Sign in
Courtesy navigation
Why would ANY boss hire a woman?
Why would ANY boss hire a woman?
December 16, 2009
As a start–up business, one of the most crucial elements will be employing a strong and reliable team. But how do you judge if someone is likely to be a reliable employee? One of the issues that can affect your team in the long term is maternity leave.
I was shocked to read Alexandra Shulman's recent article for the Daily Mail, ('Year-long maternity leave, flexi hours, four day weeks... why would ANY boss hire a woman?'), in which she argued that current maternity law is making women 'unemployable'.
I found Shulman's article particularly galling given that she is a woman with children who is in a rare position of power as editor of Vogue UK. By her own admission, she was able to go back to work after only 18 weeks off because she had, and continues to have a 'live–in nanny'. This option is off the cards for the vast majority of women, yet her article implies that those who do not, or cannot hand their children over to others are likely to deliver a less than adequate performance in the workplace.
Shulman's is an extreme view, but there is no denying that for a small business, a vital employee taking maternity leave can make things difficult, particularly in the current economic climate. Although businesses that pay £45,000 or less in gross national insurance contributions in a tax year can reclaim 100% of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), there are other aspects to consider such as the potential costs of arranging for temporary cover. It can also have a negative effect on your team – promoting a junior employee to fill the position and then effectively demoting them once the employee on maternity leave has returned to full–time work can create resentment.
The Start Up Donut has plenty of information on the legal issues affecting maternity leave and SMP. However, I think there is more at stake here than just the law. The World Economic Forum (WEF) reported this year that the UK has slipped down the league tables for gender equality. The stats are alarming – the UK now stands at 15th out of 134 countries, a drop from ninth place in 2006. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) women in the UK face an average pay gap of 17%, with the media blaming the gap on women taking leave or working fewer hours when they have children. Compare this to the Scandinavian countries occupying the top positions in the WEF survey, where maternal leave can be up to 12 months, but which have smaller pay gaps. Is there a cultural difference here? If the UK is to really act on the gender equality it promotes, I would argue that all businesses, whatever the size, have a responsibility to ensure that they take maternity leave seriously.
What do you think? Are you a woman who has worried about the results of taking maternity leave or experienced difficulty returning to work after taking it? Have you deliberately chosen a less competitive or pressured career so as not to face these worries in the future? Are you an employer who has hesitated to hire a woman, because, in the words of Lord Sugar, you considered it 'a bit risky'?
Founding partners
Follow us on:
Startup Donut
Starting a new business - free advice, tools and resources | Start Up Donut
Copyright © 2009-2012
Comments
There is only one solution, and perhaps Scandinavia does this? The simple solution is that we-the-taxpayer must pay. The taxpayer already pays for all the maternity pay/cover of public sector mums. And legions of shareholders (including our pension funds) pay for the maternity pay/cover of mums in big businesses. But when it comes to small businesses (and small charities, in fact), it is usually the boss's family who, in reality, takes up the slack one way or another. That is where all the unfairness is in the current system.
http://www.facebook.com/CreditScoreTips
I agree that due to the *rights* women have that it can be much harder for us in the workplace. I was made redundant whilst on maternity leave - and I dont feel I was selected for teh right reasons..
We currently employ mostly women and have turned these rights to our own advantage - offering flexible hours and working for home for slightly less salary than would be expected in an office and we've had someone on maternity leave (inc me) for most of the last 3 years!
I can't help feel that the solution to this is to simply allow dads to take half the maternity leave (perhaps not the first half mind!). The issue would simply go away then!
Kate Croft notes above that "the main cause for not employing women, I believe, is... the increasing number of women pursuing their employer through the courts for ridiculous and unfounded sexual harassment law suits, motivated only by greed."
Kate, can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Are there really more women pursuing discrimination cases through the courts than there were, say, five years ago? If there is evidence that this is the case, are you sure that your interpretation (that they are "ridiculous and unfounded") is correct? Can you direct me towards a suitably large number of "ridiculous" lawsuits that turned out to be "unfounded"?
If, indeed, more women are prusuing sexual harassment cases, is it not possible they are doing so because:
a) sexual harassment happens and many workplaces are still underpinned by a culture of chauvinism, even though it's 2009
b) sexual harassment laws have been toughened up and women have been given greater confidence to take a stand against this outdated and - to use your word - ridiculous behaviour
c) more women are pursuing cases precisely because it is so outrageous that men should engage in sexual harassment at work in 2009?
Likewise, it it not possible that the media are reporting more of them and giving them greater prominence because:
a) the tabloids (and increasingly the broadsheets) love a bit of prurient gossip
b) it is so outrageous that men should engage in sexual harassment at work in 2009?
I reckon - with no evidence at all, but hey that doesn't seem to matter - that there are far more women who suffer repeated and persistent harassment in silence than actually take a stand. And I'd love to meet an employer who won't take on a woman because s/he is afraid of a sexual harassment suit. I bet it will say a hell of a lot more about their fearful worldview and the unreconstructed culture of their workplace than it will about the reality of working life in the UK in 2009.
Great article. Having been an employer for 15 years I've had several experiences of supporting staff through maternity leave. In every case being decent and thoughtful - ie. we enabled one woman to work from home half the time as she phased back to work - reaped huge rewards in commitment and loyalty. In another case, when we were a very small company and it was my own maternity leave - the consultant who covered brought a whole new dimension to the company which was a huge asset. As a micro business it enabled us to extend our talent pool - all 100% funded by government! Business isn't just about bums on seats - it is about imagination and a different perspective in a role usually helps move things forward.
However, it is too easy for people to see the problems around maternity leave and to discriminate against women accordingly and that's one of the reasons I strongly support the scandanavian model of sharing the leave and pay between both parents. The other reason is that it's good for everyone and society if men have more involvement with their children at that critical stage.
www.twitter.com/erikalwatson
The answer to this problem is simple, always employ the best candidate for any given job - if this happens to be a woman then maternity leave is a risk you are going to have to take. I do not believe that many employers would go as far as not employing someone for this reason. Harman's idea of positive discrimination certainly isn't the answer.
Sadly the main cause for not employing women, I believe, is not the risk that the employed might chose to have children, but rather the increasing number of women pursuing their employer through the courts for ridiculous and unfounded sexual harassment law suits, motivated only by greed.
Oh, and I would expect to be paid an equivalent salary to a male counterpart, however if I had five years away from the industry I would not expect to be paid the same as that male counterpart upon my return, I would not have the same level of experience and industry knowledge any more.
This is always a red hot topic. The people with by far the strongest opinions on it that I have met have been mums who run businesses. Because these women pay a double price. They can not take much time off to be with their own kids (unless the business is very successful/safe already). And then they have to work doubly hard to cover/pay for the time off of their employees who, understandably, want to take up their rights.
I agree that many of these mums are brilliant employees, by the way. Most mums could write this in half the time it is taking me (my typing sped up as I wrote that...).
The fact that the government "pays for maternity pay" is a bit of a smoke screen. The pay is only the start of the problem, it is the training of a replacement (who must often then leave just when they start to get the hang of the job) and the uncertaintly around how long the maternity leave will last that is the real issue for an employer, plus all the stress around legal issues and whether you have overlooked anything on that score.
There is only one solution, and perhaps Scandinavia does this? The simple solution is that we-the-taxpayer must pay. The taxpayer already pays for all the maternity pay/cover of public sector mums. And legions of shareholders (including our pension funds) pay for the maternity pay/cover of mums in big businesses. But when it comes to small businesses (and small charities, in fact), it is usually the boss's family who, in reality, takes up the slack one way or another. That is where all the unfairness is in the current system.
I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that maternity leave is a bad thing. But I have yet to meet a small business owner who feels that his/her own family should be the ones who pay the price so much of the time.
So, if this is all about people being enabled to spend time with their families, small businesses need to be reimbursed for the true cost of maternity leave.
When I announced my first pregnancy to the major oil company I worked for at the time, I expected a horrified reaction. There were precious few female managers, and fewer still with kids. Certainly I knew of no other Single Mother (!) at executive level. But the bullet had to be bitten so I put on my brave lipstick and did it.
Reaction? (as reported from my mole in the boardroom)
"oh good, maybe she'll be easier to manage if she has a dependent - she'll have to keep her job to pay for the childcare"
Hilarious. But convenient. They probably didn't realise then that they'd end up paying for a nanny to come with me on a business trip to Paris, paying for creches during week long S American trips (I needed the baby with me for breastfeeding)... or the effect on making meetings more efficient after the first time I breastfed at the table (they'd run over the 4 hour limit).
My view now? 3 kids later and I think it's similar to the situation of participative fathers. There is no manual so we have to write it for ourselves. We're definitely up to it - the tough bit is making sure we write something that works for us and that we don't get intimidated into trying to pretend we're only mothers (fathers) when we clock off.
The system will always push to get more for less from its employees - in that sense it will be as bad as we allow it to be. Less senior staff often have very little power to change their working conditions so it is up to the execs to make a stand for human progress.
An excellent balanced article Clare, lets hope people don't judge your writing skill purely on your gender. As a selfish business owner I find myself empathising to some extent with Alexandra Schulman though i absolutely hate to admit it. I certainly would never consider discriminating against an interview candidate because i was worried that she might go on maternity leave, but i admit that i do like to understand a little about a person's childcare obligations as part of understanding their suitability for a job. That doesnt mean that i expect them to be as fortunate as Alexandra and afford a live in nanny, but moreover to reassure myself that they have given due consideration to how they would balance their home and work commitments.
Having said that, the women we have employed have always come up trumps - we recently took on a single mum of two for a temporary contract and she was the most organised, efficient person I have ever met! Testament to the full time juggling act she managed at home i am sure.
I find it quite sad that the British work ethic still places so much weight on judging employees by the number of hours they sit at their desk, not their efficacy or efficiency in their work. Time and again there is anecdotal evidence about women who complete superhuman amounts of work in short hours, but the only thing an employer notices is that they leave at 4.30pm on the dot every day. The trick is to change a whole nation's way of thinking and this is going to take a lot more time yet.
Add a comment
Not registered? We'll create a new account for you when you add your comment