Why maternity leave needs re-examining

The current state of maternity leave legislation in the UK is open to a culture of abuse. There is a sense that none of the major political parties are willing to address the issue, as any development which could be perceived as adverse risks alienating the female electorate.

The Situation

As it stands, mothers-to-be are entitled to (amongst other things):

• 26 weeks 'ordinary' maternity leave regardless of how long they have been with their employer, after which they are entitled to return to the same job. This leave can begin 11 weeks before their expected week of childbirth.
• A further 26 weeks 'additional' maternity leave regardless of how long they have been with their employer, after which they are entitled to return to the same job, unless that’s not 'reasonably practicable', in which case the right is to return to an appropriate similar job.
• Out of this total of 52 weeks maternity leave, 39 weeks are paid, providing they have worked for their employer for 26 weeks by the 25th week of their pregnancy, i.e. they must have worked for the company for one whole week before they get pregnant if they wish to receive maternity pay from said company. Maternity pay is paid at 90% of their earnings for the first 6 weeks followed by a flat rate, which is increased by a few pounds every tax year. From April 2009 to April 2010 it is £123.06 per week.

Now, let it be said I have nothing against the concept of maternity pay or maternity leave. If we expect couples to have children, and want women to have the ability to develop careers, then maternity leave and pay are essential; it is the way in which the issue is managed and legislated, rather than the issue itself, with which I have a problem.

The Problem

Thankfully it was announced at the end of January that, as of April 2011, new mothers would be able to transfer the second half of their year-long maternity leave to the father - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8485781.stm. This is a long overdue correction to existing legislation, which goes some way to enhancing gender equality when it comes to childcare. What needs to come next is the end of 'maternity' and 'paternity' leave, to be replaced with an allocation of parental leave to be divided between parents as they see fit.

Gender inequality, however, is not my major bugbear with the current maternity leave legislation. I reserve that accolade for the effects it can have on small businesses.

As the law stands, a woman can begin a job with the full intention of becoming imminently pregnant; get pregnant after one week of being at the company; work for a grand total of 29 weeks then take one year off, with the company holding their position, or a position similar to their original position, open for them; get paid by that company throughout that year, including pension contributions during the first 26 weeks of maternity leave; and then decide they do not, after all, want to return to the company. The maternity leave money does not have to be repaid.

Alternatively a woman may begin a job while heavily pregnant (without notifying her employer of her condition), only to announce on her first day that she is taking maternity leave. She will not be paid by the company as she will not have worked for the required amount of time (one week) before falling pregnant, however, she will receive 'maternity allowance' from the government, with which I have no qualms. The company will, however, be required to give her a year's maternity leave, and hold her position, or a position similar to her original position, open for her. It is, I imagine, difficult to find a capable employee who is willing to work for only one year (or less depending on whether the employee on maternity leave wishes to return sooner).

The two scenarios described above pose the most obvious problems for a small business, however, there is also the possibility that an existing employee who is either already pregnant, or intending on becoming pregnant, may negotiate a pay rise without notifying their employer of their imminent plans, or indeed the recent occupation of their womb. If a pay rise is granted, this will then be included in the 90% of their salary which they will be paid in the first 6 weeks of maternity leave.

I don't intend to insinuate that all women who intend on having jobs and children are amoral money-grabbers; I'm just pointing out that some inevitably are, and the system is open for them to abuse.

At the risk of posing a hypothetical situation which in reality would never happen, I'm going to pose a hypothetical situation which in reality would never happen:

It might not be politically correct, but it is certainly realistic to say that if a small business owner was faced with two prospective job candidates in their early thirties, who were of absolutely identical stature/experience/character etc., with the one caveat being that one was male and the other female, he would be wise to opt for the male candidate. This is a position of which I am sure most small business owners are aware, and no doubt they act accordingly. Under the current maternity legislation, employing a woman of childbearing age is, in many cases, simply too risky. I would therefore argue that the poor quality of said legislation is actually having a detrimental impact on the career prospects of women.

The Solution

Not being a government policy maker with the associated benefits of in-depth economic projections etc., it's difficult to come up with exact figures, but I will give a rough idea of the kind of measures which I feel should be put in place to shore up the system, and protect small businesses.

I have no complaints about the financial quantities paid out in the event of pregnancy per se, nor do I disagree with the length of time given for maternity/paternity leave. I simply feel that safeguards should be put in place to ensure what an employee 'gives' to a company is in proportion with what they receive regarding maternity benefits.

With that in mind, I propose the following:

• Job positions will only be held if the employee has been working for the company for 6 months BEFORE they become pregnant.
• Maternity pay will only be paid if the employee has been working for the company for 6 months BEFORE they become pregnant. The amount of maternity pay will operate on a sliding scale - increasing with the amount of time you have been with the company. If you do fall pregnant within these first 6 months then the responsibility for providing maternity pay rests with your previous employer, assuming you worked for them for longer than 6 months before you became pregnant. If you did not work for them for longer than 6 months before you became pregnant, then the responsibility rests with the government, and you will receive 'maternity allowance', which is £123.06 per week.
• Pay rises must have been in place for a minimum of 3 months BEFORE an employee becomes pregnant if they wish to have their revised pay factored into their maternity pay.

These adjustments are not perfect. The most obvious flaw being in a situation where someone moved from a job at which they had worked for a number of years, and didn't realise they were pregnant when they moved. They would then be trapped in a no-man's land, as their new employer would not be required to hold a position open for them.

What the above proposals would do are:

• Prevent women cynically seeking pay rises with a view to taking maternity leave in the immediate future.
• Prevent women starting a job when they are knowingly pregnant, and then expecting the company concerned to keep their position open.
• Prevent women seeking new jobs while being knowingly pregnant, or planning an imminent pregnancy, in an effort to boost their salary and therefore their maternity pay.

In committing to these proposals, or something similar, I feel that small businesses would feel safer employing women of childbearing age, creating a fairer society for all.

All information is from http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewsubsection.php?sun=52 - thanks!