Woman On Maternity Leave Replaced By Temp
-
she went on 12 weeks' maternity leave. her company found a temp and she was asked to help out on administrative duties. her company would help find another suitable position for her. 3 months later she was told there wasnt anything suitable. she was given only a month's compensation and asked to leave.
-
Hey dragg,Originally posted by dragg:she went on 12 weeks' maternity leave. her company found a temp and she was asked to help out on administrative duties. her company would help find another suitable position for her. 3 months later she was told there wasnt anything suitable. she was given only a month's compensation and asked to leave.
I know this sounds really bad, but myself being an employer also, I wonder what am I to do with 12 weeks of her on maternity?? -
Need to know more details.
The fact is, she could have been a very unproductive employee and the company has been rooting for an excuse to axe her. Admittedly, this is a rather LAME excuse though...
If however, it's the 12 weeks that the employee is irked over and the sole, underlying factor for her dismissal, then she can actually contact MOM and have them take action on her behalf. -
Women asking for more maternity leave are daft...they are just pricing themselves out of the market. As Shutterbug says, employers have a problem when faced with an employee away for 12 weeks. If you can afford to have an employee away for so long, then you probably should not have employed her in the first place. If you need such an employee, then you have to employ a temp for 12 weeks. After you have done all the hard work training the temp and if she can do the job just as well, are you going to sack her and re-orientate the previous worker when she returns from maternity leave?
If the law allows for maternity leave, employers will just sack them on the grounds of poor performance or refuse to employ newly married women of childbearing age.
And it is not just the employers...if you do not hire a temp and make the others work harder for 12 weeks, they will kpkb even if you pay them overtime. -
At least she was given a month's pay. But i will demand more and go to MOM!
-
from the beginning the new baby incentive is not workable.
12 weeks' of maternity leave is plain ridiculous. -
Maternity leave means getting paid for doing nothing.
So it means losing $$$ for a company to hire. -
it is really naive to think that employers care if employees have babies. why do they want to participate in a scheme where they have nothing to gain!!!
-
partly why couples dun want to have child........
govt encourage ppl to give birth but no stringent policies on how employers shd treat pregnant moms or staff on maternity leave...... -
There! That's the problem.Originally posted by dragg:from the beginning the new baby incentive is not workable.
12 weeks' of maternity leave is plain ridiculous.
It is always their policies. Just because they want to have more babies, they will cast their overly used wide net solution.
Now there is a phobia of newly married females applicants among employers; they fear the young female applicant will become pregnant.
Some of my associates, even ask applicants if they ever, intend to have a baby! -
Policy makers always come out with a solution for one problem, but create a couple more NEW problems with that singular universal solution of theirs.
-
we have to look at the employer too..
one of the first interviews for a job i went to, the boss asked me "when is your usual reservist time?"
i told him, then i asked him why...
he said that if it was the same as the other person in the section, i would be not considered immediately.. he could not have 2 people gone from that section for weeks...
now.. take this to the maternity leave thing... this is MONTHS...
well... that being said, hasn't anyone asked why the company is in such a position that there is absolutely no fat left to trim? it leaves the company in a terribly vulnerable position...
or have the consultants not thought of that?