Should a woman's employer pay her for having a baby?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11340407

/// Under EU proposals to be voted on next month, women leaving work to have a child would be entitled to 20 weeks' leave on full pay.///

This proposal is absolutely ridiculous and could put many small businesses in the hands of the receivers.

In fact the present UK system of allowing mothers a year off, with the first six weeks on 90% pay, followed by 33 weeks on Statutory Maternity Pay of just under £125 a week., with the remainder unpaid, should be one of the first benefits to be axed.

A couple should plan when they start a family, with the knowledge that the mother will have to give up work, so she should first make up her mind, does she want to be a career woman or a mother?

I know this is going to set off the 'Women's Libbers', but why should a person's employer lose money because some of his female staff decide they want a baby?

If this comes about, I can see employers reluctant at taking on female staff of a child bearing age.

[Old_Geezer]

I think the present situation is more than generous. If a couple chooses to have offspring then they ought to fund that for themselves. If than means a period of having to go without, well that is part of the couple's commitment. If one parent needs to give up work then that's what the couple have opted for. It's not as if the world, or this country, is short of people that we need to make encouraging births a priority.

[jno]

men never want babies then?

[I.Don No]

years ago women did not have a choice (other than abstinence) whether to have a baby or not. Now they do.

Baby or career............simples

[jomifl]

I wanted a ferrari but didn't expect anybody to buy me one.

[sophie_1003]

The choice isn't that simple; not so long back it was work or have babies, now women are expected and encouraged to do both. There are social pressures to return to work and negative connotations with the term "stay at home mum", also I believe (may be wrong here) that families where both parents work recieve more government help than those who don't so the issue is more complex than maternity pay alone.

[rojash]

But sophie_1003, none of those points are valid arguments for paying someone to be absent from work.

[sophie_1003]

I didn't say it was rojash, what I said was that the issue of choosing babies or work as AOG mentions isn't as simple as having or not having maternity pay. Personally I think everything should be done to help mothers stay off work and look after their children instead of making them return to work and put them in cheap childcare!

[ojread2]

just as well this we dont live in Norway, women get 10.5 months off on full pay after a baby or they can choose to have 13 months at 80%

The UK is so behind

[boxtops]

One aspect of maternity pay is to encoutage the woman to come back to work, so they hold her job open, so they don't have to train up someone else.

[sophie_1003]

Norway are pretty good on the care and education of their children (as are next door neighbours Sweden) but their society is quite different to ours so unfortunately we can't copy their lead.

[VHG]

The major problem is that the EU are now putting layer and layer of "costs" onto everything in Europe. Tax this, tax that, pay for this, pay for that.

And while that is going on people are moving their companies to China or India or other countries where things can be made or supplied cheaper.

The EU takes in asylum seekers, immigrants, we have scam marriages etc etc etc which in the long term drain the economy (and if they do commit a crime you often cant get rid of them).

And if the situation in France with the Roma gypsies is anything to go by we are in for a huge argument (maybe even civil war eventually).

I think the EU is on one long decline.

[LoftyLottie]

You are not going to believe this AOG. I am with you on this. Women now plan their pregnancies so as to maximise their Maternity pay, right down to the month that they get pregnant.

Small companies already suffer.



There is no harm in a woman wanting a career and children any more than men wanting a career and children but both parents should be prepared to pay for any necessary childcare without receiving support.

[Gladeian]

If I had a business, unless I had to, I would not employ a woman of child bearing age under any circumstances, it would be financially crippling for the business. I think this would be unlawful but the hell with it

[dotty.]

I've no objection to it at all, as long as the woman has paid in a decent amount on her NI, I left work after 10 years of full time employment to have my first child, i think i had paid in enough to qualify for the small (compared to 29 years later!) amount of maternity pay i recieved.

[LoftyLottie]

Seeing as I had worked for 18 years full time before having a child I think I had more than paid for the small amount of maternity pay I got 27 years ago!!

[THECORBYLOON]

The employer can recover the SMP from tax and NI they were due to pay to HMRC. If there is not enough NI or tax to recover it from, they can apply to HMRC to make it up.