I am about to offend those who are fans of the politically correct, and especially my feminist sisters. I’m about to rant about paid maternity leave, and chances are you’re not going to like it.
But read on anyway.
Paid maternity leave (I’m focusing on the mum’s version of this and you’ll see why) is a great thing to advance the working options for mothers.
In theory.
In practice, yes it does bring many benefits, but at what cost? At what cost to the way women are hired in the future?
This is not about the principal of maternity leave itself. Of course mothers should get time off work to have a baby. It’s not a walk in the park – I know, I’m a mother. Taking leave from your job and knowing it will still be there when you head back to the workplace is comforting and necessary.
But who should pay for what?
Basically the Government’s plan for most new mums is 18 weeks at the federal minimum wage ($544 per week), while the Greens wanted that upped to cover 26 weeks.
Interestingly the Coalition was looking at not just 26 weeks of paid leave, but leave paid at the mum’s actual income (up to $150,000pa – that’s a LOT of nappies and formula!) which would have been funded via a levy on business.
Why business should cop that charge still eludes me, especially as there are already costs borne by business in relation to parental leave.
This discussion is not about the UNPAID maternity leave entitlement – it’s about the PAID entitlement. There are all sorts of arguments going around the developed world about how wonderful this is for women’s working conditions, women’s rights and so on. And that’s all terrific.
Should businesses look at women of childbearing age in a different way when hiring? Of course they shouldn’t. That would be discrimination and that’s illegal. But WILL they look at these people through different eyes?
Here’s the situation faced by many businesses: they hire and train someone who one year on takes paid maternity leave – you now have to hire and train their replacement.
In some cases the employee can negotiate a part-time return, thus changing the workplace dynamic again.
In other cases where maternity conditions are particularly favourable (largely government and very large corporates) a woman can even get pregnant again while on unpaid leave and take more time.
So when a young woman walks through the door, resume in hand, do you think employers are ONLY looking at the notes in her CV, or are they also making note of her potential to take large chunks of expensive leave?
Could the irony in all this be that by creating comprehensive, advanced and generous maternity leave in Australia, we create a recruiting climate where women of that age are seen more as potential risks than company assets?
I would like to think we are above that sort of mindset.
Discrimination is illegal, and rightly so. I’m merely pointing out the reality of discussions which happen in real workplaces, with real bottom lines and real staffing pressures.
Posts
Don't think for one moment any sized business will absorb the cost from their profit margin. Business or Government paying, it still comes out of our pockets... either through higher prices 'on the shelves' or higher tax revenue directed to it. So let's not pretend it won't cost us, each and every consumer, something to implement however it is done.
ReplyDeleteNow to the actual leave - I don't think anyone should 'profit' from it, that is, earn more than they do on a regular week. So unemployed aren't given incentive to pop one out, for instance. A cap on upper limit should be there too, although that penalises those who earn (and perhaps work) more.
But to your actual question :P Working for a fed. Govt. department, it doesn't come into my thinking when hiring staff.
Previously I've run my own small business, 2-3 staff, in a regional centre. I'd be happy to give one of my staff maternity leave providing I wasn't financially penalised for it. If Govt paid the leave allowance through Centrelink or whatever, and I was free to hire again to replace that position while they were on maternity leave, then I'd have been happy to do so. I'd wear the associated cost of training, etc. in that process. It would not affect my decisions on hiring.
Of course, if it's in place universally then there won't be an option to discriminate on gender - there simply won't be enough of a 'male or non-child-bearing' workforce.
But it comes back to cost... are we, as a nation, ready to do this? If so, we'll all pay.
"Could the irony in all this be that by creating comprehensive, advanced and generous maternity leave in Australia, we create a recruiting climate where women of that age are seen more as potential risks than company assets"
ReplyDeleteI think this is already starting to happen. I have a very close friend who works in private enterprise, in a business traditionally staffed by women. They now avoid where at all possible, hiring females aged between about 20-30 for the very reasons you talk about.