A month doesn't go by without reports in the media of changes to, or proposals to change, maternity and paternity leave. But have these changes gone too far and are they in danger of threatening women's careers?
Sir Alan Sugar has said that he would not consider employing women of child bearing age. Have we gone too far with maternity and paternity rights? Or are these changes merely prudent in the workplace, enabling employees to work to the best of their abilities?
Within the last few weeks there have been numerous proposals on and changes to maternity rights. The draft Maternity and Parental Leave and the Paternity and Adoption Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2008 will amend previous law and remove the distinction between the rights of employees on ordinary maternity leave and those on additional maternity leave. This will mean that all women whose expected week of childbirth begins on or after the 5th October 2008, or an employee whose child is expected to be placed with them for adoption on or after that date, will be entitled to the same rights, whether on ordinary or additional maternity leave.
In reality this will mean that whatever type of leave is taken the employee will be entitled to the benefit of (and bound by any obligation arising from) all the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if she had not been absent. It will also aim to protect the seniority of woman when they return from their maternity leave.
This move comes in the wake of the latest proposals by the Government, designed to encourage fathers to spend more time with their children by extending their rights. The plans aim to make it easier for the father to take paternity and parental leave. The proposals mean that fathers will be given the right to take the second half of paid "maternity" leave when maternity leave is extended to a year in 2010. Additionally the Government has revealed proposals to make it easier for parents to opt for flexible working hours. It has stated that it plans to extend to all parents of children up to the age of 16, from the current cut off point which is six, the right to ask to work part-time or for flexible working hours.
The moves will be welcomed by groups like the Fawcett Society, who campaign for equality between men and women. A recent survey conducted by the Fawcett Society and reported in the Times revealed that there are still 30,000 women a year who are losing their jobs as a result of pregnancy.
Others are not so happy about the changes and feel that the extension of maternity rights has gone too far. Nicola Brewer, the Chief Executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said employers were thinking twice about offering women jobs or promotion, reinforcing the views voiced by Sir Alan Sugar.
The Times revealed that in a survey of 420 female graduates aged 21-28, conducted by career specialists QS, nearly a third felt that employers had gone too far in catering for working mothers. They claimed that many childless employees were left resentful about employers considering the work-life balance solely as an issue affecting those in a family.
Kingston University Business School Professor, Christine Edwards, conducted research in the public sector which revealed that accommodating part-time workers creates an "enormous burden" for front line managers. The Professor stated that "recruiting people to cover for those on maternity leave or employing two part-timers to share a single job increases the workforce and inevitably adds to responsibilities for training, monitoring and managing."
Indeed, the Confederation for British Industry (CBI) has previously been vocal over its concerns that changes to maternity and paternity leave can have on smaller businesses.
However, one thing is for certain, this topic will never leave the workplace. The debate on the issue will continue to rumble on and all employers can do is to continue to be reactive to the situations they find themselves in.
For further information please contact Mark Serby at [email protected] or on 01142666660.
