Maternity law: Plans ‘shameful’
Saturday 23rd April 2011, 3:00PM BST.
Jersey Community Relations Trust chairwoman Dr Elena Moran
FIERCE criticism has been levelled at plans to introduce a law on maternity leave in Jersey because it will still leave the Island lagging far behind its UK and European counterparts.
Under current proposals women who have worked for an employer for at least 15 months would be entitled to18 weeks off work after they have had a baby, with two of those weeks paid. In the UK the current legal minimum is 26 weeks paid leave with a further 26 weeks unpaid.
The stark difference has led to the plans from the Social Security department being branded ‘inadequate’ and ‘shameful’ and there are now calls for them to be completely rethought in a bid to bring the Island into line with other modern jurisdictions.
Chairman of the Jersey Community Relations Trust Dr Elena Moran is one critic of the proposals, which are due to be put to the States before October’s election. Her comments have been echoed by local Advocate Barbara Corbett who said the proposals were ‘watered down’ and simply not good enough.
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
Its about time the UK and the underworked, over holidayed europeans were brought into line with us. If society believes that couples having children should have them at other peoples expence, then the state should bear that burden by raising taxes for that purpose.I am completely at a loss to understand why an employer should be expected to provide social welfare.In this failing world economy, employers (i am one)should be championed for somehow surviving and providing work opportunities.I believe that job positions should be protected where ever possible so that having a family does not loose you your job but to expect the employer to pay you for doing nothing…..laughable.
Up goes the company costs, up goes the charge-out rates…..state taxation by the back door.Companies need to lower their cost to claw back lost business from the vast number of countries who are undercutting us.
Who are the “Jersey Community Relations Trust”,who pays Dr Moran’s wages and where does that money come from.? Often this kind of socialist clap-trap emminates from people who produce nothing and are funded by others.
Report abuse
still in the dark ages here the good employee, is trampled over.(next)
Report abuse
Maternity plans shameful – aren’t we ignoring the elephant in the room, our 2 tier racist housing system known locally as quallies.
Lets get housing laws in line with the civilised world, then we can promote the baby factories.
Report abuse
If you want to copy UK Maternity Legislation then why not increase our tax rates,social security contributions and VAT to UK levels.
Report abuse
maternity leave pay was first introduced by large companies who were interest in mothers to return to their work place after giving birth. It was accepted as a perk for working for a large company. If society believes as l do that it should be made compulsory we must bite the bullet and all contribute by way of further taxes and not make it a burden to buisness on a lottery basis. All mothers would feel good knowing their taxes will help other mothers.
Report abuse
I agree with Martin, why should the employer fork out for the maternity leave. In response to small money I think we are in the forefront on this issue. Its not right that an employer should fork out for maternity leave, I agree a few weeks and then some unpaid leave but why should they be forced by government intervention to pay for an empoloyee who is not at work? What happens a year or so later when mum decides her cherub requires an older brother or sister, more time off that the employer has to pay for.
It might be ok in the finance industry where they can afford to pay contract staff to cover the time but its not the same for small business. Expecting them to fork out for no work is a disgrace.
Report abuse
Sorry, I really don’t understand. Why should employers pay for staff that decide to have children? Surely it is the choice of the parents to have kids and the financial burdern should be down to them and the state? And before anyone bangs on about “yeah, but we need children because they are the future yada yada” then surely that is the responsibility of the state, not the employer?
Apparently in the paper, the head of a union states “Business can afford it” What planet is this guy on – perhaps the finance industry can afford it, but what about the small businesses with only a few members of staff? Not only are these small companies being asked to pay for this leave, they also have to pay AGAIN for another member of staff to take their place. It is unfair for the small employer, and perhaps everyone else is backwards and should be brought in line with us as Martn (#1) mentions.
Report abuse
Hey Martin, why age are you living in, obviously not the 21st. S
Report abuse
disappointingly for martin, the days of victorian workhouses are over…
Report abuse
Yes why not bring them into line with all the other modern BANKRUPT jurisdictions.
Report abuse
This is a tricky argument. I had maternity leave in the UK, which was great. Now on one hand I do not (and did not claim) anything from the State to cover me maternity leave. However if people are not supported to have children then that does cause a slight problem with the continuation of the population, surely? Now I also feel very strongly that this does not mean that by having 10 children you should be entitled to sit on your bum and claim from the State. However I do think it is reasonable to receive some wage for a sensible period…………..
Report abuse
Though shameful in the opinion of Dr Elena Moran, Jersey cannot compete with the UK or its EU partners with these demands.That’s simple reality.
Report abuse
Everyone is against a working Mum that eventually will go back to Work. Yet Social Security would rather pay thousands of pounds to single Mum’s that have large amounts of Children from different Men that people like me have to pay for to sit at home and not work becuase they think that having a Child is an excuse not to Work. Clearly the people who dissagree with this matter are the ones that have not been in the position to have to give birth to a child and then only have a short amounth of time to bond with the baby before going back to work. I pay my tax and Social Security for a reason!
Report abuse
Sue And Bruce….please,take a look around you. Your comments are “so last century”. We live in a global community where we must compete.I believe in looking after the interests of our staff in every way possible. That means keeping their jobs alive, my enterprises viable and everyone moving forward together.So many people seem anti- employer these days yet their life depends on those who forge company enterprise. Local and UK people live in the past, it is the wave of EU immigrants who “GET IT”
Report abuse
Actually the elelphant in the room, is actually what will happen to the amount of jobs offered to woman of a childbearing age.
I have lived and worked in the UK for 15 years and in many of the small businesses I have worked in, there are very few.Whilst it is illegal to openly discriminate against anyone, in practice, it is very easy to simply choose the man who applies for the position, rather than the woman.
I know it happens and would have no shame in doing it myself
Report abuse
There’s a few people being very judgemental and mean on here.
I think this legislation should definitely be brought in, however there will need to be clear restrictions on the amount of times a woman uses it and how much pay should decrease with each subsequent child after the first otherwise it would just not be fair on the employer and would be free for abuse.
Not everyone who would take this leave/pay is going to take the mickey! I am now on maternity leave unpaid for up to 12wks after and it just isn’t enough time and we won’t have enough money but will do our best anyway. I work full time and own my own home so there is not much of a choice for people like us to stay off any longer even though I only ever plan to have this child and no more.
It’s not fair, all I want is a bit more time to nurture my child in the most important time, I would say when the baby is 9-12 months would be perfectly acceptable even if some of that were unpaid. 12 weeks is not long enough for a mother to get over pregnancy/childbirth and nurture her child and herself to optimum health and happiness. I would imagine mums who are forced to get back to work so soon also run the risk of post-natal depression a lot more than mums who don’t feel that pressure.
Such a shame.
Report abuse
If it is so bad over here, she could always return to the UK from whence she came and take advantage of the laws upon which she looks so favourably. Why do people come here and moan? If it is so awful, why do they stay?
Report abuse
Typical responses agianst Martin’s comment, why should employers and the remaining employees fund lifestyle choices made by parents. What does this cost small companies, can you think of any other lifestyle choice that you would expect your employer to pay for. If everyone that chose to have children were entirely financially responsible for them there would be far fewer kids involved in nuisance crime at evenings and weekends.
We’d all be paying a lot less tax too although the current system where the user doesn’t pay is irony personified. Why are we providing financial incentives for people to have children, the planet and our island is overpopulated already.
The recent case in the UK where a lady on maternity leave became pregnant and advised her employer that she would shortly require another 6 month jolly paid for by the company illustrates this point perfectly. The employer removed the lady from the workforce and the lady sucessfully sued for a six figure sum – insanity. Employers will just refrain from employing women of child bearing age if this law is changed.
Have kids by all means, but pay for your choice.
Report abuse
How about true equality? Whether you are married or single, whether you have children or not, whether you are male or female, you should have a right to take 3 periods of up to one year off work (partly paid) between the age of 16-50.
Report abuse
In the UK, many companies, small ones in particular, avoid employing young women. This will happen here if this is brought in.
I agree with people above who have ssid – if you want children do it, don’t expect the rest of us to pay more tax to fund you choices.
The world human population is increasing unsustainably, you hace to ask – what will the earth be like for this next crop of babies – no oil, no water, not enough food??
Report abuse
If they bring this legislation in it will undoubtedly lead to discrimination in the work place leading to increased unemployment, more benefit payouts, and hence higher taxes. Why not let the employer decide? What is wrong with the current system?
Report abuse
This is an age old arguement – and no matter what gets decided not everyone will we pleased.
#Local Couple – I agree. I worked in Banking when I fell pregnant. (I had also been told years ago I could not have children!) I was very fortunate to have maternity leave which is actually in line with the UK and return to work part-time after this. I suffered many physical problems during and after pregnancy, and was pleased to have the time to recover from these and bond with my daughter. A suitable time frame is needed for this.
However, there are other women whom have had a child been off for the year, come back and almost imediatley fallen pregnant again – repeating the cycle. If women are going to do this there should be some kind of ruling about the amount of times one person is allowed to these ‘privilages’. Tricky solution.
Report abuse
Perhaps if this woman actually had to run a small business she wouldn’t be so keen to promote this diea from behind the armchair “worthy” facade of something which has little to do with community relations and rather more to do with self-righteous trouble making and causing of resentment.
Report abuse
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 – in 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 in 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
I feel for both sides having been through maternity leave with no pay but working for a small business.
Of the 6,000 or so companies in Jersey over 4,000 of them employ five or less people.
It isn’t all about finance, there are a huge amount of small businesses in Jersey who just couldn’t cope with paying 26 weeks maternity.
If you have three people in your business and one takes half a year paid leave that person will need replacing. You will need to pay over the odds to fulfil a short term contract with a local person. Therefore your wage bill will rise by almost 20%. In addition, whilst most pregnancies are not a surprise to the bearer, they are a surprise to the employer and the business upheaval would be substantial as I suspect when there are only 3 of you in a firm, no-one is swinging the lead.
Like it or not, any increase will lead to a discrimination against the very people the law is trying to assist – working mothers.
Report abuse
Why not go to Iran and campaign for their laws to be more liberal?
Report abuse
The States of Jersey could be pulling a fast one on employers. In the UK payments to the maternity leave parent are balanced by the cost deducted from social security contributions that the employer has to pay, called national insurance in the UK. Therefore the state pays, not the employer.
It is still nanny state, you want them you pay for them.
Report abuse
Not sure all the men leaving comments (the majority) really know what it’s like to be a mum. Mothers should be encouraged and supported by compassionate employers to help ensure a supportive and compassionate society, which is more important than a profitable rich society. If we look out for each other it pays off. Simple. I really wouldn’t want to work for somebody like Martin.
Report abuse
And men should get maternity leave too.
Report abuse
What kind of society do you want to live in? It doesn’t take much common sense to understand that if you support families in the early years, society reaps the reward in later years.
Kids raised in a loving family environment become useful and productive tax paying members of society. They break fewer laws, they work, needing less social support, and they pay tax.
Children with fewer chances, brought up in poverty, cost us all a lot more. They cause trouble at school, work less, commit more crime. And, there’s more than just the financial cost to consider; unhappy families mean a more fractured, less safe society with high criminal justice and social welfare costs. Whatever the reason people have children, it makes no sense to punish them for it.
Under the current Society Security proposals, a breastfeeding mother will be forced to start weaning her child from the breast at three months to prepare for work. She’ll be worrying about the cost and availability of childcare. She’ll be hreading the research about the effects of putting very small babies into nursery.
At this stage, she should be concentrating on her baby, on coping with the transition to motherhood, on bonding with the child – on laying the foundations for this new person to become a well adjusted member of society; and that’s what it’s all about isn’t it?
Why would a wealthy island like Jersey not want to promote the best chances for its children?
Report abuse
what about teenage and under age pregnancy ???
Report abuse
#5 “All mothers would feel good knowing their taxes will help other mothers.”
Seriously? What about non-mothers? Should people feel good when their money goes to help others buy non-essentials?
Some think Martin is living in the dark ages. And of course I don’t agree with workhouses, but things have gone far too far the other way in the UK. Why on earth should anyone be paid for NOT working? It’s completely illogical. Thing is, if someone makes themselves invaluable in their workplace then their employer may well (as happens for some women in the USA) make them some kind of offer to ensure they can come back to work. After all, no business will want to lose out on a great employee. So surely these proposed maternity laws just protect those who haven’t made themselves invaluable in their workplace?
And when will people realise it’s not about the children, this is all about parents having their cake and eating it. People want to have children but don’t want to save up a few years beforehand when that money could be going on holidays abroad! I would challenge people to look at those around them who are in receipt of taxpayer’s money and assess how many non-essentials they own. THIS is where our money is going and it needs to stop.
Let’s means-test everyone who wishes to receive taxpayer’s money and ensure that our money only goes to those that are genuinely having to go without life’s basics.
#30 Unhappy children are the result of BAD parents, not (financially) POOR parents!
Report abuse
#25 Well said Cathy! It’s rare that a parent voices the ‘other side’ of the debate, and when they do they are usually the owner of a small business themselves.
We need to find a way to separate work and family life, no business should ever be expected to fund someone’s life choice, that’s not what ‘work’ is about. If the Government want to do so then they should pay maternity leave (at a set rate, not giving more to those who normally earn more), but the same leave (under a different title obviously) should be available to ALL employees! Jersey has the opportunity to show that they care about ACTUAL equality and not the farce that Europe is trying to force on everyone.
Report abuse
#13 Hacked off, this is the thing I don’t get.
My partner and I are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We both earn far (with a capital f) less than average for this island. YET, I have done the maths and if we wanted children we could have made different lifestyle choices over the last few years and saved up to allow me a year off work on maternity (and we haven’t been any holidays or bought any gadgets in this time, nor do we use the car when we could walk).
What are other people spending their money on exactly? And why aren’t we expecting them to save that money, instead, for having children? It’s what our parents and grandparents did, why is that suddenly considered wrong? It’s true that we’re not in the dark ages, apparently we’re in some incredibly selfish and entitled era where people want to have their cake and eat it! Insane, utterly insane.
Report abuse
Mrs Bleaney, I think you’re missing the point. I am sure most of us believe in doing the best for the interests of our children. The point here is that it should NOT be down to the employer to pay for the privilege (on what is effectively a tax lottery).
Report abuse
28 and 29….You might actually like working for me. I have many staff who have been with me for decades whereas most employees move from job to job these days.I support the need to care for and nurture children in a family enviroment. I would welcome the use of taxes to support this aim and would be happy to pay more tax if our tax-take was used for worthy causes rather than lineing the pockets of useless senior states management.
Just Joe @ 34 is spot-on with his comment.
Report abuse
Artical 1 Martin
You should be in the States thats why this islsnd is way behind the rest of the real world with narrow minded people like you.
Report abuse
All you people who think that someone else should pay you for having your children. Instead of fleecing taxpayers and fueling inflation by causing businesses to budget for your breeding habits, if your cause is so worthy, why not set up a charity? You could call it “support a parent” charity and the majority of you who think it is such a worthy cause can freely and I am sure, generously, donate.Obviously free education and tax perks for your children isn’t enough. You’ll be wanting us to clothe them for you next.
Report abuse
#30 You have missed the point entirely. Disagreeing with maternity pay doesn’t mean you don’t want what is best for children, it means you have a different idea of what is best for children.
You go on about poverty, how many people in Jersey would drop into poverty levels without maternity pay? A handful possibly, and it would be right to help them of course.
We need to go back to a blank sheet of paper and look at this matter logically rather than just copying the UK or the EU (who, as someone pointed out, are financially worse off than Jersey!) Where is the evidence that parents are struggling to afford to put food on the table for their children? Where is the evidence that more money makes for a more loving childhood and stable upbringing? There is none!
Children need love, attention and discipline not more money.
If the taxpayer helps fund your child then surely the taxpayer has the right to some guarantees that you are going to raise your child well, that your child won’t become a burden on the State (either living off benefits through choice or ending up in jail)? If you don’t raise your child well will you pay the taxpayer back?
If we want children to be raised in a more stable environment then rather than giving their parents more money we need to be teaching their parents about child development, we need couples with children to be staying together instead of separating off into numerous families.
Why don’t we sort all this and THEN look and see if maternity pay is still needed?
For those of you who cannot do the maths maternity pay is going to cost everyone. It may be free money for you but every single one of your colleagues will pay for it. The money won’t come out of the rich bosses’ profits, rather your colleagues won’t get their pay rise in line with inflation, they won’t get their Christmas bonus, we may even need to consider lowering the minimum wage. Your maternity pay may put another family into poverty.
Report abuse
What a bunch of mean people….I am origanally from Jersey, but had my child in the UK and Thank god I did. I had the time to bond with my child and spend Quality time with him before I went back to work part time, oh yes, by the way there is also a law over here for flexible working if you wish to request it to. We all go on about the youth of today well if we don’t have time to spend with our kids in the most vital years then there is a great saying if you compalain about the children of today just look whose bringing them up. The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, yet more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life. We’ve added years to life not life to years. We’ve been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We’ve done larger things, but not better things.
We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We’ve conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; big men and small character; steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce; fancier houses but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
Remember to say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn’t cost a cent.
Remember to say “I love you” to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind
Report abuse
Simon Murray the new new Chairman of Glencore, a highly successful international company, siad in the Dail Telegraph, “Pregnant ladies have nine months off. Do you think that means that when I rush out, what I’m absolutely desperate to have is young women who are about to get married in my company, and that I really need them on board because I know they’re going to get pregnant and they’re going to go off for nine months?”
I think Mr. Murray knows what he is talking about – he certainly has a lot more busines business acumen than most people who have posted their views on this message board. Dr. Moran needs to join the real world.
I am not saying women are unintelligent, or incapable – I know different. What I am saying is maternity leave cripples buisness and if women are to be paid whilst they are off work to have a baby, it should be the States that pays.
Report abuse
Billy – Apart from the first few words I totally agree with your comment and think it is very thought provoking – di yo write it yourself?
I would like to ask a question?
When you took your maternity leave did you work for a small or large company and how did it affect your work colleagues? This isn’t a dig, I have already said I can see both sides, I would just really like to know the opinion of someone who has been through the UK system.
Report abuse
#38 Leah Holmes, of course you’re not going to see the evidence of people struggling to feed their children, you clearly surround yourself with people without children. Surely you don’t believe that if you can’t see it, it’s not happening?! I know so many families who are counting the pennies at the end of the month, and yes, going without themselves so that they can feed their children. But the thing with you is, no one can say anything either way. If I say I have enough to feed my children, I’m being selfish for taking money off the tax payer through maternity leave. If I say i can’t afford to feed them, you tell me I shouldn’t have had children in the first place, and again, am being selfish.
I once read something someone had written which I’ll never forget. Taking advice from Leah Holmes about children (having children, anything to do with children!) is like taking advice from a virgin about having sex.
Report abuse
Martin is quite correct – why should people who chose not to have children have to pay for others who do?
Anyway – as happens in the UK – all women of child bearing age will tend not to be employed (especially by small companies who can’t afford this). This is a shame a waste of good people
As usual – good intentions actually harm the people it tries to protect as there is a real world out there not a dream world
Report abuse
39 – Billy…
Enough already! Give us a break. Please go preach loving thoughts and comparisons of then and now somewhere else.
Report abuse
Mrs.Bleaney the island is not wealthy as a whole. The vast majority are not well off. The wealth resides in a few rich peoples’ hands. Their wealth is further increased by favourable tax concessions, encouraged by the government, which is composed of quite a few rich people.
Billy it is down to too much greed I’m afraid and it is encouraged by the captilistic system which worships at the alter of the money god.
People are too easily led, believing all the rubbish about the work hard become rich propaganda. This is but a pipe dream for the vast majority. It is time to wake up and realise the whole lot is a sham.
Anyway the way things are going everything will implode, then reality will set in. Hopefully this will occur before the planet is destroyed by over exploitation.
As for employers they have an easy rid in Jersey, the work regulations are inferior to the UK, and this benefits the enployers making their businesses more profitable. More profit means more wealth for the owners than otherwise would be the case in the UK. Workers meanwhile have the odds further stacked against them.
Report abuse
Billy, Do you write this stuff for printing on tea towels, or did you copy it from a framed parchment hanging on the wall at the old folks pop-in-parlour?
Report abuse
As usual on the subject of having kids and who should pay for them, I find myself totally in agreement with No Kid Joe @ 18 – he always speaks extremely good sense.
But a standing ovation this thread should also go to DogsBody @ 37 for his excellent suggestion – so succinctly put. His comment may possibly have been made tongue in cheek but the gist of what he said seems to be to make good sense.
Unfortunately, the namby-pamby society that we are stuck with today seems to have developed and nurtured the idea that the financial burden of everyone’s indiscriminate breeding should be fairly shared amongst ‘everybody else’, regardless of whether that ‘everybody else’ actually agrees, or even intends to benefit from this rather generous system themselves or not.
Although I got a tinsy bit lost in the whole of his/her post, The Jersey Bull @ 24 made a couple of valid points when they wrote:
“This issue (maternity leave) 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”
and went on to say
“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!’ ”
Well not everyone thinks it should be so!
I realise that after this post there will be absolutely no danger of me winning any popularity prizes, or for my being voted star member of the caring society. In addition, if we were still in biblical times I would probably be stoned to death for daring to voice such an opinion, but this is a discussion forum and having read (suffered reading) many of the above posts, I fully intend to have my say to support “the other side” …. (JEP moderators allowing of course
)
It already rankles me that a large portion of the Social Security I have no choice in paying every month goes towards supporting others in having as many children as they want. In my opinion if you want to breed, then go ahead – PROVIDING YOU CAN AFFORD TO DO SO without expecting everyone else to financially support you.
If you (i.e. mummy or daddy – let’s be P.C.) want extended time off work to “bond” with your little darling as is currently available to UK employees, then factor that into the cost of having the child and give up work for the required amount of time – you know … like they did in the old days!!
No one should really expect the employer to be financially disadvantaged for your life choice, after all he had no choice in your decision to go ahead and have the child. And whilst your colleagues may outwardly be supportive thrilled by your “delicate condition”, do you really think they will relish the thought of covering your job for months on end, or alternatively training up and working with temporary cover for the duration of your extended absense? I don’t think so!!
Many reading this will no doubt think that my views as above are harsh, cruel, uncaring – maybe even unbelieveably selfish and that I am a nasty piece of work? Well that’s OK – because everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is mine, and I know that there are many others that feel the same as I do – they just prefer not to publish their thoughts quite so directly.
Which brings me back to DogsBody’s post …
I think it would be an excellent idea if some kind of fund, charity or insurance policy? whatever you want to call it, were to be be set up where all like minded, (i.e.most people), who plan to raise a family/have children (not necessarily the same thing by todays standards!!) will contribute higher Social Security payments – (those that do not intend to breed can opt out)- during their early working years, and after their return to work, to “save up for” their maternity benefits / extended maternity leave as desired? thus relieving their employers, colleagues and non-breeders of the responsibility for the cost and disruption of their child rearing.
What are your thoughts?
Report abuse
Why should Employers pay for staff to have children ?
Report abuse
I had my baby 6 months ago. 2 wks before due date I was “relieved” of duty at work as I had no job to go back to after the baby was born, I worked for a small company who stated they could not afford to pay me a maternity package or even offer me my job back afterwards for me to have kept my job I could have only had 2 wks off as holiday. I received a state maternity benefit a total of 15 wks and it would only have been 13 if my baby wasn’t late.
If I lived in the UK i) my job would have been safe & ii) I would have received more wks for maternity benefit. I’ve never received a benefit apart from one sick chq since I started work at 16 years old, I’ve always paid into the system and it would have been nice to receive the same as what the UK etc get but to be honest receiving something is better than nothing at all!
Report abuse
A complete aside from the above comments but to be given serious consideration.
Whatever is decided, please consider extending the same maternity benefits to the very small number of mothers each year who lose their babies later on in pregnancy. To go through labour knowing that your baby will die soon after birth or is already dead is very traumatic and they will absolutely need this time off to deal with their very deep and painful grief after this very devastating experience.
Report abuse
having read some of these posts, my heart now really bleeds for those poor employers and business owners that we as a community owe so much to. please don’t stop striving to create the glorious culture we live in – it must be so hard to cope with the fact that you have to deal with human issues in your workforces, and when that interferes with the true aim of business and the bottom line, it must be crippling for you. thank you martin for so clearly pointing out that my life depends on people like you – i can sleep safely knowing your there for me. thankyou for being so giving.
Report abuse
1. Why does or should Jersey do what UK and Europe do, as if what they do is correct, morally, socially, economically? Never mind the issue, just stop thinking we need to do it all the same – Jersey is not UK and not EU, and should look at this as an opportunity.
2. On the issue I am with Martin, JJ and others, and a good employee will find she can go back to work some time after the birth – why not welcome the ability to discuss this with the employed than have the state arrange it all?
3. No one is better than a mother to bring up a child in its first few years. Somehow the 20th and 21st century have got to the point that people seem to need two wages to survive – this would be something more useful to tackle than saddling employers with paid maternity leave.
4. Dave #19 makes a very good point, and such a scheme could incorporate maternity leave. It would give everyone the right to have a breather from time to time – in academia they call it a ‘sabbatical’
Report abuse
Some questions for those in support of maternity pay:
1) Are you willing to be responsible for the redundancies that some companies will have to make?
2) Where do you draw the line, do you think a company should pay for 4 lots of maternity leave to one woman?
3)Has it crossed your mind that maybe instead of being little sheep Jersey should start with a blank bit of paper and come up with its own solution, the UK/EU are clearly getting something wrong given the **** they are in?
4) Are you happy for you daughter (or wife/girlfriend) to be discriminated against when she starts applying for jobs? (This happens in the UK due to maternity leave.)
5) Do you think it fair that someone commit at least a full 3 years to a company before even getting pregnant to qualify for maternity leave? On that same vein, they should then contribute another 2 full years (if with the same employer, 3 for a new employer) before any subsequent pregnancy? 15 months is really taking the proverbial and will be too tempting for some women to not abuse it.
6) Are you happy to pay back your maternity pay if you decide not to return to work after all?
7) Would you consider that if we are going to be a non-discriminatory nation that we allow EVERYone 18 months paid leave from work (from a fund we pay into) to take in whatever form and for whatever reason they wish? That’s enough for 2 kids and allows the dads the same time as the mums.
#42 Awwww Easter Bunny that good old myth that you have to be a parent to know anything about children. Apart from having been one I’ve helped raise more than I can even remember half the time. Maybe your experience is limited to your two or three kids rather than learning from lots of different kids.
Report abuse
Its not just the money but the people who these loving caring mums work with then have to carry the can every time they go off on maternity leave and also when each child suddenly has toothache, tummy ache etc. Those things can’t be helped but to have so much time off and get paid as well is outrageous.
Report abuse
if you want children its your choice save for them, i dont want kids but i think its therefore against my human rights for me to be able to take 18 weeks off unpaid to find myself-
why does everyone want everyone else to paid for their choices
Report abuse
@45 Adrian you have so summed it up, and unlike a lot who choose to attack what valid points you make I am with you, you have also highlighted the fact that this is an employers market which also brings us onto the ‘lazy locals’ our facist immigrants so openly keep slating.
Maybe the ‘lazy locals’ are fed up of being treated like idiots and think why work with smiling assasins who will push them out anyway? Win win for the employer he doesn’t give a toss as long as the tills are ringing and his mortgage and fancy holidays are paid for??!! So great this do-gooder (who unfortunately is another making things more difficult for LOCALS) has really thought about immigration and enforcing employment to have maternity perks. Somebody get the woman an ice cream cone to plonk on her forehead!! Do any of this people have any common sense AT ALL?????
Report abuse
Cathy 41. I worked for a an organization which employs about 500 people across the UK and it is a registered Charity. As far as I can see it did not effect my work collegues. It actaully gave someone the opportunity to cover my post fixed term for Maternity Leave, they got experience and also got out of the benefit system. I can only think Maternity Leave and pay is a positive thing, but that’s my view. Jersey is a very different place and very far behind the times in alot of things. Better to value your worker. Hoo hum Good luck to all fighting for this campaign.
Report abuse
Just to add to these comments you go on about people claiming Income support. I am not surprised as this is all you can do…and another thing do people no how expensive nursey places are. What a crazy little Island you live in. So glad I saw the light and left it,to enjoy time with my 15 month old son.
Report abuse
Look at the broader picture.
Think about it: if you help get one woman back into work having a baby you actually increase the number of people in the workforce by more than one. The woman works in her job and another person is paid to look after her child/children, (perhaps even another to clean her house if she’s lucky). All these people pay taxes and therefore more money is collected in tax than if you had all women looking after their own children.
Helping women back into work partly justifies the money spent educating them in the first place and educated mothers bring up balanced children. A year of leave is a small proportion of a woman’s life (>80 years)
Most employers hope to have employees to employ in 20 years time and therefore children need to be produced.
For these reasons I fully support efforts to enable to get back into the workplace if they choose to do so.
I can understand that small businesses suffer when women take leave – perhaps they should be offered more support from the extra taxes reaped by getting more people in the workforce. Other possibilities such as flexible working and job sharing may also help.
Report abuse
No 56. Lazy Locals are not idiots, they know the system (income support housing etc) and use/abuse the system.
Report abuse
#57 Of course it helps the individuals who fill in for maternity leave, would anyone argue with that? But, not everyone will have people fill in, some employers will just dump the work on existing employees and without giving them extra pay. Also you missed the cost to the employer of paying out twice (for the employee on leave AND the person covering). Then there that some businesses will tell you a new employee’s mistakes cost the employer more than they benefit them for the first 6 months (general time for maternity cover). And now there is the chance that if you provide cover for 26 weeks you will legally be defined as an employee and be entitled to redundancy pay, even though you were only brought in for maternity cover!
I don’t understand why the States want to penalise companies, and this will hit small businesses very hard. Or why they wish to make the workplace discriminate against women more than it already does.
Also, those of you that currently whinge on about lazy people in the public sector, you can be sure the public sector will offer the best maternity benefits, so guess where all the women that want an easy ride will go? And do expect them to get pregnant the very minute they know they will qualify! All this already happens in the UK, it will happen here.
Report abuse
#61 (and #57),
Leah: In the UK the government reimburses companies for the statutory maternity pay they pay to employees so you can’t really claim that companies are paying twice!
Yes, babies are inconvenient to employers however they are good for the economy which is good for the company and you. They will become the doctors, bankers, lawyers, accountants etc. who will look after you and ensure your pension maintains value when you are old. (Bear in mind that those who did not have parental breaks will still pull more pension than parents that took leave to have children so will still be better off in the long-run, won’t have other parenting expenses and can feel quietly smug)
Report abuse
57. Billy
You are right that Jersey is a very different place. I have never lived in the UK so can only compare with the news, facts and figures available.
Jersey may be behind the Uk legislation in a number of ways but we have a very different economy and population. Whilst I can’t abide the narrow minded vitriol of someone like Vicki there are a number of ways Jersey has protected herself in a manner that many in the UK would have loved to see. We don’t have an influx of people who aren’t prepared to work and expect us to support their extended family, we don’t pay into the moneypit of the EU and we haven’t drowned in a benefits system that isn’t fit for purpose.
It is interesting that you worked for a firm of 500 employees and you are quite correct that it probably provided a fantastic opportunity for a colleague to step to the side, or up, and get valuable experience.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread of the 6,000+ firms in Jersey, over 4,000 have five or fewer employees which I believe is common in island communities. The extra cost to a small business could be devastating.
I do hope that Vicki’s rather sarcastic comment about mortgages paid and fancy holidays is correct – many of these people work 70/80 hours a week and deserve every fancy holiday they can get (often that they can’t take a holiday at all).
I would have loved maternity pay when having my children but I worked in Finance and in reality the business could have afforded it. If I was planning a family now, I know the small business I work for would really struggle to pay an absent staff member for six months and I know without doubt it would affect the pay review and moral of my colleagues.
I don’t know what the answer is but in this instance I think the States have tried to find a median and I think they have given more than was available before, without hopefully affecting the small businesses that are the fabric of this island.
Report abuse
42 Easter Bunny –
I once read something someone had written which I’ll never forget. Taking advice from Leah Holmes about children (having children, anything to do with children!) is like taking advice from a virgin about having sex.
The subject being discussed is one group of people making a lifestyle choice that is funded by their employer. Children just happen to be the choice they are making, it could equally be allowing smokers 4 X 15 minute breaks daily with non smokers getting no such concession.
You don’t have to have children to know that your colleague taking 6 months paid leave which not only are you not entitled to have but you have to work harder to cover their absense is an unfair proposal.
Report abuse
53 Leah, it’s interesting how you completely ignored the first part of what I said and just went straight in to patronising mode. It worries me that you have ‘forgotten’ half of the kids you’ve looked after, but I guess if they don’t interest you then that’s the least we can expect.
But aside from that, I wondered what people thought of Paternity leave? My husband had two weeks paid when we had our child (yes, I have just one, so don’t get on your high horse), do you think this unfair also? It gave me the chance to recover from a traumatic birth, and gave him bonding time with the baby.
Report abuse
I have been out of the workplace for 15 yrs bringing up three children.My husband works full time but we have had to forgo a lot of luxuries .When my youngest starts secondary school I will go back to work.I believe women should look after there own children,old fashioned I know but I also agree with many others that small businesses should not be financially penalised by maternity leave.
Report abuse
#24 The Jersey Bull states “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”
The last paragraph of that posting then calls the “Maternity Leavers” a Socialist Group ! Have I missed something ? By the same token is Deputy Gorst now a Socialist for proposing the legislation, is The Chief Minister tarred with the red brush for giving it his support ?
In my edition of the JEP I did not see Dr Moran or Advocate Corbett stating that this was just the first step to the means of production,distribution, and exchange being owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Adios Companeros
Report abuse
I am a parent. I am also pregnant with our second child that we can afford to have on my husbands wage. When she goes to school i go back to work, am having no more children so no worry about maternity pay for me
Personally i think the paid maternity leave in the uk is completely over the top. Far too long as funded
Report abuse
#65 Still trolling Easter Bunny
I did counter the first part of your argument but not all posts are being published. So sorry to ruin your thought on that one.
Why could your husband’s 2 weeks paid leave not have come from his holiday entitlement? Isn’t the blessing of having a child a good use of holiday?
You didn’t read my post properly, I did not state that I had forgotten half the children I helped, rather that (like naming the 7 dwarves) if I was to try and name them all in one go I would undoubtedly miss some.
But your probably one of those people that thinks a parent with one child knows more about children than teachers, doctors, psychologists, nannys etc.
I know it’s an unusual concept these days, but children aren’t actual aliens, there’s no myth surrounding them, they’re exactly the same species as us adults, maybe you struggle to hark back to how you felt and how you viewed things when you were a child but I consider it important to try and put yourself in a child’s shoes and see situations as they would see them (something I notice many adults don’t bother to do). It is probably why I find children take to me. I’m just not like those people that lie by saying ‘I love children’ because frankly I don’t love children like John Venables and Robert Thomson and I’m not going to claim that all children are lovely little beings, some are born evil (it’s called sociopathy and can be hereditary, so yes they are born that way). I will like a child same way I like an adult, on merit!
And it probably bursts your bubble to know that a lot of parents agree with my sentiment. Not all parrnts just rub their hands with glee imagining more money going into their bank account.
Also, the CIA state that 1/4 of the world population are children, we have plenty, it is the geographical distribution we need to sort out. And it’s great to think they will all be doctors, nurses etc. but it’s far from the truth, many more will be in dead-end jobs or involved in petty crime than will contribute to society in that way. Hence why I prefer to put the focus on proper parenting rather than just throwing more money at parents that are already failing in their duty. If you have a problem with that you really do have a problem.
Report abuse
Re # 66, stay at home mums are from an era when couples with children and mortgage received generous persoanl tax allowances.
Not anymore with 20 means 20 – All hands on deak for the majority I am afraid to say.
Report abuse
So what does about the other 3 in 4 Leah? Are they young or old?
The demographic is being pushed towards an increasing average age. When the third world gets to the same level as the west they will probably follow the same path of less children. What then?
It was only 3 generations or so ago that British families had plenty of children families of 6 to 12 were not uncommon. Now 2 is the norm.
Today’s children are tomorrows workers and there aren’t enough of them as it is.
Report abuse
69 Leah, actually sociopathy is commonly believed to be a result of sociological factors, possibly upbringing, neglect, trauma, poverty (hence socio…), I believe you are thinking of Psychopathy.
Report abuse
Hi Adrian,
Hope you don’t mind me butting in but you always put a smile on my face
I thought for consistency sake you would be compaining about over population and the fact that too many children means not enough jobs for future generations as work becomes increasingly automated. Instead, you totally shock me and do the opposite!
Report abuse
#71 Adrian, unfortunately if we go down that route then the next generation will have a worse ageing population problem. If they solve it by having more kids then the generation after that has an even worse ageing population problem and so it goes on and on. The world doesn’t get any bigger during that time, yet we’ll need even more resources despite already struggling for some key resources.
I’d prefer that my generation and a couple of others take ‘the hit’ financially (in our pensions) and let population levels go back to a sustainable level. It wouldn’t necessarily even be that awful, we’d just have to accept that we wouldn’t have the luxury retirement that a lot of the baby boomer generation have had, more something like what our grandparents or great grandparents had. Availability of money was a big part of why population growth spiralled out of control around the indusrtial revolution, it makes sense that a lack of money would bring it back to a more sensible level.
Don’t allow yourself to forget that a population will die out from too many people just as it will from too few people. Stabilise population growth, keep the population level and the human race continues on, and continues on with a better quality of life than we know today. Keep growing it at the rate it is growing just now and future generations won’t thank us for it. The human race will still die out, but a heck of a lot of humans will suffer greatly while that is happening. I guess your view on this depends whether you care what happens to people you don’t even know (and never will) or whether you care mostly about what happens to you personally. Worth noting we’re bang on track for the UN’s HIGH estimate for population levels (as calculated back in the 90s) follow that path and it means half again by 2050! That’s say 165,000 people in Jersey, and not much under 100 million in the UK!
Report abuse
#72 No Easter Bunny I’m not, both psychopathy and sociopathy are believed to be partly inherited. Sociopathy is diagnosed by someone displaying a set number of traits at a serious level. More than one of those traits is inherited. One of the biggest traits of sociopathy is, of course, narcissism, a trait that is accepted as being hereditary.
Psychopathy is slightly more down to genetic predisposition than sociopathy but both are genetic and environmental!
Guess it’s a moot argument since both terms are being ‘discontinued’ anyway
Report abuse
1) Do you think parents that adopt children should be given parental leave? In my view new parents need time to bond with kids. Adoptive parents cannot be accused of selfishly over populating the world and are doing their best to help kids born in less fortunate circumstances.
2) The people who are against parental leave seem to view children as a commodity (such as a car) that people choose to acquire. No I don’t expect to pay for my neighbours car but I really don’t mind contributing towards my neighbours children because they will become members of society that may contribute to my life later on.
Report abuse
I generally support Leah Holmes view that people
need to face the fact that there are more than enough people in the world now. Fifty years ago there were not. Paying people through benefits to have children has to stop.
If people’s children work and pay into the system to benefit those that have done the same by paying into the system but are retired. Why is it that many pensioners cannot afford heating in winter, and have such a low quality of life because of a shortage of money provided by the state? Exactly the opposite that was promised.
The system is fundamentaly flawed and is a not fit for purpose. The Gov. will never admit it.
A child born today will have see the population on earth double by the time he-she is seventy, thanks to weak population management by this and previous Governments always calling for growth.
Reference.
World Population growth rates.From the CIA and United Nations stored at wikipedia.
For example, at a 4 percent growth rate, a country’s population will double in about 18 years; at a 1 percent growth rate, it will take about 70 years. The average population growth rate for the world is 1.17%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Tim South.
Report abuse
I don’t believe it is fair for the employers to pay particularly the smaller ones. What I would like to know is how many women of child bearing age are there working in Jersey? Before we all start jumping up and down what are actual facts? How many employed women are actually having children – what would it actually cost the state?
There were 1066 babies born in 2010. Lets say half of these were born to working mothers (533) and the state provided two weeks money of £250 that would be £266,500 divided by 50,000 working people would equate to one a off payment of £5.33 from each working person. I would happy pay four times that once a year to working mums to allow them to have a little more time in comfort with their babies.
As for anyone who thinks that women will suddenly all start popping out kids because they will get two weeks pay – maybe you need to think about that some more it seems rather unlikely don’t you think?
We all need to consider our responsibilities not only to ourselves but to our fellow man – that means ensuring that we live in a world where children are supported – lets face it living in Jersey is tough financially and surely it should not only be the privilege of the very well off to have our future generation.
Report abuse
#76 1) Definitely Tiff, also, 2 weeks’ paternity leave for adoption isn’t enough given that adopted kids are usually a good bit older than new-borns, and they can come with problems.
2) “that may contribute to my life later on” Problem with that is we are being forced to contribute to the parents of some children for whom there is only the remotest chance they will ever contribute anything to society! Shouldn’t we maybe sort that issue out first? Not sure anyone is against parental leave, the disagreement is over who should pay for it. There is no logic to making the employer pay. If you were an employer would you happily pay more than 2 lots of maternity leave to one woman? Once maternity pay was implemented wouldn’t you consider men a better prospect among job applicants? Would you pay any new mum’s colleagues appropriately for the extra work they had to do to cover for her absence?
I don’t view children as a commodity which is why I wouldn’t say the best way to support (or show that we support) children is to throw more money at them. Throwing money at people is a Government’s way of pretending to care without actually taking the difficult (vote-losing) decisions that show they really do care.
#78 You’ve stated that it would be good to get the facts. I totally agree, I believe the States should means-test and work out who just says they cannot afford to have children and who actually cannot afford to have children. I stick by taxpayers’ money only going to people who genuinely need it, when they need it. That frees up money to do things like improve the facilities in schools, or to provide social workers to help those parents who haven’t had good parents of their own to learn from.
Report abuse