Move to speed up introduction of maternity leave
Wednesday 20th April 2011, 2:58PM BST.
Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur
MOTHERS could be legally entitled to maternity leave sooner than expected after the Chief Minister confirmed plans to get legislation to the States before the next election.
If approved, the law, which is yet to be drafted, would allow mothers to take 18 weeks of maternity leave, including two weeks’ paid and 16 weeks unpaid leave, if they have worked at a company for at least 15 months.
New fathers would also be entitled to two weeks’ unpaid paternity leave regardless of how long they have worked for an employer.
The legislation, which has been backed by the Jersey Employment Forum, has been in the pipeline for a number of years and is currently waiting to be drawn up.
However, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur said he wanted it to be brought to the States before October’s election.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
As Jersey has no discrimination law, it will mean that some employers will avoid employing women of child bearing age.
Report abuse
men can look after children too, still us blokes only get two weeks .
equality lol, still us blokes can burn our lingerie
jersey is still in the dark ages at times .
life enriching not.
Report abuse
I guess that the CoM are anticipating a hard election so are throwing a few crumbs in the hope of currying a few votes.
Pretty basic legislation spends years in the pipeline as Jersey creeps towards the end of the 19th century led by a group of aged and out of touch Methos!
Report abuse
I worked for a medium sized local company as Office Supervisor. When one of the girls became pregnant I went to the manager to find out the company policy on maternity leave. The answer I got was short and direct, “That’s easy; you get pregnant – you leave”.
I was also instructed not to bother interviewing local girls for jobs because “they don’t want to work, they only want to have babies”.
Many Jersey companies will not change until legally bound to do so.
Report abuse
Having a child is a lifestyle choice and it is up to the individuals concerned to be able to pay for it before they proceed. Why should an employer or the taxpayer have to pay for that choice any more than they should pay for someone’s holiday or new TV?
Report abuse
@cheryl
Who will pay for you when you reach retirement age? Unless you have made the ‘lifestyle choice’ of working hard enough to afford to support yourself privately for the rest of your days then why should we the taxpayer contribute anything to your pension?
I’ll tell you why. Because we have a thing called ‘civilised society’ where human beings help each other out a little. Do some reading, look it up.
Report abuse
Because Cheryl, some women have to return to work two weeks after giving birth here in Jersey. Society pays dearly for this with poor health and social outcomes for the mother and the child with huge costs to the taxpayer later on down the line. So short sighted not to do this and so archaic that we don’t already.
Report abuse
There needs to be some equality on the paid leave front.
Equal pay for equal conditions, if men get a higher wage then this is acceptable.
Report abuse
In reality this means that the rest of us will have to work additional hours which in most private sector companies is unpaid and have to arrange our holidays around the expectant mum. This may be a good vote catcher for our new socialist alliance but as usual it is the average working person who has to pay for this and will be worse off as a result. This turkey will not be getting my vote at the next election.
Report abuse
Ha ha!!! Jersey is soooo in the dark ages! Here in Sweden you are entitled to 490 days (one week=5 days) parent leave (mother and father share the days as they wish) per child with 80% of your pay.
The social security pays for your time off (thats why we pay tax, yes?) and your company can take on a temp for a longer period meaning someone new will get a good insight in the company and probably be more qualified for a job later on. Your employeer can not fire you and you have a right by law to work part time until your child reaches the age of 8.
Sweden has had a strong influence of strong unions now and in the past and a good democracy for years and years as you notice.
-Not the “old-men-sitting-down-thinking-we-are-God-Almighty-and-therefore-getting-paid-zillions-oh-and-yes-I-do-have-a-maid-Sorry!-housewife-at-home”.. Enough with my ranting -never more Jersey for us.
Oh and a little bonus from the land of Swedes -just found out we are entitled to this parent leave for our son (born in Jersey) as we now live and pay tax in Sweden. All i have to do is subtract the days of maternity leave I had in Jersey (Oh my! All of 70 days!) That means 410 days between us until he is 8 (he is almost 5 now!). Holiday! Yiihooo!!!
Report abuse
What a backward lot you locals really are!!
Instead of complaining how we are ruining your island (despite the fact that UK, Polish & Portugese keep it thriving) try and embrace the 21st century.
If we leave know this – you will go back to subsidence farming!!!
Then there won’t be a boat in the morning because no ferry company will bother setting up it’s business here.
Report abuse
Single people, businesses and others, through their taxes, contribute to paternity leave, probation and support services.
Plus new schools, teachers, universities, specially equipped children’s’ wards in hospitals, paediatric consultants, specialist nurses and support staff, dentistry, school bus travel, child allowance.
It does not stop there, extra benefits for single parents whom through personal choice feel its their right to have children, but not pay for them (very different issue from the divorced or widowed).
Its an expensive life and very natural for a couple to have children and enjoy parenthood.
It’s reasonable that the joy of parenthood also equates to a different lifestyle, but do parents expect all the trimmings they had before?
Why is it that parents in the work place unlike their colleagues who have chosen not have children,as mentioned in posts above, get the best holiday times, i.e. when their kids are on summer holidays so parents must take holidays during July or August peak summer also the special Xmas schools break.
Further, workers are constantly having to cover for parents not coming into work because the children need care,through illness, truancy etc, which of course is the parents first duty. It does mean single colleagues have to do their own job and cover that of the absent parent, where is the fairness in that ?
Do parents make up the time off at a later date in reciprocation ? is there a financial reward for the hardworking colleague for the extra work load and possible extra hours ?
Fewer holidays, a simple cheap car to run, a parent giving up work, why because you have planned ahead and want to enjoy your children, or is it the case that the standard of living experienced before the children came along must be funded by those that really have nothing to do with your family but everything to do with its financial well being.
It is a fact that the world is over populated, it will and must be a mind set culture change for Governments and individuals to accept that the idea of paying people though benefits and paternity leave is a thing of the past.
If I may be a little blunt using as few words as possible looking at the big picture. A reasonable and sustainable standard of living suggests 1.5 billion people on the earth. There are now 6.2 billion people and 75 million new mouths to feed every year.
You do not need to be great at maths to work out that the house is full.
If you still believe the outdated theory that the young now working will contribute to the pensions of the old, a system installed decades ago,why is it broken now with us all having to work longer. Its a giant ponzi scheme and badly flawed.
Davey West.
Report abuse
6 WB –
Who will pay for you when you reach retirement age? Unless you have made the ‘lifestyle choice’ of working hard enough to afford to support yourself privately for the rest of your days then why should we the taxpayer contribute anything to your pension?
I’ll tell you why. Because we have a thing called ‘civilised society’ where human beings help each other out a little. Do some reading, look it up.
I’m sure Cheryl can answer for herself but my two penneth. We pay tax and social all our working lives and the meagre return we get is a state pension. We HAVE paid for our own retirement with these payments. Not that we are likely to receive it, if Spock gets his way we’ll be entitled to retire within a 3 week period of our death.
I want 6 months paid elave to find myself in the Andes, any chance my employer can pay?
Report abuse
Well said WB!!!!
Report abuse
Sliri #10
Yes and there is a reason for Swedish mothers to be able to take such a long period of maternity leave at the expense to the tax payer and that is because Sweden has some of the highest tax rates and social security contributions in the world. Sweden’s people have decided they would rather pay the majority of their salary to the government and let the government decide what it is best for peoples salaries to be spent on.
Here in Jersey we follow the UK/US attitude; the majority would rather their salary goes in their back pocket rather than let the States decide what it is best for their salaries to be spent on.
So it is a question of choice and it is why we have a crap bus service and your public transport is excellent. But people here moan about paying up to 20% personal tax and 5% GST, what would they be like if they had to pay up to 60% personal tax and 25% ‘GST’ you guys have to pay?
Report abuse
Sliri, yes Jersey is in the dark ages on this but Sweden has some unique factors. A very homogenous low immigration society where people are still willing to pay high taxes into the social security pot because they don’t feel they are being fleeced by incomers. Also a very low population given the huge natural resources endowment and additional tax revenue that produces from companies. Sweden also used to have unemployment benefit at 80% of the prior wage for an unlimited time period. They got rid of that. And all those other benefits you mention are why the founder of TetraPak upped camp to the UK so he could keep some of the money he had made. Even in Sweden with, all those natural advantages,is slowly realising the disincentive of such a smothering social welfare state. Your fellow Nordics, Denmark, now has the most right wing immigration rules in the EU to keep things in check.
Report abuse
I am shocked by the time that it took for this to law to even be discussed. I agree with Sliri and her Scandinavian social-democrat approach.
When it comes to social justice, Jersey really does have quite a bit to learn from more advanced societies…
Report abuse
#15 Joker
I only pay 34% tax and have plenty of my money leftover as I have a much lower mortgage AND living in a house with a massive garden (not a flat as I did in Jersey). Food is half the price compared to Jersey. I pay £70 a month for full time nursery (including all hot meals) compared to the £600 I used to pay in Jersey for a registered child minder(and no meals included). I know when i get old I will be able to afford to live in a nursing home without having my house taken by the states. My husband who is Jersey born has said he would never move back to Jersey. And he doesnt even have a clue about what goes on with the politics in Jersey!
# 16 You can still receive an unemplyment benefit of 80% of your original pay for a limited amount of time. And yes its probably not the right place for richer people as the taxes are high but thats why they hide their money in Jersey, eh?
We are struggling with fraudelent benefits and people on sick pay as Jersey does and a new system is currently in place which has not been completely problem free but we are getting there.
#17
thanks
Report abuse
This legislation is likely to create employment discrimination against women.
When recruiting for highly skilled or specialized positions, employers will simply choose men over women…a calculated choice which eliminates the disruption and expense of losing the skills of qualified staff members for such a length of time.
Report abuse
#9, 12 & 19 Spot on!
I will never understand why today’s parents fail to realise it is their duty to save up for such a time as they decide to have a child. Nowadays they’re having holidays abroad, buying nice cars, buying the latest fashion, then when they, unsurprisingly, cannot afford a child they turn to the rest of us for money! Why is this considered okay? Only those who haven’t lived the life of Riley should be able to get taxpayer’s money (i.e. only those that genuinely need it). And I include maternity pay from businesses in this since all staff could have better pay if it wasn’t for maternity pay.
I have done without to ensure that there is plenty of money for my old age, to ensure (as far as possible) that I don’t have to rely on the taxpayer. It is right that we expect the same of parents.
We all make choices, and with those choices come certain sacrifices. Why should parents get to make the choice and avoid the sacrifices? No-one else gets this liberty.
Jersey should consider leading the way on equality and set up a system where ALL staff can have 18 months leave from work on a set rate of pay. That’s enough for couples to have 2 kids and for anyone else to do what they need to do. But I guess Jersey will just join the world of discrimination instead, discrimination is always a vote winner!
Report abuse
This obviously shows that our Chief Minister messenger boy hasn’t got a clue – and here’s why:
Any successful responsible business man, department manager or owner, will seek to hold on to a productive employee. And as such within reasonable limits, will always be concerned with the employee’s welfare – it makes for good business. BUT what is currently being touted as, ‘Maternity Leave’ is really something else – including deceitful!
This issue comes out of a warped sense of self importance and an over keen sense of personal entitlement that says the world has no right to ignore me and my dysfunctional domestic problems.
The whole socialist EU apparatus that is stealthily being imposed upon this Island, operates in the same way through the tyrannical dialectic of ‘group think’ and reinforced, programmed diversity brainwashing.
The result, assisted via media ‘group think’, concludes that Maternity Leave is fair and right and therefore it must be so – because that is how we want it to be!’
Maternity Leave has become one of the weapons of choice against the private sector and private ownership, in order to impose the Global Socialist Paradise upon us – like it or not. A paradise in which the social leaches believe the world owes them everything, including a living – and they care very little how or the method in which it is achieved for them.
This redistribution of wealth at someone else’s expense is the political creed or ethos that saves the Maternity Leavers from having to think original thoughts or deal with their feelings of chronic insecurity. They also have a pathological fear moral of authority, unless it is some mongrelised version of their own creation, which they would impose via ‘group think’ upon others. To which end, our Island and the West on both sides of the Atlantic, is now beginning to resembles an asylum.
Like all socialist groups, Maternity Leavers twist and distort important issue in order to gain mutual support for their dysfunctional thinking. The issue becomes a ‘safe house’ for their delusions, which are ultimately controlled by the super glue of a deceitful political ideology – Socialism. Yeah, I know the truth always hurts.
Report abuse
#21 Jersey Bull, utterly brilliant post. And it plays out in real life, even in Jersey there are businesses who hold onto employees by offering maternity rights. The point is it is done on merit. Whereas maternity leave for all is a slippery slope where some women will just do the absolute minimum work until such times as they qualify for maternity leave and then they’ll take it, AND the company will be forced to take them back.
That’s just a ridiculous situation for any business to put itself in.
N.B. I consider myself socialist to a point. Not all socialists believe the world owes them a living, some believe everyone should work for what they get, just that in some areas of life remuneration has got out of hand and is negatively affecting those at the other end of the scale, even though some of them are incredibly hard workers and essential workers. Despite being socialist I do not believe anyone should be paid for NOT working.
Report abuse
Has anyone heard any States’ Members consider ways to bring down the cost of living, such that a couple could save up and then live on one salary for a few years to allow them to have time off work with their children without help from the taxpayer?
It obviously was possible in the past. Isn’t it possible that women choosing to go back into work all those years ago, and that trend then continuing, is part of what pushed up the cost of living to the high level it is at now in the first place? Surely with more one income families the cost of living would be lower?
Isn’t it worth looking at ways to lower the cost of living for EVERYone, the knock-on effect of that being that it will help new families. Unfortunately I suspect the electorate will always be selfish enough to only vote for what puts money in their own pockets, no matter what the effect on the rest of society is.
Report abuse