Wait till they find out they want to put an RFID chip in every kid at birth as a wee chaser to the mercury filled vaccines.......embrace the New World Order Brigades madness :)

This is typical of the benefit culture mentality in this country. People expect others to fund there leisure activities, and that includes having kids. Why should anyone else, either employers or taxpayers, have to bear any costs for people who decide to have children?

If women want to have kids, they have no real right to expect paid leave. Why should an employer be lumbered with heavy additional costs? The same applies to fathers taking paternity leave. That's what they have holiday entitlements for.

If I was an employer, I'd only hire women past child bearing age. Not only are they harder workers, and more reliable, but they don't need time off for having children, doctor's appointments, school appointments and all the rest of it.

It's time people in this country started standing on their own two feet, and stopped sponging off of others.

You are in a bad mood this morning Guga. Perhaps you have forgotten that half the work force are women and if they all stopped having babies, there would be no workforce (bar immigrants) in 20 years. Perhaps you don't realise how little benefit a pregnant woman currently receives. I thought that nowadays they could have up to a year, but have found out via my very pregnant daughter, that the entitlement is to be away from work for up to 52 weeks and 'have the right to return'. Statutory benefits only last for 6 months and employers pay - full pay less maternity benefit - only for the period designated in their contracts. In my daughter's case this is only for 6 weeks. She has never been unemployed or 'on the sick' and has paid tax and NI like everyone else, male and female. Having worked part-time right through University (MA & MSC) she was headhunted straight into full time employment. Now 36 she has had to delay pregnancy to save enough money for a suitable house and to fund her 6 months off work as her partner (an artist) has a very low income. Fortunately, her employers have been reasonably supportive and are discussing the possibility of her working from home some of the time when she returns to work - the baby will be 5 months old at that time.
I may be biased, being the proud mother, but I do think this is an example of a person standing on their own two feet. Which would you rather Guga - that clever, hardworking women should have no children, (surely a loss to the gene pool), or that they should give up work if they do have children (surely a loss to the workforce) and bring them up in poverty?
Finally, I bet you get a bargain with your 'older hardworking and reliable' women. If they had not been forced by the lack of maternity rights, say 20 years ago, to take an unpaid 'career break' and return to low paid work, well below their capabilities, they would probably be your boss now.

#5 Sheena. No chance, I've never worked for a woman, and never would.

Anyway, there are plenty of older women who have come back into the workforce and found themselves well paid career jobs. I know quite a few of them myself.

Is there no Mrs Guga then?

Unfortunately, this is going to cause more problems for women. To be honest, if I were a small business man with irregular cash-flow, the last person I would employ would be a woman below the age of 45. It's just another form of tax and tax rates and regulations for businesses are already too high. The Executive could then pass legislation to make 50% of the workforce female but that would mean employing more people to enforce it and yet higher taxes.

I should, perhaps, have mentioned the chap who was off with stress for 6 months, back for a few weeks and off again. Nearly a year now and still off, still on full pay.

Sheena, there have been a couple of them, but not one currently.

As for this stress garbage, that's all it is. It usually means that someone has been promoted beyond their capabilities, and can't cope. It's another "disease" like yuppie flu.

This is such a tough topic to discuss because there really is no definate right or wrong.

Woman have babies and that is part of the human experience. Woman also work as part of the human experience.

They cannot work and have babies so how does one create a situation in which both the employee/mother to be and her company bosses both benefit?

I am not sure there is an answer to that question. If you run a company you employ the people you need to run that company, should one of them suddenly become pregnant, thus requiring maternity leave then the company suffers financial loss. Its not the womans fault, she and her husband want a family and their rights to do so cannot be infringed upon. But at the same time the company owner should not be made to feel as if he is part of the agreement to have a family.

Perhaps only married mothers should qualify for maternity leave. I dont know, just a thought.

Och it will have the same success as the Employment Protection Act of the 1970's. One of Harold Wilson's finest attempts at vote catching. I used to run a company then, we had a few in their seventies, and one in her eighties. Just in case you reckon I was misusing the oldies for cheap labour, I was asked by the forewoman to put the oldie onto part time. Well I bit the bullet and carried it out, and she handed in her notice and never spoke to me for the rest of her life. Cannot win them all eh? I am bloody sure I won more than the Labour party and Harold Wilson. At that time the youngsters supported the oldies and I wanted to keep my staff happy. Harold, he was just looking for votes.

Ok Guga..........so who is going to paying for your pension?
The kids of today............methinks

It's a womens world all right. While it is right to care for pregnant women, it seems that day by day they world is bending to a pc attitude, not 'care' for others but following the latest fashion. And fashion based on the chip on the shoulder, not concern for others.

Guga # 2, this "leisure" activity that you call Women having children is actually producing people to care for you in your old age. If women decided to forgo this "leisure" activity because you took away all their benefits then you would be left to stew in a nursing home with no staff.
And that "leisure" activity also happens to be the reason for your existence and the main drive/objective of the human race to propogate DNA.
But these things aren't very important. We should just treat it as a holiday or a night out and let them fund this "leisure" activity themselves.

I find it no surprise that Guga (2) has not had the opportunity to employ people, he is clearly a liability to his employer in todays enlightened world where woman is treated with respect and decency.

#11 Methinks wrong. I've already taken care of my own pension. I won't have to rely on anyone, including the kids of today; nor will I have to rely on the state. I've never had a penny from the state, nor will I ever take anything from them; I refuse to become part of the scrounger and benefit culture mentality.

#13 I quite agree. let them fund their leisure activities for themselves. Why should other people pay for them to have kids. I paid for my own, in every respect. I did not ask for or wish to be subsidised by either other people or the state.

#14 I treat women with respect and deceny, I just don't see why they should expect others to pay to satisfy their need or desire to produce kids. Incidentally, I'm self-employed, so I am a liability to no one.

Tell that to your insurer

#17 Never had to claim from them either.

Hi All,

So...er...I take it the season of good will and peace to all men has ended? That scrounger. Mary, sponged off the inn-keeper and his wife and cleverly bagged a free stable and straw. Well, that's asylum-seekers for you, eh?

Happy New Year, everyone.

Comment@10 Big Wee Man, happy new year dude :)

i meant 19, this babysitting a cat lark getting out of hand :)

*8 Guga: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence"

The Peter Principle by Laurence J Peter

http://platosway.blogspot.com

I agree with all the laws being put in place because there shouldn't be discrimination. However, I do sympathise with employers, particularly small companies. How can you be expected to loose a key member of staff for up to a year and foot the bill for it in terms of providing cover etc?

# 8 Guga: You are clearly a selfish muppet who's only thought in life is themselves. Contrary to your opinions its people like your that society can do without - if we thought more of others and thought less selfishly the world might be a better place.

Not often I agree with Guga but he is spot on today. I am in a similar position, I was an employer, now retired, have never had a subsidy of any kind and through prudence I can keep myself without state hand outs. Over the years I have employed hundreds but was becoming increasingly concerned by legislation which was interfering with the smooth running of my business. This was increasing overheads and making it difficult to ensure customer satisfaction without whom staff and employer would be out of a job.
If I was still in business ( thank heaven I am not ) I would ensure that only women of a 'certain' age would be employed, this would be unfair to youngsters but the risk of pregnancy makes this policy essential. Alternatively I could just employ men.

Every rational individual can understand the immense financial and other burdens placed on employers by such laws as this. Keeping a job open means hiring a temp, paying two workers for a period, the possiblity of two pension contributions, two NI contributions. Especially for smaller employers this is clearly a burden that some are not only unwilling but unable to bear.

However, surely the fact that a law is inconv to sincere members of the public cannot make it of itself wrong. In fact surely that is the point of law to set a fairer social standard when people's individual preferences may demand something else. Women are those ordained to have children, If both men and women had been given the potential of child birth the argument could be different, however, as only half of the population has been blessed with the ability, it is crucial that their employment rights are actively protected.

What we must however acknowledge and permit is the right of the employer to choose their workforce.

perhaps Guga has a somewhat extreme view onthis matter, but in some respects he and others may well be right.

For instance, why should ladies have paid time off for routine check-ups? Why can they not arrange these outwith working hours?.

Why should they be entitled to 52 weeks leave' This period seems to me to be very long especially when they have the right of return for only 6 months? I would have thought 6 months is enough in most cases.

Employers have a duty under the H&S laws to protect all staff. Why is their a necessity for them to conduct a specific risk assessment for expectant ladies and their unborn child. Surely the mother-to-be has some responsibility here also!

The world, and Scotland in particular, is becoming to PC. Some rights have to be given back to employers regarding the employment of ladies of a child bearing age. Perhaps they should be allowed to not employ some if they consider it to be a financial liability? Once employed however they should not discriminate against them either negatively or positively as we are all equal.

Guga your an idiot and i suspect will end up very lonely!

#26 India:
I completely agree with your opinion on this.
However does your last comment mean that employers by choice would only employ older women and men? What then becomes of the young female talented graduates etc who are at the start of careers?

As an employer myself, yes there are drawbacks with legislation on the business side if things however surely the major contributions that women play in the workplace, wherever that may may, that deveop and generate positive business and develop are considerations that need to be accounted for. My wife was recently in this very position with our first child and her employers are bending over backwards to get her back after her maternity period is up - all because she is a valued member of the team. Granted she is in a lucky position and no doubt others are not so fotunate. Hence the reason for spelling out the legislation so that everyone is clear where they stand. In our experience it was initially quite confusing where the law stood on this and this should certainly clarify things for all parties concerned

Guga #8 - absolutely no surprises there then - what self-respecting woman would put up with a Fred Flintstone like you?????

Ah, if only we lived in a perfect world.

It appears that some of our posters would like to 'punish' women for having children. Like it or not - good old Mother Nature has designed us to procreate to ensure the survival of the species.

Now, whilst I agree that in a perfect world all children should have 2 parents living with them, loving them and supporting them, ideally with one parent at home and the other out working. We do not live in an ideal world...... there are single parent familes .... some through choice and some which are not through choice and the parent in that family is entitled to the same rights in the workplace as anyone else. The reason that this legislation has been brought in is because some employers have discriminated against pregnant women in their employ in the past. Not all employers are nice people, some of them would have us back in Victorian times with the female mill workers practically giving birth on the floor next to their loom.

Oh btw: lets not forget that women do not, yet, normally get pregnant by themselves ...... perhaps if some of the 'absent' fathers paid for their own children ....but that's another issue altogether.

Scott #20, 21 - I knew what you meant, mate.

Thanks, and may it be the best you've ever had.

:-)

Joanna #31 - I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Do you wish to introduce the difficulties faced by single parent families into this debate? I'm not really sure that this is relevant to a discussion on the protection of rights for expectant women.

Yes I fully agree that many employers in the past discriminated against women and indeed many probably still do.

I can see the need for equality in the workplace but this has to work in every way, e.g. between men and women, and between the employer and the employee.

There is a cost to every business, and thereby the consumer, when an employer has to take on temporary staff to cope with maternity issues. Should the employer not also have the right to say enough I cannot accept this?

As I mentioned in my earlier post it seems that we are being driven into a PC mad world where individual values and choice no longer exists.

Perhaps it is time that we all, both male and female, employer and employee, took a step back and looked at the reason most of us choose to have families. It is not on the whole to protect our pensions, etc. It is more about love and caring. There is a cost to bear for this but does a large part of this cost in the early stages have to be borne by an employer?

I have 3 children and I am fortunate enough to earn sufficient to have enabled my wife to give up work therefore not to be a burden on her employers.

I accept that not everyone is in this situation but before taking the steps to becoming a parent surely you need to look at whether or not it is really feasible for those concerned. Basically if you cannot afford the cost don't become a parent.

There is no clear cut solution to this topic.

Women are the child bearers, thats natures call. That should not work against them as far as maternity leave is concerned. However, at the same time, the employer should not really be forced to pay for her and her husbands decision to have a child. But if the employer does not pay the maternity leave then the mother to be is out of work due to her wish to have a child.

Maybe the laws should be:

1. The employer is only liable for maternity leave and payment if the person has worked for the company for longer than 2 years.

2. The employer is only liable following that two year period if the woman in question is married.

3. Maternity leave must be 8 weeks maximum. Any time longer will result in non payment.

8 weeks is not long but why should any company be part of the couples decision to have a baby. Companies must also be protected from chance pregnancy. If you are married and it happens by chance then so be it, but why should any company be financially burdened in a situation in which a couple broke up, bumped into eachother on a night out, had sex and she fell pregnant?

If your not married and you fall pregnant then your on your own. Compensation must come from the father in such instances.

Just a thought

It would be fairer if the government coughed up the maternity pay. Currently, any business that hires as few women of childbearing age as possible is at a distinct economic advantage.

This also has the added advantage that the government and quangos would have to come up with economically viable maternity legislation.

IanW

I understand that the legislation can be difficult for employers..... but what are you saying that all women should stay at home ..... surely not?

I am in the same fortunate position as you and your wife......... however, some people are not and it is not always through choice. A friend of mine was widowed at a young age and while she still has dependent children. She has had to go out to work.... she has been lucky enough to find a good and understanding employer. If, everyone discriminated against women of childbearing age or with dependent children (which the legislation, now protects against), my friend would have been forced to seek assistance from the state....... which she does not want to do. She has the right to support her children in the same way that their father would have done if the situation was reversed.

My problem is with some of the posters on here ... who seem to think that women, selfishly get pregnant and then demand everything. Real life is not like that and not everyone is out for what they can get.

Media 1 #34 - In this day and age with all the information regarding safe sex available I doubt if there should be any chance pregnancies, there are a number of ways of preventing pregnancy, and dare I say it ways of aborting it at an early stage (morning after pill).

As for the married requirement I don't really agree as many couples nowadays live together and never marry but still can provide a loving caring home. Perhaps some of the other benefits need to be addressed in this area.

Yet another Politically Correct cost burden on companies, to ensure that we remain uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Whatever happened to family obligations to wives and daughters? Our Asian suppliers must be laughing all the way to the bank.

If only left-wing politicians knew the first thing about business (sigh).

Hi Joanna #36 - you are right in your assumption that I do not think that all women should stay at home. What good would that do for anyone.

What I am saying is that there has to be a better balance between all the parties concerned, especially between the employer/employee. Would be parents need to look at their role and ability to cope.

Re: your last comment on the inferrence by some posters that "women, selfishly get pregnant and then demand everything" you have to take a step back an look at why they have this vision or opinion. In part the laws protecting women from discrimination are being seen as going to far and other groups are now being discriminated against through these laws.

As I said we need to look at the balanace between all these groups if we are to make it work fairly.

We have a little law here called the fmla. My daughter just presented us with a fine new grandson, Andy, and her job is reserved for her under this law, for 3 months. It is the family medical leave act. It does not pay her, but it holds her job open for her return. Not perfect, but it is a job.

Commenting on these "news" stories is one thing, but commentors commenting on other commentors is just getting ridiculous.

It's about time the Scotsman cleared the house of these idiots.

You do a days work you get a days pay. No work no pay! Woman who want to use the system for free hand-outs do so at the expense of the business and all he other workers, Women who want to work and have babies should take responsibility for this manoevre themselves - take out insurance or an endowment policy to cover loss of earnings while away then we will all be equal in the work place! Pregnancy is not sickness it is a calculated life choice and should be paid for by the perrson making the choice - HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY

I honestly think that only married women who have worked for a company for longer than 2 years should qualify for full maternity payment and time off...

The others must fund it on their own!

And what happens Guga 2 when women decide - as they are in increasing numbers - either not to have kids or to delay having kids until their late 30s by which time it may be too late?

What will be the effect on our society when we have more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 16 - which is just about where we are now?

What happens when there are fewer people in the workforce paying tax but more elderly people requiring health care? Who is going to pay for that?

You might want to spend some time thinking about those issues because this is the future we are looking at if we cannot increase our national birth rate - and we won't increase our national birth rate until we stop punishing women for having children.

By the way Statsman 35 - the government does cough up maternity pay. If companies don't claim that money back from the state they are just incompetent and should get a new accountant!

34 et al - the employer is NOT liable for paying maternity pay. They should get that money refunded by the state. If they don't it's because they haven't applied for it.

I agree that women have been blessed / cursed with the role of childbearing. There is no way out of that and unless we want the race to die out we have to help them. Someone said earlier that it is a concious choice for them to get pregnant not an illness so they should not expect others to pay for it - ignoring the fact that sometimes it is NOT a choice, by this argument anyone volunteering to give blood should do it on their own time, anyone volunteering to be a bone marrow donor should do it on their own time without pay.
That said I do think that the period of maternity leave after giving birth should be much much shorter based on some sort of average time it takes for the woman to physically recover. After that it should be allowed for EITHER parent to take paid time off to look after the child. There are very few options open to couples where the woman earns more - if the man wants to look after the child for the first year (to keep the higher salary coming in) his only option seems to be to quit his job with no right to return to work........
Other countries have a better, more equal attitude to maternity / paternity leave why can't we ?

Media 1 why should only married women have children?.....thats nonsense and only encourages archaic traditions..b*******ks to that. Women are having kids well into their forties now. So, is your workforce going to comprise of women past their fifties? If so I hope you will be exposed in the national press for discrimination and heavily fined for your inequal opportunities policy.

Equality4All #46 - Hi there, I was one of the ones who commented about the choice to become pregnant (see posting #37). Pregnancy is about choice. Perhaps the initial step was not planned but the continuation of any pregnancy certainly is as there are methods to terminate any unwanted situation. I fully accept that people may have difficulties with these possibilities due to religous, cultural, moral reasons and can accept them. But to say that the pregnancy is not a conscious choice is wrong.

Concerning the donation of blood, marrow, etc. I thought that was already done in ones private time? Yes some employers encourage and support it but most do not so why should they pay for you to give blood, etc.?

CapitalKid #42 - Perhaps we should start with you as you make no contribution to any discussion!!!

I am shocked by many of the comments here but not entirely surprised as they seem to reflect our own experiences.

While my husband and I were employees we both faced employers with similar unsympathetic views. Over a period of years this resulted in 3 illegal redundancies (1 for me and 2 for my husband.)

We are now self-employed, have no childcare costs and our livelihood is not dependent on the narrow-minded views of others.

We would happily employ anyone regardless of their sex, age or background and have always believed that experience and attitude are far more important.

Yes Ian 48 having kids is a choice - and if women choose not to do it the human species dies out. So everyone actually has a stake in this! Even you.

It's a woman's choice if she wants to incapacitate herself by getting pregnant, why the hell should employers be put out. Carry out risk assesments ?
surely it's up to the MOTHER to take precautions
concerning her brood. If your unborn child is put at potential risk by you being in the work place , then
STAY AT HOME . Take some responsibility for god's sake, after all as soon as you can move, you will be palming it off on a stranger and going back to work,
crazy.

#47 Doreen: Then the problem would be that they were being Ageist and brought to bear under the Age Discrimination Act!!

So Billy you would rather women stayed at home and claimed benefits instead of earning, paying their own way in life and contributing to the economy.

Good idea - not.

Yet another pointless exercise, as the leaflet simply reminds employers of what their legal obligations are in any case.

What about the many pregnant women in temporary or contract positions, which included myself during my own pregnancy. These women have no rights, including no sick time, no holiday time, no time off for antenatal appointments, no safeguards against any sort of discrimination, and at the end they receive no maternity benefits from their employer and must rely on the state (which is the situation I find myself in, much to my disgust). Contract and temporary agencies are universally smug and aggressive about your status and asking for so much as an hour off for an antenatal visit is treated as mutiny.

There's no point in creating a new glossy publication for some women when thousands of other women are excluded from any rights at all simply because of the fine print in their employment contract. Docking a pregnant woman a few hours' pay because she has to attend an antenatal appointment - when her colleague can take the same time off without being docked or punished - is ridiculous.

So yes, back to the point, it's another feelgood exercise from the Scottish Executive which does nothing to address real issues.

Miss H #51 - I'm not disputing that fact.

#47 Doreen: As I said in previous posts this is such a difficult topic to find a solution that benefits all parties concerned.

Women are the child bearers and thats natures call. Therefore, they cannot be discriminated against for falling pregnant and they must receive the proper support from their companies.

However, to what extent should the company become involved in this personal choice? Should the company support the woman during her pregnancy only to find out that she is pregnant again 8 months later?

If a girl meets a lad one evening and they end up pregnant, should the company be penalised for that persons irresponsible behaviour? It can happen.

What if a couple break up, they bump into eachother 3 months later and have sex, she falls pregnant. Is the company liable for that?

This is why I am supporting maternity for married mothers only and only if they have worked at the company for longer than 2 years.

A woman is entitled to fall pregnant and she should receive support, but there needs to be guidelines to protect the companies as well...Or do you think not?

Is everyone on holiday or retired on here, or are all these comments at the expense of an employer?!!
Just a thought!

This thread seems to reflect a battle of the sexes type thing. But that is ridiculous - guys - have you no wives / mothers / daughters etc? The rules can affect everyone positively unless you are a serial bachelor or a lezza or something.
I have seen both sides of this - got the benefits when my missus was off, got the inconvenience of the situation where girls who I manage going off to have babies - a pain, but thank god I am not paying their maternity pay.
Works both ways - but bottom line is the survival of the species is kind of important.

The last line of #55 is however, so, so true.

No such rights for self employed people. In spite of paying their taxes this group is often left out in the cold.

Small business are drowning in legislation. A hairdresser who has been in business for 30 years said he had 50% of his workforce off on maternity leave and desperately struggling to survive all the legislative commitments. It costs the small employer to pay an accountant for the maternity pay service and there are other costs to the business, such as finding alternative employees for the period of replacement etc.

What help is there for small businesses employing women of child bearing age?

#44 Miss H. Many elderly already pay for their care in Scotland. Its a myth that care for the elderly is free, the only free part is personal care. Some receive full care paid for by the state dependent on assets owned. I have no problem with the elderly receiving help.

It is the convicts and our bursting prisons that are costing us a fortune. At her majesty's pleasure one can get a degree without incurring the normal university fees and debts to survive the process.

Usually the cons go for legal degrees. They use their new found knowledge and embark on a spree of seeking compensation from the public purse!

Meanwhile the hard working public has to struggle to pay ever increasing electricity costs; keep a roof over their own heads and pay taxes to keep the convicts in "home" comforts.

Perhaps time off to bond with children is one blessing in disguise and some sort of compensation. We can't have the public working hard paying taxes for others, without receiving something back, themselves.

Do you think we could give a "bill of rights" to the child in the womb at 12 weeks too? Now that would be REALLY humane, liberal and sophisticated for a civilised society...

dawkins' goat #61 - No it should be at conception! Keep your inane comments out of it.

Faye many elderly people are self funders but most aren't.

But what is going to happen over the next twenty or thirty years if current demographic trends continue is that the number of elderly people requiring care is going to increase dramatically while the number of people of working age paying taxes is going to decrease dramatically.

Then all of us are going to have a problem with paying for care for the elderly because we will not have the money to do it.

So we either deal with this by reversing our population decline the natural way - by making it easier for women to have kids - or by increasing immigration ro replace our population that way.

It's up to people to decide which route they want to go down but if we continue with the status quo we are going to have a serious problem on our hands in the future.

Miss H #63 - It is easy for women to have children already! I think what you really mean is that the support for pregnant women needs to be addressed.

That is part of the discussion here. Where does the responibility lie for giving birth and raising the children. Does it lie with the parent(s) or the state?

We need a proper balance if we want to move ahead.

How about something REALLY useful for pregnant women in Scotland - like the second scan later on in the pregnancy that could save her life and that of her child - the same scan that every woman in England and Wales gets, and has done for quite some number of years ...

Reading Public #64 - We already do pay people to stay at home. They are called the unemployed, or scroungers, or dole cheats, etc. whichever your preference or politics.

Again it is about balance - pay to much and their is no iinitiative to seek work, pay to little and people could literally die.

#62

Conception - even better! Now that WOULD transform our society...

Media 1 what you are saying is that only the family unit should be supported eh? Excluding lesbian couples and single women who decide to have a child. Obviously in these cases this is downright selfish behaviour, unlike a nice mummy and daddy situation where it is totally acceptable. What about the unmarried couple who do not believe in an old fashioned tradition? Or even the married woman who finds herself alone when her husband runs off with someone else? Then again we have the two gay males who have decided to become a family 'unit', where do they fit in.

Of course there has to be guidlines and laws to protect both the woman and the company. Judging by the usual curmudgeonly comments on this topic I would suggest it is the "why should I cough up" brigade who are mostly posting. People who are not viewing the situation from a working class mother or father's point of view but that of an employer who has no problems feeding and protecting his/her brood.

If we do not have regulations in place to safeguard the position of pregnant women in the workplace they would be exploited and abused without a doubt. Then what? After being sacked or forced into resigning they become a benefit scrounger? Or they are unable to cope on just their husband's wage and find themselves getting into debt? Look at the bigger picture folks and try and buck up your ideas a bit.

Women dont just 'fall" pregnant, stupid old fashioned expression. Normally, they 'become' pregnant after copulating with a man, it takes two to tango and any father, whether in agreement or not, should be made to contribute in some fashion to a childs upbringing. Hopefully the government will get this DNA data base up and running and men who have fathered during a one night stand will be found and held accountable, financially. Birth certificates will no longer state 'father unknown' as he will have been tracked down. The end result of this will be that men will beha

I am shocked by some of the comments on here. Maternity pay is paltry, how can anyone begrudge a few measly quid to someone who is doing the extremely important job of bringing a new life into the world who might grow up to be a useful and productive member of society? And what would happen if no-one could afford to have kids any more - which is fast becoming the case anyway, the way things are going? What if the mother is the main breadwinner and the family couldn't get by on the father's income alone? And no, I don't have kids.

Personally, I think tackling discrimination against women of childbearing age could be quite easy - allow fathers the choice of taking some of the maternity leave instead. For example, the mother could stay off for the first 3 months, the father the second. That way, employers would have to consider the chance that a MAN of childbearing age might be off work for a few months too. Perhaps that might go some way to ending the discrimination that is suffered not just by pregnant women, but by ANY woman in her 20s and 30s, whether or not she may ever decide to have children at all!

Having a child is (usually) a project for couples. A couple who wants to bring up that child with a decent standard of living in their own home needs two incomes. Only a very few have the luxury of one partner not working. If the woman is discriminated against, her partner also suffers. So this is not just about women, this affects men almost as much. Would you want your wife/girlfriend sacked if she got pregnant? Would you think its fair? Would you think she is a net burden to her company just because they had to find a replacement for a few months, when she is a valuable employee? Would you want her forced back to work after a few weeks leaving your newborn in creche? Don't you think she is contributing enormously to society by bringing up a well-looked after child? You employers out there should ask yourselves these questions before deciding how to treat women employees. And remember, you do not pay maternity leave.

I think couples wanting children should be supported because society needs women workers and children.
I find it shocking that 3 in 4 women are discriminated against when they are pregnant, it shows that so-called equality between men and women is still a long way off. Reading Guga's comments makes me afraid for hardworking women juggling children and a career - how wrong can you be?!

We are a country of benefits for this and that,when is all going to stop?I suppose the new rights for pregnant women includes those who are teens,not in a ralation and anyone else.What's happening with this country?

Doreen: 69 (nice number)

I guess you are right, it would be unfair to offer maternity to married woman only.

But is it the responsibility of the company to finance maternity for a person who had a fling and fell pregnant?

Or what if the girl falls pregnant, takes her maternity leave and then falls pregnant 8 months later?

65 - we don't have a proper balance that is the point. Having babies is still seen as an act of personal choice and personal responsibility which in one sense it obviously is - but equally the future of the human race actually depends on women making the choice to have kids so everyone has a stake in that.

We are now in a situation where working is the norm for most women. Only 10 per cent of Scottish women are now ‘housewives’ to use that term or whatever the PC term is, domestic helpmeets or something I expect.

That’s according to the census so it’s as accurate as it can be. So there is no point saying that women should stay at home and have babies – that is not economically viable unless you marry a millionaire, you really need two incomes to pay the bills and the costs of having a family.

But legislation and attitudes have not caught up with that. Taking time off work to have a baby still counts against you and it shouldn’t. We have got to sort this out otherwise more and more women are just going to say stuff it I’m not going to bother. I know many women who are taking that attitude, and while I can understand it on a personal level it will be a truly bad thing for all of us if our population continues to decline.

It’s not just Scotland that has this problem – a lot of European countries are facing the same thing. We need to learn from the ones that are coping with it better than we are and they are the ones that are investing more in childcare and focusing on making it easier for parents – and it’s not just women though in most couples it is usually the woman who is the main carer – to combine a career with parenthood.

73 I don't know how many times I have to say this - statutory maternity pay is reclaimable. If companies are not reclaiming it they should sack their accountants!

Miss H,

I'm afraid that reading back on some of the 'dinosaur' comments on here you may well have to repeat your post 75 a few more times.

Some of the posters on here remind me of the send up that Harry Enfield used to do, when a 1950's chauvanist chanted "Wimmin know your limits".

Well, sorry guys .......... when you are frail old men you may well be glad of the strong shoulder or helping hand of one of the children of today's pregnant women. Its not just about taxes ......... if the world of the future is only populated by old folk..... we won't need to worry about climate change, the bomb or anything else destroying us .... we'll have done in the most natural way imaginable.

Media 1 yes, a company should have responsibilities to a woman whether she became pregnant accidentally or deliberately or was raped or had IVF treatment. As far as the situation with repeated pregnancies within a short period of time is concerned that is another matter that requires more thought than I can be arsed giving it at the moment.

I am an employer in the hospitality business where success or failure depends on giving the customer total satisfaction therefore retaining goodwill and further business. This is becoming more and more difficult through unreliable staff who will slink off at the least excuse and will use the 'system' to avoid discipline. Most employment legislation has been drafted by those whose only experience of 'working' conditions is in the public sector where the customer is a major nuisance and where staff are not accountable for their actions to any great degree. In the private sector staff are only employed if they are a requirement to the success of the business, this is impossible to ensure if there is absenteeism for what ever reason, so I assume that the pro writers for pregnant favouritism are from the public sector, any private sector employer who supports this further interference in business is totally 'nuts'! A job is a privilege not a right.

Miss H, I feel women who have just added to the population should look after it, try and form a relationship with it, not just occupy the same house.
There is more to raising a child than memorising it's name . How do you bring up a child (Properley) when you see it only fleetingly. As for women working , feel free but stop asking for all these extrordinary allowances to be made when the situation is of your own making. Its this lack of stability that has spawned the legions of youthfull scum currently infecting our country, or is that Thatchers fault to.

At the age of 36, I have now worked full time for 20 years. No subsidised university fees, not one day of unemployment. My taxes, like all yours, have subsidised everyone elses dole money, benefits, sick leave, maternity leave. I've been hacked off when I've covered 3 peoples jobs whilst part-time mothers have swanned off leaving us full timers to cover their work on their days off. I've seen mothers take full maternity leave, only to get pregnant again within months and go off on leave again! I've been discriminated by employers for being a loyal, full time worker if I've ever needed time off for appointments, when mothers around me have come and gone as they pleased. I can see both sides of the arguement and I know it sucks for the employers keeping jobs open for years and at the same time paying out twice for temp taff to cover.

But having said this, I understand that mothers find it hard enough trying to make end meet, and that no mother WANTS to work and leave her child with a stranger, but most do, conscientiously not scrounging off the state.

Now I find myself trying to become a mother, I reckon I've paid my dues long enough over the years to be due some benefit back.

Guga: - You are correct in your comments: This nonsense legislation is more of the PC madness of the welfare state and its battery hen approach.
If all forms of discrimination are to be abhorred, then this legislation creates more discrimination than it removes. It discriminates against those women who can’t have children or who choose not to have children – for whatever reason. It discriminates against men who – thankfully- can’t get pregnant. It discriminates against oldies like Guga and I who have brought up our own families without state help and who have, through careful management, provided for our Old Age and some like myself who even provided their own health care during my working life despite paying taxes and state health insurance.
It is a woman’s right to have a child with or without a husband or permanent partner. I would not deny her that right but I see no reason why I should pay her to exercise that right. I believe it is called Freedom Of Choice.

#78

OK then - lets say you get your wish and maternity leave is abolished. How would you solve the problem that would undoubtedly arise as a result, when many women would simply be unable to afford to have children, and would stop having them altogether?

Honestly, if an employer who is given months and months of advance warning cannot find a replacement member of staff to cover maternity leave for a few months, then I'd have to wonder why not - ESPECIALLY in the hospitality sector, where there are always people looking for temporary work.

Thank God I have an enlightened (private sector) employer if I ever decide to have kids!

#78
A job is indeed a privelage and few people seem to understand that nowadays and expect to be given rather than earn.
However it is equally important as an employer to make sure the staff want to stay and indeed come and work for you therefore as im sure you will understand a balance requires to be reached.
Unfortunatly the hospitatlity industry particularly seems to have an image of lack of professionalism from the public face although i put it down to individuals feeling they are due more than to wait on tables etc. On the continent and America this is a profession to be proud to be involved in. A bit of a British thing i think.
I am an employer in the private sector and indeed clients requirements need to take a degree of priority - but a balance is required. You need the staff to service the clients, and if you dont have the staff you'll quickly have no clients. Therefore you need to look after the staff you have - they are also one of the best pieces of PR a company could have! Quite simple really

Miss H : - It is personal choice!!!
With the rare exception of rape it is the natural consequence of mating and as far as I am aware sexual intercourse is a matter of choice. The only exception to this rule that I'm aware of happened about two thousand years ago and she didn't get any state benefits!

27 Ian W says'For instance, why should ladies have paid time off for routine check-ups? Why can they not arrange these outwith working hours?.'

The answer to this question is that ante-natal clinics do not operate outwith working hours. Pregnant 36 years ago, I had paid time off to attend clinic appointments. Life was simpler then - workplace, home and clinic all within a short walk.

Good job that rights info will be routinely handed to pregnant women. The ignorance displayed by many employers in this debate is appalling. They decide never to employ a young women, no matter how talented, on the basis of a misconception that they will have to pay her for 52 weeks of maternity leave if she should become pregnant. I repeat again - right to return to work can be up to 52 weeks; entitlement to statutory maternity pay (£108 per week paid by employer, reimbursed by government) = 6 months; number of weeks on full or part pay = *whatever has been agreed by employer in contract*, so employer can be as mean or generous as he likes. 2 weeks paternity pay can also be reclaimed by employer from Government. Please get your facts right before posting and more importantly before rejecting 50% of potential employees.

#83 I am well aware that my staff require to be part of a 'happy ship' and to ensure this I pay well above the industry norm and compromise where possible regarding tome off etc. However one bad employee causes resentment through responsible staff having to 'cover' for the missing person often failing to turn up and giving no prior warning. I have experienced people abusing employment regs and have gone through the nightmare of keeping a job open for months then finding that the 'mum' had no intention of returning. Fortunately often the replacement ( foreign ) was a much better assistant.
Generally if a woman wants to bcome a mother then it is her decision and the couple have to take reponsibility for their actions and consequences.

#49 IanW Your comments are even less worthy in this column. At least #42 makes a valid point and doesn't spew bile like you!

#86

Of all the "bad employees" that I have come across, ie, described by you as those who cause resentment through persistent absence and bad timekeeping, not a single one has been a pregnant woman, or for that matter a mother. The worst offender was a 30- year old single man.

84 yes it is a personal choice but that doesn't mean that other people aren't affected by that.

It was a personal choice by your mum to have you. So that personal choice on her part was kind of important to you - wasn't it?

Equally if women now decide not to have babies because it leads to them losing out on economic and employment opportunities then that's a lot of babies that won't get born. That will affect the rest of us whether you like it or not.

79 Billy. What a sweet outlook on life you have. I hate to burst your bubble but there is a very important factor you have missed out.

Money.

You need it to pay your mortgage you know - especially these days - your council tax, your utility bills, food, nappies, pram, cot, toys, clothes and all the rest of it.

It is not cheap having a wean.

Messalina #87 - Please explain or clarify what you construe as bile from me. Then at least i would have the right of response.

Wow, what a controversial topic.  To those who say our 'recreational activities' should be on our own time and expense, I agree.  What constitutes 'recreational,' is, however, another matter entirely.  Bearing and raising healthy, well-adjusted human beings is essential to the continuation of the human race and a boon to society, whereas, say, skiing in the Alps (i.e. recreational activity) is not.  As a self-emloyed married woman, my husband and I have been solely responsible for the care and raising of our one year old son.  Our state's medical program has been of some help with medical expenses, but we are largely on our own.  Had I been employed at a 'regular' job at the time, I could have expected up to 12 weeks maternity leave and no help with the baby.  Since a minimum of 12 months is recommended to nurse a baby, the family's health and well being is clearly largely regarded as a nuisance here in the USA.  Family rights are important for everyone's well being in the long run.  Without familes, there would be no single people running around enjoying their carefree lifestyles.  We *all* must take responsibility for our actions, but it is vital to keep a realistic perspective on just what is truly needed to keep the human race running, and hopefully, to improve it while we're at it.

#80 You can't argue with that. Although having ran a small business for a number of years, there is no way I could have afforded to employ a female in case she ended up taking time off and qualifying for maternity pay.

It's a really difficult piece of legislation to get right.

#3 Surely an artist who can't earn a living for his family is a failed artist. Maybe he should get his finger out and make art his hobby. Like a lot of women, your little Miss Marvellous has put her career first and to only start planning (saving?) for kids at 36 is taking risks with the kids health. I'm not sure the gene pool will actually miss anything here...

Miss H,I seem to manage, car, mortgage holidays etc without asking my wife (Of 20 Years), if she wouldn't mind getting pregnant so we can make ends meet. Its called organising your life.

#94 Billy, in the "good old days" men earned enough to support a family. This is no longer true. I don't know personally any couple under 60 where the woman does not have to work. Women work for many reasons, but money is the main one. Its not a real choice to work or not to work. Having children is enormously expensive for a couple, and there is almost no financial support given to them. Are you suggesting that women get rich off miserly maternity pay? Get real.

look at canadian leglislation in regard parental leave

#86:

And do foreign women not get pregnant?

Unfortunatly "bad employees" are a risk in any business and i agree they affect the morale of others - however if man management is effective it can be overcome and dealt with.
Surely staff not turning up with no prior warning can be effectively managed? Following the right course of action, i.e verbal and written warnings they can be shown the door?

Regards Maternity as one poster acknowleged Materrnity pay is reclaimable and employers have on the whole 8 / 9 months notice to get a plan in place. If managed properly it really shouldnt be too big an issue

If a woman is to receive maternity leave from her employer, is a man entitled to compensation when he goes for the snip?

Before deciding to have kids - heterosexual, gay, whatever ......you have to be able to afford it. This includes the risk of your job not being there afterwards.
Nobody should pay other than yourself. Not me, not my family and not the state (which would actually be me again as a tax payer).
People make choices and they should pay accordingly....

# 94 : Billy - they obviously pay enough in Germany to maintain a good standard of living for a family. Well done.
Lets all move to Germany.

Just out of interest to get your thoughts:

Scenario:
Your wife was earning more than you and had the potential to develop her career further.

Both of you want kids - especially the father.

Father is in a good paying job that is progressing but not as opportunistic as Wifes career path.
Wife has real opportunity to make something out of her life and offer far better financial security to family in the long run.

Wife falls pregnant.

What would your wisdom advise?

Yes, all very well Bennie,

But can we just remember that a lot of women delay having children until they have a career etc in place. During what can be a considerable period of time (in my case 18 years) they will have paid a great deal of money in taxes and national insurance...

Many women who have career breaks to have children have, in your words, paid accordingly.

Maccaroon,

Re Germany........ 22 years ago my sister had her first child when she was living and working in Germany. She was entitled to 6 months paid leave. When 3 years later she had her second child she was entitled to 1 year's paid leave.

We were lagging behind Germany 22 years ago and we still haven't caught up with them.

94 your comment doesn't make sense. Women don't gain financially from getting pregnant, they lose out. In this country anyway. The situation may be different in Germany but in this country women work and want to work. They don't want to live off the state.

#85 "2 weeks paternity pay can also be reclaimed by employer from Government". If only it was at full pay.... The maximum a father can claim is 2 weeks at £108 a week.

I'm in a situation where I fully support my partner and a 2yr old and have a new arrival due this month. My salary is stretched. I can pay the mortgage, utility bills, council tax, run a car, feed and clothe us and are left with nothing. Apart from child benefit (which is not means tested), we do not receive any state handouts. When my new child is born, I simply cannot afford to take the two weeks paternity leave. It is useless for me. It is a useful perk only for those who can afford not to even claim it i.e. rich people. Instead, I will take three days paid leave and continue to fully support 4 mouths whilst paying my taxes to help support a multitude of other state beneficiaries.

If we didn't choose to have kids we'd be better off - we could take holidays abroad and I could drive a nice car, for now my family is simply getting by. I would love the state to give me cash but I don't in any way expect it. If we find utility bills increase or interest rate go up a substantial amount, I'll get a 2nd job. I am the breadwinner until the kids go to school.
We sold up and moved out of edinburgh to ensure one salary could provide a home. Kids were our choice and we have made our sacrifices.

# 102 Joanna:

Indeed - a friend of mine had her kids in Germany and she was entitled to the year.
Interesting how we are so far behind thinking in Europe! - not just on Maternity legislation!!

Joanna,
I don't understand the point you are making - I sill say if you don't have a plan to pay for your kids YOURSELF from conception to end of education - don't have them....PERIOD. It's not anyone else's responsibility other than yours.
What you are advocating is redistribution of wealth based on other peoples wants - not even needs.
Don't be a scrounger...

Bennie

Don't be idiotic......... I am not a scrounger .... very far from it ... did you read my post?

I have paid into the system as have many other women who take career breaks to have children, I am still paying into the system........ do you understand now?

Or are you an American ... who doesn't understand our system at all?

If that is the case .... perhaps you should refrain from commenting until you know what you are talking about.

I know nothing about the maternity rights of employees in the US ... so I would never comment on it.

If you are not an American but are in fact from the UK... then you need to read up on the legislation re: maternity pay in this country. Pregnant women are not getting some fantastic deal here, all they are asking is that they are not discriminated against on the grounds of pregnanacy or because they have dependent children.

Are you a scrounger?

Bennie,

Why should I or any other woman be sacked because she is pregnant? Why should we not be entitled to have our child and return to work if that is our decision?

All the article is saying is that women will be advised of their rights not to be discriminated against by their employer because they are pregnant.

You think there is something wrong with that? Are you from the Stone Age?

#106 Bennie
Which of these three statements do you not believe:
- society needs children
- babies need their mothers for X months (the bigger the X the better)
- families today need more than one salary to survive

If you accept all these as true, it must be obvious that society needs to support couples with young children. Its almost imposible to have a family these days, there is virtually no support.

I also think that a person who has no children contributes far less to society than a couple who have some well-loved, well-adjusted, well-educated children. So couples who want support to have those children are hardly scroungers, they are assets.

93 Glaswegian
I think I have come up with a plan to please you.
Do not wait for Mr Right, do not save up, do not plan ahead. Simply get pregnant at 16 and again at 17 (any gadgy will oblige). Then live off benefits, go to a college with a free creche, get qualifications, get sterilised, show a potential employer your sterilisation certificate along with your others and be sure to add it to your CV. Get a job and live happily ever after.

On a personal note - surely an employer who cannot understand simple employment legislation is a failed employer.
BTW sadly, my son-out-law has taken a low paid, bog standard, bottom rung of the ladder job and put his undoubted talents on the back burner for the time being. He is willing to do this because he views child rearing as a shared responsibility between parents and as a desireable and natural part of normal adult life.

Joanna,
Just couldn't let that comment about Americans being allowed to comment (or not) slip by unnoticed. Hey, I'm not looking to disown Bennie or anything, he'd have to get in line behind a lot of other Americans I'd disown first, but we usually don't hear the word "scroungers" in any part of this country that I've been in. Also, most Americans that I know of truly don't associate childbearing or even childrearing with taking responsibility for one's own life. So I'm thinking you're stuck with Bennie, stop trying to fob him off on us!

Bennie

If you are off sick for an extended period of time would you like your job still to be there when you recover?

Get real and read the article for what it is worth - it is about informing individuals of their rights. Just as no doubt you will be clear of your rights when it comes to sick pay, compassionate leave etc - do you quibble so much about who pays for that?

Joanna,
I just thought you were having a moan....
Nope - not a Yank (do some business there though)... I am from Cowdenbeath/Dunfermline - went to Foulford and then Beath then Dunfermline High.
I do understand the "rules" and benefits and find the whole thing crazy.
I have run a business for many years and yes made the claims every time some female went off on maternity leave - they promised to come back then either didn't come back at the time she said she would or even didn't come back at all.
It costs me a fortune in re-training over and over again. Then when they do come back their performance and attendance record falls through the floor.
So the way look at it is I pay through my personal and business tax and then pay again because I need to train someone else or even employ a part timer to get back to the level of work that was being done. Don't even think about about a salary cut for the person now working at about 60% efficiency.
Answer - be very careful whom you employ and keep their pay as low as possible.
Doesn't sound good but it is what a business needs to do to compete with abroad i.e. China, India etc.
The answer is to encourage everyone to buy local and that way we can charge the real price and pay people what I consider to be a fair pay.
Next time you are in Asda, Tesco or Costco check the label....Buy LOCAL.

Maccaroon,
I pay a private insurance just in case....
Businesses can't survive unless the work gets done. If you have to employ a replacement there is an additional cost. Great if tou can take the person back but too bad if you can't.
Don'e expect your job to go away - but insure against it .... just in case....
I think in the US it is called long term and short term disability...... it's a great idea.

To decide to have a child is a big responsibility - for the parent not me. Don't expect me to happy about paying for your kids.
By the way I am anti gay parenting too.
Bill of rights is garbage it shold be a bill of conditions. Can't afford it - don't do it.

114 Bennie - OK let's go back to the 1950s since that seems to be your ideal.

Let's have full employment and ensure that the average male wage can cover the cost of bringing up a family of 3. We did it in the 1950s so we can do it now. Let's also reduce house prices to the level they were then in proportion to the average male wage.

OK. So most of the country has now gone into negative equity and most small businsesses have gone bust as they can't afford to pay their staff anything like what it would cost to bring up a family of 3.

So that won't work.

Or maybe you think the taxpayer should subsidise women to stay at home? How much is that going to cost the taxpayers - and by the way you have just lost about 40 per cent of them who have given up work so they can stay at home and have babies?

#115 Bennie
The tax burden is large, I agree. However, the fraction of it that goes to maternity pay is miniscule compared to the amounts that go on the education of other peoples children, the health of other people, the pensions of other people, roads other people use and some miguided war spending. Why are you so upset by the possibly 1 penny of all the taxes you pay that goes to maternity pay? I think that maternity pay is ridiculously low, that its for too short a time, and that society is spending huge amounts of money on everything except its own propagation, which is kind of vital.

Bennie..... I can see how as an employer it must be a problem for you, however, as Miss H has pointed out at 117 - there are a lot of families where both parents work because they have to. I'm sure that many of them would love to have the luxury of one parent staying at home.

Fernie @ 111

It was the use of the word, period, that made me think Bennie was an American.......... full stop would probably have been more appropriate here... but maybe I'm being old-fashioned myself now :))

The real point I was trying make was that kids and are a responsibilty and not a right.
I have a son and both my wife and I worked ...... but we did not ask for any handouts. My family unit had a plan.
I hate heavy handed government involvment or management of your life by government regulation.
A free market with basically no grants or pensions/ handouts to those other than the physically or mentally handicapped sounds right to me. Work for what you want and don't play the system. All the tampering with the system has created a nanny state and it will only get worse. All the issues of house prices etc is all true. However, it was brought on by tampering with market forces and trying to level the playing field.
The field can never be level. There are leaders and followers. There atre net contributors and there are leeches on society.
Take away the artificial parachutes and make people responsible and don't encourage the leeches.
The way things are going we will be a communist state in 10 years.

To understand my point, consider the following...
I have friend who is an economics teacher.
He taught this lesson.
He asked everyone to put all the cash they had on their person into a bag with their name on it. The amount was checked and kept so at the end they got their money back.
The total of all the cash was calculated.
It was divided by the number in the class.
Everyone was given an equal amount back.
Those that had put in thrity or forty quid and got back twenty were really unhappy. Those that put in a fiver were really happy.
To me this lesson explained the whole issue of the welfare state. What would you prefer?

I've worked for many years, admittedly in a different country and in several different states in that country. When I started working, pregnant women were definitely discriminated against; now, pregnant women get six weeks of maternity leave, and of course can leave work if the child is sick or for doctor's appointments.

I was struck, when I first started working, on how generous the benefits were to men who suffered heart attacks-- at least two months off, their jobs held for them, flowers and candy sent, etc.-- but for women having babies, they were made to feel uncomfortable for having been so neglectful as to "get themselves pregnant" (the phrase used at the time).

Guga: since when is producing a child a "leisure time" activity? I can think of many more pleasant activities than lying in a delivery room giving birth. However, in order to keep society moving forward, women must have babies, in spite of the narrow-mindedness of some spiteful people-- even some women-- and the sheer greed and stupidity of the corporate world.

I own my own business and young women in my company are given time off for reproductive functions. It's part of the cost of doing business, just as when male employees suffer severe illness-- or as is far more likely the case, suffer severe injuries in some accident caused by being stupid. Ask any insurance actuary who gets himself into accidents many, many times more than any female: it's the young male, age 15 to 30, almost invariably, who smashes up the car, rides motorcycles without a helmet, goes skydiving, bungee jumping, parasailing, playing road chicken, and getting drunk and falling down injuring his head/neck/back. Employers pay for these injuries ALL THE BLOODY TIME. And far more men have gotten hurt in their "leisure time" in my company than women have had babies.

#61,#62,#68

Yes..a "bill of rights" for the "unborn"
Beginning at conception .
For the mother NOT to drink alcohol, smoke , or use any medications that might harm the baby.
She must also eat a healthy diet.
If the mother cannot agree to this...Then an ABORTION IS IN ORDER.

116. Miss H
You are not far off the mark. If people can' pay the high prices then market forces will drive the cost down.
Duh...
The problem is handouts and subsidies have created and sustain a market that by all acounts shouldn't be there.
It will all evetually come down with a big bump. Like a 1929 crash.
The current UK planning with just call for greater and greater tax burdens and eventually it won't matter what your pay stub says at the top..... the bottom will be the same for everyone. In economics this refered to as distributed income and/or wealth.
Wait ...... communism....

#25 Old Roy: you'll have to stick to your present country of residence to ensure that you don't hire young women-- if you try that crap in the States, you'll be in court having the *&^% sued out of you for gender discrimination and then you'll return to court for breaking federal and state employment laws.

You must be "old Roy" indeed if you haven't caught up with the fact that women are human beings as well as men, and in more civilized countries than you apparently inhabit, have equal employment opportunities, regardless of reproductive status.

can' should be can't

Harry Carnie: and your spiritual ancestor is Tomas de Torquemada, no doubt.

Hey Martha I agree with you a lot of the time but this time best not get involved this time. The UK/Scottish system is absolutely stupid and removes almost all responsibility and accountability and from the parents. The government has way too much influence on childrens' lives.
The UK is a welfare state and is only now getting away from the majority of the population living in subsidized government housing (cooncil hooses).

I hired a rep to visit companies in Scotland and the North of England as far as Manchester. She was based in Livingston. We spent over 20K UKL in training her. Within six months she said she was pregnant and couldn't travel. A couple of weeks later she went off sick. We didn't see or hear from her again for about 17 months. She came back and demanded her job back (sick leave + maternity). By that time, her "temporary" replacment had actually "worked" for us longer than she did. She then demanded that we get rid of him - I said no as he had now more experience, had the same training as therefore was more qualified to do the job.
Our case is pending review.

113 - "be very careful whom you employ and keep their pay as low as possible"...mmm...I wonder if that's why the idea of coming back to their jobs doesn't fill them with glee after being off with baby?
I'm about to go off for baby number 3, have worked with big public sector employers and am now with a (very) small private company who have never dealt with maternity leave before, want me to come back, largely because I am more efficient than ever having to manage family life with work and being a much more conifident 30 something than I was a 20 something. I'm not expecting full pay or anything for 6 months (I do understand the problems small companies face), whatever they claim back will cover the statutory pay that I will get. And yes we will totally strapped for cash as we have been for years, but we manage and enjoy family life without griping about all the other sectors of people that get benefits for their way of life.
I'm just glad I am with an open, honest company who can get these things sorted out by both parties treating each other with respect.

Kinola,
Sounds like you ARE the type of person we would like to employ. Trust me, we a very good to our employees but we are fed up getting shafted.
We pay average (Government figures) for the type of work we do. We pay 4 days more holiday a year then the average. Wie have a profit sharing and an additional bonus scheme (not included in the comparison figures but tied to low absence). We give interest free employee loans for products we make and/or distribute. We provide a low cost private healthcare top up and free gym membership. We have a very low employee turnover - amost zero in five years - since we are growing company we promote from within. The almost zero is 100% attributed to pregnancies - the worst case being the case being that described in #129.
See my point now? Now if I employee a woman she needs to build confidence..... as I said - I am not a charity but if you look after the company it will REALLY look after you.

#123
This is exactly why Canadian law does not recognize a fetus as a human being until birth. If they were, they could sue their mother for negligence if her conduct could be held in any way responsible for the child's problems. This has been viewed as an unconscionable burden upon women by our lawmakers.
If any employer tried any hiring tricks on my daughters due to their desire to have children... well, it wouldn't happen in this enlightened country.

Canadian Law sucks then Scullion. It is definitely the mothers' responsibility to look after the well being of the unborn child. It should be a legal issue not just a moral one. It is no burden it should be an obligation. The potential crime should be reckless endangerment. I am ok with legislation to protect those that cant prtect themselves just as I agree to help support others that are disabled and unable to support themselves - no handouts for the lazy parasites.

#133
It has been, and continues to be, a very contentious issue. I believe the simple question to be answered was: should any healthy person be held to a higher legal or moral standard based simply on biology?
Why should it be the mother's sole responsibility? Shouldn't the father be equally responsible for the care of their unborn child by providing for it and ensuring the health of the mother? When the father is compelled by law to shoulder the shared responsibility and be exposed to the same disdain, I'll agree with you.
Again, it is just another example of men imposing interdictions on women which they find an excuse not to apply to themselves.

Scullion - I think agree with you but not with your last sentence. It is a shared responsibility but for instance nobody forces a pregnant woman to drink alcohol or smoke. A father should not smoke either as secondary smoking is harmful. We are not all biggots just some of us are realists.

Yes, but what would happen if Jim Moffat was the father?

Not Jim Moffat from Cowdenbeath???? He is Jim Baxters half brother right?

.......Maybe that was Adam Moffat.....

Harry - I pretty much agree with your sentiments but I am anywhere near to Atila the Hun in my right wing leanings!

Says a lot for the organisation of the modern state if people cannot afford to have babies without depending on handout laws.

Maybe it's not the state, just the people

Dundonian teenagers manage to have children without too much fuss - unless the fuss is coming from so called do gooders

Suppose nowadays we could always get an Eastern European temp in to cover.

Next time I see a Caesarian section on a football pitch I'll understand where those people are coming from. Well. I think we know where they are coming from but I don't think even they know where they are going to.

It's time to breed and come alive
16 million folks are better than 5....

Screw Professor Duguid (a misnomer if ever there was one)

The chaos of the Great Depression was overcome by governments in the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and other developed nations providing incomes to people which boosted economic activity, created jobs and sparked the economic progress of the post war era.

Women went to work to ensure the country could supply weapons, food, clothing, machinery , ships and all other resources in WW11. This contribution stopped the agents of ignorance and prejudice determined to drive the world back to the dark ages.

Women go to work everyday in the devloped and undeveloped economies of the world in both paid and unpaid employment. The work of child-rearing by men and women is a major economic and social contribution to the global economic and social condition. Without it we would be living in the dark ages. Due to the work of women in society we have a global economy in which many of us are well off and others have improving standards of life. Due to this contribution we have the choice to live in the dark age of ignorance and prejudice or to educate ourselves about the real world today. Clearly there are many people who choose to live in the dark ages, but thanks to the work of millions of women around the globe, the rest of us can choose not to join them.

#147

What's this about Prof Duguid? He's that mad eugenicist and Malthusian from Inverness who sends crazy letters to the Scottish papers, innit?

Women will never be equal because they are different...

140 ish, Ken M, are you saying some of us should get off our arses and on our backs? By us I mean them. Women, that is.

And without being paid for doing it? Why don't they just legalise prostitution?

Sorry, Ken M, did I miss hearing you say it was stsate legalised prostitution?

149 In my opinion he is as mad as me

#140 Bennie.. You mean you are there? (next to Atila?) Can accept this..........IF YOU DO NOT call yourself a "CHRISTIAN" (I am an Athiest)
"Right wing Christians" are an Oximoron. Study up on Jesus if you are...he was a socialist.

#154

Are you, in fact Prof Duguid, the Mad Jock of Mad Jockery?

155, Harry. Why is everything categorised in North America? Do you assume we have the same values here?

156. Spare me, please, I want more population in Scotland. Dobad wants less population in the YUK

What kind of mad professor is he?

159. Only "know" him from his correspondence with the Hootsmon but my assessment of him is someone who moved to Innerschneckie from a more populated area in the south and will write anything to preserve his hideaway.

Unfortunately a lot of "liberal" types support him in thinking that poor people, the working class etc., have to be "controlled"/

162. That's not very liberal. (Prof) in what?

Breed

#27 Martha..Tomas de Torquemada.(my spiritual ancestor.Looked it up;
Had a good laugh! Sorry I could NEVER aspire to his STANDING "the most evil man on earth"
I AM NOT INSPIRED BY RELIGION.
(just an athiest)

I look on animals, including my fellowman (fellow animal)with love and understanding. Some times it is necessary to kill animals ,and one does it as quickly and painlesssly as possible(once had farm animals, gave it up for that reason, having to kill them)
Some humans have to be removed PERMANENTLY from our society to preserve the safety of others.
Also as quickly and painlessly as possible.

#157 Jock ..1)"categorized"? Have found any stripe of religious people(Christian, Moslem, Jew) to have the most terrible basic faults in understanding or respecting ,their fellow man . I RESPECT their beliefs and their right to practise what THEY believe..but that is as far as it goes. Their Credibility =0 (for me anyway)

2) Have the "same values there? Would hope YOUR values (In Scotland anyhoo ) Would be A BIT BETTER THAN OURS..but that is doubtful

OH, JUST KILL OFF ALL THE WOMEN AND FORNICATE WITH SHEEP. THEN YOU WILL BE HAPPY!!

I totally agree. I work in an office surrounded by women with young children who have had one child, followed by another, and another and expect the rest of the staff to be supportive and sympathetic when they do decide to return to work, on a part time basis, and take days off to deal with one crisis or another. If women want families they should think about those who don't and leave work until they are ready to return full time with no distractions.

Where is the Equal Opportunity Commission for MEN?

How does the Equal Opportunity Commission feel about divorced fathers, equal shared parenting, and equal child support?

Why do I get the feeling from this article that the name of the commission ought to be changed to Superior Opportunity Commission for Women?

Media 1, the question is not so difficult to understand if one assumes that having a child is a responsiblity, not a right. If a woman can not afford to have a child, either single or married, without assistance how can she possibly afford to raise one? Anybody who wants to wait until they can afford to raise a child to have children is today cursed in public as a child hater. If women had not become so adept tricking men into relationships by getting pregnant, and often dissapointed by ending up pregnant and alone - if they worked longer to save the money, if they waited for real love and real relationships, if they worked with thier husbands to prepare for this enormous responsibility then niether leave nor childcare nor education, nor a host of other things that people having children think are supposed to be freebies on the backs of society at large would be financial issues for anyone but themselves. That of course might reuire the practise of birth control. But considering we are censored on that matter, this whole discussion is useless and pointless and we will all pay out the nose for all the whims of pregnant women, especially those of the third world.

"women will never be equal because they are different." Well, if that doesn't take the cake for the most senseless statement of the new century, then nothing does.

Different from WHAT? Women are female human beings. They are not "different" from anything. They are what they are. Note: ALL BABIES START OFF AS FEMALES until the Y chromosome (which is actually an X chromosome with something left out) begins to make changes in the fetal reproductive system. We don't know why, at some point early in the evolution of animal life, this change occurred, but occur it did, and ages before humans even existed at all-- even before mammals existed. We can only assume that gender difference benefitted the entire species, with males in the role of provider and defender, and females in the primary role of nurturer and teacher of the young, as well as food gatherer .

Women have an absolutely essential role to play in the furtherance of the human race. The world could get by very nicely with far fewer men; but humanity would not continue without millions of women.

What exactly is your frame of reference when you say that women are "different?" Women are the original beings; it is men who are different. Kindly recall that when it comes to reproduction, a woman makes an enormous investment of time, energy, and even risk to health-- while on the distaff side, sperm is cheap and available. Therefore, men are and always have been deemed far more expendable than women. In fact, human men are the most fungible creatures on the planet, especially to the military establishments of every nation on earth, which even in these advanced times are mainly run by men just as they always have been.

I don't know what they teach in schools in Scotland about the major life functions, but certainly reproduction is in the top three functions, along with breathing and eating; otherwise no species would be able to continue for long.