Posts

  • personally i can see both sides of the argument, however i was a tax payer before having my LO so surely i would have contributed to paying for my maternity leave. This should be budgeted for by small/medium companies because surely the owners/directors of these companies would expect the same? I earn more than my partner and there is no way we would be able to cope on just one income we barely get by on my mat pay1I think it is ridiculous that the government should oppose this...all the negative comments on there are blokes...surprise surprise!
    Lauren
  • This kind of opinion really annoys me:

    Taken from the report.
    "I am a female working for myself, with no children by choice. I often work 7 days a week and sacrifice many things to provide for myself, both now and for my future. I would like a year or so off with pay - apparently the only way to get that reward is by adding to an overpopulated world."

    Do these women honestly think that we just sit on our arses for a year?
  • I actually disagree with it. firstly we run a small buisness so to pay two ppls salary for 1 year (the mat one and her replacement wld be impossible, we just wld stop employing ppl permantly we wld have to hav contracters.

    2ndly i think buisnesses wld be less inclined to promote women/give them the job in the first place so in the long run i think we wld financially lose out.

    xxDBxx
  • I totally agree.
    What they're suggesting is that the employer pay for a longer period, 18 weeks full pay instead of 6 weeks at 90%.
    I don't think that's a lot to ask.
  • Doublebubble - Does the government not help businesses pay maternity pay?
  • how many people would it really affect though?
    It wouldnt make any difference whatsoever to what I'm receiving in mat pay as its less than SMP anyway! All mat pay is 90% of earnings or ??118 a week - WHICHEVER IS THE LOWEST - and I get the lowest which works out at less than SMP.

    Bluevicki - the govt can help small businesses and can also compensate small businesses for having a member of staff off on mat leave, but they only get the money back quarterly which is too little for some smaller business to cope with. And its not all small businesses that qualify....

    I think this will simply deter companies from employing women TBH. I can understand why people think it will be a good idea though( and im not saying you dont deserve it) but I just dont see it benefiting the people who really need it, and I see it closing down even more small businesses.
    We've had to sacrifice a lot to be able to have both our children, and have had to save since i found out i was pregnant the second time in order to be able to afford for me to have time off - and i do to an extent think that if you're planning or ttc then you could start saving and making cutbacks earlier... (I know thats a controversial view) or as soon as you find out you're pregnant... I know its not easy, but it is honestly our choice to have children so we should be able to manage, and we already have a longer, better system for Mat pay than most other EU countries....(only entitled to 14 weeks leave...)

    I too have paid my taxes since I was 16, but am still a member of the low working classes - and this will not help that class. It will only help the higher working classes or the middle classes as anyone working part time or minimum wage wont be affected by this increase.

    If I was to suggest anything, it would be to make paid mat leave 12 months instead of 9.... ;\) image

    xx
  • Typical - benefits, grants, allowances etc always go up AFTER I could have qualified!!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Featured Discussions