Dear All,
Good news for ladies,
The Indian government has finally increased the maternity leave from 12 weeks to 24 weeks, placing an additional burden on management/employers. Please be prepared to consider the benefits for women. Enclosed is the latest amendment to the Maternity Act.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
47Good news for ladies,
The Indian government has finally increased the maternity leave from 12 weeks to 24 weeks, placing an additional burden on management/employers. Please be prepared to consider the benefits for women. Enclosed is the latest amendment to the Maternity Act.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The attached document does not say that this is passed. They seems to be asking for comments from the industry. Are you sure this is passed?
From United States, Lincolnshire
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From United States, Lincolnshire
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not passed since it involves costs from the Consolidated Fund of India. All revenues raised by the government, money borrowed, and receipts from loans given by the government flow into the Consolidated Fund of India, hence it needs the approval of the President of India first. Without his assent, it will not be passed.
Further, it will be effective when the same is published in the official gazette.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Further, it will be effective when the same is published in the official gazette.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
The attached bill is a bill introduced by one of the Members of Parliament. This bill is not introduced by the Government. The bill introduced by any of the Members of Parliament and not by the Government is called a Private Bill. The chances of such a bill getting passed are almost nil. Very rarely, this kind of bill is passed in Parliament as there is no government support for it.
The member, i.e., the MP Shri. P. Karunakaran, has introduced this bill for the second time now. The Honorable President will forward this bill to both houses for its ascent. We must ask our elected representatives to support this bill.
My sincere thanks to MP Shri. P. Karunakaran for introducing this bill. Once upon a time, I was also unaware of what a Private Bill is. One of the senior members of our Forum PCA has provided me with his insights on this subject.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The attached bill is a bill introduced by one of the Members of Parliament. This bill is not introduced by the Government. The bill introduced by any of the Members of Parliament and not by the Government is called a Private Bill. The chances of such a bill getting passed are almost nil. Very rarely, this kind of bill is passed in Parliament as there is no government support for it.
The member, i.e., the MP Shri. P. Karunakaran, has introduced this bill for the second time now. The Honorable President will forward this bill to both houses for its ascent. We must ask our elected representatives to support this bill.
My sincere thanks to MP Shri. P. Karunakaran for introducing this bill. Once upon a time, I was also unaware of what a Private Bill is. One of the senior members of our Forum PCA has provided me with his insights on this subject.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You support the move to increase maternity benefit to 24 weeks ???
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a bill that has been submitted by one of the MPs to the Parliament for consideration and enactment. It has yet to be considered by the Parliament. So far, the Act has not been amended by the Parliament (both houses).
Please let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kulkarnimahesh,
I do not see you have a different answer or view than mine or any addition to it. I would appreciate it if you post something different or provide some additional inputs.
I feel the subsequent posters should only post when they disagree with the earlier post or when they want to add something to it. If they don't want to appreciate the earlier poster, it will not matter.
I never write anything once I find the earlier poster is correct. In cases where there is a different view or additional input required, only then do I write.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not see you have a different answer or view than mine or any addition to it. I would appreciate it if you post something different or provide some additional inputs.
I feel the subsequent posters should only post when they disagree with the earlier post or when they want to add something to it. If they don't want to appreciate the earlier poster, it will not matter.
I never write anything once I find the earlier poster is correct. In cases where there is a different view or additional input required, only then do I write.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswata ji,
The answer to your question is - yes, I support the move to increase maternity benefits to 24 weeks. This is because:
1. A newborn baby needs care, attention, and proper nourishment from his/her mother. The overall growth of the child depends on this. The time currently given by working women to the newborn baby is not enough in my opinion. The World Health Organization also shares the same view on this.
2. Central Government women employees are given six months of maternity leave, as I understand. Then why should there be discrimination against women employees other than those in the Central Government?
However, there should be restrictions on the number of deliveries. Or at least in the case of the first delivery, the women employee should be given six months of maternity leave.
This is my view, and you may have a different view altogether.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The answer to your question is - yes, I support the move to increase maternity benefits to 24 weeks. This is because:
1. A newborn baby needs care, attention, and proper nourishment from his/her mother. The overall growth of the child depends on this. The time currently given by working women to the newborn baby is not enough in my opinion. The World Health Organization also shares the same view on this.
2. Central Government women employees are given six months of maternity leave, as I understand. Then why should there be discrimination against women employees other than those in the Central Government?
However, there should be restrictions on the number of deliveries. Or at least in the case of the first delivery, the women employee should be given six months of maternity leave.
This is my view, and you may have a different view altogether.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Personally, I do not support the move! Otherwise, there should be a change in the qualifying service, which at present is 80 days in 12 months. That means a woman employee who joined for less than 3 months can get 6 months leave with salary as a right and occasionally on request so many days of leaves, sick and casual leaves, since we cannot make them work 'hard' while she is pregnant.
I know that many women employees do not support my views, and I can expect a tsunami of comments against my view. But this is purely my personal view, and if the Act is amended, I will be the first to apply it by granting it to my lady staff members because I follow the law and do not like to deny it to anybody. But, frankly speaking, before I sign an appointment order of a lady, I will think twice if I am not going to get the service of that lady for a year or more on the ground of maternity. This happens everywhere. When she is pregnant, her timings at the office will change, and whatever privilege she is given will be taken for granted or as a right she will take it, and after the scheduled maternity leave days, she will start asking for further leave and finally will take a decision not to come back. This is the situation in almost all organized sectors, and in such a scenario, personally, I will not vote for the change. Very sorry to say that I have no more comments on this subject!
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I know that many women employees do not support my views, and I can expect a tsunami of comments against my view. But this is purely my personal view, and if the Act is amended, I will be the first to apply it by granting it to my lady staff members because I follow the law and do not like to deny it to anybody. But, frankly speaking, before I sign an appointment order of a lady, I will think twice if I am not going to get the service of that lady for a year or more on the ground of maternity. This happens everywhere. When she is pregnant, her timings at the office will change, and whatever privilege she is given will be taken for granted or as a right she will take it, and after the scheduled maternity leave days, she will start asking for further leave and finally will take a decision not to come back. This is the situation in almost all organized sectors, and in such a scenario, personally, I will not vote for the change. Very sorry to say that I have no more comments on this subject!
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello, I will support the move. It's good news for ladies, but there should be a change in the qualifying service. Presently, it is 80 days in 12 months; it should be at least 11 months or 1 year.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think the move is illogical.
Just because the central government gives 6 months' right, it does not mean that private companies have to provide it. The central government does not need to make money, worry about efficiency, or consider value for money. They offer 2 years of child care paid leave to be used at any time until the child is 18 years old. There are many women who plan to take a whole year off when the child is 17 because they didn't get to use it or didn't need it earlier. No, we can't implement this in the private sector.
If this is passed, the private sector will simply stop employing women unless absolutely necessary. This would be detrimental to the economy and the potential development of women in general.
The western economies are facing a shortage of workers and are compelled to provide these benefits. The government finances it. Well, then let all women be under ESIC regardless of salary level. Let ESIC cover the cost of maternity leave. I would support 12 months instead of 12 weeks then.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Just because the central government gives 6 months' right, it does not mean that private companies have to provide it. The central government does not need to make money, worry about efficiency, or consider value for money. They offer 2 years of child care paid leave to be used at any time until the child is 18 years old. There are many women who plan to take a whole year off when the child is 17 because they didn't get to use it or didn't need it earlier. No, we can't implement this in the private sector.
If this is passed, the private sector will simply stop employing women unless absolutely necessary. This would be detrimental to the economy and the potential development of women in general.
The western economies are facing a shortage of workers and are compelled to provide these benefits. The government finances it. Well, then let all women be under ESIC regardless of salary level. Let ESIC cover the cost of maternity leave. I would support 12 months instead of 12 weeks then.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Sir, it is reported that the said private member's bill is still pending in the Parliament.
2. A majority of such bills, if not backed and supported by the government, generally are treated as lapsed after a certain period as per the procedure adopted in legislative matters.
3. The then Government in the year 2012 had replied in the Lok Sabha that there was no proposal for any amendment in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Nothing has been heard in the newspapers about the policies of the present government on the above subject. There appears to be no possibility that the present government will support the above private member's bill.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2. A majority of such bills, if not backed and supported by the government, generally are treated as lapsed after a certain period as per the procedure adopted in legislative matters.
3. The then Government in the year 2012 had replied in the Lok Sabha that there was no proposal for any amendment in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Nothing has been heard in the newspapers about the policies of the present government on the above subject. There appears to be no possibility that the present government will support the above private member's bill.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question raised on the increase in the number of entitled days of Maternity Leave from twelve weeks to twenty-four weeks is a matter of debate to be taken up in Parliament. However, from the attached Private Bill of M.P. P. Karunakaran, it may be seen that the Financial Memorandum appended to the Bill indicates that it will involve an expenditure of Rs. 500 Crore from the Consolidated Fund of India. Hence, the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Branch-II) opined that the Bill cannot be considered and passed, and therefore advised to refer it to the President.
In my opinion, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 will not involve such a significant fund flow, i.e., Rs. 500 Crore from the Consolidated Fund of India, as this Act mainly applies to private sector establishments covered under the Shop & Establishment Act of the concerned state. This is because the Central Government has already adopted the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission via OM dated 11/09/2008, stating that Central Government women employees are entitled to 180 days of Maternity Leave. This implies that the Government of India is already providing Maternity Leave benefits to Central Government women employees from the Consolidated Fund of India. Since private establishments do not fall under the purview of the Consolidated Fund of India, from my perspective, the Financial Memorandum attached to the Private Bill needs to be reviewed.
I also agree with the views of Mr. Koregaonkar that there should not be any discrimination among women, including women employees of Central/State Governments and women employees working in private sector establishments. Therefore, the Government of India may need to enforce equality of law for all Indian citizens. Additionally, women employees working on daily wages or as contract workers are currently deprived of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, so they should also be included in the coverage. The Government of India should consider making suitable amendments to the Act to ensure social welfare benefits for all.
I further suggest that unemployed married women should also be considered for Maternity Assistance equal to at least one month's salary of their husbands.
I hope and request that my opinions and suggestions will be favorably supported and considered by all seniors and members/visitors of citehr.
With thanks and warm regards, C.M. Lal Srivastava srivastavacmlal@gmail.com 9818680671 3rd February 2015
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my opinion, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 will not involve such a significant fund flow, i.e., Rs. 500 Crore from the Consolidated Fund of India, as this Act mainly applies to private sector establishments covered under the Shop & Establishment Act of the concerned state. This is because the Central Government has already adopted the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission via OM dated 11/09/2008, stating that Central Government women employees are entitled to 180 days of Maternity Leave. This implies that the Government of India is already providing Maternity Leave benefits to Central Government women employees from the Consolidated Fund of India. Since private establishments do not fall under the purview of the Consolidated Fund of India, from my perspective, the Financial Memorandum attached to the Private Bill needs to be reviewed.
I also agree with the views of Mr. Koregaonkar that there should not be any discrimination among women, including women employees of Central/State Governments and women employees working in private sector establishments. Therefore, the Government of India may need to enforce equality of law for all Indian citizens. Additionally, women employees working on daily wages or as contract workers are currently deprived of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, so they should also be included in the coverage. The Government of India should consider making suitable amendments to the Act to ensure social welfare benefits for all.
I further suggest that unemployed married women should also be considered for Maternity Assistance equal to at least one month's salary of their husbands.
I hope and request that my opinions and suggestions will be favorably supported and considered by all seniors and members/visitors of citehr.
With thanks and warm regards, C.M. Lal Srivastava srivastavacmlal@gmail.com 9818680671 3rd February 2015
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
24 weeks is too much leave. Employers can't afford this. The maximum leave should be 15 weeks, not more than that. This would benefit both the employer and female employees.
Nikhil Konde
9860422727
Consultant and Practitioner of: EPF, ESI, Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act, Shops & Establishment Act, Contract Labour (R&A) Act, MLWF, Payroll Processing, Other Labour & Industrial Laws
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Nikhil Konde
9860422727
Consultant and Practitioner of: EPF, ESI, Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act, Shops & Establishment Act, Contract Labour (R&A) Act, MLWF, Payroll Processing, Other Labour & Industrial Laws
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In many instances, after availing maternity leave, women employees further extend the leave or resign from their positions. It is very difficult to fill the gap during the leave period. Upon rejoining, these women employees lose their grip on the job. I am not against 6 months of leave, but this move will put the employer into financial burden, especially in software companies where female employees outnumber male employees. In this era of tough competition, such companies may find it challenging to cope with the additional burden of paying for the proposed maternity benefits, thereby reducing their margins.
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't wish to say YES or NO to this bill. However, we should approach this with some practicality point of view. Let us forget for the present the Govt. sector. What if it were made applicable to the private sector, especially all-women establishments such as garment, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, banks, primary health centers, anganwadis, research projects, colleges, schools, and other institutions, NGOs, police stations, some places trains, airlines, buses. Imagine a scenario where all such women employees apply for maternity leave; these businesses and services will be temporarily closed/suspended. I think most private entrepreneurs, except trade unions, won't support this bill. Maybe a middle ground, like leave without pay or limiting to 2 children, could be possible. Madhu's views are worth consideration. However, there seems to be a creation of more leave vacancies in those establishments.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To take it further, place it in perspective. Nowadays, we have been hearing that there is an increase in establishments asking pregnant employees to resign before going on maternity leave. Measures like this, when introduced, can create industrial relations problems. There are indications that even in the IT sector, where we have not encountered union activities thus far, efforts are being made to establish trade union-like arrangements due to the prevalence of 'hire and fire' policies in the IT sector. At a time when we are optimistic about industrial growth nowadays, these developments should not cause unwanted concerns for investors worldwide.
Hypothetically, a long time ago, I read a news item about a female convict, vaguely recalling she may have been Italian, who was continuously pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she adopted this method for years, regardless of whether she actually delivered a baby or not. This news item now makes me think about similar situations. With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are females), please do not take offense as I mention this in a lighthearted manner.
In India, an increasing number of women are opting for caesarian sections over natural deliveries, often recommended by hospitals. This trend leads to health issues for mothers, necessitating ongoing medical attention and care. This bill could be beneficial for addressing such conditions. Conversely, my sister-in-law, an obstetrician and gynecologist who has worked in Gulf countries for many years, mentioned that the rate of caesarian sections in those areas, particularly in semi-urban and rural regions, is minimal. Pregnant women in labor pain often go to nursing homes or hospitals alone, get admitted, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns without much notice. Unfortunately, in our country, similar discrete deliveries are mainly associated with unwed mothers, particularly those of baby girls.
It is relevant that working mothers receive as many days at home as possible. This is a topic that can be viewed differently from both sides. If this bill is unlikely to be taken up by the BJP government, it may not come to fruition in the near future, eliminating the need for extensive debate.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hypothetically, a long time ago, I read a news item about a female convict, vaguely recalling she may have been Italian, who was continuously pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she adopted this method for years, regardless of whether she actually delivered a baby or not. This news item now makes me think about similar situations. With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are females), please do not take offense as I mention this in a lighthearted manner.
In India, an increasing number of women are opting for caesarian sections over natural deliveries, often recommended by hospitals. This trend leads to health issues for mothers, necessitating ongoing medical attention and care. This bill could be beneficial for addressing such conditions. Conversely, my sister-in-law, an obstetrician and gynecologist who has worked in Gulf countries for many years, mentioned that the rate of caesarian sections in those areas, particularly in semi-urban and rural regions, is minimal. Pregnant women in labor pain often go to nursing homes or hospitals alone, get admitted, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns without much notice. Unfortunately, in our country, similar discrete deliveries are mainly associated with unwed mothers, particularly those of baby girls.
It is relevant that working mothers receive as many days at home as possible. This is a topic that can be viewed differently from both sides. If this bill is unlikely to be taken up by the BJP government, it may not come to fruition in the near future, eliminating the need for extensive debate.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To take it further, place it in perspective, nowadays we have been hearing that there is an increase in establishments asking pregnant employees to resign before going on maternity leave. Measures like this, when introduced, can create industrial relations problems. There are indications that even in the IT sector, where union activities have not been prevalent so far, efforts are being made to establish trade union arrangements due to the 'hire and fire' policies in the IT sector.
At a time when we are optimistic about industrial growth, these developments should not cause concerns for investors worldwide. Interestingly, some time ago, I read a news item about a woman, possibly from Italy, who was consistently pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she continued this practice for many years, regardless of whether she actually gave birth or not, as the jail rules in her country exempted pregnant women from incarceration. This news immediately comes to mind now.
With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are also female), please do not take offense, I am just speaking in a light-hearted manner. In India, an increasing number of women are opting for cesarean deliveries over natural births, often recommended by hospitals. However, this trend can lead to health issues for mothers, requiring ongoing medical attention and potential complications. This bill could be beneficial in addressing such situations.
On a different note, my sister-in-law, an obstetrics and gynecology surgeon who has worked extensively in Gulf countries, mentioned that cesarean rates in those regions, particularly in semi-urban and rural areas, are minimal. Pregnant women there, experiencing labor pains, go to government-run nursing homes or hospitals alone, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns, often unnoticed. She noted the stark contrast to her experiences in India, where she performs an average of five cesareans daily. Unfortunately, in our country, similar efficiency is only seen in cases of unmarried women giving birth, particularly to girls.
It is pertinent that working mothers are given as much time as possible at home. This topic can be seen from different perspectives, and if this bill is unlikely to be considered by the BJP government, it may not progress any further without extensive debate.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
At a time when we are optimistic about industrial growth, these developments should not cause concerns for investors worldwide. Interestingly, some time ago, I read a news item about a woman, possibly from Italy, who was consistently pregnant as a strategy to avoid serving time in jail. It was reported that she continued this practice for many years, regardless of whether she actually gave birth or not, as the jail rules in her country exempted pregnant women from incarceration. This news immediately comes to mind now.
With all due respect to our female employees (incidentally, my wife and daughter are also female), please do not take offense, I am just speaking in a light-hearted manner. In India, an increasing number of women are opting for cesarean deliveries over natural births, often recommended by hospitals. However, this trend can lead to health issues for mothers, requiring ongoing medical attention and potential complications. This bill could be beneficial in addressing such situations.
On a different note, my sister-in-law, an obstetrics and gynecology surgeon who has worked extensively in Gulf countries, mentioned that cesarean rates in those regions, particularly in semi-urban and rural areas, are minimal. Pregnant women there, experiencing labor pains, go to government-run nursing homes or hospitals alone, deliver quickly under supervision, and quietly leave with their newborns, often unnoticed. She noted the stark contrast to her experiences in India, where she performs an average of five cesareans daily. Unfortunately, in our country, similar efficiency is only seen in cases of unmarried women giving birth, particularly to girls.
It is pertinent that working mothers are given as much time as possible at home. This topic can be seen from different perspectives, and if this bill is unlikely to be considered by the BJP government, it may not progress any further without extensive debate.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
Thank you for your positive reactions!
If this bill is passed, industries would incur heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your positive reactions!
If this bill is passed, industries would incur heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Gm every1, Can anyone clear me that is this amendment also for private sector . Regard’s Meenakshi
From India, Muzaffarnagar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Muzaffarnagar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
Thanks for your positive reactions! If this bill is passed, industries would suffer heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.
Dear friend,
I don't understand what you see as positive and negative in this. As an employee, I welcome it, but as an employer/manager, not so much. Right? Perhaps this bill may be allowed to pass.
---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the text while ensuring proper paragraph formatting.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for your positive reactions! If this bill is passed, industries would suffer heavy losses, and there could be discrimination against men or fathers of children. This bill is still pending.
Dear friend,
I don't understand what you see as positive and negative in this. As an employee, I welcome it, but as an employer/manager, not so much. Right? Perhaps this bill may be allowed to pass.
---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the text while ensuring proper paragraph formatting.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is meant for private sector since in government sector the change has already been enforced as per the guidelnes of the last pay commission reports. Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agee to you. The additional 3 months should be made rather optional and let company decide
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I appreciate the views expressed that if the proposed bill is passed, it will entail a burden on industries. However, no one has given views on the Financial Memorandum attached to the proposed bill. I had pointed out that the financial implication of Rs. 500 crore shown in the bill is not correct. Please comment on this aspect.
Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the views expressed that if the proposed bill is passed, it will entail a burden on industries. However, no one has given views on the Financial Memorandum attached to the proposed bill. I had pointed out that the financial implication of Rs. 500 crore shown in the bill is not correct. Please comment on this aspect.
Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The implication is the estimated cost to the central government (direct employees only) for the additional leave days. It is not an estimate of the amount private companies will spend, including PSU and state government employees.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
All employers/managers are concerned about financial losses, but no one is thinking about female employees' health and concentration, which deteriorates due to returning to work after just 2.5 months after giving birth.
One female employee in my organization was considering quitting her job after maternity leave since a mother cannot leave her baby at just 2.5 months old when 6 months of breastfeeding is necessary. However, if maternity leave is extended to 24 weeks, women can happily return to work without needing to request an extension of leave, flexibility in timings, or resigning from their job since the baby would be ready for supplementary feeding.
Many private organizations provide 6 months of leave to their female employees because they understand the importance and necessity of it. So, why can't all employers be more employee-friendly?
This change would have a very positive impact on employees, and female employees would return to work happily.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All employers/managers are concerned about financial losses, but no one is thinking about female employees' health and concentration, which deteriorates due to returning to work after just 2.5 months after giving birth.
One female employee in my organization was considering quitting her job after maternity leave since a mother cannot leave her baby at just 2.5 months old when 6 months of breastfeeding is necessary. However, if maternity leave is extended to 24 weeks, women can happily return to work without needing to request an extension of leave, flexibility in timings, or resigning from their job since the baby would be ready for supplementary feeding.
Many private organizations provide 6 months of leave to their female employees because they understand the importance and necessity of it. So, why can't all employers be more employee-friendly?
This change would have a very positive impact on employees, and female employees would return to work happily.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I welcome this move and am surprised to see the disagreements on this positive move from a few members of our HR fraternity.
We, the HR professionals, need not be on the side of management to worry about the financial implications of legal enactments. Still, we should respect the need for changes in line with international practices and the expected human rights and privileges that can be extended to our working class. None of the social security benefits should have come if we only think about the financial burden on management.
Of course, there are difficulties in handling the absence of six months in an organization. A skilled woman operator cannot be easily replaced, especially for only six months, but we need to provide that opportunity, even if it comes at a higher cost. Otherwise, the ground reality is that women often have to quit their jobs after pregnancy and childbirth.
Still, in many parts of our country, even in cities, married women are denied jobs. Indirect questions are asked to check their family planning, and they are terminated from their jobs upon reporting their pregnancy.
We must appreciate this move and find ways to manage the absence of six months, allowing women to pass their pregnancy time without worrying about job security.
I am not sure what the level of compliance on implementation will be if this private bill is passed. However, there should be a complementary enforcing mechanism to ensure that this delayed privilege reaches our sisters.
As Mr. Madhu TK pointed out, there can be an improved qualification period, considering the total service rather than just the service with one company. We need to support this move as it demonstrates our social commitment and, of course, is a progressive step.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I welcome this move and am surprised to see the disagreements on this positive move from a few members of our HR fraternity.
We, the HR professionals, need not be on the side of management to worry about the financial implications of legal enactments. Still, we should respect the need for changes in line with international practices and the expected human rights and privileges that can be extended to our working class. None of the social security benefits should have come if we only think about the financial burden on management.
Of course, there are difficulties in handling the absence of six months in an organization. A skilled woman operator cannot be easily replaced, especially for only six months, but we need to provide that opportunity, even if it comes at a higher cost. Otherwise, the ground reality is that women often have to quit their jobs after pregnancy and childbirth.
Still, in many parts of our country, even in cities, married women are denied jobs. Indirect questions are asked to check their family planning, and they are terminated from their jobs upon reporting their pregnancy.
We must appreciate this move and find ways to manage the absence of six months, allowing women to pass their pregnancy time without worrying about job security.
I am not sure what the level of compliance on implementation will be if this private bill is passed. However, there should be a complementary enforcing mechanism to ensure that this delayed privilege reaches our sisters.
As Mr. Madhu TK pointed out, there can be an improved qualification period, considering the total service rather than just the service with one company. We need to support this move as it demonstrates our social commitment and, of course, is a progressive step.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Maternity leave increased to 26 weeks 20.1.2017.pdf
Maternity Leave Policy - posting.doc