TheInstitute of Directors has expressed its concerns about the implications foremployability of women of the increasing employment rights on many occasions.We are concerned that the increased employment rights for women could provecounterproductive and damage womens employability.
Butin making these concerns known, we would like to emphasise that we are verysupportive of, and indeed encourage, business provision of flexible workingpatterns for their employees, in general, and women with children, inparticular. We encourage employers to accommodate their employees requests forflexible working practices so that the latter can balance the demands made onthem by their home lives as well as their working lives. And we note thatsurveys have shown that a flexible approach to employee working patterns canpay dividends in improving job satisfaction, motivation and loyalty and cuttingdown turnover and recruitment costs. But we emphasise that such arrangementsshould, as far as possible, be left to the employer and the employee to decideon a mutually convenient basis and not heavily legislated for. Legislationimposes inflexibilities, voluntary good practice does not.
Wedo, however, recognise that for some firms (and especially small firms whichconstitute the vast majority of businesses in the UK) and for certain keygroups of employees there are major restrictions to what the employer canaccommodate. This reflects the realities of the working place in a highlycompetitive business environment. Moreover, accommodating flexibilities forsome groups of employees (principally mothers) can lead to resentment fromother employees who cover for absent mothers and yet can have equal privatedemands on their time (eg those looking after elderly parents).
Weare aware of and indeed, on the whole, support the current maternity rights butsome employers (along with other employees) undoubtedly have difficulties withthem. And when the new rights have been introduced (by 2003), we believe thatthe difficulties faced by some employers will increase. (Annex 1 outlines thecurrent maternity rights and the changes due to be introduced by 2003.)
Thereis a strong possibility that any extra rights for women with children will actas an increased deterrent to recruiting women of prime child-bearing age. Suchrights could adversely affect womens employability. A survey of IoD membersconducted in 1998 showed that 45% of respondents found women of primechild-bearing age less attractive to recruit than other groups because of thethen maternity rights. A similar survey conducted early in 2001 suggested some62% of respondents regarded women of prime child-bearing age less attractive torecruit than other age groups. The figure rose to 67% if the proposed measuresin the DTIs Green Paper Work and Parents - competitiveness and choice (ofearly 2001) were to be introduced. As most of these measures are very likely tobe introduced by 2003, then it may well be that by 2003 some 2/3rds ofemployers may have concerns about employing young women.
Governmentpolicy towards parents (principally women who are likely to remain the maincarers of young children) lacks coherence. Whilst much time has been spent onextra family friendly regulations which could well damage womens jobprospects the key issue of childcare has still not been properly addressed.In particular, we would urge more generous tax breaks for childcare provided byemployers the details are outlined in annex 2.
RuthLea, Head of the Policy Unit, Institute of Directors
February2002
Annex 1:Maternity rights
Pregnant women are currently entitled to 18 weeks ordinarymaternity leave (OML), regardless of length of service. Women who havecompleted one year are entitled to additional maternity leave (AML orextended maternity leave), beginning at the end of OML and finishing up to 29weeks after the birth. Women with one years service are also entitled to up to11 weeks leave before the expected birth of the baby giving a maximumpossible period of 40 weeks leave. Employers are obliged to hold a womans job(or equivalent in the case of redundancies and/or reorganisation) open for her even though she has no obligation to return. This means that, not only doesthe employer have to provide cover for the absent woman (by taking on temporarystaff or putting more responsibility on other staff), but is also in limbo formuch of the time the woman is away. This can lead to severe pressures on theemployer and the other employees (often overlooked) especially in small firmsand/or with key employees.
The current Government has announcedthat maternity rights are due to be extended. The flat rate (paid after thefirst 6 weeks) of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) will rise from 60.20 a week to75 a week in April 2002 and to 100 a week in April 2003 (when the period ofentitlement for both SMP and OML will rise from 18 weeks to 26 weeks). Inaddition, women will need to work just 6 months in order to be eligible for AML(instead of the current 1 years length of service). And the period of AML willbe increased to 26 weeks after the end of 26 weeks OML (making 52 weeks inall). (Paid paternity leave for 2 weeks at the same rate as SMP - is due tobe introduced in April 2003.)
Proposals have been introduced giving parents with childrenunder 6 the right to ask for part-time work (to be introduced in April 2003).This is clearly of more relevance to mothers than fathers. Whilst this soundsinnocuous, there could be difficulties. The Government is clearly expectingemployers to consent (the Government has an 82% target consent rate) and ifemployers fail to go through the correct procedures they could lose a caseagainst them at an employment tribunal. If the target consent rate is not metthen the policy will be reconsidered.
It should also be noted that an Employment Tribunal hasrecently ruled that parents (again more relevant to mothers rather thanfathers) cannot be forced to work irregular shifts (Michelle Chew versusSomerset Police).
Employees who pay for childcare receive no tax relief exceptfor the lower paid who receive the childcare tax credit, for up to 70% ofeligible childcare costs, as part of the Working Families Tax Credit.
Employers providing childcare in an on-site nursery (notalways the most convenient for parents) are eligible for tax relief on thecost. It is a non-taxable benefit for the employee (and no NICs are paid).
If the employer provides a childcare voucher for theemployee to spend in any nursery then this is tax deductible for the employerbut it is a taxable benefit for the employee (though NICs are not paid by theemployee). Consideration should be given to making this type of employerprovided childcare into a non-taxable benefit. This would then mean consistenttreatment for all employer provided childcare.