Now, of course, we know that it shouldn\’t be like this. The law is the law and everyone should obey it. Indeed, we know that simply by passing a law we solve a problem and there are never any unintended consequences.
Women are losing out on jobs because some businesses avoid hiring those of child-bearing age because of maternity laws, research claims.
Some 63 per cent of executives say they find regulations pose a \”serious threat\” to their companies.
Almost one in five directors says they have avoided hiring women of child-bearing age because of the legal risk of being caught out by constant changes in rules on maternity pay and time off.
Such discrimination is illegal. But whether it is or not isn\’t quite the point. If 20% of directors avoid hiring women of child bearing age because of the maternity rules then that\’s one fifth of the economy off limits to such women of child bearing age. This will obviously have an effect upon the wages on offer. Just more fuel for the fire that is the obvious thought: the gender pay gap is, at least in part, caused by the laws on maternity leave etc.
My my, what a surprise. Perhaps it isn\’t possible to have it all, perhaps there really are trade offs that have to be made in real life?
This also means that women coming back into the workforce after their children have fled the nest are now in demand.
So what actually are the rules on maternity pay?
“My my, what a surprise. Perhaps it isn’t possible to have it all, perhaps there really are trade offs that have to be made in real life?”
There’s no reason that parental leave has to be so heavily-biased towards women to the degree that it actually disrupts their job prospects. If employers knew that anyone of any gender “of child bearing age” might decide to have children, and discriminate accordingly, women would face better working prospects.