Compulsory maternity/paternity leave approved
Tuesday 21st February 2012, 1:28PM GMT.
Former bank manager Paul Ludden could have made more than £1.1m. by money laundering, say police.
COMPULSORY statutory maternity and paternity leave will be introduced in Guernsey from 2014, the States decided this morning.
Mothers who have worked for their employer for at least 15 months will be entitled to 26 weeks, those for less than that 12 weeks.
Fathers will be entitled to two weeks leave as long as they have worked for their employer for 15 months.
During the period off work new allowances will be available.
The package will cost an extra £2m. a year.
How it is paid for has not yet been decided, but it could mean employer and employee Social Security contributions increasing by 0.2%
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Saturday 26 May
- Laid-off staff see jobs re-advertised next day
- The Week - Roots Manuva interview
- Royal celebrations of yesteryear
- The Week - Jubilee Food
- Sport - Angus Mackay takes Gib job
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
“How it is paid for has not yet been decided”
Why can departments get laws or projects passed without money being in place for them?
Why do our deputies accept this?
Report abuse
I think it is more of a case that equality and the reduction of discrimination against women (and men)takes precedent.
Report abuse
Surely there was no discrimination before? Nobody got anything!
Report abuse
? Are you being serious?
The legislation is about more than paying money out.
For one if you get pregnant at least you have a job to go back to now at the same level.
Report abuse
It was a little tongue in cheek, but not entirely.
Old system:
A couple have a baby. The woman decides to stay at home to look after the baby, loses any right to return to her job. Same applies if the man decides to stay at home and look after the baby.
Both people treated equally, if not fairly.
New system.
Couple have a baby. The woman is entitled to 6 months off, some benefits, plus right to return to her old job. The man is only allowed 2 weeks off with the same rights if they wanted to look after the baby.
The woman therefore has preferential rights over the man.
There are of course valid reasons why it makes more sense for the woman to be entitled to more time off, as mother nature has already made the act of childbirth discriminatory between the sexes.
So, my comment that the old system was non-discriminatory is actually not that far out. The only ‘discrimination’ if you want to put it that way, was due to things that we can not do anything about (as of yet, at least!).
Report abuse
Oh I get you. If anything I would like to see that either partner being able to take the time off as they see fit. Flexibility is always great and times have changed, I can think of a few couples that would prefer the gentlemen to stay at home.
Report abuse
I despise the terms “maternity” and “paternity” leave. What happens if the male is the primary caregiver will they be denied rights to leave on the basis of their sex? It needs renaming to something along the lines of primary carer and secondary carer leave.
Report abuse
Actually, it would be fairer and simpler if a couple was granted 28 weeks between them which they are free to divide up between themselves as they see fit.
Report abuse
This is great news, if not very confusing.
Guernsey unlike sister island Jersey is trying to sensibly control population linked to to not enough work and a host of other problems.
Encourage people to help overpopulate beautiful Guernsey ( and by extension the world ) by encouraging, payment through even more benefit’s to have babies.
Haven’t the Chinese population problems taught us anything ?
Davey.
Report abuse
I do not want children.
I hope those of us who do not want kids.. can opt out of the Soc Sec contribution hike. Or if we “HAVE” to pay it.. can we claim the benefit without taking the leave?
So is it get pregnant every year and get 6 months off then ?
Report abuse
The benefit system would never work if people opted in to pay whatever it was that they would later claim.
On this same basis the people who have never received states medical treatment should have their contributions cut on the basis that they’re not a ‘high’ user of the service. Most people have also never received unemployment or long term incapacity benefit either…
If women are having babies so they can have six months off work then the problem will never be solved by maternity/paternity provisions…
Report abuse
David, I don’t use buses so why should i have to pay for them? -because we live in a society and thats what societies do. Sometimes your tax goes towards things that you yourself will never use.
Report abuse
David
Presumably you dont realise that you already pay for people without jobs to have children.
Given that information I’m suprosed you are so outraged that you’d have to pay for people with jobs to have them also.
Report abuse
“The package will cost an extra £2m. a year.”
I bet the above statement assumes that people will have children at the same rate as currently. I suppose we are being pushed into this because ‘everybody else does it’. But is it sensible to encourage additional breeding and overpopulation, higher SS contributions for everybody to bear, additional cost to employ staff? Keeping jobs open for 6 months whilst the new mother decides whether or not to return to work is also a huge burden for small companies – another nail in their coffin.
To me this is typical of the current States, desperate to mimic all the mistakes made by EU countries and playing at ‘big country’ politics. Really all we need is small government – decent public services at a price we can afford. We are not a World power, we don’t need offices in Brussels or further social engineering at great cost.
Report abuse
are you seriously suggesting that people will choose to have more children because they will now get the legal right to return to work after 6 months, plus a few benefits from the States? that is plainly ridiculous.
this does not change people’s behaviour, but it ensures equality in the workplace – which is good for the economy and so good for the island and the general tax receipts of the States.
Report abuse
Well put Beanjar
A digital screen on the wall behind the Bailiff is fast becoming essential rather than merely desirable
This screen would display the total percentage currently removed from the population’s pay packets as a result of each additional stealth tax imposed
Taken separately each 1.5% tax hike on this or .75% tax hike on that doesn’t sound too harmful but I am guessing that our headline 20% tax rate would look ridiculously out of kilter with the real rate
Any accountants out there with a ball park figure? Well over 30% I would imagine
Report abuse
In my opinion, having solid employment opportunities discourages childbearing. You can see the trend across all developed countries which have maternity/paternity leave in place.
Report abuse
@ Beanjar
Excellent post couldn’t agree more.
You know whats coming next……….redundancy pay! yet another nail in the coffin for small business’s. Decisions made by people in high office wwo have never had their own business. Do they have any idea how tough it currently is out here?.
I for one will never take any more staff on, we have stopped taking on Apprentices or any other staff as the employment laws are now far too onerous. When you get somebody like Dame Mary Perkins saying “she doubts she would start a business today” it is pretty scary!
Report abuse
If it is a position which you fear may be made redundant in the future then why not just employ people on a rolling temporary contract?
Report abuse
Rachel – your idea is logical, but unfortunately it is not quite as simple as you might hope. If you give staff a rolling ‘temporary’ contract, after the requisite time, they acquire the same rights as permanent staff anyway
Report abuse
Unless their contract ends and then they are not re-employed due to no further need. I know people who have been on rolling yearly contracts for the last 10 years and each year they have to reapply and be re-interviewed. Its a pain in the butt but it works for companies where there is a lot of uncertainty about the future.
Report abuse
I believe that’s established under UK law but not under Gsy. Therefore Gsy can still continue with rolling temporary contracts. I stand to be corrected though…
Report abuse
Terry …Not necessarily “more” but it may encourage some people to have a child
Knowing they have job and income security.
Report abuse
Small businesses flourish in other countries where these and other social legislations are imposed. If it is the ‘final nail’ then there must be other business failings.
Businesses have to continually adapt their business model’s to survive. This is done by planning ahead and being, generally, a good business manager. Sometimes it just isn’t economical to supply a certain service, when that happens the business will cease until either the situation changes or a better business manager comes along to run it.
This is the way businesses have operated for millennia, managing through adversity. If it’s too difficult or doesn’t make money then you don’t go into business.
Report abuse
Lynnie, completely agree. If a business needs to ride roughshod over its staff for it to continue trading, then you could suggest its not actually that great a business.
That, or the fact that the income generated by said business is being “unwisely invested” (if you catch my drift).
I see so many businesses over here where the Directors drive around in extremely expensive cars, paid for by that bonus cheque they wrote themselves, then the bleating begins when suddenly they have to give the people that make them the money something back, hmmm maybe just buy an M3, instead of the M3 GTS…….
Report abuse
If small companies can’t cater for compulsory leave then they should employ women
who have had children already, or those looking to get back to work.
Report abuse
@ Lynnie, let me guess you must be a civil servant or a wet liberal?
I run a very tight ship, overheads to the minimum, no pension but manage to keep over 20 men employed, with many having been here for over 20 years.
You tell me why,(should I ever be in a position to retire), that I may well have to sell off my house to pay redundancy pay to my staff, who I have loyally supported for so long even through quiet times. This has indeed happened to a good friend of mine in Jersey. Do you have your own business? I don’t include finance etc in this. Employers may an unbelievable amount into Social Insurance already and this likes it will be raised to cover maternity/paternity pay.
Report abuse
Poor guess. I am neither a civil servant or a ‘wet liberal’ (whatever that is when it’s at home) nor do I work in the ‘evil’ finance industry but I do have an opinion and this is a forum that allows me to voice that.
I’m also not a judge and didn’t make up the rules (and won’t be enforcing them) so I can’t answer your final point in any great detail, maybe you should raise this with your deputy? However…yes, running a business is tough, I don’t dispute that for one second. Your staff also have their livelihoods and should the unfortunate happen where you have to turf out your loyal employees of 20+ years I think there should be something there to protect them so that they’re not suddenly out on their ear with wife,kids,dog to suddenly support with no income and low prospects of finding a job as their ‘experience’ may be limited due to working for one employer for such a long period of time and they may well be unable to adapt easily to another employer. I also 100% agree with maternity/paternity provisions and would even go one further to suggest that maternity can be transferred over to paternity should the father be the main care giver. But that’s probably a few years off. Although it would stop all this ‘well I’m not going to employ women between the ages of 20-40’ nonsense. Which is nonsense, because you would suddenly need to ensure that your evidence for not selecting people is air tight otherwise you’ll find yourself in court defending a sex discrimination claim and Guernsey being Guernsey….business walks. I realise you haven’t said this directly but this is just pre-empting that point and also answering Martino’s.
Back on subject. I think a woman should have the right to go back to the job she was in (with the required length of service) once she has had a child, a man should also have the right to some time off to help care for the mother/child in the first few weeks (again with the required length of service). Employers, generally take home more than their employee’s, if that doesn’t happen then some serious number crunching needs to happen as ultimately…why bother?! Therefore, there’s already a benefit there to be a business owner. And so they should, again not disputing that. They put in the hard work and risks they should be rewarded, however employee’s should have certain peace of minds too. For far too long employee’s have little rights. There’s no pension rights, no sick leave rights, no holiday rights, no redundancy rights, no maternity/paternity rights and we’ve seen the result of not having these rights. Quite a highly dependent benefit state. Some of the owness NEEDS to go back to employers otherwise many more Guernsey businesses would ultimately suffer in the long term.
Report abuse
Congrats Lynnie, it’s precisely because of people that think like you and the laws that come of it that our company sacked/ retired/ made redundant all the staff last year.
In the world of ever increasing employee legislation sub-contracting is the only way forward
No sick pay, no minimum wage, no pension, no maternity pay/ leave and most importantly no slacking. It’s amazing how much harder people work and how little ‘sick’ time they take off when it’s directly coming of THEIR pay cheque, not the bosses.
The hard working members of the old staff are far better off under the new regime as they earn more the ones that didn’t pull their weight before haven’t even bothered bidding for work.
Get used to the above scenario, laws like this push everybody closer to self employment and NO protection at all.
Report abuse
Eggy Bread – if your comment had a ‘like’ button – i would press it!
You’re absoultely right, I too am sick and tired of people who want everything for nothing and can’t be bothered to work hard for it.
ALL of the sub-contractors that i regularly work with are worth their weight in gold.
AND their ‘self employed’ status means their social security contributions are much higher than most ‘employed’ people – paying even more for those who can’t be bothered to work…(but that’s another topic…)
I do however hold some support for maternity rights – but like many, fear it will have quite an impact on the smaller business.
I also fear that employers will use this as a reason to pick a male applicant over a female applicant.
Report abuse
Apologies for the weird typos above, not sure what happened!
Last sentence should read:-
Employers pay an unbelievable amount into Social Insurance already and this looks like it will be raised to cover maternity / paternity pay.
Report abuse
Must admit if I was a small business employer and I wanted to take on a new staff member I’d take subtle probings and soundings during the interview process and I’d completely rule out any woman – or man now – who I suspected was likely to have a child in the foreseeable future.
Report abuse
Lol. Facepalm.
Report abuse
Martino, if you think you’re in the right then I would suggest that you name your business here. If Guernsey thinks the same way you do then you have nothing to worry about, however, if you think the reaction of not employing child bearing aged women may be poorly received then don’t try and kid yourself that you wouldn’t be found out. One thing I’m sure about is that a secret is always found out on this island and we all know what happens to small businesses once the public have turned…
Report abuse
I’m sorry martino, I read your post incorrectly. I read it as you were a business employer.
However, the point still stands for business owners thinking they can ‘play’ the system.
Report abuse
That’s okay Lynnie, I sometimes fire off without reading other posts properly and have to back off a bit myself at times. Just to clarify, I am self employed and my own margins are tight but I was just thinking how I’d cope if I was in the position of Forest, a small employer. In that hypothetical case how would I be ‘found out’ if I kept it to myself that I was employing Person A rather than Person B because Person A, in my estimation, was more likely to make my business suffer due to maternity/paternity leave?
Report abuse
Thanks Martino, :)
In regards to non employment of Person B I wouldn’t have thought that’s a viable solution.
To suggest person B is better suited than person A because he is a 50yr old man (for example) therefore is most likely not going to be having any kids in the future doesn’t then factor in that he could become poorly and then cost you for either a) keeping his job open long enough to warrant it ‘fair’ to terminate on grounds of ill health or b) (if you were a generous employer) in sick pay or health insurance costs and then c) the cost of another recruitment cycle to replace him. Cost in business time is just as valuable as tangible money, it’s not an invisible cost. It would ultimately have an effect on your P&L.
It’s impossible to account for every eventuality. If you have a valued female employee then wouldn’t you want to be offering benefits that mean that she stays with you rather than potentially going and working for a competitor? If your business model is low skilled bums on seats work then surely there is a high turnover of staff which would mean that you’re very rarely going to have the employee with the required length of service to benefit from this particular piece of legislation.
There’s a motto I firmly believe in ‘you get what you pay for’. If you’re offering the bare minimum you’re perhaps not going to get quality staff to carry your business forward. It may last you in the short term but if you’re not thinking of long term business aspirations and the people that can get you there then you’re going to be a flash in the pan.
Just for the record I realise there’s two separate discussions going on. The discussion on having maternity/paternity legislation and how that impacts employers and the discussion over the proposed increase in SI costs. It’s difficult to try and cover both in one post so this response is really just in reply to yours Martino.
Report abuse
Martino- if you are employing older persons you better check out their family medical history (all with the utmost stealth of course so you don’t get found out) and if you are employing young singles better make sure how they spend their weekends so they don’t render themselves useless to you on a monday.
Report abuse
This is all hypothetical but, in answer to Lynnie and Rachel, IF I was a small employer (and I’m not) I would take into account all the negatives and positives and make my decision based on the plusses and minuses of each individual applicant.
I would never employ a smoker or gum chewer because I can’t stand these habits and I’d probably rule out anyone with any serious health problems or anyone who was grossly obese. If I was left with two very good candidates, one of whom was more likely to claim a long spell of maternity leave (I could probably cope with the much shorter paternity leave), then I would choose the other. Nobody but me would know the reasons for my decision and nobody would find out.
Report abuse
Of course you would Martino. Every employer wants the ‘ideal’ worker. That worker never takes time off sick, never takes any other prolonged time off for personal needs and is a hard grafter. They’re hardly going to turn up to the interview admitting their trying for a baby, have a family history of heart disease and tell you that really they just get by on the bare minimum. (well actually I have had a few job center applicants admit some howlers in the past but that’s another story…)
We have to go with the information we’re given. We base it on the candidates experience, what they’re like at interview, their references and ultimately what our business needs.
Alas, there is no such thing as the perfect employee…
That being said, Martino, usually we don’t have the luxery of too much choice (although things are now changing).
You’re right, no one would know apart from you, however your ‘unsuccessful applicant’ does have a right to know why they weren’t successful. As long as you have documented other reasons for why they weren’t then you have nothing to worry about. However, if they suspect that you’re diddlying them because they are female then you could find yourself in court trying to defend your actions. I reference only female as there is sex discrimination legislation. There doesn’t have to me a great amount of evidence here, it’s a civil matter not criminal. The burden of proof would be on you to prove why you chose candidate A over candidate B, and speaking from experience the lowley employee is usually favoured and the big bad employer is the one taken through the wringer. In those circumstances hopefully there would be enough reason, but if you happen to do it again and again and again then even the dimmest lightbulb in the island is going to wonder after they’ve heard from their sister, cousin, mate’s girlfriend why they were passed over for a job, suddenly word gets around and your business suffers as a result.
Report abuse
@ Martino ” If I was left with two very good candidates, one of whom was more likely to claim a long spell of maternity leave (I could probably cope with the much shorter paternity leave)… ”
This is exactly why it should be called parental or primary carer leave. Making the leave sex-linked encourages this kind of sexual discrimination towards women in the work place and men who stay at home.
Report abuse
Hi again Lynnie, I hear what you say but the bottom line is that the world has changed in recent years and Guernsey has yet to catch up. The days of jobs for life have gone, the days of index linked pensions have gone, and work providers (not necessarily job providers) have real choice out there. As Beanjar and Eggy Bread and others have stated, those who insist on expensive perks like full maternity leave will end up pricing themselves out of their work in favour of others, just as good as them at what they do, who will not place these burdens on the people they work for.
Report abuse
I think you have contradicted yourself here. You are saying that Guernsey has yet to catch up with the rest of the world yet argue against the changes designed to catch Guernsey up. You can’t have it both ways.
How will you ever get your 7 day trading wish if everyone recruits to your criteria? There won’t be enough workforce to open 5 days a week let alone 7!
Report abuse
Yawn, Nick the nit picker, I should have made myself clear. I meant catch up in the sense of catching up with the fact that we are in hard, tight, recessionary times. Please do try get with it and also try to get it into your head that ending the unfair and illogical Sunday trading ban does not mean 7 day trading. It means giving traders the choice as to when they decide to open their shops or not. We’ve been through all of this before. Yawwwwwnnnnn!!!!
Report abuse
Its always helpful to be clear with what you mean.
Do you want Guernsey to represent the 21st century or not? You can’t have it in one employment situation and not in another.
Resorting to rudeness doesn’t change that.
Report abuse
OK accepting that you were not clear about what you meant the point remains. You want Guernsey to be up in the 21st century. In this scenario this means taking on board this legislation even in the face of recession.
Report abuse
Okay then Nick you win. I’ll take the new legislation on maternity/paternity together with Sunday trading liberalisation….
… but… but.. with a get out clause for maternity/paternity for firms with fewer than 10 employees…
There, the best of all worlds!!
Report abuse
Fair enough, I like that suggestion.
But but… with a get out clause that only those with less that 10 employees can open on a Sunday!
Report abuse
Well what can I say to that!
Report abuse
so let me get this straight:
you object to maternity righst as they create an extra cost to business
but as a “trade off” you will accept maternity rights so long as Sunday trading is opened up – which is another cost to retail business
good to see that illogical thinking is alive and well
Report abuse
Terry
I don’t think that’s what Martino means, its just the response to my posts!
Report abuse
Lynnie, can you give examples of where “Small businesses flourish in other countries where these and other social legislations are imposed.” I’m thinking the best example is Greece where they also retire at 35, work a 26 hour week and get 54 weeks holiday. Really, you must be somebody who has never tried running a small business with the state constantly ramping up your employment costs, taxes and administration. I have, and would never do it again.
The net result of over-generous social provision is an uncertain future for everybody except a few gilt-edged politicians and civil servants. Just look what has happened throughout the EU – nobody has job security outside the public sector, pensioners bale out the banks and get screwed all over again to actually get proper healthcare and welfare. You want Guernsey to copy that?
Report abuse
The Netherlands are a good example.
Sometimes doing the right thing is what is important. You have to think of the bigger picture.
At my work there is roughly 13 people. 2 only come in a few hours a week. 2 others only did mornings. Out of the 9 remaining staff over a period of a year 4 went on maternity leave. They all took different periods to suit them. The business coped, we even took on another lady who had just given birth and that also worked flexible hours. This is a fairly extreme case too. Our individuals had skills and knowledge built up over years and years with our client base.
It is difficult but it can be done. Most private employers actually already give favourable conditions as they want to attract and retain the best staff.
Report abuse
These discriminatory measures are a step backwards. What is more, they are incredibly foolish and short-sighted in the current economic climate and from the perspective of over-population.
Those deputies in the Department of Commerce of Employment who recommended the measures in the first place need booting out before they cause any more damage.
Report abuse
I hope this is not retrospective otherwise Ms Watson will be owed about eight years maternity pay
Report abuse
Er, surely people will only get the maternity pay if they have to work for a living?
Report abuse
Hey Ray, did you receive your annual “Thank You For Keeping Me in the Manner to Which Most People would Like to Be Accustomed To” letter from her? No – I am not surprised, neither did I. Perhaps its lost in the post. Do you think people like her would be more gracious about taking benefits from working folks if they had to thank us?
Report abuse
Having employed staff and as a parent, I am fully supportive of treating staff fairly and enabling a sensible balance between work and family life. In practice, employers will always want to do what they can to accommodate and attract back good employees who take time out to have a family.
But I do share concerns that now is the wrong time economically to be reducing employees’ take home pay with increased contributions at time when incomes are being squeezed in all sorts of other ways; neither is it the time to further impose costs and regulation on businesses.
This re-emphasises again – as I have posted elsewhere – the long overdue need for a holistic review of social security contributions/benefits and taxation. The piecemeal addition of new benefits is well intentioned but has significant consequences.
Report abuse
@Lynnie
Lynnie you have as good as confirmed what I suspected, ie: never had your own business. You are probably one of those people who think the world owes them a living.
For the record I never said the finance industry was evil, in fact quite the opposite as a lot of my work comes via the industry.
You hear so much about the stress of employees today and how the employers must take more responsobility……what about the employers! laying awake all night wondering where the next job is going to come from, and if doesn’t come wondering how he can lay off staff without being hit with ludicrous dismissal fines……..oh sorry Lynnie ” I should have made provisions for that”
St Marcouf spoke a lot of common sense, the current Commerce of Employment board seemed determined to drive our lovely Island into the ground, which saddens me greatly
Report abuse
Forest,
No, I don’t think the world owes me a living. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish by trying to guess my motives and attempting to ‘sully’ my opinion by suggesting that I’m a ‘wet liberal’ or ‘civil servant’ or ‘a person who thinks the world owes them a living’. Quite frankly it’s immature and poor debating etiquette. If you’re incapable of having an intelligent debate then I suggest you stay off this forum as it’ll just infuriate you.
You may actually find though that we have some points we agree upon…
Report abuse
Hi Lynnie,I really feel unless you have actually been employed in a capacity of a senior manager/owner of a small business the views that you espouse can hold very little gravitas, as you simply have no idea of how difficult it is to survive in the present economic climate.
As someone who spent 25 odd years employed as a senior civil servant ,and who then left the “protected ” environment of the civil service by choice, and entered the “real world” trust me it is incredibly difficult to survive in business in the present extremely challenging economic times.
I think everbody on this forum would love to have an inkling of what area of industry you are/were employed in.
Report abuse
Hi Mr Mint, I feel so popular :)
I’m employed in a senior manager capacity for a local commercial business.
However, whatever my background, it’s irrelevant. I would like to think that I’ve put across my views in a fairly consistent manner and have researched them accordingly. However having an opinion doesn’t need to be backed up in fact although you should be able to debate your reasons for the opinion. Which I’ve done.
Report abuse
Mr Mint
I seem to remember that Lynnie has confessed in a post a few months ago that she is pretty high up in Human Resources in a private company
Report abuse
Problem with six months “off” from paid work as it were is that everyone else around you moves on. Where before you might have had the edge on another member of staff prior to having your children, realitiy is that actual priorities change (or at least they should do) to the extent that it is your child that comes first, not the corporation.
I feel immensely sorry for the small businesses who will no doubt have to pay out. If anything I think this takes equality back a step not forward.
I don’t think you can have a serious career and children. Some people do this, but only with a huge amount of support staff on side, i.e. au pairs, cleaners, nannies etc etc. The average mum can’t quite afford this.
Can someone explain to me why someone who decides to have a baby, but no funds, partner or job can immediately get help – but someone who has worked since their baby is born but has not put in two years worth of social security is not able to claim anything? I think personally they need to get the benefits situation sorted before bowing to Brussels to get perceived inequality sorted.
Report abuse
All very good on paper and up the workers!!
Well done activists, you’ve just put young women’s employment prospects back 20 years.
Report abuse
Generally, the Anglophone and Nordic have a high proportion of mothers in employment and the dual worker couple household is the norm. This suggests that in these countries, the male breadwinner family has weakened and women are able to form separate households and be economically independent from men.
Considering that maternity provisions are more generous in these countries it doesn’t appear to have set women’s employment prospects back any therefore why would it in Guernsey?
Report abuse
It looks like you can change the law but the real battle is changing perception and mentality.
Report abuse
This is a very interesting debate and everyone has a valid viewpoint. Lynnie is right of course and everyone who disagrees needs to get their head around human rights and businesses need to adapt.
All I have to add is that individuals who are at a stage which requires them to combine parenthood with a career are probably the most efficient and dedicated professionals I have worked with – perhaps due to the motivation and sense of urgency having a child entails. Individuals at this stage of life compare favourably with other candidates in an employee’s market, which Guernsey finance usually is.
Report abuse
So what happens when a couple want a second child within a year or so of of the first or even a third child.
Report abuse
A few notes based on comments on here.
1. Being able to opt out of social security payments because you’re not going to have kids.
I’ve seen this mentioned many-a-time, and on initial thoughts I’m inclined to feel the same way when it comes to our contributions not being of benefit to us personally. We have to remember that our contributions are towards our community. I’m sure there’ll be a case where one of us receives benefits that others don’t and vice versa. For example, the States probably paid out around £40,000 for my education at university alone, yet some people never went to university. Does that mean they shouldn’t pay?
Our contributions are there for community-purposes, not just for personal purposes. Other peoples contributions will directly benefit you one day perhaps.
2. The man only getting 2 weeks paternity leave
If you’ve had kids you’ll know the maternal role is far more crucial in the first 6 months of your baby’s life. The paternal role primarily involves provision for mother and baby whereas the maternal role is for things such as breastfeeding. Of course this isn’t true in all cases, I know families where the paternal role seems more important, but when it’s your wife that’s pushed the sucker out the focus comes to the mother for more reasons than one.
As for discrimination, it’s easy to call it that when we aren’t receiving the benefit. If it were for a gentleman’s club however…
As Rachel said, to make it more logical and fairer to all couples it’d be better to share the leave and instead call it parental leave. Some mothers are desperate to get back to work.
3. Approving it before the finances are determined
This seems more because it’s an important issue that needs to be addressed regardless of the finances. Ordinary paternity leave in the UK is 1 or 2 weeks, 2 weeks to be taken consecutively. We’re basically just catching up with the UK on this policy which probably should’ve been done years ago.
Plus, I don’t think Dad’s will complain ;)
Report abuse
Truly and antediluvian society if this is only now being introduced in your little island.
Report abuse
I welcome these new measures. I consider that the right to statutory maternity and paternity leave are key ingredients in helping to create a better work-life balance for all working people in Guernsey. There aren’t too many people in the island who will want the words “I wish I had spent more time in the office” inscribed on their grave stones.
There has obviously been a certain degree of compromise here, no doubt due to fairly intensive lobbying of the States by the business sector. That is reflected in the qualification periods introduced in my view; i.e. a woman is only entitled to the full 6 months of maternity leave if she has been continuously employed by the employer for at least 15 months, which is a longer period than the 12 months an employee needs under their belt before they can claim unfair dismissal.
Similarly, the Father will only have the right to claim statutory paternity (of just 2 weeks, hardly a long period) if he has been with his employer for 15 months. These elements within the proposals suggest that the business community have strongly influenced the details of this new statutory regime. Some would say that this is not bad thing at all. I therefore don’t accept that these new proposals establish that this States is anti-business in the slightest. Overall, this is a fairly balanced package and the States deserves credit for bringing these proposals in, notwithstanding the usual opposition.
Looking forward, I wonder whether the Social Policy Group or C & E would consider in future the introduction of a new statutory right for employees to request flexible working arrangements, something that can be very useful to Working Mothers whether their children get older.
Report abuse
A better work-life balance for all working people in Guernsey – what about the work-life balance of the childless person who is granted no leave beyond annual holiday entitlement throughout his/her whole working life and who has to work all the more hard to compensate for his/her colleagues wallowing at home on maternity/paternity leave?
Report abuse
St Marcouf,
A fair point, I would concede. However, in theory, everyone has the option to take the leave. It’s simply up to the individual whether or not you exercise that option by having children. Complaining that you do not want the option so therefore no one else should have it either does not make sense to me. Fundamentally, statutory maternity leave supports human nature. Most people want a family and want to have children. We are wired that way. The statutory law and commerce ought to respect that fundamental instinct in my view.
Maternity leave must surely be in the best interests of the child and I also consider that it’s a good thing for employers too, as new parents are often, quite understandably, very focussed on their new child, very tired and (temporarily) not at their best for work. Giving them a breather for a very limited amount of time – just 2 weeks in the case of a new father, who has got at least 15 months service under his belt – at such a difficult time seems thoroughly sensible to me. If other (childless) employees feel put upon in such circumstances then they should have a dialogue with their boss, rather than mope in the corner, complaining how life is so unfair.
Report abuse
Yay Chris! I really hope you get elected. Time to realise that it is not mothers who have children but parents and we have to move away from the mother being unfairly impacted. Other social law change is needed to help prevent unintended consequences but it is a step on the way.
Report abuse
It is misleading to exemplify and make comparisons with Nordic countries on social issues because those countries have vast land masses with minescule populations and cold climates – things that make a large difference.
People posting here forget that family oriented benefits, including the proposed maternity/paternity provisions, are and will be provided to those who CHOOSE their own fate by having children and for purely selfish reasons too. In contrast, most benefits are given to people who haven’t chosen the predicament in which they find themselves. This seems to me to be reason enough for childless persons to be granted some sort of an allowance as a quid pro quo.
Report abuse
You are already provided with a substantial quid pro quo, Marcouf – it is called the next generation working to pay your pension.
Report abuse
If women are so desperate to get back to work after having a baby then maybe they shouldn’t have the baby in the first place. After all, when they do go back to work they will employ someone else to bring it up for them. A baby for weekends and evenings just to fit in with all your like minded friends, some twisted priorities their.
Report abuse
If women had to choose between children or job they would need to chain themselves to railings once more. Men can have both what’s the difference?
If “people” had to choose between children or jobs that would make for an interesting society.
Report abuse
Indeed – with the exception that women often still do have to choose – let’s not make it any worse.
Report abuse
Blogger, there is a certain ring of truth about what you say here. Maybe if mothers were encouraged to stay at home and look after their children properly (at least part of the time) more children would grow up feeling secure and wanted instead of, in some cases just an attractive accessory. The saying “you can’t have your cake and eat it” springs to mind. I am not advocating that all mothers should stay at home 24/7 but should put their childs needs before their career at least until their children are in full time education.
Report abuse
I can only assume you are from a different generation blogger but if you can find a way that young couples can afford to live in the local market in a property with at least the two bedrooms they would need and have a child on the average Guernsey income with no States help I will tip my hat to you on a practicality basis alone.
I also find your opinion on child caring out dated and even offensive. Women are more than baby makers now and how any one woman choose to live their life in a way that fulfills them is none of your business. Who are you to judge? Every woman is different. Its tough enough being a woman without others who should be supportive having a go too.
Report abuse
Blogger
“If men are so desperate to get back to work after becoming a father then maybe they shouldn’t become a father in the first place. After all, when they do go back to work they will employ someone else to bring it up for them. A baby for weekends and evenings just to fit in with all your like minded friends, some twisted priorities there”.
Oh, silly me that’s what women are for, heaven forfend men take any responsibility of have their lives affected in your world blogger.
Report abuse
St Marcouf
“wallowing at home” lol you’re clearly not a parent!
Regarding choice, the majority of people feel compelled to have children due to its instinctive nature being a prerequisite for survival of the human race. Would you prefer no one has kids?
You raise a valid point about having to compensate in the workplace for absence of others but you could say the same about sick leave and ultimately workload is the responsibility of the employer to manage and ensure the employee is not overworked. Business always has to be flexible for many reasons and staffing is just one of the variables.
Should the healthy have a quid pro quo allowance too or should anyone off sick not be guaranteed a job to go back to?
Report abuse
Mr mint,
lynnie has always been careful about giving info on her career.
by the way “senior manager” doesn’t actually mean much.. senior manager of what?
however I do feel that maternity leave and paternity leave is the right way to go. lynnie has got it about right in what she says but there are still issues for small firms, we do live in the real world and ways will be found to employ who you wish to employ.
At the end of the day we should help, where we can, people who wish to have kids and work or would you rather see more people on benefits.
Report abuse
Not being overly careful Kevin. Work in HR, senior manager of a local private company, ive mentioned this before in other threads as i recall you were a tad touchy over me outing you as a particular food retailer store manager.
There would be absolutely no point naming the company I work for as my views are my own but there would be several posters on here who wouldnt differentiate.
Report abuse
I agree with Gavin as an employer and a mother. Staff should be treated fairly and I would never want to treat my employees the same way as I was early in my career and was asked whether I intended to have children any time soon.
I also agree that the use of social security contributions as a means of funding should be a real concern for employees and employers alike. The report proposing changes to the current supplementary benefits system, whilst well intentioned, is also advocating that these be funded by an increase of 2% in contributions. These rises, together with the zero-10 structure, place a disproportionate financial burden on local working people and businesses, which is ultimately unsustainable.
Should we both be elected in April I would be very happy to work with you on that review Gavin.
Report abuse
Chris Green.
It might make me very unpopular but it needs to be said.
It is all very well us voting through all kinds of rights and privileges to employees and many of them over the years have offered much needed protection for people.
However we are in danger of legislating people out of jobs and raising the cost of employing people to levels where small companies with a handful of employees begin to wonder whether it is all worth it.
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be some social engineering going on when firms consider who to employ, you will never be able to legislate against human nature.
Also paternity leave is a step to far, if people want to have children then fine but don’t expect someone else to pay for your time away from work when the mother is being paid to stay at home as well.
I have no objection to maternity leave of a sensible length but this recent legislation is going to cost everybody significantly more and that is before we have looked at balancing the social divide to be discussed at this months states meeting, which if agreed, will lead to significant increases in Social Insurance contributions on top of those increases needed to fund maternity and paternity leave.
We will see how many working people feel this latest move was worth it, when they get the bill for it every week through the pay packets. I noticed in one of the earlier posts on this subject someone bringing in the Human rights element to this debate.
It is not a human right to have somebody else pay for your lifestyle choices, many people who do not have children will pay the Social Security increases as a result of the recent adoption of CEDAW, many older generations will have brought up their children without any of these benefits and without to much hardship and will now pay increased contributions because of the recent States decision.
International agreements are fine but we have to be careful in a very small community that we don’t tip the balance and damage the economy as a result.
Report abuse
Dave
What are your thoughts on welfare?
It seems to me, that for many years now we have been happily pumping out funds to allow people with lets say…….. “less aspirations”, to have children. So I am somewhat bemused that someone like yourslef should be quite so anti-progress for people that want to contribute to society and have children.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
You say “it is not a human right to have someone else pay for your lifestyle choices”.
As a society we already fund the “lifestyle choices” of prison inmates, the unemployed, full time parents, pensioners, sick people, even vicars. Our policies support the human rights of all who are affected by these lifestyles. We should carefully consider the bigger picture of how better maternity provisions could benefit society as a whole. In particular I’m hopeful this scheme will support single mothers’ efforts to avoid the benefits trap and protect lower paid workers whose employment contracts would not normally include these benefits which higher paid jobs often do. This is sound social policy.
The attached article further argues the case for maternity rights.
http://www.hrw.org/node/96432
Report abuse
Well said Dave Jones spot on,
Someone who can actually see both sides of the coin. Lynnie may be passionate about her cause, but the world never rests and the big wheel of time moves on.
The facts are that fifty years ago people were slaves to the factory and badly treated and growth in population and the infrustructure required were not really thought of.
Jersey is leading Guernsey in having to send masses of school leavers for further education because there is no work for them. Again in the spring another term will see hundreds of young adults pushed out into the work place with no work for them, more education maybe ?
So in this changing world we have enough people. At my business I actually offered it to the staff in order that they buy me out and reap the profits for another ten years till the end of the lease.I would finance the buyout at reasonable terms to my experienced and time served loyal staff.
No chance as they did not want the grief, of jumping through hoops set by overstaffed government administration making work to keep themselves in employment. Final answer, if you want kids which is natural, then no problem.
You pay for them, reduce benefits do not increase them.
Taxpayers single and otherwise already pay for education for years, specialist healthcare, school buses, dentistry, benefits paid to parents and at work, covering for parents at work who will be off to understandably care for sick children, but rarely get any reward for the extra workload.
Davey.
Report abuse
Dave Jones,
Granted, we have to avoid over-regulating business, but I just don’t accept for a minute that these measures constitute over-regulation. Even with these maternity and paternity leave laws, Guernsey remains a jurisdiction where the employment relationship is relatively lightly regulated, compared to the UK, for example, or indeed the EU. We should of course be aiming to maintain a strong economy, with a business-friendly approach, but that doesn’t mean that we should not seek to bring in new laws that actually make life better for ordinary people. It is possible to have a strong economy and social justice at the same time. The idea that we can only continue to have economic success by having little or no regulation seems a bit blunt to me.
At this time, the funding for the new maternity grants hasn’t been decided but I would hope that not all of the new spend would come simply from extra social security costs. I agree that we should be mindful of piling more costs onto the employer and perhaps we need to be more inventive in terms of how we pay for some of these new things.
The Chairwoman of the IOD, Anne Ewing, recently said that these statutory maternity proposals damaged the “pro-business credentials” of the States of Guernsey; but the reality is that these proposals have been substantially watered-down because of the significant influence of the business sector. I think that the States have got the balance about right with this, for which they deserve great credit.
Report abuse
Hear, hear Chris.
Businesses are bound to be anti-maternity leave, employees are bound to be pro. It’s the deputies job to weigh up the balance for the good of the island as a whole.
The States has “pro-people” credentials to preserve as well as “pro-business” ones.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
Thank god for some common sense. As I have mentioned previously going down the legislative route can do nothing other than harm business. We cannot compare ourselves to larger communities. The system we have at present works superbly well. Please leave it alone, or I am convinced that unemployment will rise as people get too terrified to take staff on.
Report abuse
“Works superbly well” maybe for business owners who dont like to give back…..
But then I suppose giving work is enough eh??
Try asking the lady that works for a smaller firm over here who was expected to be back at her desk 2 weeks after giving birth (true story). Funny thing, was that the 2 weeks were coming from her annual leave.
The best thing is was the surprise when the resignation letter was handed in, and the whole “how will I replace you” routine.
Well, you wil replace her, with a less competent member of staff.
Report abuse
Dave
I am not anti progress, I am trying to guard against a situation where there is so much burden placed on employers for the welfare of their employees, that the small employers who are already seeing their profitability shrink during difficult times start to think hard about the gender of those they employ.
We can all bury our heads and pretend that overall costs of employing people is not a problem but that is not the true position.
Report abuse
Dave
On the issue of claimants, we have a welfare state that picks up those who are entitled to claim. The new proposals from the SSD are designed to address the point you made and I am quite happy that those who are entitled to benefits get them, one they fit the strict criteria for doing so.
Report abuse
Criteria that will be very easy to comply with for any jobless having children.
So the point stands, you as our representative are happy for jobless to have children with support from he state, but god forbid we make busnesses treat their employees with enough respect so that they can have children too.
Tell me Dave, what type of culture do you think that approach will that breed in 2-3 generations??
All the contributors get squat, and all the non-contributors get a free ride, really Dave usually you are bang on but you have severly disappointed me here.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
First of all I am not against anyone having children, I am against to much government legislation which puts jobs at risk.
Also I might remind you that the vast majority of those who are unemployed or on benefits are short term and entitled to claim, having paid into the system.
Not all single mothers are single by choice, some of them will have been deserted by their husbands or partners and believe it or not, some are very young widows.
There are a host of reasons why people cannot work and you should not lump everyone together in your sweeping statements.
You ask “what kind of culture?” The kind of culture we had in the past, where people did not rely on someone else to pay for their children.
You talk as if it is compulsory for people to employ others and create jobs, it is not and this latest move will do absolutely nothing to encourage small employers to take on women of child bearing age and whatever you think of that, it is a fact.
I can tell you, if you have a small business and you have to pay for extended periods of leave and employ someone else to fill the void that is left while people are off, then it becomes very expensive indeed. This leads to more expensive goods and services as employers pass on these increased costs to the consumer.
Also employees can claim this leave several times if they want their children close together, spending amount considerable of time on leave with the benefits to the employer difficult to see.
One other thing it is a bit like States Insurance, the employer pays quite a hefty contribution on behalf of their employees and yet they only employ them for about 8 hours a day the other 16 hours is their own time, so in my view the employee should pay considerably more than their employer.
Report abuse
I’m not making sweeping statement Dave, but the fact stands that many people ARE relying on other people to pay for their children.
You just dont seem to like it if those people have jobs. Apologies if thats incorrect, but thats the way your posting is coming accross
I do run a small business thanks I factored Maternity leave into my business plan when I first started. This doesnt effect me in the slightest. But then I respect my staff, there is a large business contingent over here that doesnt, and its these employees that need protection Dave, they need protection just as much as any of your examples because in a lot of cases their employers have them over a barrel.
Report abuse
Making it difficult for someone to continue in the workforce due to parenthood increases the likelihood that they will end up on your books Dave- think about the costs of this fact to the community. Not having financial security puts pressure on relationships, seeing your previously successful career drifting away can put a strain on mental health. When marriages/relationships breakdown Dave, if you have been out of the workforce it can make it very tough to get back in whether you are male or female. If you have been able to continue in your career then you will be able to stand on your own two feet instead of sinking into a welfare rut which some never get out of. I understand that you feel that women may be discriminated against due to this leave which is why i feel it should not be called “maternity” leave – it should not be sex linked in any way. I know that you think it is a “lifestyle choice” but so are many things like catching a bus or going to beau sejour…. and then there are blatantly unhealthy lifestyle choices such as smoking and being overweight that we all pay for through healthcare as well. Against this background, parental leave and job security is a positive aspect of society which can only be of great benefit to the community as a whole.
Report abuse
I couldn’t agree more with Dave Jones when he says “It is not a human right to have somebody else pay for your lifestyle choices”
As for those that are comparing Guernsey unfavourably with the UK and EU countries when it comes to employment legislation and benefit handouts can I remind you that the UK and most of the EU countries are either bankrupt or limping along in a critical condition.
If this is the last extra burden on business then so be it, but it won’t be……….
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
I am sure that lady was an extreme case. If you don’t look after your staff in Guernsey you will soon lose them. I trust you don’t haver your own business, if not, give it a go and you may understand some of the problems Dave.
Eggy Bread
Very well put.
Report abuse
Forest
I already have. Do pretty well despite having had a generous maternity package since inception.
Ok maybe I’d have a little more money for myself if I treated my staff badly, but then I guess its down to the individual.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
I salute you. Perhaps all employers should be given incentives to adopt a policy of contractual paid parental leave options (it should not be gender specific), or perhaps incur penalties for not doing so. Maybe it could be part of the qualifying criteria for corporate tax exemption. Or perhaps the social security contributions should be higher for those firms who don’t adopt these policies.
Businesses who would sink purely due to such measures are probably weak anyway.
Report abuse
Thats a great idea!
Draft of list of Corporate Social Responsibility targets (of which Maternity would be included, but could include much more, recycling etc)for all island businesses, and any that dont meet them pay tax.
Report abuse
Yes, the idea to assist in some way those who have lost their job is very commendable ,but from my own experience, when a small business has to close, through no fault of the employer,no one, but no one, is there to help the stranded employer, especially the authorities,despite the fact that they have been contributing towards the public pot.
Report abuse
I’d have thought this will heavily (and negatively) influence the employability of women vs men for small businesses.
Blanket rules are poo.
Report abuse
Totally agree with A J Small business’s owners have to pay self employed contributions to Social Security but get very few of the benefits that the employed get and absolutely no help if the business is struggling or fails, also agree with Cabbage as a small business owner there is no way I will be employing any women of child bearing age now the States have passed this law.
Report abuse
Allowing 6 months leave if you have worked for at least 15 months was unnecessary. the 12 weeks statutory minimum should have been all that was introduced, this would have cut the overall cost of the scheme and would have been fairer to businesses. Those businesses that are able to offer 6 months, and a lot of the larger firms do, could have continued to do so – there was no need to have gone so far from no statutory minimum to 6 months for as little as 15 months employment.
Report abuse
Cabbage
Absolutely right, if it ain’t broke leave it alone!
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
You say you do pretty well, but do you mind me asking what business you are in. I am in the construction trade which is already wrongly accused of being expensive!All it would do for our business is make it more viable to use a small family business who won’t have the overheads etc.
Report abuse
Forest, the contruction trade is actually a great example.
I see many builders swanning around in extremely posh cars, boasting about how much money they are making, children at pay schools wife at home topping up her spray tan etc. Meanwhile their employees earning barely more than minimum wage look on sadly accross the building site whilst said boasting is going on (I’ve seen this happen on a number of occasions).
I’m not pigeonholing you in with this, but it is true that many self employed tradesmen and building firm owners here in guernsey do MUCH better than your average office worker or other employee who this legislation is designed to protect.
Sure, you start your own business, you are allowed to take a slice, but I see so many businesses where too big a slice is being taken, you want to run your own business and employ people, then you need to factor everything in, if short sighted business planning means that Maternity leave could cripple your business, then changes need to be made.
This isnt legislation for legislations sake, its protecting the people who are (in a worryingly high amount of cases) being taken advantage of. Everyone needs protection, not just the rich and more upwardly mobile, which is what the opposition to this change smacks of.
Report abuse
excellent post Dave (as with your other posts above)
I am simply amazed at the opposition to this, especially from Dave Jones who I normally think of as someone who stands up for the less advantaged in our society.
This island thrives as a product of the output of its workers. Anything which helps workers to remain as part of the working community has got to benefit the island as a whole – socially and financially. People need to look at the bigger picture.
Report abuse
You’ve got me yawning more that Nick has Terry. I don’t want to open up this whole debate again suffice to say that removing the Sunday trading RESTRICTIONS will be a boon to business on the whole. That’s generally what happens when you remove restrictions on things. They tend to flourish.
Report abuse
You are right that this is not really the place to have that discussion again!
Suffice to say that I understand your viewpoint – you think that relaxing restrictions on shop opening times will be good for the retail business. You correctly point out that a relaxing of the laws will not force retailers to open on Sunday, nore to open 7 days a week.
However, the summary of my position is that we have a finite amount of shoppers and £ to be spent on retail. Increasing the opening hours merely spreads that more thinly, and while shops willnot have to open up, shops are in competition with each other and so they will open whenever their competitors do – meaning that in practice a shop will have to open 7 days a week in order to ensure that it claims the same market share that it gets under the current system with 6 days a week.
There, we both think that we support the retail business, but we disagree about the effect of relaxing the Sunday trading laws.
A fair summary / close to the discussion ? ;-)
Report abuse
You are right that this is not really the place to have that discussion again!
Suffice to say that I understand your viewpoint – you think that relaxing restrictions on shop opening times will be good for the retail business (and consumers). You correctly point out that a relaxing of the laws will not force retailers to open on Sunday, nor to open 7 days a week.
However, the summary of my position is that we have a finite amount of shoppers and £ to be spent on retail. Increasing the opening hours merely spreads that more thinly, and while shops will not have to open up, shops are in competition with each other and so they will open whenever their competitors do – meaning that in practice a shop will have to open 7 days a week in order to ensure that it claims the same market share that it gets under the current system with 6 days a week.
There, we both think that we support the retail business, but we disagree about the effect of relaxing the Sunday trading laws.
A fair summary / close to the discussion ? ;-)
Report abuse
You can’t say fairer than that Terry. There, we agree!!
Report abuse
Forest
You’re kidding right? Guernsey’s building costs are ridiculously expensive, disregarding land costs it’s more to build here than it is in central London. Do you think £200+ a square foot is cheap????
Report abuse
Dave Jones,
This is not about paying for other people to have children as we already do that (although you may call it something different). I’m a bit disappointed that you want to reduce this down to a black and white debate when it is anything but.
Completely 100% wholeheartedly agree with a benefit system, we should have provisions to assist people when they need it. However, if by allowing maternity/paternity legislation it is to be the final straw then perhaps those other straws need a closer look? We can’t say that one straw is better than the other purely because it’s been there longer. Times change, people of 40 years ago who brought up their children with no assistance didn’t have the pressures that today’s society does. Firstly it’s a lot more difficult to buy a house these days than it was 40 years ago. Surely you recognise that?
We should be encouraging people to return to work once they have had a child (they work, they earn, they spend). What we shouldn’t be doing is making it a far more attractive prospect to go out and get pregnant at 16 and to continue giving birth once your child is approaching school age.
Of course not every claimer is abusing the system, I’ve known several people who have needed assistance for something in particular however they have paid into the system and ultimately they have a long term plan to get themselves out of relying on the system. But then I hear of the person down the road doing cash in hand in work so they don’t have to declare it, someone else getting family holidays and someone else getting £2K of benefits every month because they decided to have 14 children with no view to be changing that any time soon. I then interview people from the job centre who turn up for interviews drunk or tell me that they don’t want the job as they would be getting £10 a week less than what they would get if they stayed on benefits. This was not once a month, every now and then. This was every single week. Things have not changed. There are people out there who are taking advantage of the system and it’s not being properly managed. It is (quite frankly) not my job to report these people, it’s wasting my time and my company’s time by interviewing them which ultimately means I then pull the plug on the whole effort. I realise these things take time but to put something else (something important in my book) on hold because of one or two States department’s failings is not right.
Who knows, perhaps a benefit reform would pay for the maternity/paternity legislation itself.
Whichever way this is funded obviously needs to be the right approach. Most employers already offer some form of maternity/paternity benefit therefore I agree that it is most likely the smaller businesses which are going to suffer. I stand by my earlier points and don’t underestimate that it will be hard work for small employers. They will have to look at their figures closely, and yes some of those costs will then have to be passed on to their customers which may then mean that the product they offer can be sourced cheaper somewhere else. They will therefore need to ensure they are offering a superior product. Superior doesn’t necessarily mean cheapest. But I don’t run their businesses so I can’t make particular suggestions on where savings can come from but this is one of the things I do for my business (forecasting and working to budgets) therefore I understand the difficulty and pressures. They may also decide not to employ women (however perhaps this should have been highlighted as a concern when debating the whole legislation and parental leave brought in instead). If this is the one thing which will put small employers out of business then they would be out of business in 12-18 months regardless of this legislation coming in or not.
Very much looking forward to the April election.
(apologies for the long post but yes, this is something I’m quite passionate about)
Report abuse
Phil
The house prices here are comparable to London hence the rate!
Market forces ie: highly paid workers force up the prices NOT the builders.
Report abuse
but how do you explain the high cost of builders?
oh yes, they are pricing themselves according to the means of the highly paid workers.
building work here is hugely more expensive than in the UK. Tradesmen here are in a very lucky position – steady stream of work and the ability to charge top whack. Fair enough, but don’t complain that you are “wrongly accused” of being expensive!
Report abuse
Dave Haslam
Are you for real!
I have yet to meet a builder who boasts about how much he is earning or who drives around in “an extremely posh car” you are typical of people who stereotype builders but actually have no idea of the reality. Work fluctuates hugely which we just have to ride out, because its virtually impossible to lay people off these days. We dont have “Human Resources” dept to deal with all the paper work etc..we do it ALL ourselves including paperwork into the late hours.
You still haven’t said what you do. My guess is either Civil Servant or unemployed.
Report abuse
“Human Resources” are not just a department that deals with paperwork Forest. In fact, all the senior managers in the business I work for are responsible for elements of HR and so should business owners be so fail to see your point.
I remember explaining once that managers often associate with the ‘doing’ aspect of their job (i.e. Warehouse Manager) and not the manager part (i.e managing the department, workforce etc). Therefore an MD in my opinion just needs to be a good business manager not necessarily a tradesman of whatever business he is the Managing Director of.
Sorry…who’s stereotyping who now? ;-)
Report abuse
Forest
Yes unfortuntely, I am for real.
I’m not stereotyping builders because I have developed a few properties over here and these are first hand accounts from many of the sites I’ve been on.
I’m in Accountancy and Management Consultancy, hence why I know where businesses fail, stubborness and a “why me” attitude is a good starting point actually.
There are times when my business is slow, all businesses are cyclical in nature but instead of moaning I just get on with it.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
lets get this straight just so we all know. you think that employees should pay more social insurance than employers. could you confirm that please.
The welfare system we have here locks people into dependance on the state e.g. taxpayer. I’m not a politican and i’m not into political correctness a la lynnie so I am surprises she came out with her comments on interviewing (easy when you hide behind anonymity), her experiences of which I share. I don’t personally see the doom and gloom of maternity\paternity that others do but those who see folks milking the system and who see an extra benefit created might see things differently.
Report abuse
So we actually agree on a point but you can’t help yourself and still must have a dig. Very mature, Kevin. For the record I’m not debating this because it’s seen to be ‘pc’ I’ve given my reasons in my previous posts for why I think it’s a good idea.
Also I fail to see what the anonymous issue is. I’m using my name like you are. What’s the difference? Is it purely because I won’t name my employer? As I’ve said previously. My views are my own.
You might not like me I don’t really care I just think it makes you look a little foolish. Now that we’ve sorted that out shall we stick to the issue being debated?
Report abuse
Lynnie
It is a black and white debate if you are a small employer looking at more increased cost in order to employ people. Your last couple of paragraphs point out the difficulties, so you clearly recognise what they are and you appear to say that if some of these small employers go to the wall then so be it.
Tell me how that is going to help working women when there are less firms to work for? My job as a Deputy is to represent all opinions in the States and many people think this latest legislation on paternity leave is a step to far. I agree with them and I know what will happen in the future as smaller employers look at the people they take on in terms of cost to the business. People may say that is despicable but it is human nature and I have never seen any legislation that can change that fact.
Also the new Social Security proposals will go along way to tackling the abuses you identify in the system and they will get my full support this month.
Report abuse
But at the same time it’s not a black and white issue from the other side of the fence.
I’m not sure why paternity leave is a step too far. I’d say it’s a step in the slightly wrong direction. Bring it back to one block of leave – parental for the mother/father to divvy up as they feel appropriate.
In one of my first posts I explained that businesses need to continually adapt to survive. Some won’t go the distance this doesn’t mean there won’t be as many employers it means that someone with a better product or a better business manager will set up shop instead. Some employers are reaping too many of the benefits themselves, not passing on their success to their employees set in this mind trap that they should be thankful they have a job and if the company goes under then they declare themselves bankrupt, high tail it from the island, put their assets in someone else’s name and can’t be held responsible. We’ve seen this, we know it happens..
Sometimes we need to be thinking about the little guy here but it’s not the small business owner by default.
Report abuse
Lynnie
The fact that you mention “all of the senior managers in the business I work for” is exactly what I am trying to get across.
Your average small business does not have the time or resources to deal with some of the elements of employment law and potentially new onerous legislation pending.
You’ve lost me in your 2nd paragraph, sorry.
Report abuse
That’s a fair point, Forest and off the top of my head there could be some government backed incentives to help out smaller businesses, but like everything it costs money. Which is why a reform is another good idea.
My second paragraph was trying to explain that as well as being knowledgable in the industry you operate in part of being a ‘manager’ is having other responsibilities. Granted, smaller businesses aren’t necessarily going to have the resources to pay for a HR dept or seek legal advice but not all this requires one.
Report abuse
I would hope that all Guernsey employers know that it is the UK Government that funds paternity leave.
Social security payments are reduced for the employer in the following months to pay for the wage / benefit cost.
If Guernsey States expects the employer to pay then they are shirking their responsibility, and giving the employers a very raw deal compared to other Governments.
Tim.
Report abuse
Chris Green
It is human nature to have children just as it is human nature to murder, rape, steal, assault and discriminate on grounds of sex. The criminal and civil law has deemed the latter of these to be worthy of regulation and there is no reason why the former shouldn’t be regulated too. The future otherwise is a chilling prospect.
If all it takes is dialogue with the boss in order to obtain any leave beyond strict contractual entitlement then this begs the question why statutory maternity and paternity leave is necessary in the first place and why you would support it.
Spartacus
The point is that sickness is inflicted whilst parenthood is a choice.
Dave Jones
You are not against people having children but you should be if you are looking at effective ways to control the island’s population.
Your Population Policy Group proposed all sorts of convoluted control measures, none of which will be efficient in the long term because they do not tackle the root of the problem which is unlimited childbirth of locals and non locals alike.
Surely it makes more sense actively to discourage people from having children in the first place rather than having the Housing Department or its equivalent interfere with those children’s lives at a later date and other people’s lives?
Report abuse
… and your old age pension will be paid by …?
Report abuse