03 October 2006
Women will be able to take a year’s maternity leave even if they get pregnant on the first day of a new job, according to controversial new laws.
The new rules, introduced on Sunday, were slammed by business groups which fear they will cause chaos for companies around the country.
In a further blow, they force firms with less than five staff to keep open a job for a woman who takes maternity leave.
Under the old regime, small firms – which find maternity leave more difficult than larger firms – were exempt if a woman took more than six months’ off.
A spokesman for the Forum of Private Business said: “It leaves small firms open to abuse from employees who start a new job in full knowledge that they intend to take leave early in their employment.”
A woman can now join a firm on Monday, get pregnant on Tuesday and take a full year’s maternity leave.
Ah yes, nothing like being a woman and getting the good part of work (pay) without the bad part (like, erm…working.) Granted, the last 13-weeks of a 12-month leave is unpaid, but for most mothers that’ll just mean hubby/boyfriend will have to work extra hard to cover her loss of earnings for that period.
These are further incentives for any Brits wanting to start a business to emigrate first. In the meantime, full-time workers (men, and women who are actually in the workplace) are left working extra hard to cover for these women. At my workplace there were five women on maternity leave at one point earlier this year, one of them on her third baby in a decade. Of the two who have since come back to work, both come in late and fuck off early, but without any deduction in pay.
This nation is going down the toilet economically, all in a rush to ensure women can have it all, even if it means us men have fuck all. Except responsibility.
I’ve even overheard a woman at work say she was deliberately putting off having a baby until this new law comes into effect, just so she can get the extra six-months off. Nevermind that it’ll hurt the company she works for. After all, that’s Someone Else’s Problem.
Another popular new rule are 10 ‘Keeping in Touch’ days, which allow a woman to go into work during her time off without losing her maternity pay.
How pathetic. Only women could need shit like ‘Keeping in Touch’ days in the workplace. When us men work, we just have ‘Go To Work Days’ every workday. Simple and productive. Not that there’s any incentive for us to really work anymore, save for supporting ourselves. Feminism has removed our incentives and role as providers (but not our responsibilities of providing) so fuck it, let’s provide for no-one but ourselves.
It comes as research shows employment laws introduced by Labour since 1998 have cost the British economy around £37 billion, according to the CBI.
Britain still has an economy?
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:27 AM
At 10:49 AM, Trescius said…
Yes of course. It’s on life support but no one has pulled the plug… yet.
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous said…
This can literally destroy a small Business.
Imagine a Business with 6 Employees, one female. The threshold is 5 Employees.
The female gets pregnant and continues to receive 90% of her pay as if she was still working.
The employer needs a replacement that costs 100% of the same pay. Now the company has in principle 7 Employees while just 6 are working for one year.
A small company cannot support such expenses.
Now imagine the same company with 6 employees and two females. Both get leave – what happens obviously?
The Business is closed, 4 employees and their boss loose their job.
This is irresponsible and destroys a needed trust between employer and employee like the marriagelaws destroyed the trust between wife and husband.
At 1:53 PM, Bernie said…
Maximum maternity benefits for six months of leave (approx.)(CAD)
By far, Sweden allows the most time for maternity leave. Norway offers the most generous benefits.
At 3:46 PM, Captain Zarmband said…
I can tell you (as a businessman) what this new law will do. It will make women of childbearing age virtually unemployable in the private sector. Small firms cannot afford to pay people to stay at home for the best part of a year. It’s OK for government type jobs because they exist to spend taxpayer’s money and do little else.
So the solution is easy. Only employ females who are past childbearing age or better still only employ blokes. Personally, I took the decision to go it alone and I only employ close family members now as the current climate of worker rights has gone to a ridiculous extent. As this new law starts to bite just watch what happens.
At 4:01 PM, ColdHammer said…
I think it’s a-bout time to leave mother Britain, eh? How about Canada? Oh, wait, that’s still part of the Queen’s Dominion where the UK laws will spread aka Commonwealth Rules. I think everyone should start their own companies, for example: John Doe Co. and just hire himself and no one else. How sickening to know that double standards for men and women are becoming stronger with each passing day. We, men, must fight back or just run away to another country. Then again, I fear that this chaos, er, I mean plague will continue to spread all across the globe.
Why does this sound like we’re in the game: Command and Conquer? Are the we men both the GDI and NOD (fighting factions, Dems vs Reps, West vs East, etc) while the womyn are the tiberium, the shiny valuable substance that sucks up all the nutrients in the ground and can make mere mortals mutate in flesh eating amoebas? We men must unite and fight back this “tiberium” for it has come out of this world and destroying our world!
At 4:19 PM, BJ said…
This is going to work against women. Everything being equal, an employer will choose a male over a female. Especially small businesses.
Also check this out.
Common sense may be making a comeback!
At 4:36 PM, nevo said…
Of course it has!!!
A matriarchal one!!
We the slave eunuch, do the toiling.
At 4:56 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…
Precisely. Provide for no one but yourself. Get off of societies treadmill, and buy toys. Computer games. Motorcycles. Model railroads. Then more motorcycles.
I do all of this stuff, and it irritates the hell out of the women I know- especially the married women. They can’t stop me, and I stand as an example of what their husbands missed by getting married, and it drives them batty.
Stay single and play. I’ll never grow up.
At 5:06 PM, byrdeye said…
Thing is, humans evolved gender role specialization to maximize efficiency and quality.
Whereas, modern feminism seeks to dismantle all that into androgynous multi-tasking, which is may seem “socially” progressive, but is actually evolutionarily regressive.
The end result being that such feminist societies LOSE productivity and quality – in BOTH the workplace & family life. Now, everyone has to work much more for far less. This is evidenced by the £37 billion loss as well as fissioning nuclear families and a generation of kids born without daddies.
Great job, feminists! For your own bitter egocentricity and personal gain, you have succeeded in destroying the rest of society worse than any WMD. In fact, your brand of toxic feminism is one of the world’s ultimate WMDs…
At 9:32 PM, phoenix said…
How would this work against women? They’ll just sue for sexual discrimination. Anytime women aren’t hired a certain percentage of time, some feminist will sue that company. This is what happens when a genuinely powerful entity invokes minority rights. White women have historically been the most powerful group on the planet, and now with the victimhood complex they can increase their power even more. There is still some racism in the world unfortunately, so I do sympathise with minorities in some cases, but that just goes to show you the differences in power. Minorities with programs still don’t even begin to reach what women have gotten. Both claim they are disadvantaged, the only difference is that only one of those groups ever has been.
At 10:25 PM, pete said…
This is so radical it is definitely going to provoke some kind of backlash. I can only wait. There’s not much I can say, its so nonsensical and biased its shocking.
That article bj linked was interesting. The headline gave away the bias from the get-go. Instead of saying “Firms ‘can pay women the same as men with similar work experience'” it outright says that firms can pay women less, with no qualifiers.
Its not paying women less, its paying them the same that a man would earn in the same position, with the same amount of work experience!
At 12:25 AM, Anonymous said…
Feminism has removed our incentives and role as providers (but not our responsibilities of providing)
That is the essence.