Maternity
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is forcing you to stop breast feeding at 6 weeks? If you cant afford to stay at home, don't have kids.If your priority is money then go back to work. I don't see why everybody else in your company has to subsidise your lifestyle. 6 weeks at 90% sounds very generous. Liability for maternity pay is one of the main reasons employers can be reluctant to take on women. I actually think your being greedy looking for more money. In scandanavia they have alot of oil revenue to subsidise maternity schemes and alot higher taxes maybe you should have your next child there. 
I have flown with a First Officer that was pumping. No big deal for me, but a pain for her. In the US flight crew in uniform are exempt from the 3oz liquid rule. I don't know if the suggestion was serious or not, but if you do it you won't be the first.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rexmundi,
One of my points was that there was no information available to me from my company about flight crew maternity. Unfortunately I was originally verbally misinformed about my pay otherwise I would have started saving earlier. I don't think that my company should necessarily pay me anything above the legal minima but I do think that they should have provided accurate information from the day that I told them I was pregnant.
My husband and I are lucky - we're sensible savers and still have 5 months before the birth to save enough for me to take maternity leave. We're also very fortunate that friends are giving us 2nd hand baby stuff. Not everyone is that lucky and I think that they should have adequate information available to help them when/if they decide to start a family.
Perhaps this thread will raise awareness amongst other pilots so that they have time to plan ahead and save sufficiently.
One of my points was that there was no information available to me from my company about flight crew maternity. Unfortunately I was originally verbally misinformed about my pay otherwise I would have started saving earlier. I don't think that my company should necessarily pay me anything above the legal minima but I do think that they should have provided accurate information from the day that I told them I was pregnant.
My husband and I are lucky - we're sensible savers and still have 5 months before the birth to save enough for me to take maternity leave. We're also very fortunate that friends are giving us 2nd hand baby stuff. Not everyone is that lucky and I think that they should have adequate information available to help them when/if they decide to start a family.
Perhaps this thread will raise awareness amongst other pilots so that they have time to plan ahead and save sufficiently.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Paddington,
They really should have included maternity entitlements in the contract of employment you signed.
If these details were not there I sympathise, as you probably had to deal with an terrible HR department who really are just bureaucrats there to prevent the company getting sued by employees.
They really should have included maternity entitlements in the contract of employment you signed.
If these details were not there I sympathise, as you probably had to deal with an terrible HR department who really are just bureaucrats there to prevent the company getting sued by employees.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi paddington,
i can only encourage you to take as much maternity leave as you feel is right. i myself could not have imagined to go back to work 6 weeks after giving birth, but every woman is different. with my first child i needed a whole year, with my second i started working a few days a month after 8 months. it was difficult to manage moneywise, however, the time when a child is a baby is only ONE year and that happens only once in its life! have you got an instructors license? why not go instructing a little bit as a side income?
folks,
i am surprised to read so many aggressive posts here. it is a difficult decision and paddington asked for tipps, not for unhelpful comments.
i can only encourage you to take as much maternity leave as you feel is right. i myself could not have imagined to go back to work 6 weeks after giving birth, but every woman is different. with my first child i needed a whole year, with my second i started working a few days a month after 8 months. it was difficult to manage moneywise, however, the time when a child is a baby is only ONE year and that happens only once in its life! have you got an instructors license? why not go instructing a little bit as a side income?
folks,
i am surprised to read so many aggressive posts here. it is a difficult decision and paddington asked for tipps, not for unhelpful comments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company has now put together an information package accessible via their internal company website. So female pilots can now see what our maternity conditions and pay will be and plan/save up accordingly. This is a really useful step forward and I hope other airlines will do something similar.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maternity
Who is forcing you to stop breast feeding at 6 weeks? If you cant afford to stay at home, don't have kids.If your priority is money then go back to work.
UK/SWE
I guess many of us here in the northern parts of Europe don't know how lucky we are. We get 12 months off with 80% of our pay. Most people tend to spread this over 18 months by taking a bit less every month. Mother gets 50% and father 50%. A maximium of four months can be given by one parent to the other.
Why don't you move here for a few years?
Thank you for your post Paddington
Although it may seem unbelievable to some of you - women have a right to both have children and to work. Since initially after giving birth they may be unable to do both at the same time (i.e. work and raise a new born baby), legislation should protect them by (i) enabling them and the newborn baby to survive and (ii) guaranteeing that they do not loose their position when they return to work after a reasonable time.
The thought of women having to take pumps to work in fear that they will loose their position or to survive seems a sad state of affairs. Perhaps this situation has resulted from managers with viewpoints such as those shared by rexmundi and others. It seems that some parts of Europe are years ahead in terms of protecting basic human rights than others which should use these countries as examples and work towards these standards.
Perhaps existing taxes could be better spent towards encouraging, protecting and generating life rather than by subsidising industries that destroy life. Public funds could definitely be spent more efficiently. What way would be more efficient than supporting life at the most important stage of that life?
Women should never have to face reasoning such as some of those expressed in above posts such as: “If you cant afford to stay at home, don't have kids.If your priority is money then go back to work.”
Come on - is our society not a bit better than this? – If not I feel it should be.
UK/SWE
I guess many of us here in the northern parts of Europe don't know how lucky we are. We get 12 months off with 80% of our pay. Most people tend to spread this over 18 months by taking a bit less every month. Mother gets 50% and father 50%. A maximium of four months can be given by one parent to the other.
Why don't you move here for a few years?
Thank you for your post Paddington
Although it may seem unbelievable to some of you - women have a right to both have children and to work. Since initially after giving birth they may be unable to do both at the same time (i.e. work and raise a new born baby), legislation should protect them by (i) enabling them and the newborn baby to survive and (ii) guaranteeing that they do not loose their position when they return to work after a reasonable time.
The thought of women having to take pumps to work in fear that they will loose their position or to survive seems a sad state of affairs. Perhaps this situation has resulted from managers with viewpoints such as those shared by rexmundi and others. It seems that some parts of Europe are years ahead in terms of protecting basic human rights than others which should use these countries as examples and work towards these standards.
Perhaps existing taxes could be better spent towards encouraging, protecting and generating life rather than by subsidising industries that destroy life. Public funds could definitely be spent more efficiently. What way would be more efficient than supporting life at the most important stage of that life?
Women should never have to face reasoning such as some of those expressed in above posts such as: “If you cant afford to stay at home, don't have kids.If your priority is money then go back to work.”
Come on - is our society not a bit better than this? – If not I feel it should be.
