Maternity leave and equality laws are ‘sabotaging’ women’s careers

Source: Daily Mail

Generous maternity leave and flexible working practices are in danger of sabotaging women’s careers, the head of the new equality watchdog has warned.

With women now entitled to a year off for each child, Dr Nicola Brewer, the chief executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said employers were thinking twice about offering them jobs or promotion.

The current set of benefits, which strongly favour the mother, has also entrenched the idea that women bring up children, instead of both parents taking an equal responsibility for childcare.

‘The thing I worry about is that the current legislation and regulations have had the unintended consequence of making women a less attractive prospect to employers.’ British fathers are allowed two weeks of paternity leave compared to 52 weeks for their partners.

As usual, the only thing that matters is the effect on women that choose to have children. What about the businesses and all of the other workers?

She said: ‘The way it is framed means it is up to the women to transfer the leave to the man. It is not his right.’

In a speech today, she is expected to call for an extension of fathers’ rights, suggesting men be entitled to 12 weeks of leave on 90 per cent of their earnings following the birth of a child.

Wow, 12 whole weeks! Women = 52 weeks. Men = 12 weeks. (That’s when they even know their girlfriend/ wife is pregnant.)

Aware that her proposals will face criticism from the business lobby, she said: ‘Of course, there is a business case for these changes and many companies are going further. But this is a social argument as well as an economic one.

‘There may well be a cost [to business], but as a society we are already thinking in terms of wellbeing as well as take home pay.’

Well, that answers my earlier question. The businesses and other workers just have to pay for it. Nothing like redistribution of wealth to keep Communism alive.

Sir Alan warned in February that equal opportunity laws had made it harder for a woman to get a job.

Employers are not allowed to ask women about having children  –  so they would just not employ them, he said.

And he is right.

It really gets on my nerves, how the State thinks it has a duty to regulate every little aspect of our lives. In fact it sounds much more like totalitarianism than freedom to me. The State autonomously deciding what society should be like? I thought they were supposed to serve the People, and remain bound by our laws?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, why should a business employ someone who has a high probability of leaving, while you still have financial obligations to them? It reminds me of the treatment of women in divorce. They leave, you pay. What would you do, as a business owner? Especially a small business. How is it good business sense to employ someone, have them leave the workforce while you still have to pay them and then employ someone else to do the same bloody job? You can of course, get the other (working) employees to make up for it, but you know that will not help morale. That could encourage your staff to look elsewhere for work. On top of that, you cannot ask women these questions in interviews, so the women cannot even defend themselves! All brought to you by your socialist State who dictates more and more of our lives to us every day!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Maternity leave and equality laws are ‘sabotaging’ women’s careers

  1. Maternity leave is equal pay for no work. Feminists say that they want equal pay for equal work. How do they reconcile the two?

    Simple. They claim that maternity leave is a “temporary disability”. They then invert the issue by claiming that employers are “discriminating” against women when in fact it is the pregnant females who are discriminating against their dumped on co-workers. If this sounds like upside down think, you are right. What else would you expect from dialectical Marxists with Talmudically trained minds?

  2. The Sex Which Cannot Think

    It is a never ending source of wonder to this author how people think out of both sides of their brains. Feminists are now claiming that women should be given years off the job at full pay so that they can reproduce and compensate for a falling birth rate. But these are the same feminists who have prevented fifty million plus unborn lives from coming into the world down at the abortion clinic. The correlation between their own mass liquidation of the unborn and the declining birth rate of which they complain does not occur to them. Instead of demanding that abortion should be outlawed to get the birth rate up ( a clear correlation if ever there were one ) these dingbats demand corporate socialism for breeding cows. They ignore that baby making is not a job function. They ignore that reproducing on the company’s time is is not equal work. They ignore the enormous disruption caused by this policy and the impositions on the non-pregnant employees. And to top it off, they continue to abort babies by the millions while using a declining birth rate as justification for making babies on the company’s time.

    Was there ever anything so mad as this? A sex which so blatantly reasons at cross-purposes cannot think logically about anything.

  3. Very few people ever consider the effect of these “maternity leaves” on the other employees. Often, they just have the work of the absent mother dumped on them, as the firm is reluctant, or unable, to hire a competent person for a job that is necessarily temporary. So, the woman gets a big party at work that her colleagues are basically forced to pay for. And they have to buy presents for the baby too. Then, they have to do her work for her while she is home with her little bundle of joy.

    Often, the women never intends to return to work, but only informing the firm of this decision at the last minute, when her leave is over. Then, the other employees have to continue to do her work for her until a permanent replacement can be found. If she does come back, chances are that technology and/or procedures have changed while she was gone, and so her colleagues have to train her all over again. Meanwhile, her head is most likely not in her work, as she is thinking about the baby all the time, and taking off from work whenever it has the sniffles, and never doing her share of the extra work when “crunches” happen in the office. Then, after a year or so, the women may very likely get pregnant with another child, and the whole cycle of disruption starts all over again.

    Even if a replacement worker is hired, the colleagues have to train that worker. And, just as they are getting used to working with him or her, the mother comes back, and that causes a new round of disruptions. Also, the replacement worker may be a far, far better worker than the mother, but, if she wants her job back, that’s just too bad, the firm has to let him or her go. So, the colleagues suffer once again because the mother pulls less weight than her replacement did.

    If women want to work, fine. If they want to stay home and have babies, that’s fine too. But they don’t “own” a job. A job is for people who want to do the job. A worker can’t say, “Well, I want to spend a year in Tibet studying Buddhism, but, when I return, I demand my old job back.” Nor can an employee say, “You know, working as a volunteer assistant at a UN hospital n Darfur is a really worthwhile thing to do, so, I’m going to go to the Sudan for a year, but you must keep my job open for me!”

    If the government is concerned about falling birth rates (something that I, personally, couldn’t care less about, but we live under a democratic system), let the government pay women to have kids and stay at home and take care of them. At least then the burden would be shared among all the taxpayers, rather than being dumped on a particular firm, and, as I have shown here, on her co-workers.

  4. @chief biggy wiggy

    It’s simple logic. Not a feminists strong point I may add. Cost benefit analysis. These potential women could end up costing the business more than just double wages. Why take the chance, and put her before you and all of your staff?

    @khankrumthebulgar

    Nothing like debt to enslave a nation, and Obama is a slimey Commie dipshit. No one dares question the choices of females through want of appeasing the majority voters (women) and the ridiculous feminist propaganda.

  5. Women are whining about their life choices. Wow never saw that one coming. LOL. Our idiots in the US Congress have voted in entitlements due of $44 Trillion dollars. More than all the wealth in the US. And we never seem to learn from this nonsense.

    On Father’s Day Barrack Obama insulted Minority Fathers ignoring the companion choices of Minority Mothers.

  6. Sounds like business has realized what many men have already. Having women around is more of a liablity than it’s worth. All risk and no benefit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s