Sign in
Courtesy navigation
Search
More leave for working mums - the right way forward?
More leave for working mums - the right way forward?
January 20, 2010
Radio 4’s Today programme recently offered us the thought that our problem with the UK ’s workforce is that too many employment laws are driven by high-falutin’ ideology rather than evidence they achieve what we want. I don’t care what each new bit of legislation says, or why it was dreamed up, as long as it actually delivers what we want it to.
At the moment, some of our HR laws don’t. Take maternity rights as an example. I’m a liberal, so I believe that (a) the best candidate should get the job and (b) for most jobs, sex is irrelevant. That’s better for business, better for women and better for society in general. So I agree with the Government that our laws should put women and men on an equal footing. Maybe maternity rights that give mothers a significant period of leave, some of it paid, and then give them the right to their job back, are achieving that. If, as the Government proposes, increasing the mums’ period of paid leave will achieve more equality, three cheers - go for it! But are these new policies really achieving that?
I hear stories that employers sometimes reject a female applicant for a job, or fail to promote a woman when, on merit, she is the best person for the job. Bosses keep the reasons under wraps but actually it’s because she is young, in a relationship, and may go off and have babies. I hear that, if we look at how women fare in the UK workplace compared to some other countries, many other places are more meritocratic than we are. I also hear that in some of those countries women have fewer maternity rights. Does that mean that the fewer rights women have, the more likely they are to be treated better when it comes to recruitment and promotion? Or would we find that those countries are actually more meritocratic because social norms are different there, their country’s richer than ours, or because the demographics in that country mean women are bound to do better in the workplace?I, for one, don’t know.
My big worry is that our politicians don’t know either. My even bigger worry is that - policy evaluations notwithstanding - they don’t seem to want to find out. Instead, they seem hung up on the belief that to make people more equal, you just keep giving some of them more rights. Faced with possible evidence that this may be counter-productive - that, say, giving women more rights may not actually benefit them, or their employers - they don’t stop and reflect enough. They just plough on – and maybe move the goalposts so it doesn’t look so obvious that it isn’t working. Maternity rights seem a ripe candidate for a proper, rigorous evidence-based approach. Ideas anyone?
Founding partner
Follow us on:
Law Donut
Legal resources for you and your business - employment law, personal law and more | Law Donut
Copyright © 2009-2012
Comments
Many women don't realise this but being a working mum in the eyes of the family law courts is seen as being neglectful . As opposed to working fathers who are seen as being responsible. Many working mums who have been in custody battles have had the judge decide against them and their children have been awarded to the fathers because they have been deemed ''career women''.Even if the father has been working full time it is the working mother who will be discriminated against Don't be misguided under the notion that women get equal treatment in this Western society . Women as mothers have no particular rights in this society and in the eyes of the law. Going through pregnancy and childbirth and nurturing a child into (we hope!) a civilised person are not regarded as a special contribution to society and mothers are not accorded any recognition of this unique role in law.
Ultimately the child belongs to the state and not the parents . Its a sad and dangerous indictment of this society that in order for a women to granted any worth she has to behave like a man . Too many women in their desire for equal treatment have sacrificed their womenhood and are now behaving like men, demanding the same freedoms that men have had to indulge in all kinds of liberties , but are paying a very high price for it.
The suggestion in my entry is not that the 'rights' are 'wrong', more a case of can the smaller firms afford the 'rights'? It is, unfortunately for many, a matter of surviving short term economics, aka cashflow, that is essential to longer term sustainability and stability for employees and employer alike.
As a rather black and white example (and forgive me for leaving out all the shades of grey) Tesco with its might can batter its suppliers into the ground to create its sutainable and profitable environment. The Tesco supplier who has less control over its market sees margin disappear but costs (such as 'rights') must be met or the supplier will soon meet the tribunal or bank manager and closure.
Of course this does not apply to all situations. But small businesses often seem to have more than straightforward market obstacles in the way of stability.
As an example of extension, perhaps this is why so many entrepreneurs now look to licence their innovation rather than market themselves, ie let others carry the burden. And that often means jobs created in other territories, not the territory of the innovator. No jobs, no 'rights'.
First-time and early entrepreneurs do face the fear of unquantifiable risk in an increasing array of business areas. 'Rights' are right but what a shame they financially challenge so many otherwise good businesses before they have the chance to mature and then afford such reponsibilities. Or do we say: tough luck, chum, you should never have had a go?
Back to my original entry: my line was simply to enquire if there is evidence of some form of balance between SME footprint (successful and unsuccessful) in the different social approaches of nations as we have in Northern Europe, ie Denmark versus UK. It would be interesting to compare records of SME innovation and sustainablity in these nations set against how 'rights' are sustained and paid for - ie greater tax funded (government) or direct (employer) contribution.
I have been an employer, currently I am not. That, I consider, is a shame.
Hi.I like reading your post , keep doing it.
I find this article quite shocking!
How can you suggest that giving women more rights when it comes to having (and raising) children might be counter productive – simply because of bad attitudes by some short-sighted few?! (these views are certainly not held by the majority of employers – many of which are women with children by the way)…
So instead of trying to change these (frankly ridiculous in today's workplace) attitudes, we should all just accept them, make sure not to rock the boat because women might experience discrimination??
Imagine someone suggested the same about gay rights or any other: 'best keep under the radar as people might discriminate against you, if you ask for too many rights!'
Above all, like Fanny says: women take maternity leave to look after their newborns, to raise the next generation!!
Which in a wider social context should be of highest importance. Whilst there is no easy straightforward answer to this whole issue, surely holding back on (essential- for the newborn) rights sounds like a real backward way of thinking…
I'm male so my eyes have, of course, been closed since birth (only, joking, I'm liberal, too) but I think I have yet to see a set of stats that might be quite interesting: the proportion of owner-managed businesses and SMEs in countries demonstrating a different approach to the extent of rights such as maternity / paternity / flexible working, etc. For example, Denmark versus UK.
Is there an inequality between the two nations in proportional SME footprint?
What might these stats show? Perhaps a pattern in the strength or sustainability of owner managed businesses, and that societies by their existing cultures can or cannot adequately support the weight of new social responsibilities. Perhaps that cultures best able to support the weight of these new responsibilities are those that have always been more supportive and State led... and in a culture that lacks, even, kills entrepreneurial attitudes. So there's no-one left to complain about having to foot the private-co bill for expensive but worthy rights.
Oh dear, if my eyes aren't working, my ears might be... What's that ringing noise? I hope it's tinitus and not the death knoll for the more fragile of SMEs.
What about the real reason women go on maternity leave - to have their baby. With less paid leave and fewer maternity rights, arguably it's the child that will miss out. I stayed on maternity leave as long as it was feasible financially and I believe my children benefited from having me at home in the crucial first months of their life.
If women have less maternity leave/pay would this not mean more would quit their jobs altogether when they have children, in order to spend time with their newborns? Or the alternative is putting younger and younger children into childcare for longer - is this the best thing for our children? Or the stressed out, guilty working mums? It's a difficult one to get right.
Add a comment
Not registered? We'll create a new account for you when you add your comment