and look how they ended up!
Time off to breastfeed
- Thread starter liaconn
- Start date
No matter what the impact is on the viability of the business and therefore the job security of the people they work with, of the extra load that has to be carried by colleagues?
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
lmao!!!
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Laughing even more
Its not In My Arrogant Opinion, its Laughing My A$$ Off. Which Im still doing.
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
Laughing even more
Its not In My Arrogant Opinion, its Laughing My A$$ Off. Which Im still doing.
ha ha.. fair enough!!
Acronyms were never my strong point!
I'm glad I don't work with you so.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
I could say the same about a number of posters on this thread. Im truly astounded tbh!
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
Likewise.
This is where I would have an issue. If someone is coming in an hour late every morning or disappearing for an hour during the day, someone else is having to deal with their phone calls, attend meetings instead of them etc. on top of their existing work load. While, in principle, the idea of giving breastfeeding mothers time off is worthy, in practice it is often done at the expense of another employee. This is where many so called work/life balance policies fall down. The 'balance' is achieved for one employee by overloading another employee, and that simply isn't fair.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
I disagree with this. The same situation arises when someone is out sick, on holidays, on maternity leave, at the doctor/dentist, attending a funeral, got a puncture, whatever.
There are always times in work where things are busier and times where things are slacker. No office should be getting run so tightly that one hour overloads another employee unfairly. There should always be enough slack to cope. And if there isnt enough slack to cope then the person needs to be working that bit harder when they get in to catch up. Its only an hour.
But those situations are different. Of course there'll be the odd occasion when a colleague is at the dentist or a funeral or somesuch and you just help out in the same way that they'd help you out.
But someone, day after day, for month after month, not being available at certain times during the day is imposing an extra work load on colleagues on an ongoing basis. While working harder to catch up is one thing, its doesn't solve the matter of phone calls, meetings, urgent queries or simply holding other people up because they have to wait until you get in to have something signed off on or whatever. Obviously, if something can be put into place to ensure the mother has the time off without overly impacting on colleagues who also have commitments/problems/demands on their private time then fair enough. But in my experience that doesn't happen and someone ends up losing out.
But in this case isn't it an hour every day?.. possibly up to two years and also OP stated that the person in question doesn't do any additional work or travel , has just had extended maternity break, will obviously still have all the sick days/holidays etc that all employees would have - so when it's all added up it's more than just an hour. It's two and half days of work a month on top of all other entitlements. That's quite significant especially in the context of small business.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
No I dont think so. Only in the civil service is it up to 2 years, and the civil service is not a small business.
I dont understand why you bring in other entitlements, all employees have them.
Any workplace Ive ever been in Ive just adapted to change like extra staff or less staff. In the last place 4 of us had the same/similar role then they got rid of 2 of them and put one on half days, so I effectively had to absorb the work of 2.5 people. It happens. Its work.
As far as I can tell its just begrudgery about the entitlements a breast feeding woman has. She is not breaking the law, she is not going against company policy, but some people dont like it because they think women should strive to be better prepared (one of the most Orwellian concepts Ive ever heard), or because they wouldnt take all their entitlements, or because 'whats the big deal about breastfeeding' (shocking that an adult in 2012 Ireland would honestly think that its just about nutrition) or because it lets the team down.
But mostly it seems to be 'Well I wouldnt do it so she shouldnt'. Which is just begrudgery.
I can't agree with that. People have given reasons why it is not practical, viable or fair to other staff to have someone take regular time off to breast feed a child after they have come back to work following maternity leave. I know of very few mothers, even those who don't go out to work, who breastfeed a child up to two years of age. While, in an ideal world mothers might do so, it isn't usually practical for all sorts of reasons. If a mother does wish to do this I really don't think it should be at the expense of somebody else's business or the time and workload of another employee, who also has a life outside of work and other pressures and demands on them. My sister in law , who is a stay at home mother, did breastfeed her daugher up to two but only her last feed before she went to bed for the last year. Therefore, even if she had gone back to work, her decision wouldn't have impacted on anyone else. If a baby is at an age where they're having a mix of breastfeeding and ordinary food, surely it should be possible to work out an arrangement that fits in with your work hours.
This particular woman is obviously not breaking laws/going against policy all that, yes it's an entitlement yes she's allowed to take it. Do I think it should be an entitlement after the six month maternity leave? - NO - however if the company think it's doable and an agreement can be reached between mother and employer then fine. Do I think it should be a paid entitlement in public sector for up to two years? NO absolutely not.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
People have mostly given begrudging reasons. Women should strive to be better prepared - cmon, that cannot be taken seriously. If you dont like the workplace policies then lobby to have them changed. The civil service is following the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. Ive already linked to sites outlining the benefits to employers of supporting breastfeeding women. The benefits outweigh the downsides of that 1 hour a day.
The reason you dont see many women breastfeeding up to the time that the child is 2 years of age is due in part to the attitudes shown on this thread. Its not made easy or very well supported in our society.
It would be much much better for society at large and for children in particular if women did breastfeed up to the age of 2. The World Health Organisation isnt having a laugh, there is hard scientific evidence to back their findings.
But if it did, as you suggest, become a more common practice you could at any time have many mothers in a workplace coming in late, leaving for an hour in the afternoon, or leaving an hour early. It just isn't practical. It's ideal, yes, but not practical. A more practical solution would be for the mother to take an hour off unpaid every day and for that money to pay another employee to take on the extra work. At least that would be fairer and would formalise the situation so everyone knew where they stood and no one felt they were being hard done by.