Musings

There’s been another bit of news that’s been in the papers here that while hasn’t been trust to front page yet, has still been simmering in the background for quite a while now. The issue’s centered on maternity benefits of pregnant mums-to-be, and the debate was reignited when some  women here were terminated off employment allegedly as a result of their pregnancy.

On this, there was an interesting contrarian point of view from a letter that showed up in the TODAY Online a few days ago. Formatted to save space.

Put yourself in employer’s shoes
05:55 AM Nov 17, 2009
Letter from Chin Kee Thou

RECENTLY, media reports and letters to the press on the contentious issue of pregnant workers being laid off without equitable compensation or non-confirmation of service after the probationary period have raised concern in the workforce, among unions and the authorities. It would be unjustifiable for a company to terminate or dismiss the service of a loyal worker who has been with a company for years without equitable compensation just because she wants to start a family.

However, a prospective job applicant needs to understand an employer’s concern and burden when a staff gets pregnant during her first year of employment. Generally, a staff new on the job would take about three to six months – depending on the complexities of the task – to understand and manage it. During this probationary period, the staff is paid a full wage that does not commensurate with her full contribution to the company.

If she were to get pregnant towards the end of her probation period and the employer then confirms her service, this would mean that she would enjoy maternity benefits like 16 weeks of paid leave and time off for regular pre-natal checkups. During this period, her contribution would be lower than that of the other staff. This is a cost to the employer.

A temporary staff employed while the worker is on maternity leave would be a financial burden to the employer – this would be something a small company can ill-afford. Alternatively, the redistribution of her job responsibilities among the pool of existing staff would cause resentment and unhappiness, and some may even resign.

A staff who gets pregnant during her first year of employment is a financial liability to a company. In fairness, a new employee should plan to start a family after having worked with the company for more than a year or so to “earn” the benefits.

We all sympathise with the employee, but who sympathises with the employer?

Not surprisingly, letters responding to the one above showed up just 2 days later in the same newspaper, excerpt below:

It shouldn’t be a corporate decision: Firms which discriminate against mums-to-be should be named and shamed
05:55 AM Nov 19, 2009
Letter from Rick Lim Say Kiong

MR CHIN Kee Thou’s letter (“Put yourself in employer’s shoes”, Nov 17) seems to suggest that expectant mothers who are still under probation are a financial liability to small companies and are a source of umbrage among colleagues who have to take on their work responsibilities when they go on maternity leave.

All companies, big or small, have to cope with their female employees getting pregnant, whether or not they are new to the organisation or long-serving staff. Hence, the financial burden incurred in getting temporary manpower or redistributing their workload to colleagues is part and parcel of the maternity process, and does not apply only to those under probation.

Mr Chin also insinuates that women should plan their pregnancy according to the needs of their companies, by ensuring they do not get pregnant in the first year of employment – until they have “earned” their maternity benefit entitlement. If this suggestion catches on, who knows what else female staff might have to do to “earn” this benefit in the future! Does this mean that no one can get pregnant if the company performs poorly, if the economic situation is bleak, or when there is not enough manpower in place? Setting up a family is a private decision and should never be dictated by company policies.

…

The legislation states that if a pregnant staff member is dismissed without sufficient cause within six months of her confinement, the employer must pay her the maternity benefits she would otherwise have been due. Employers are hence, only penalised by paying a compensation sum in lieu of the maternity benefits to the aggrieved staff; no further penalty is imposed. To some unscrupulous employers, this is perceived as a small price to pay to be “free” of an employee who would have incurred further financial costs in the form of childcare leave and other childcare benefits.

Perhaps the Ministry of Manpower should take it a step further and post the details of these errant employers on their website. Simply listing statistics of discriminatory cases does not strike these employers where it hurts the most: Their reputation and, in turn, their profits.

…

In my opinion, both letters are quite persuasive and I see merit in both sides of the argument. On the one hand, it does seem that current employment systems noted by the first writer are open for abuse. I can imagine that an SME won’t take it very well if, e.g. a female job applicant who’s already pregnant does not let her new employer know, accepts the job, then goes on four months of maternity leave and immediately tenders when she returns. It’s lost time and productivity on the part of the company. And as politically correct as all the rhetoric about encouraging women to have children can sound, businesses fundamentally are firstly measured by their bottom line – everything else is secondary, and can even only be considered if their account books in the black and not red ink to begin with.

But then again, the potential ramifications of requiring or even suggesting employees plan their families around company policing and performance are very real. I can’t have babies of course so I can only conjecture. But I’m guessing that the fear of losing employment, promotion prospects, or even just being in some way disadvantaged to have children do factor into considerations of family making. There are also already grumblings, even if in anecdotal fashion, that men who have to discharge their annual national service obligation are equally disadvantaged in jobs and applications too .

Thinking aloud: I think there’s some element of ‘bad eggs in a basket of mostly good ones’ in this debate. Until someone actually comes up with statistics or hard evidence showing if at all or to what degree are maternity benefits being abused by new employees, it’s all still hypothetical and projection even if the scenarios posed in the first letter do sound scary for SMEs. And even if not, surely there must be a compromise somewhere.

While I’m not too sure about the efficacy of legislating monetary payouts in cases of wrongful termination of pregnant employees, I do think that maintaining a list of “family-unfriendly” firms is a good idea – though only whoever makes it into the black list has indeed demonstrated seriously bad employment governance, but is still also given opportunities to show improvement. In other words, entrants to that list should be reviewed regularly.