Maternity/paternity leave
Right, for one, I completely understand why women are paid less than men- from a company's perspective they are a time bomb, sooner or later, they will have children, and will potentially have a paid year off, while you will have to hire someone to do that job, temporarily, effectively doubling (or more) your payroll costs for that position. They may well decide to stay at home at the end of that year, again meaning a costly search operation, and the difficulty of replacing a trained and experienced employee.

Basically as far as I'm concerned it's perfectly fair to pay women less, it just factors in the potential risks, and costs.

Your employer is not a charity.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd take paternity leave as the pay/conditions are laughable, who really earns less than £200 a week these days?
(comrade^, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 23:22, 18 replies)

Less than £200 a week?
Sadly lots of people.
( Mrs Entity is in hiding., Sun 3 Jan 2010, 23:27, closed)

Indeed.
Folk without a job, children, or supportive parents have to get by on about £36 per week.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 1:32, closed)

So if a woman is infertile she should be given equal pay then.
And yet... nup.
( vix0r was not Matthew on, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 23:57, closed)

that would be a hell of a way to find out if you were infertile
skip the waiting lists, apply for a job with a rigorous medical screening procedure.

I'm there
(maggotriddendirtbox fast, feral and sharp as a tack since, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 4:34, closed)

No paid paternity or for most no paid maternity leave here in Oz. The option would have been nice.
I have to admit that when I had staff it was always a consideration whether or not they would go off and breed after a year to get the leave that was offered.
(Snapper-head loves a twinky anytime but especially when it's, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 1:00, closed)

i can see it being a factor in terms of promotion (if say you need someone to head up a three year project, you dont want them buggering off after a year) , but i fail to see how it should affect the wages of a woman who all other things equal is doing the exact same job as a bloke, at the current time.

I can even understand how once people have had kids their commitment to work can suffer, but that's hardly female specific once the maternity leave is done and dusted, either.

Not every woman buggers off to have kids, nor do those that have kids invariably have to let their career suffer, same as not every bloke is a dedicated workaholic.
(Matty73, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 2:13, closed)

basing a salary on what someone 'might' do in the future
is that not stereotyping?

I can see how pregnant women might be 'inconvenient' to a business, then again, if you approach recruitment of staff purely from a mechanical standpoint of hours clocked, what kind of staff do you want? OK I've never worked in human resources and I know thats obvious

I for one, wouldn't want an employer who sees me just as a workmule as opposed to living breathing human being, but then, maybe I'm just idealistic.
(maggotriddendirtbox fast, feral and sharp as a tack since, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 4:38, closed)

Insurance premiums
are based on speculation of what you 'might' do in the future, and stereotyping, that's why young men pay the most. It's not a huge jump from there really.
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 15:50, closed)

Fuck sake, I clicked I like this by mistake.
You do realize that an employer can claim most, if not all, of SMP back from the Government.
And a temporary member of staff for maternity leave isn't likely to be paid as a long term member of staff.
( Maffers I flow kinda strange like Spina Bifida footprints, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 8:24, closed)

Didn't know that
It is stereotyping, but I just see it as risk compensation-that's all.

Didn't know the employer can claim back the pay though, that makes things a bit better. However, it's still not the governments responsibility to pay really.
(comrade^, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 9:10, closed)

It is the government's responsibility
they made the rules, and they charge us national insurance for such benefits
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 15:50, closed)

The temp won't be paid much
but the agency fees are huge. In some cases a company can pay £15 an hour for a temp who's recieving minimum wage
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 15:52, closed)

Let's just go back a few decades
And not let married women work at all. After all, nobody has a baby until they are wed anyway.
(Mrs Ballunatic counting calories, not votes., Mon 4 Jan 2010, 9:25, closed)

The pay gap generally kicks in after kids
Take a look at this paper: the long and short is that experienced workers are paid more, so if a woman takes herself out of the labour market to raise a child, she'll re-enter it at a disadvantage compared to her colleagues (male and female) who have continued working.

The Telegraph summarises the government's own statistical analysis of the pay gap, which points to it not really existing until women decide to have children.

There's a good round-up of other reasons for a perceived pay gap at economics blog Stumbling and Mumbling.

So women aren't, and shouldn't be, paid less because of gender and risk of pregnancy - but they do lose a competitive advantage if they leave work. The same would apply to a man who took a year off work to look after a child while the mother worked, or anyone who was off work for a long time because of illness: they'd lose ground on the competitors for jobs.
(Lapin, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 12:15, closed)

I'm going to be blunt.
If a woman works as hard as man, she damn well deserves the same pay as him. Not every woman is going to have children, so you can't generalise like that. I've just spent 4 years doing my degree and am about to spend another 4 doing my PhD, so after that, I damn well want to get paid as much as my male colleagues!! And it's in chemistry so there's going to be a fair few of them! I worked as hard as them to get that job and work as hard as them at it so I deserve the rewards from that, whether or not I might drop a sprog in the future or not.

And loads of people get paid less than £200 a week, I *live* off less than that a week. Get some perspective.
(Petite chien is going to do science to it, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 15:19, closed)

How about something like this:
When it comes to signing time for women (as only they can become pregnant) there are two basic contract types offered.

The first is your standard equal pay for equal work type, but the employee agrees not to get pregnant during the term of the contract. This assures the company that they won't lose a valuable employee, have to pay out wages and benefits for someone who isn't there, and all of the costs for getting a temp and training them, et cetera. As primates with brains, we have a certain amount of control over reproduction.

The second contract has the employee agree to accept a lower grade of pay for leaving open the option to get pregnant during the contract's duration. The difference between the standard and lower pay will be the company's estimated cost of loss of productivity and finding a replacement, et cetera. Note that the employee is not required to be or become pregnant during this time, she is just reserving the option.

If someone on the first type of contract is pregnant at the time or becomes pregnant, then apply whatever litigation is appropriate in your area for breach of contract.

Five percent of the employees where I work were off on maternity leave last year, and productivity took it on the chin. Taking some sort of responsibility seems reasonable.
(Ejaculantern was caught desecrating pumpkins on, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 6:13, closed)

This seems to presume...
Women are the only ones who decide they would like a baby, and their other half wasn't consulted. OK some women are not in a relationship when they have a baby (are gay and adopt, etc), but I would hope my fiancee is treated equally in the workplace when WE decide to have kids.
(Galahad is out of his gourd on yellow bentines, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 11:29, closed)

well you can fuck right off then
Last time I checked it took a man AND a woman to make a baby. Why should only one half of the pair suffer?
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 11:43, closed)