternity leave of 6 months is so important to some women they can ensure that they only take a job with a company that offers such terms – there are numerous such companies in Guernsey. However, they must understand that some companies can’t afford to have an employee off for 6 months and guarantee that the same position will be available to her on her return – especially if she has only worked for the company for a relatively short period of time.
I’m sure most people are for the introduction of statutory maternity leave just that to go from no statutory provision to 6 months after only one years employment is going too far. If an employee was off for 6 months and someone stepped into her position and performed well (or even better)then I would not necessarily want to possibly demote that person when the employee returned to work. In a larger company they could possibly be employed at the same level in a different department but in a smaller company there are fewer such options.
If the employee had only worked for a year and then took 6 months off it is possible she wouldn;t be missed if she didn;t return to work. It would probably be different if she was a long-standing employee who made a significant contribution to the business in which case I would want to try and accommodate her requirements (eg longer leave, reduced hours on return etc).
So, lets introduce statutory maternity leave of a sensible length and those companies that want to provide longer periods of leave can do so and those women who want a minimum 6 months leave can make such a provision part of their requirement when looking for a job.
Report abuse
If you decide to go travelling, will your boss guarantee that you still have a job when you return? No. Will they pay you while you’re off seeing the world? No. Having kids is a personal choice, if you want them you pay for them, not the social or your employer or anyone else. Even if you’re not paid maternity, somebody else has to be paid to do your job while you’re off, so in some cases an employer will be paying two people, one to do the job and the other to sit at home with her kid! This is wrong in so many ways.
Report abuse
sometimes the small mindedness of my fellow islanders and inability to see the bigger picture really depresses me. this is one of those times.
put it this way – our economy depends on employing people in relatively high value jobs. anything which helps people to take on jobs and build careers is good for our economy and good for all of us.
having babies is not a choice in the sense of choosing to sail to Africa and back. it is a natural desire for the majority of the population which cannot be ignored or denied and needs to be accomodated
Report abuse
Tommy, what if you get a bug whilst travelling and then require time of work when you return? Afterall it was your lifestyle choice which led to you requiring a bit of leave and it doesnt matter for how long. Why should I have to pay for roads when it is my lifestyle choice to walk everywhere? Why should I have to pay for other peoples childrens education when I pay for my own children to have private education? Why should I have to pay for the public swimming pool when I don’t swim?
Do you see how flawed your logic is? Your poor attempt to define hard working men and women who want to have children but continue to build their careers as scroungers fails abysmally. A small amount of time off when one becomes a parent is necessary for initial bonding. Giving children a good start is beneficial for all of society and should not be viewed so frivolously a lifestyle choice as we were all babies once so the issue of parental leave at birth effects us all. You yourself are trying to force working parents out of their jobs – saying that they have to choose between keeping their job or becoming a parent. Working parents- women and men are a fact of modern life. Its not the stone age anymore and I as a tax payer like the idea of other people being tax payers too whether they are parents or not. Any manager who is half competent will be able to fill the position temporarily if given enough notice, if you have difficulty then perhaps that is something you need to work on or do a bit of research on how you can successfully adapt your business, alternatively it may be just that you are too lazy to get off your butt and try- but thats your lifestyle choice not mine.
Report abuse
lynnie- I have a child, or did you not read my post.
I think its only right to point out another point of veiw-that of the people left to cover.Sure don`t think about your co-workers when having kids, just dont expect them to cover for you if you want your job back!
This is not an isolated case, it happens a lot in small firms that are not part of the finance sector/states – which can and do afford mat. leave.
Report abuse
I only have 1 comment. Put yourself in the place of a small employer. How many letter writers have ever run a business?
Report abuse
scorpio55
me
next question ?
Report abuse
office pods are the way fwd
huge savings to be made
Report abuse
@ Rachel, I’m glad not all islanders think like you do or we’d have a queue outside the social stretching to the top of the Grange!
Report abuse
I see none of the morally outraged have yet volunteered to ‘take one for the team’ as they expect employers to.
It’s very, very easy to take the high ground and demand an ideal, Eutopian world where ‘they’/someone else’ should do the right thing, but it’s a different story when we have to as well.
Business exists to make MONEY, employs staff to make MONEY (who work for, yes, you guessed it, MONEY) and isn’t interested in benefiting society, but itself.
Not right at all, but true.
Anyone who can’t be honest enough to see that is either in complete denial, or has been living in a cave for the past 30 odd years and not aware of the perfect example on their doorstep, namely the entirely ruthless industry that runs – oops, sorry, ‘supports’ – this island (and not the mention, devastated much of the world and many lives without a second thought)…
again, not right at all, but true.
Report abuse
Tommy – you really haven’t understood Rachel’s post at all, have you?
Report abuse
Scarlett – interesting that you single out the finance industry for being the embodiment of pragmatic business, and yet it is in the finance industry where you will find the best maternity packages, compared to the small local businesses.
Ironic, eh?
Report abuse
Tommy – Why would tax payers be cueing up outside of social? I would think it would be the opposite. I have to reiterate -I like people paying tax! The more the merrier. The more people in our island working then the less the number of people which need to be bought in. The more people employed then the less burden on social security.
Report abuse
Scarlett- What do you mean by “take one for the team”? As a young woman building a career, I was offered the opportunity to temporarily fill a position by someone going on maternity leave. It was a fantastic opportunity as I was able to increase and broaden my skillset, show my potential and learn things I would never have learnt in my previous position. When i returned to my previous position I was able to take back what I had learned which enabled me to really shine and build my career even further. If this is what you mean by “taking one for the team” then bring it on!
Report abuse
Rachel
Sick leave is open to everybody equally who is sick (whether they have caught that sickness whilst travelling or not), and the roads, States schools and public swimming pools are open to everybody equally who wishes to drive on them, educate their children at them or swim in them.
However, the point you have missed is that the right to leave from work with a guaranteed return to the job is not open to everybody equally, it is reserved unfairly for female employees who choose to become pregnant.
Report abuse
Terry Langlois
Your accusation that fellow islanders are small minded and unable to see the bigger picture on the issue of maternity leave may more appropriately be levelled at you.
The bigger picture is that Guernsey has a population crisis so that we should be positively steering away from anything, such as maternity leave, which encourages or makes it easier for people to procreate – whilst procreation may be a natural desire which cannot be ignored or denied, it can certainly be stymied.
The bigger picture too is that maternity leave is unfair in affording the right to a valuable benefit, i.e. time off work, to female employees only, and hardly fits within the proposition of the “equal” society or treating employees equally.
It is only a narrow mind that closes itself off to these issues.
Report abuse
I find it a bit laughable that someone is saying deciding to go travelling is the same as deciding to become a parent. hmm so when i decide to have a baby i better ask my co-workers first, just in case its not conveniant for them. Quite frankly, it is not up to my co-workers or boss when I decide to have a baby! I feel slightly sadened that people on this island are not willing to accept that having a baby is one of the most natural things you can do; and its more than likely that your female employees may heaven forbid, want a baby and work at the same time! and SHOCK horror! some fathers may want to also bond with their child! For most it is literally not an option to be a stay at home mum/dad.
Report abuse
St Marcouf – I think you misunderstand the idea of an equal society.
When the day comes that men can give birth to children and breastfeed them, then men will be able to ask for the same maternity leave as women. Until that day, women deserve rights to maternity leave so that they are treated equally within the workplace. Men do not ever find themselves in a situation where it is physically and emotionally necessary for them to take extended time off work in order to bring up a family – women do. Without maternity rights, women have less job security. So where is the equality in that?
I am not closing my mind to the issues you raise. I am dismissing them as stupid and the product of someone being deliberately obtuse. Do you henestly believe that stopping career minded people from having children is a sensible way to protect our future??
Report abuse
Mothers are designed to bear children and if they choose to work why should they expect to be subsidised by the employer? It’s their choice if they have kids.
Report abuse
St Marcouf – yes you are right that sick leave is available to all, however, many times people become sick due to their “chosen” lifestyle. You will also find that the facts don’t back up your claim that maternity leave will increase procreation. In fact, those countries which have the best maternity leave have the lowest birthrate and it is decreasing even more with time. I agree with you that we do have a population crisis and procreation is a natural desire which can certainly be stymied -and stymied very effectively through career progress and more importantly the allowance of that progress to continue via maternity/paternity provisions.
Report abuse
St Marcouf, I agree with you 100% that it is completely unfair if it is reserved just for females – it should be equally reserved for males as well. Both men and women are equally important in the raising of children and should be able to chose who takes leave.
Report abuse
Rachel, I do hope you weren’t in a communications based role.
Re read my original post, where I thought I’d made my point – question – pretty clear…
if this move could only be voted through if all it’s supporters of it (that means YOU, Rachel) had to make real sacrifices equal those that they are expecting employers to, then would you truly be willing to do that?
Terry, I single out the finance industry as an example as it is in the business of errr…making money…and is on our doorstep, so therefore typifies my statement…
I quite frankly despair sometimes.
The finance industry does indeed generously provide wonderful benefit packages for the small percentage of it’s workforce that require it for that relatively short time of their lives (and good for them, I say!), whilst having entirely wrecked other people’s lives, forever, and financially devastating the rest of the world with it’s less than salubrious dealings.
Now that’s what I call irony, Terry.
.
Report abuse
The current system and high cost of living makes it difficult for low/middle income working couples to start a family. Todays economy is gear towards two income household anda lack of adequte maternity provision can make having children (which should be the right of any family) a very difficult choice, particularly if the woman is the major earner.
Both my partner and I have reasonably good jobs but we could not afford the mortgage on our flat (which is not an expensive one) and monthly bills on one wage. Without the maternity package offered by my employer (which fortunately for me is a good one) we could not afford for me to take much more than a month off work if I had a baby- not even enough time to fully recover from a c-section.
The current system penalises the young relatively sucessful couples who are trying to to do thing right by making it financially difficult to start a family without sacrifcing some of the most important experience of parenthood to a stranger. Meanwhile a girl pregnant at 16 is given a States’ house practically rent free and benifits to live on and may never work a single day.
Personally, I think this should be considered an investment in family values and a well earned concession to the needs of the working family.
Report abuse
Daisy – spot on
Scarlett – you were saying that maternity leave is bad economics and bad for business, but then saying that the finance industry is a ruthless money making machine. If finance firms are that ruthless and focussed on making money, why do they offer good maternity packages? Why? Because in fact it is good business and helps sustain a stable long term workforce and enables employers to tap into the skills that the educated women of this island can offer.
I will ignore your wild comments about the effect of the finance industry on the world (as if it is all one thing).
And as for your comment about “taking one for the team” I do not even know what that means. Your question has been ignored because it is nonsensical. I am an employer and I offer maternity packages and also cover for colleagues who are away, so if that is what you mean by taking one for the team, count me in.
Report abuse
…I probably should have gone on to say that for the banks that choose to reside here, with almost endless resources and enormous amounts of staff, giving someone a few months off is a relative drop in the ocean, unlike the average local SME, for whom, losing 1 or 2 people for that period of time (and having to hold their position open for them/ find/pay for temp cover/being forced to load yet more work onto existing staff ) could be incredibly damaging…
apologies to those who appreciate this is stating the bl**ding obvious.
Report abuse
Scarlett – I can’t read your mind as to what you refer to “real sacrifices”. This could mean multiple things. I interpreted it as either hard work or monetary sacrifices – both of which i have addressed though comments on this post, along with many other people (many at length). If you are not referring to either hard work or money then what could it be? Communications is not about reading minds. You can’t expect people to “step up” if you fail to communicate what you mean. Also I don’t expect anyone would be bothered answering your post, if you, through sheer laziness, fail to see if your questions have already been answered. If you have changed your mind again and now think you are referring to hard work and monetary sacrifices then the answer is (again to make it clear) Yes I would be willing -and am. If you mean something else then I am sorry, I am not a mind reader and am tired of your games.
Report abuse
…and Terry, lucky you for having the resources to do that. Not everyone has.
As for your confusion, sorry, I can’t make it any more plain, and they won’t let me post pictures on here.
Report abuse
Scarlett,
It is not just the banks that make up the loacl finance industry and they certainly don’t have the endless resources and staffing numbers that you are referring to (I know numerous people in the last few years that have been made redundant).
Anyway – I very much agree with Rachel. I work for a small local firm and have done for the last 6 years during which time I and 2 other people have been on maternity leave.
In each occasion that someone was off, their work load was distributed and dealt with for the relatively short time that we were off (and yes, 6 months in the grand scheme of things is a relatively short amount of time considering the combined years that we have and continue to all put in)with a temp to cover for the more mundane elements of the work.
At times it was hectic and we needed to put in a little extra time and effort but you know what, we did it and were happy to pull together to do so because we care about out jobs/employer and they seem to care about us.
It may take a little re-organisation and temporary upheaval but in the very vast majority of cases it should be possible! It really is up to employers in this day and age, if they value their staff and vice versa, to be able to adapt and plan for these eventualities.
Oh and for all of you that are begrudging maternity leave for the ordinary working woman, consider that your taxes and contributions have already been used for many years to fund some of the best maternity benefits available to those in the civil service. Maybe this will help to put us all on an equal footing.
Report abuse
Firstly, Rachel, let me commend you on your amazingly generous spirit.
It’s not many people who would go and do a temp job for nothing, then, of course, there’s the fees from the recruitment agency you went through, the charges for recruitment ad space the newspaper, the valuable man hours spent interviewing candidates, teaching you ‘things I would never have learnt in my previous position’, Social Security, Tax…all supplied free of charge….
or have I got that wrong, and the tab for ALL that was all picked up by the employer..?
Well, never mind, I am sure the fact that you were able to ‘shine and build your career further’ to the benefit of yourself and another employer gave him more than enough comfort.
I am neither for or against longer, compulsory maternity leave. My argument is a pragmatic one, quite simply put, what’s in it for the employer? Terry states his case, he can see it like that, but many employers, however, (invariably SMEs) don’t share his views for very good reasons, mainly financial.
(For the record, Terry, when it comes to retaining a long term workforce, a returned to work mum is as entitled as anyone else to leave for a better position, especially if it means more income for an expanding family, but that’s the risk you CHOOSE to take, so fair enough.)
..and so to my question…
Supposing the States say, right, we can only push through 26 weeks maternity leave entitlement if just 50% of the working population donate an extra 5% in Social Security to cover employers expenses (as I have detailed in my first para. Of course, the magnanimous Terry won’t need or want that, just everyone else)…
how many people do you think would be eagerly charging down to SS with you to volunteer for that, Rachel, and how many do you think would sit on their hands and say ‘s*d that, let someone else pick up the tab!’….?
Answers on a postcard, please.
Report abuse
Terry Langlois
You expose the paradox in the notion of sexual equality i.e. the sexes can never be equal given their different physical attributes.
So the way in which sex discrimination legislation addresses this (including how any proposed maternity leave legislation would deal with it) is by unashamedly treating women more favourably than men and deeming it to be equal treatment on the basis that only women have certain physical attributes and functions which necessitates their favourable treatment.
The unacceptable and ridiculous result: inequality and lawful sex discrimination.
In answer to your last question, curbing population growth and protecting our future (whatever you mean by that exactly) do not and cannot necessarily go hand in hand. However, when the island has a population crisis, making it easier for people to breed and encouraging them to do so and making it acceptable for them to do so is reckless.
Report abuse
Scarlett – why do you insist on turning the debate into a stream of ridiculous questions that have no bearing on reality?
If you asked the population to elect to choose to pay an extra 5% in order to fund bowel cancer screening, you would get the same reaction. People don’t like paying things unless everyone has to do so. But that does not mean that bowel cancer screening is not worth having.
Report abuse
St Marcouf – you are a WUM
sexual equality is not about making the sexes equal. it is about ensuring that there is equal opportunity, taking the biological differences as a given. it’s not that hard to grasp.
Report abuse
Seems a lot of employers round here would rather women didn’t have kids. Alright then, let us say women stop having kids. What happens then? Oh right, lots of people will lose jobs ie: paediatritions, maternity nurses, health visitors and social workers.
Then Teachers will be out work for these is no one to teach.
Where will all these people go?
And what happens when people retire? Who will fill the spaces left by them? And whom will look after those who have retired?
It will cost a lot more than 6months (potentially) of extra wages if people simply stopped having kids.
It would also generally cost more if everyone who wanted kids simply stopped working and claimed benefits too. Imagine every mother on guernsey became the same as Ms Watson? Maybe not with so many children but the general “not working” ethic. You really think taxes would not rise to compensate that?
Say Hi to the bigger picture guys. This isn’t about simply giving people 6months off work. It’s about trying to show mothers that working and having a family is a feasible option. Why do they want to show this as an option? Because it would benefit us ALL. All including you nay sayers! You only want what will benefit yourself and yourself alone, this could potentially benefit the whole Island. I think the entire Island may just be slightly more important than you.
Report abuse
You are quite right, Terry, you can’t argue with stupid.
On that basis, I’m going to leave you to it and go do something more constructive with my time, like, have a glass of wine.
see ya! :0)
Report abuse
…oh, and to avoid further confusion regarding my last remark on the subject, Terry…
it was an observation on your incredible inability to see a perfectly reasonable, sentient, HONEST view of human nature (that would be from me).
Ciao for now!
Report abuse
I suspect the finance industry and the banks can offer such generous packages because of the silly amounts of money they make?.
Isnt it funny though that we are always being told how good we have it over here and how well off we are mostly because of the finance industry.
Is that not partly the reason (finance industry) for such high house prices and big mortgages? which unless you have two people earning and working crazy hours most cant afford.
And now we have couples who cant afford to have time out to look after their new born. So just how well off are we really?.
But the main industry that seems to be able to offer the best deals are the same ones that have helped push many things passed the price of many peoples earnings?.
Some of the other industries that do not earn the vast amounts and have the resources to offer what the finance can are seen as uncaring towards mothers who want to spend time with their babies when the reason might be they just arent able to?.
The finance industry is ruthless and mostly uncaring but can afford to look otherwise, its all about the money.
That is not a personal attack on anyone but on the industry in general along with the banks.
Report abuse
Actually no, Terry Langlois. Read and understand the legislation. The measure is favourableness of treatment rather than equality of opportunity, and favourable treatment towards women on account of pregnancy and childbirth expressly does not count as favourable treatment.
Report abuse
@HAPPY, some woman dont have the choice of a baby, if my mother, did what she was told was best, I would not be here think about it. you may be able to have an abortion, but it is a mental physical thing for a woman to decide on. once you find out you are having a baby, the maternal feelings kick in, and so does the love.
Report abuse