Hancock breaks ranks with attack on Equality Act

Same old Tories… RT @leftfootfwd: Hancock breaks ranks with attack on Equality Act: http://bit.ly/9exzjQ #cpc10

RT @leftfootfwd: Hancock MP attack on Equality Act http://bit.ly/9exzjQ Same day's work for same day's pay

Hmmm. Less sexism is obviously good, but pregnancy can slow a lass down in the workplace a bit. And that can effect her, erm, well, why she was employed. As she is distracted in the workplace by her new responsibilities. It may not be by much, but I could imagine it causing some problems. If she does her older ‘stress is fine’ style she may well make herself ill.

The unequal pay thing was where women needed more time off due to ze kids. But where so many ended up stitched up, or did not have kids, that is where this unfairness card came in. And if you aren’t planning on having kids it is unfair to take home less. That’s pretty obvious. Howevvah…

I’m wary about maternity leave though. It’s expensive. Full wage, and they need to get in a temp as well? So you’re costing 1.5 times the rate, and if working from home ( or working in the office carefully ) you may only produce 3/4 of the work.

Business-wise it doesn’t make sense. It’s in compassion that it makes sense. The math is well out, and we’re skint at the minute so firms will have less money to waste.

I’m thinking you need to save up with your employer, or agree to a lower rate of wage when away on maternity leave, to help your employer justify your protection ( and your job ). If you funded your temp for example that would help. But how would you fund it?

The logic says to save up. A Maternity Pension if you will. It could be with said employer, or you accruing savings privately to cover yourself for the ‘big year out’. It can be a whole year, and that’s the problem. And that’s a whole year of an employer paying 1.5 times the rate for 3/4 of the work. They’ll have you, although slower, and also an assistant for you.

I think it could work. But it does mean more people actually thinking ahead when it comes to marriage and ze sproggies. A ‘women’s deal’ if you will, to help the employer cover the cost of this ‘year out’, and also reduce the stigma IYSWIM. Men could also accrue this ‘credit’ for their couple of months out on Paternity Leave, so it could work.

So you do it ‘in house’, or privately. Like a pension. But it should be cheaper, as it’s only cover for 1 year or so. Not retirement. Seeing as many do not start covering a pension until they are in their 40′s ( IIRC ) then… They’ve got the first 20 years of working career to plan and save up IYSWIM. Premiums would be based on job-type, and as such cost to get cover. Which is also fair. And if you’re in a relationship jumping money between partners is not really new.

It’s a possible I’d say. And does help the business cover the costs. As well as providing you with the security of knowing your job is waiting for you when you get back, as well as the bills being paid whilst you’re on leave.

It’ll also be a new product, so will generate jobs.

What I don’t think some of the employers’ groups get is that if these employees are happier in the workplace they are more likely to be productive.

Hancock breaks ranks with attack on Equality Act: I'm thinking you need to save up with your employer, or agree … http://t.co/n4brwr6k