my thoughts on maternity leave

IMO if maternity leave is provided it should be at the employers free will.

I thought about mat leave (due to another thread) and though of this, basing the mat pay on how long they have been with the company so lets assume 100% is as the pay as it is now so by my system it would be for example...

1 year or less: 25%
2 years: 50%
3 years: 75%
4 years or more: 100%

also it would stay on the rate all the time that most of the pays on so if they went out a month before year two then they would get year two all the time and if they are in year one for most of it then they get year one pay all the way. I also think under this system when they come back the years should be reset so if they go off within a year (unlikely) then they would be back on 25%

I just believe my system would be good because it would ensure based on the time they got on mat leave that the business would have got an suitable level of work out of them. I disagree with current mat pay legislation due to small business might not be able to cope with paying the woman on mat leave and the person doing her job for her. I know the percentage may be harsh but whats stopping someone under the current system joining a company working for 2 months then going on mat leave and not going back to the job?

Well thats all very well if a woman has a partner who can help out with money while shes on maternity leave, but what about a single woman (possibly with other children) who gets pregnant? How do you expect her to live on 25% of her normal pay during those months!?

I think you replied this to one of my comments in that thread .

I like the idea behind it, to protect small businesses from the impacts of maternity leave. however, though this may reach that end, I still feel that on principle it is unfair to force any employer to give a wage - or any percentage of a wage, or any other payment - to someone who is not working; not being forced to stop working, but through the free choice to have a child.

IMO if maternity leave is provided it should be at the employers free will.

The impact of this is that it effectively prevents a woman working for a company without maternity leave from having children. Is this acceptable? I'm not sure the ability to have children should be dictated by your employer.

I think you replied this to one of my comments in that thread .

I like the idea behind it, to protect small businesses from the impacts of maternity leave. however, though this may reach that end, I still feel that on principle it is unfair to force any employer to give a wage - or any percentage of a wage, or any other payment - to someone who is not working; not being forced to stop working, but through the free choice to have a child.

IMO if maternity leave is provided it should be at the employers free will.

This is perverse reasoning.
If i agree to do something, I agree to forgo that which i could have otherwise done. I'm not sure the ability to sit about watching daytime tv all day should be dictated by your employer; the fact though, is, that its not - I dictated that, by agreeing to work.

Is it fair to expect an employer to hold up their side of an agreement - paying the wage - even when the employee decides, through choice, to not uphold their side?

Not at all. I simply don't think that employers have the right to interfere with important segments of their employees private lives. Do you think it should be legal for employers to only hire those who agree to vote for a certain political party, or who agree to adopt a particular faith? We're not talking about upholding a prior agreement here- we're discussing whether the condition of 'Not having children' should be incorporable into an employees contract. The fact that the condition is dictated in advance doesn't make it ethical or acceptable.

The choice to have a child is not part of the employees private life though - not once it interferes with agreements the employee has made.

I actually believe any clause should be able to be put in an employment contract if both parties agree. but let's take your example, and assume that "not having children" should not be placed in such a contract - and isn't.
It is not the having children that is the problem. It is the "not working" that is the problem, when the employee agreed to work. If the employee can work despite the pregnancy, fair enough, it is no concern of the employer.

1) So do you also oppose the minimum wage, the cap on working hours and basic health and safety legislation?


2) Also, how is "Not working" relevant? If maternity leave is in the contract, it's agreed. That's not a breach.

Not at all. I simply don't think that employers have the right to interfere with important segments of their employees private lives. Do you think it should be legal for employers to only hire those who agree to vote for a certain political party, or who agree to adopt a particular faith? We're not talking about upholding a prior agreement here- we're discussing whether the condition of 'Not having children' should be incorporable into an employees contract, and "The employee knew what they were getting into" doesn't justify anything an employer could include. The fact that the condition is dictated in advance doesn't make it ethical or acceptable. Rationally, any company who wanted to maximise profit would ban women from having children, and the long-term impact there would shut out any woman who wanted a family from a working life.

Thats very easy for a person with a penis to say isnt it.

What you are effectively saying is that an employer should have the right to limit my possibilities of carrying on the human race.

First question - YES. these do not only restrict the rights of the employer, but the rights of the employee to choose what they can agree to.
i capitalise "yes" with particular emphasis on the minimum wage - this is retarded even from consequential arguments.

second question - what? we are discussing whether maternity leave should or should not be a mandatory clause...
I am saying that it should not, as it means exactly what you just said - that the employer is forced to continue to pay despite the "not working". The reasons for the not working, imo, are entirely irrelevant where the agreement is based on the working - as you have yourself said, it is not the concern of an employer if an employee wants to have a child.

Yes but having a child affects your ability to work. You won't be able to work for a certain period of time. Converting to a religion generally won't do that (although it could, e.g. a taste tester for Pork Farms converts to Islam).


But on the flip side it gives companies an incentive to discriminate against women. If they hire a woman they know there's a chance they'll get pregnant and have to take time off work, and they will still have to pay them.

Here's some ideas I came up with, although they all have problems:

Equal paternity leave. That way companies have no incentive to hire men over women, because men might also take the same time off. However it's still less likely men will take paternity leave (because they don't always know they've had a child) and it seems sort of unfair because a man could just treat it as a free holiday rather than preparing for the child.

The government reimburses the company for the maternity pay. Obvious problem here, it would cost the taxpayer **** loads.

Converting to a religion could quite easily. For example, Muslims are generally required to pray for a short period several times a day, and that'll reduce productivity. I admit it's not anywhere near as severe as maternity leave due to having children, but the point still stands.

The consequence of 'no minimum wage' is colossal income disparity and a slip into an even more severe class system. I can't understand how anyone would believe the positive consequences balance that out.

The employer is forced to continue paying because the alternative is a situation in which women are massively disadvantaged in the workplace and one in which there is a legally enforced choice (for women only) between career-success and a normal family. I can't understand how anyone would believe that a vague increase in corporate profits is worth this.

Yes but having a child affects your ability to work. You won't be able to work for a certain period of time. Converting to a religion generally won't do that (although it could, e.g. a taste tester for Pork Farms converts to Islam).