 Since April 2003 more time off around the birth of the child. |
One in four employers do not believe it is worth spending money on training a pregnant worker even though this is against the law, according to a new survey published today. While the majority of employers have a positive attitude to pregnant workers, some are still resisting change. The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) said more than one quarter could not name one statutory pregnancy right.
The research was released as part of the EOC's investigation into pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.
Does your organisation handle pregnancy positively? Are you satisfied with the workplace rights for expectant mothers? Are the employers committed to giving pregnant employees a fair deal at work? Send us your comments
Your comments
If employers can discriminate against women of childbearing age who may take maternity leave, perhaps they should also avoid overweight, middle aged, smoking men as they may have to "waste training" on a man destined to take sick leave for a possible heart attack.
Furthermore, young men are more prone to car accidents, pub brawls - again, possible extended sick leave from injuries. So employers should steer clear of them, too. Men in their late 20's and 30's may take a sabbatical leave, go travelling, or change jobs to climb the career ladder, so don't waste training on them as they may leave also. Only fair. Goodness, is it possible that employees of both sexes may leave or take extended absences?! At least women produce a positive result for society - future employees and taxpayers.
Caroline, London, UK
 |  If employers can discriminate against women of childbearing age who may take maternity leave, perhaps they should also avoid overweight, middle aged, smoking men as they may have to "waste training" on a man destined to take sick leave for a possible heart attack.  |
Let's have some sexual equality. Each person should be allowed the same number (say 4) of work breaks for major personal projects. Women can use theirs for babies. I intend to use mine to restore a vintage car.
Ben Essada, London, UK People are always going to want to have babies - that's nature, and a basic human right. And companies should always put that right before corporate profit.
Tim, Nottingham, UK
I changed jobs a couple of years after getting married. Interviewers made it pretty obvious I would be a liability if I got pregnant - so they didn't offer me a job in the first place. I don't blame them. Maternity rights are supposed to help women but in my case they had the opposite effect. I would rather give up maternity rights altogether. Then I could enter the job market on the same terms as men.
Jenny Smith, Epsom UK
| Maternity rights are supposed to help women but in my case they had the opposite effect |
I am thoroughly disgusted by some of the comments I am seeing here. We're moving to the United States soon, and I can't wait to get to a country that is far more family-friendly despite a lack of legislation protecting women. Perhaps it's because the Americans realise what's important and don't have to be forced to treat pregnant women and mothers with the respect they deserve? This country is quickly becoming a disgrace and I'm so happy to be leaving it and attitudes like those expressed by the anti-child bigots on this board behind. Family-friendly USA, here I come!
Anon, England For a smaller firm, it is difficult to lose a valued person, whatever the reason, whatever their sex. If someone dies (we had a guy who died of cancer), it is a terrible loss personally, but also we need to find someone else, and then gamble that given time and investment, they'll become valued. When interviewing, one thing you want to get an idea on is their commitment for the next few years. A wish to leave is absolutely vital for us to know, the reason is, frankly, secondary. We did an "off the record" deal with one woman when we asked her if she meant to come back after her 6 months were up, we guaranteed the maternity pay, but we just needed to know. She admitted that she wasn't going to, so we spent the 6 months confidently finding a long term replacement. Better than nothing.
Steve, UK
| For a smaller firm, it is difficult to lose a valued person, whatever the reason, whatever their sex. |
I work in the civil service and was shocked last year at our chief executive's reaction when two female employees announced they were pregnant within a few weeks of each other. I was called into his office and told that he could not afford for any more female workers to go off on maternity leave and to remember that I'm "too young" to get pregnant (I'm 24). When I was obviously shocked at what he said, he tried to pretend he had been joking - but later I realised he had also gone on to have the same conversation with two other female colleagues in their late twenties, and had asked one girl to "promise" not to get pregnant in the next year. In these days of equal opportunities I am still amazed that he felt he could not only make these comments, but could also get away with it - which so far, he has.
Anna, Wales For all those guys saying "choice - you cannot have it both ways", I say you are coming at things from the wrong perspective. Consider this: It is not the workplace that is more important than the family; the future of families and mankind is about people, not fulfilling a business plan. Reduce people's flexibility of choice and you will damage both the long-term economic and sociological fabric of the country. Don't be so half-soaked and myopic!
Nigel Cubbage, Redhill
What? Saying the truth is against the law now? Of course training a pregnant woman is a relatively poor investment! They will take time off, and there is a probability that they will choose not to continue working. These are basic facts.
Ray G, London, England
| What? Saying the truth is against the law now? Of course training a pregnant woman is a relatively poor investment |
I hope that those who call pregnancy a 'lifestyle choice' will also be strongly supportive of the mass immigration required to make up the shortfall of workers in the next thirty years if women don't have enough babies. But I suspect the same people will be banging on about the 'dangers' of immigration.
Stephen, London How is it in a day when it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against anyone for the race, women are still being subjected for such nonsense simply because biologically speaking, we are the ones responsible for giving birth? If the same type of discrimination were to take place against a Muslim man or an African man, you'd better believe there'd be uproar. It is clear our society still has a long way to go to be as evolved as we often like to think we are.
Daphne, Liverpool, UK
| How is it in a day when it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against anyone for the race, women are still being subjected for such nonsense simply because biologically speaking, we are the ones responsible for giving birth? |
I run my own business, and you can rest assured that I would never employ a woman of childbearing age. I simply have no alternative. If I employ someone at �20,000 per year, and she gets pregnant, then I have to pay her maternity benefits, plus hire a replacement member of staff. That chunk of money might be the difference between me meeting my mortgage repayments or not. The new laws are discouraging small business - which employs 30% of the UK population - from employing women.
anon, UK All those people here who consider that having a baby is nothing more than a personal choice: just imagine your own parents being harassed into deciding against having children before bringing you into the world. Having children is a necessity for the whole society, not a personal luxury. So society has to encourage it and support it as best as it can. What if all women "went on strike" and refused to have babies?
Anna, Nottingham
| All those people here who consider that having a baby is nothing more than a personal choice: just imagine your own parents being harassed into deciding against having children before bringing you into the world. |
I was sacked by my former employers about a month after I broke the news to them that I was pregnant back in 2001. I worked in an 'men only' recruitment company (apart from one other female, account manager) and two weeks before I broke the news of my pregnancy, I was taken away on an all expenses paid weekend to Marbella by the company, which you were rewarded with for good work carried out. In the matter of a fortnight I went from the best thing since sliced bread (I have copies of my appraisals) to the worst employee of the year. I was disciplined without prior warning that my work was substandard, for using the phone and internet too much (which there was never any evidence of). I was probably more offended by my then bosses' actions as they were people I considered to be friends - though they have since been publicly exposed as people who lie on oath. | I was sacked by my former employers about a month after I broke the news to them that I was pregnant back in 2001 |
As I was pregnant I was unable to find another permanent job until six months after my daughter was born. I was financially ruined and my relationship with my partner broke down. I took my employers to tribunal, where I represented myself, but because they were sly foxes and there was no clear evidence that was the reason that they sacked me, they got away with it. However since then I found out that they also did it to another lady before I worked for the company - such delightful men! To be fair to them, they couldn't have done me a bigger favour really as now I am working in the IT Industry as a desktop analyst and getting along quite nicely. However, this is pretty much a man-only environment so goodness knows what will happen to me if I am ever brave enough to have another child! And Rob Watson, you want to try carrying and giving birth to a baby and caring for it for the rest of your days, I'LL pay your maternity benefits!
Emma L, Orpington, Kent
The comments and actions of my own sex on this issue are, by and large, disgraceful. The attitude of the majority of men in the workplace to mothers (and to fathers who seek to put their lives and families higher up the order than the company), is myopic, discriminatory and prejudiced. Every company has its share of men who can find nothing to talk to a pregnant colleague about, other than the pregnancy, because they have already dismissed them in their own minds as "breeders"; pregnant women become no more than the baby they are due to produce in the eyes of so many; men who refuse to see the benefits of schemes such as part-time, job-shares etc in terms of their ability to bring more talented people into the workplace and extend the valuable contribution of a committed and experienced employee.
Mothers are bloody heroic to deal with the crap that life throws at them, after they have already been dealt the fait accompli of having a womb; how many families would have more than one child if it was down to men to bear the kids? I know so many men who expect to be able to go out to work, have their homes and families looked after, shopping and domestic issues dealt with and then be able to "do their own thing" as well in leisure time. Come on guys - if you say you are any different, you are a liar or in a huge minority (with me!) Women have an absolute right to have it both ways!
Nigel Cubbage, Redhill
Babies are not a lifestyle choice at all; it is preserving the natural order of the human race. Babies are not fashion accessories and I do get sick of all the selfish keeping up with the Jones's materialism that exists. Mr Rob Watson it is an equal benefit for the father for the woman to obtain maternity benefits as increasingly fewer parents can afford to live only on one income in this economic climate.
Simon Woodley, UK
I work for a government department, which has very forward looking views on maternity leave as you would expect. However the fact remains that I know of two women locally who had a child, had 6 months off and were pregnant again within 3 months of getting back of their first maternity leave. So the department has been deprived of their services for 12 months out of 24. We don't get anyone extra to cover their jobs, so we have to make do without them. This of course raises the question, if we can do without them for 12 months, why are they employed at the tax payer's expense? Having children IS a lifestyle choice. If I choose to go travelling for 6 months I wouldn't expect my employer to pay me for that time. if I owned a small business I wouldn't employ a woman of child bearing age, I may be able to claim back the cost, but that doesn't stop it being a major inconvenience.
Rob, UK
I feel so strongly about this. Not all pregnancies are deliberate and that is a whole other issue, to be forced into that situation must be very hard indeed and it is one that I hope to never be in. but having children is in general a choice and one which an employer should not necessarily pay for. Surely people can understand that to train a woman who is expecting a child and then lose them almost immediately for anything up to 9 months and then be unsure if they will actually return permanently, does not make perfect sense. When will people understand that it is not a basic human right to have children, it is not something that we all have to do - some people do not wish to have them, because they want to enjoy their money and their life? Maybe that is selfish, but that is also a choice. Just don't make others pay for your choices.
Duncan,
| Surely people can understand that to train a woman who is expecting a child and then lose them almost immediately for anything up to 9 months and then be unsure if they will actually return permanently, does not make perfect sense. |
I cannot have children due to a medical problem, but I have accepted this. My husband and I breed Persian cats and to me, they are my 'babies'. I would never expect, however, to be paid to take time off to look after them! It's my life and my choice, and in most years, all of my 25 days annual holiday is spent at home with a basketful of brand new kittens!
Rebecca, Oxford, UK In 40 years' time, when everyone writing here is retired, my children and their cohort will be running the country. I think society, employers, and certain posters to this discussion would do well to reflect on this. My children are not some sort of lifestyle hobby: they are our future.
Oliver, UK
It is time to scrap maternity benefits. Only women can have kids - so it is hardly an "equal opportunity" is it?
Rob Watson, Winchester, Hampshire
"Having babies is a lifestyle choice!" Not always, sometimes having babies is what happens when your contraception fails and babies have two parents, remember. Oh I'm so glad I'm self-employed (and have a partner who shares childcare equally with me) and don't have to put up with this kind of bigotry at the office!
Lydia, London, UK Good employers may be committed to giving pregnant employees a fair deal at work, but I bet for the majority of them this is for no other reason than they are legally required to. With the occasional exception of a very few highly qualified or highly skilled staff what possible business benefit is there in limping along short-handed for 6-12 months? And why on earth should any sane employer want to perpetuate the problem by re-engaging somebody who will understandably have new priorities and uncertain availability following the birth of their child?
David,
I notice that all the men make the comments 'baby or career'. I am a young woman who would probably like children in the future. I have trained for my job and been educated at University. When I have a child, am I expected to waste that education by being forced to stay at home all day? It would be a different argument if the government (and tax payer) were still contributing toward full grants for students - who then decided not to pursue that career.
Rini, Cheltenham
I notice with great sadness that it is the men on here who have made the most anti-pregnancy and anti-women comments. It is precisely these sorts of attitudes that are making many women (myself included) steer clear of the whole motherhood thing altogether. As someone who would absolutely hate not to work and have intellectual stimulus, a rewarding career and my own financial independence I have simply decided it is not worth ever having children so that I never give these people the opportunity to snipe at me and treat me as a second class citizen. And then the Government and the powers that be worry about the aging population and the lack of children being born potentially causing demographic and welfare problems in future. Anyone see a connection here?
Caroline, London, UK
| I notice with great sadness that it is the men on here who have made the most anti-pregnancy and anti-women comments |
People on this site are saying it's a choice between having a career or being a mum. What about those who have children but can't afford not to work - it's not a choice for them. As for taxpayers paying for women to have children, I have given my employer a consistent 17 years of work and paid my taxes to the government all this time. Am I being cheeky to expect something back in return from both now it's my turn to have children? Working mums have a lot to offer and due to their responsibilities can also create job-sharing opportunities for others who may also want to work part-time for personal reasons (kids or no kids)
Margaret, UK My current employer told me upon giving me the job that they expect a good couple of years out of me before I think about having children, it was almost a stipulation of giving me the job and I know that they didn't even interview women who mentioned having children on their application forms. What are women supposed to do? We face criticism for taking maternity leave, further criticism for those who stop working and have to rely on state benefits to make ends meet and yet more criticism from groups who believe a woman can't do both or who 'resort' to paying for childcare.
What do they want? For all working women to never have children? Why is it so important to punish women for doing something that is both natural and essential? Having children is as important a job as any other; no one can possibly dispute that so women should be supported during pregnancy. I do agree, however, that maternity pay should come from the government in a pension like form rather than the employer, we pay taxes and National Insurance like everyone else so should be entitled to the money when pregnant. Why are the men on this board so against us? Please, won't any fathers speak up?!!
Angela, High Wycombe, UK
| Why is it so important to punish women for doing something that is both natural and essential? |
Would someone be given months of paid leave at the company's expense if he needed to take care of a sick relative or wanted to do charity work abroad? No, so why should a new mother get such unreasonable benefits for a lifestyle choice? If you want to have a baby and can afford it that's fine, but give up your job first and allow someone who is more committed to take it.
Richard Read, London, UK When you consider that they have to keep posts vacant, hire temporary cover, pay maternity leave, and offer flexibility for when little Billy scrapes his knee - I think that they deserve medals! All this to satisfy somebody else's external work interests?.
Clive Pugh, Reading, Berkshire
Baby making must be the only external work interest, which you get paid for. What a shame I don't get similar perks for my interest in motorcycles?.
Sally Kinkage, Southampton, Hampshire
Parents need to stop expecting that they deserve special treatment because they have children. They already get child benefit paid for by tax payers. They get huge amounts more paid leave than non-parents. Why should they be positively discriminated for?
Nick, London, UK It's rubbish to say that companies are crippled by the financial burden of having to pay maternity pay to their staff as employers can claim back virtually all the money they pay out in statutory maternity pay from the government. Our company employs just 14 people.
I will shortly be commencing one year's maternity leave and have agreed with my employer to return on a part time basis afterwards. This way, he doesn't have to hold my job open (at great inconvenience to himself), and I get the security of knowing I have a job to come back to. I know there's no way we would have reached this compromise if my rights hadn't been enshrined by law. All those childless people who bitch about losing out should get a life - I suspect they're the kind of people who would moan about anything and everything anyway just for the sake of it.
Maura, London
| It's rubbish to say that companies are crippled by the financial burden of having to pay maternity pay to their staff as employers can claim back virtually all the money they pay out in statutory maternity pay from the government. |
The real figure is probably higher than 1 in 4. Perhaps if fathers had 6 months paternity leave this would reduce discrimination against women (lower pay etc).
Roni Ahmed, London, UK I work for a small business - the only woman in the company and I personally feel that if a couple does not have enough money to exist on one salary they shouldn't be having children anyway. Why should employers have to pay for someone to be off work because of something they have chosen to do of their own volition? You chose to get pregnant - so you fund yourself.
Kim Down, Lowestoft, Suffolk
Working mothers should be given all the help that they can get. Unemployed mothers who use another child as another benefit increase do not. But you can't have it both ways, a career or a child. Both are life-changing so you should be prepared to accept the path you have chosen. Adopting one of the many unwanted babies will remove the need for maternity leave.
Bob, Brighton, UK
| Working mothers should be given all the help that they can get |
I once took part in a debate about this and everyone (males included) were shocked that I said I would not hire a pregnant woman (or a woman who was planning a family in the near future) if I were a recruiter. Politically correct or not I don't think it is fair either on the employer or other employees to 'carry' a pregnant woman. As a woman without children I fail to see why I should be subsidising those with children. My taxes are already wasted on child benefits, why should these people get any more?
Lianne, Manchester, England Do any of the people above, unhappy at the cost of SMP, know how much it actually is? �102.90 per week for 26 weeks. And the majority of it is recoverable from the government (100% plus 4.5% compensation if you are a small business.). In fact, it can be paid out of the NIC and PAYE you've collected from other employees (so you only pay the net of the PAYE/NIC collected less SMP to the Inland Revenue). If there's not enough of it, you can even sometimes get the SMP paid to you in advance of paying it to your employees so that there's not cash flow problem for you. So it costs small businesses nothing and large businesses very little.
Jo, Manchester, UK I was working full time as a waitress in a restaurant when I became pregnant. I was told in no uncertain terms that it was my 'problem' and laughed at when I dared to mention maternity pay. I sought legal advice and eventually did receive pay to which I was entitled, but the whole experience left me feeling very stressed which is the last thing you need when pregnant! I now work for a government organisation who I can not praise enough for their fair policies which includes six months paid maternity leave.
Gemma Hyde, Swindon
Employers should have a positive approach to pregnancy. Why are people in this forum against the idea of maternity leave? With a dwindling birth rate, these babies are the future workers and taxpayers who will be paying for your pensions!
Asif Givashi, London
| Why are people in this forum against the idea of maternity leave? With a dwindling birth rate, these babies are the future workers and taxpayers who will be paying for your pensions! |
I worked for both the NHS and local councils and they both treated me fairly whilst pregnant. Can I also say, you have to declare you are returning to work prior to taking maternity leave and cannot 'cut and run' with the money. Reading some of the comments on here, there are some very narrow minded people around. Firstly, pregnancy is not a sickness but a fact of life. Secondly, women can have careers and children and don't and shouldn't have to choose between the two. I for one need a career (not a job) as I've the brains and motivation to go far and contribute to society. Also I need the money for basic survival.
Liza, England What rights does the employer have against training a pregnant woman just for her to leave and never return, even if she assured them she would return? You need someone to fill a position and if the person's not going to be there they aren't filling the position. In the same way if, I was going travelling for a year; I wouldn't expect to be hired if I wasn't going to be there to do the job. I might come back I might not. That's my right. But it's the companies right to choose also. Can employers and employee come to an arrangement over time off and include it in the contract, then take legal action if they break the agreement? I doubt it.
Billy, London
| What rights does the employer have against training a pregnant woman just for her to leave and never return, even if she assured them she would return? |
what a lot of people here, moaning about unthinking women who make the terrible choice of getting pregnant whilst employed, don't realise is that someone had to get pregnant and go through the same issues in order to have them! Pregnancy is a fact of life. If you consider child birth as the equivalent of a major operation, no employer would expect an employee to be back at work a week after a serious heart operation or spinal operation, so why should women and childbirth be different? Women should not be treated any differently at work if they have children. If they need to change working hours, this should be agreed with their employers. Working fewer hours should mean less pay, it's only fair. My work place allows mothers to change their working hours and is supportive to their needs whilst not alienating childless employees.
Alison, Edinburgh, Scotland Why should a company be forced to spend money on someone who is about to leave and might not come back, instead of employing someone whose future is more predictable? Will we go one step further and tell them not to bother interviewing anyone, because their employees will be arbitrarily selected for them by an external party?
Richard, Sheffield, UK
Some of the comments here seem to be written by people modelling themselves on Dickensian employers. It is tragic that children are seen as a 'burden' in this country, they should be welcomed, and mothers given support to return to work or not as they wish. To call children a 'lifestyle choice' is bizarre, it is the most natural thing in the world to want to have children! Women should be encouraged in this not told that they have an -either-or' choice, this is both unfair and a waste of talent. Have we really got to the stage where our careers and businesses are more important than our children? That does not bode well for the future and society as a whole needs to take responsibility for supporting families. This should really come form people themselves but needs to be led by the government, so well done EOC for pointing out the facts.
Paul, London, UK
I am shocked to read the comments; I have to return to work, not because I want to, but because I could not afford to give up work. I have a lifestyle choice and that is to be a working mum. If men were the ones having babies they would get the full nine months off!!!
Claire Macdonald, Glasgow, UK
Working mothers provide a significant contribution to the work force. They are typically part time and, for that reason, are often more focused on their work and are able to sidestep a lot of office politics. the reason a lot of people make idiotic comments like 'Having babies is a lifestyle choice' is that they're jealous of someone who is able to treat work as just that, as opposed to needing it to provide fulfilment for an otherwise lacking personal life
Hans Stiles, Chessington, England
Months and months of paid leave, flexible working hours, first choice of major holidays, child benefit, tax incentives - almost gives you a reason to have children doesn't it?
LJC, Drayton, Oxon I have had 2 children. My first when I worked in the City, I was completely unaware of my rights to paid time off for antenatal care and so was my management who tried to start disciplinary proceedings because I had to go "early" (5p.m.) to make the last appointment at my GP's for a check up. Needless to say I had a thoroughly miserable pregnancy and after returning to work, took great pleasure in finding another job with a more reasonable employer. My second pregnancy was much better and I even took a shorter maternity leave because I knew my employer would be understanding when I returned to work.
Anon, Cambridge
The kind of anti-mother comments found on here and on other pages are exactly why I have decided not to have children. I am an Oxford graduate with a good career future ahead and I don't see why I should be treated like a 2nd class citizen as I would be if I was a mother. the disadvantages (no national insurance payments during any time off will reduce the pension I am entitled to, inconsiderate behaviour of colleagues because of mainly imagined preferential treatment etc)does not attract me to the idea of children. And by the way, if you do decide not to return to work after maternity leave, you have to pay back 90% of your wage and the rest is guaranteed by the government so you are not getting money for nothing and you are penalised for not returning to work.
Kate, Oxford, UK
| I am an Oxford graduate with a good career future ahead and I don't see why I should be treated like a 2nd class citizen as I would be if I was a mother |
Babies are a lifestyle choice and you should be required to look after them full time. I think it should actually be made a law that one of the parents has to stay at home to look after the child. Rather than both going back to work. Or both parents could take part time work but still ensuring that at least one parent was at home with the child at all times. If this means you can't afford to have a child then you shouldn't be having a child. I am sick of people having children and expecting taxpayers to pay for them!
Brian, North, UK When is someone going to admit that children and work do not mix? If you want a baby, have a baby - if you want a career have one, you can't have both and it's not fair on others in work to expect to. Where I work I have been put under great stress by being expected to take up the slack while someone takes maternity leave, promising to return and then never does, it not equality and it's not right.
Dave Mailer, Bristol, UK
| When is someone going to admit that children and work do not mix? |
I am 17 weeks pregnant and let my employer know as soon as possible. I have been treated extremely well since this time. I have regular health and safety assessments and my colleagues have been brilliant helping me making sure that I don't do too much, and no lifting! I have still been trained in anything that I need to be, and treated very well. I cannot believe that there are some employers who do not treat their employees well. It's a fact of life that women get pregnant, and one that should be accepted not shunned!! The only downfall is the government expecting me to live on half wages during the 6 months I am on maternity leave, and even with tax credits there is no way I can afford a childminder when I go back! So in this case its thumbs up for my employer and thumbs down for the lack of government support!
Lisa Johnson, Harwich, England I don't have children yet but I hope in the future I will. I have no problem covering for people who take time off work to have babies. I don't think women with kids dictate to employers, I think they are entitled to push for flexible working. If women stop having babies what happens to the population? Pregnancy has a purpose and we should remember that. My company on the whole is very fair on pregnant employees, they have a family friendly policy and we have an excellent maternity pay package, however I do know of at least one manager who wasn't so keen on women who were likely to get pregnant. For those who did get pregnant he appeared to see them as an inconvenience.
Marie, Glasgow, Scotland
Women are needed in the workplace pre and post kids. I think supporting a pregnant woman is only a small sacrifice for an employer because if she is reliable, hard-working and skilled, it will help the business thrive once she has come back to work. This entire thing that it is too costly and unfair to expect employers to support pregnant women at work is just another example of how this country is backward and exploitative towards its workers. Women who have children should be encouraged and supported at work because we are producing the workforce of the future, and as many people opt not to have kids, it means those of us who do, are doing our society a big favour. And if we don't go to work because of kids, workers will have to support us in other ways and will no doubt complain. So let us be working and let us not look at mums and mums as 2nd class citizens.
Geraldine, Glasgow, Scotland
Expectant mothers are not treated well in our workplace. The employers don't care about what happens to an expectant mother. Working on slippery, wet surfaces, standing for long hours can risk the life of the unborn baby. We do not have adequate facilities in our work place i.e. resting rooms; excessive working hours etc. Employers should conduct specific risk assessment upon receipt of notification letter provided by the health professional.
Gilsey, Accra, Ghana
| The employers don't care about what happens to an expectant mother. |
I've got to say that work is for working and pregnancy is for having babies. It's one or the other. Equality means equality. Turn up for work or don't. Pregnancy and related absences should be treated as sick leave.....
R., Sheffield, England Simple choice: Baby or career. What is the problem?
Matt Kenny, Leeds.
Why should pregnant women get any extra rights and privileges - having children is a lifestyle choice. It's unfair on men and women who choose to stay childless that those who decide they want a glorified pet receive them. Take maternity leave for example - I don't get time off to pursue my outside hobbies and interests, why should those having children be any different?
Fletcher, Poole, UK
| I don't get time off to pursue my outside hobbies and interests, why should those having children be any different? |
Maybe if it was made easier for mothers to work in the first place this wouldn't matter. Even with my husband's employers paying 40% of our childcare costs we are struggling to maintain our home and two careers, having a second child would mean one of us having to give up work or having to take illegal cheaper childcare which we would never consider. It's no surprise pregnant workers are being written off when there is little help for them to come back to work once children are born.
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex UK I believe this is in fact a tricky issue, whilst it is important not to discriminate against either sex, common sense should prevail. Why teach a pregnant woman who is a couple of months away on a new system, when they will require probably (through lack of use rather than ability) retraining when they get back? Would it be correct to train a heavily pregnant woman manual handling, which can include lifting heavy items? What about asking a pregnant woman to train on an x-ray machine. By not doing all these would place the employee at risk of prosecution, whereas if it was completely necessary for the job, could a pregnant woman refuse and be protected from disciplinary action?
Steve, Newcastle
| Would it be correct to train a heavily pregnant woman manual handling, which can include lifting heavy items? |
As a childless woman I do not think is right that women who have children should be able to dictate how they are employed. Why should I and other colleagues have to do the work of employees who are pregnant and not get paid. Under new rules even if a Company hired someone on an Agency basis that person has the same rights after 6 weeks which means that small businesses will go bust and the larger firms will then have resentful staff.
E Sloan, England | Why should I and other colleagues have to do the work of employees who are pregnant and not get paid |
Too many employers look on pregnancy as a burden, instead of accepting it as fact of life, as they do with pension payments, national insurance contributions etc. There is no easy answer but I believe that it would help to extend the rights of fathers to time off in a child's early months. This would result in a smaller perceivable difference between the sexes and would benefit fathers and their children immensely. There would be practical matters to iron out of course, such as how to deal with the more prolific fathers, and smaller companies would need assistance from the government. I do think though that with a little imagination, it could help to bring about the cultural sea change that is required here.
Catherine O, Maidenhead, UK
| Where I work there are a lot of female workers. Most come back to work either full time or part time after the birth of their children and my employer seems to accommodate them very well. |
Where I work there are a lot of female workers. Most come back to work either full time or part time after the birth of their children and my employer seems to accommodate them very well.
Yvonne, Scotland UK The government needs to fund all the maternity pay as small business cannot afford to pay wages for employees who are off for months. Their jobs have to be kept open and covering the missing employee is a heavy burden.
Anon, UK
As politically and socially incorrect as it may be - it can be financially crippling for a small business to employ and / or train a pregnant woman - due to having to pay for maternity leave and a person to do their job while they are off... Regarding the training - why would you invest in something that is unlikely to give you any return? The person is about to take time off to have the baby - they may or may not return!
Steven Hill, Edinburgh, UK
I have yet to tell my employer and work colleagues that I am 13 weeks pregnant, and may leave it as long as possible before doing so, because I know I'll be treated unfairly because of it. I already feel extremely undervalued and unappreciated as an experienced and senior member of staff and can see my pregnancy and six months maternity leave worsening the problem. They may not mean to discriminate against pregnancy, but it will happen to myself and unfortunately also to thousands of other women in a similar situation up and down the country.
Natalie, West Yorks, UK
Can anyone answer me a question? Is there any compulsion on the new mother to return to work for the employer who has paid her 6 months maternity leave pay, or is she entirely free to decide to 'take the money and run'? If the latter case is true, exactly which "business benefits" does Ms Jenny Watson, deputy chairwoman of the EOC refer to?
Dave, Leeds, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 