Maternity leave firings becoming more common in Canada

[urban.one]

Equal rights for all! Good to see that everyone is treated the same. [edit: for those who couldnt tell this was sarcastic]

Theres been discussion on this topic on this forum in the past.

Maternity leave firings becoming more common: lawyer
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 | 8:20 AM ET Comments154Recommend213CBC News
The slumping economy is being blamed for what appears to be an increasingly common action — laying off or firing mothers while they're away from their jobs on maternity leave.

Toronto employment lawyer Daniel Lublin said he used to get a few inquiries every month about women being laid off while on maternity leave. Now, he said, claims have quadrupled.

Lublin said most companies he deals with blame the downturn in the economy.

"I'm hard-pressed to find a company these days that doesn't play the economy card," he said.

Many of the calls Lublin fields are from mothers just getting ready to return to work. Most of them just take the packages they're offered.

"The employers were always able to fire these people, it's just a question of the timing that leaves a bad taste in a lot of these people's — a lot of these ladies' — mouths," said Lublin.

Ilinka Petkovski expected that when her maternity leave was over she would be able to return to her job. But three days before her leave ended she was told her job was redundant — even though someone else was still doing her job.

"They got rid of the expensive choice and kept someone they had just hired," said Petkovski.

She could have filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour, or the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, or launched a lawsuit against the company. But all of those choices appeared to be time-consuming options.

Instead, Petkovski took a severance package and moved on.

"We're just little peons trying to fight these corporations who have deep pockets and fancy Bay Street lawyers, and we're moms trying to get on with our lives," she said.

Normally, employees on parental leave are protected. They have to be reinstated or offered a comparable position.

But legally a company can let them go if it's cutting jobs.

[01RedDX]

.

[adam c]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Wait... you're happy that mothers of young children are being denied the right to return to work from maternity leave. Are you just being a prick or are you high? This is not something to be happy about. Countries like Sweden guarantee 18 months of paid maternity leave, with good reason. If you don't realize how important this is, then you're an idiot.

slow day? can't detect sarcasm?

[masoncgy]

Thankfully, my significant other works for the CHR and is backed by a union... she's just about to return from maternity leave and I did have a small fear that she might get the short end of the stick... fortunately, not the case as she goes back May 11.

I know of a few others who have been laid off recently, right as their maternity benefits expired and were ready to return to work. Unless the employee on leave had some kind of habitual performance issue which gives reason(s) to cut their position in such a fashion, I think it's a sin to do such a thing.

[01RedDX]

.

[w_man]

well .. to create more controversy ... why is it that someone on a maternity leave should have a 'guaranteed' job instead of someone who isn't?

I mean If there are 10 people working for your department and economy shits the bed .. you need to let go of 5 people so you pick the best 5 to stay and get rid of the other 5 ... if this one lady is away on maternity leave, why is she exempt? Pay for her maternity leave and when she is returning, let her know that she was picked as one of the 5 unfortunate ones who are layed off.

I dont personally see anything wrong with that but I'm not a woman nor is my wife in that situation so ...

[sputnik]

Does it make a difference if the woman is laid off 3 days before mat leave is over or 3 days after she returns to work?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by adam c


slow day? can't detect sarcasm?

I don't think it's sarcasm.

I think OP is glad that maternal leave doesn't shield you from anything.

Originally posted by w_man
I mean If there are 10 people working for your department and economy shits the bed .. you need to let go of 5 people so you pick the best 5 to stay and get rid of the other 5 ... if this one lady is away on maternity leave, why is she exempt? Pay for her maternity leave and when she is returning, let her know that she was picked as one of the 5 unfortunate ones who are layed off.

I dont personally see anything wrong with that but I'm not a woman nor is my wife in that situation so ...

Neither do I but nothing is totally black and white.

I can see employer worry about legal trouble and fire a more competent worker over a mom on maternity leave.

I can also see employer firing a mom because if she's out of it for a full year, productivity would be pretty low when she returns. At time like these, productivity is very important.

IMO, if women decided to have kids, they should give up on their careers and change into jobs.

Raising kids doesn't mix well with careers.

[adam c]

on the flip side, why should a woman be punished for taking time off to raise their kid?

my gf is going on mat leave on friday, albeit she isn't going back to the same job as she is moving from edmonton to calgary she shouldn't be punished for being there for her child

[blinkme_210]

Gotta love the sense of entitlement in North America.

Laid off and terminated are 2 very different terms.

When an employee takes a mat/pat leave, they're treated just like any other employee. If a company has to lay off some people, they can legally layoff anyone. Just because an employee is on mat/pat leave, it doesn't exempt them from lay offs, because the layoff is related to the company financial status. And given the current economic situation right now, it's quite hard to disprove that.

However, if an mat/pat leave employee is terminated without cause, then that's grounds for discrimination and illegal. At this point, pull out the yellow pages and call a labour lawyer.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by adam c
on the flip side, why should a woman be punished for taking time off to raise their kid?

my gf is going on mat leave on friday, albeit she isn't going back to the same job as she is moving from edmonton to calgary she shouldn't be punished for being there for her child

The PC thing to say is she shouldn't.

Be honestly, you think someone who has been off the job for a year can be compared equally as someone who has not?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Neither do I but nothing is totally black and white.

Legally, it is pretty black and white. You're not allowed to fire someone on parental leave for, essentially, going on parental leave. And rightfully so, IMO.
The example given where the woman was told her job was redundant, but her replacement was still there, doing her job, isn't right, or legal.
On the other hand, contrary to many people's belief, if her position had truly been made redundant, she is in now way guaranteed employment.

You're not guaranteed employment. You'd guaranteed your job back. If your job no longer exists, no guarantee can exist on your right to it.

Originally posted by Xtrema
IMO, if women decided to have kids, they should give up on their careers and change into jobs.

Raising kids doesn't mix well with careers.

Any actual basis for this, or just stating an opinion based on your personal belief system and lifestyle preferences?

IMO, women shouldn't be expected to sacrifice their careers to have kids. Understandably, that's the logical step for many, but to generalize that it is somehow their duty to play stay at home mom, and if they don't, they're responsible for any detrimental impacts that has, is unfair and, dare I say, sexist.

[Ntense_SpecV]

Originally posted by Xtrema


The PC thing to say is she shouldn't.

Be honestly, you think someone who has been off the job for a year can be compared equally as someone who has not?

This scenario only works when both are equal employees. What if the person who is on maternity leave has 5 years in the business and the other only has 3...who has more experience?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Any actual basis for this, or just stating an opinion based on your personal belief system and lifestyle preferences?

Originally posted by Xtrema

IMO

I agree with you though TKRIS, women shouldn't have to give anything up for children, IF they don't want to.

Children = the future. If we want our civilization to continue, we have to support it.

Laying someone off while on mat leave because the job no longer exists is fine, but when your "temporary" replacement is still there, then that's a problem.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by TKRIS
You're not guaranteed employment. You'd guaranteed your job back. If your job no longer exists, no guarantee can exist on your right to it.

So in this case, say you have 2 people doing this function and now need to be trim to 1.

Who do you trim, the guy on the job and the guy on mat/pat leave, given both are equal in all other attributes?

Originally posted by TKRIS
Any actual basis for this, or just stating an opinion based on your personal belief system and lifestyle preferences?

IMO, women shouldn't be expected to sacrifice their careers to have kids. Understandably, that's the logical step for many, but to generalize that it is somehow their duty to play stay at home mom, and if they don't, they're responsible for any detrimental impacts that has, is unfair and, dare I say, sexist.

I did not say they shouldn't work, nor did I say they shouldn't have both. All I'm saying is if you expect to have a career and have people depend on you and you disappear for a year? That's just bad business.

But if she has jobs that can come and go as they please, be my guest.

Most chicks I know with "careers" not "jobs" usually don't do more the a couple months of mat leave.

Originally posted by Ntense_SpecV


This scenario only works when both are equal employees. What if the person who is on maternity leave has 5 years in the business and the other only has 3...who has more experience?

Every case is different. All I'm saying is, mat leave reduce productivity and that's a fact. How a company want to deal with it is subjective.

[Super_Geo]

So say I have a worker who is pretty useless, and then goes on maternity leave. I hire a temp worker to fill her spot, but I find that the temp worker is much, much better at the job than the original woman was.

Can I "lay off" the original worker who is now on mat leave?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Xtrema


So in this case, say you have 2 people doing this function and now need to be trim to 1.

Who do you trim, the guy on the job and the guy on mat/pat leave, given both are equal in all other attributes?

I agree with you. I wasn't criticizing with my post, I was just saying that as far as the law goes, it is pretty cut and dry.

Originally posted by Xtrema
I did not say they shouldn't work, nor did I say they shouldn't have both. All I'm saying is if you expect to have a career and have people depend on you and you disappear for a year? That's just bad business.

Bad for whom? There are a plethora of careers, and a multitude of situations where your assumptions simply do not hold water.
Again, I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was just asking upon what you were basing your opinion. We all form all sorts of opinions on personal experience, bias, and world view. I was just curious if your statement was based on anything more than that.

Originally posted by Xtrema
But if she has jobs that can come and go as they please, be my guest.

Most chicks I know with "careers" not "jobs" usually don't do more the a couple months of mat leave. [/B][/QUOTE]

And it's your contention that this is detrimental to the child? Or that taking more than a couple months indicates that it's not really a career?
I think we have a different view on what constitutes a career, versus a job.

[rage2]

Originally posted by adam c
on the flip side, why should a woman be punished for taking time off to raise their kid?

Parental leave is such a joke. If you can't afford to have kids without both parents working 2 jobs, you shouldn't have kids. Lack of proper parenting is why kids are so fucked up these days.

I mean really, 1 year of parental leave. You think the kid doesn't need proper parenting after 1 year? Makes no sense.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by TKRIS
And it's your contention that this is detrimental to the child? Or that taking more than a couple months indicates that it's not really a career?
I think we have a different view on what constitutes a career, versus a job.

In my books, if you can be absence for more than a month with little impact to the employer, it's a job.

Originally posted by rage2

Parental leave is such a joke. If you can't afford to have kids without both parents working 2 jobs, you shouldn't have kids. Lack of proper parenting is why kids are so fucked up these days.

I mean really, 1 year of parental leave. You think the kid doesn't need proper parenting after 1 year? Makes no sense.

Thank you, rage sums up what I try to say in 3 posts in 2 sentences.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by rage2

Parental leave is such a joke. If you can't afford to have kids without both parents working 2 jobs, you shouldn't have kids. Lack of proper parenting is why kids are so fucked up these days.

I mean really, 1 year of parental leave. You think the kid doesn't need proper parenting after 1 year? Makes no sense.

Bullshit.
Do you have any idea what kind of consequences we'd face if no one except those who can function on a single income ever had kids?
And WTF do you mean "proper parenting", as if that's not possible if both parents are working? There's a reason daycares/dayhomes have specific limits on kids under the age of 1 and 2. Exponentially more attention is required in the first year than is required after that. What about when they turn 3-4 and start going to playschool? Isn't proper parenting needed at that age as well?

We would be doing ourselves a major disservice to discourage having kids in the way that you're advocating.