Claudia has left QVC

[amn]

the job's a doddle who you kidding?

It's a damn sight harder than flogging tat on QVC.

 

[BusyMum]

mothers taking maternity leave have at least been in a job and paid contributions - unlike thousands of others who have never paid in, but take plenty out.

 

[Akimbo]

I'm constantly amazed how these threads often end up somewhere completely different to where they started... :wonder:

I'm just relieved no one mentioned Teddies or all hell might have kicked off!

J xx

 

[Pinkpussycat]

thank you. and all the time that these fiddlers are on their fake "leave" the employer is paying their salary, as well as paying for a temp to fill in for them so that's double the cost. not to mention denying someone else from being taken on long term. and now we have up to 26 weeks paternity leave too. no wonder our country is on its knees.

Hear hear. Working in large organisations I've seen this happen many times over the years and it's practically regarded as another option, albeit a pi$$ taking deceitful one. I can tell you that if I was an employer running my own small business I would avoid employing women of childbearing age....all done within the law of course. :wink:

 

[apple]

I think one of the problems now , compared to say 25 years ago, is that people feel less and less loyalty to employers, and vice versa, particularly in large companies. People are often treated as 'a number' and have little sense of belonging. Recently there was a story in the news of someone retiring , after 50 years, who was given a couple of hundred pounds of nectar vouchers!. I can remember feeling so loyal to employers, but in recent years I haven't having seen and heard about so many cynical practices in the work place.

 

[rainbowdottie]

I liked Sara - its a shame shes not coming back.Claudia - no opinion one way or the other really.

I was always under the impression that all the presenters don't actually "work" for QVc - but are actually self employed - and negotiate their contracts as such.Whether either party wants to end their contract or not renew,well,is down to either party.

 

[sheepdog]

Hear hear. Working in large organisations I've seen this happen many times over the years and it's practically regarded as another option, albeit a pi$$ taking deceitful one. I can tell you that if I was an employer running my own small business I would avoid employing women of childbearing age....all done within the law of course. :wink:

I've seen it been abused by someone who knew they were pregnant when they took the job knowing full well the way the law works. A complete waste of everyone's time and money as we ended up having to employ two people and let the one doing the work go after the period who had proved themselves capable.

There needs to be an element of honesty with mothers to be. I'm not against maternity or paternity leave or post-birth change of mind but its the "oh I've got a baby you deal with all the work problems I don't want to" attitude that stinks. Followed by the last minute "need time off" or "got to go early". Yeah, you want a child then you think about the consequences on your working life with your collegues: its a sacrifice and you can't have both.

Just to balance it, certain males are of the same attitude when they decide that their social life is far more important i.e. going on holiday or decide to have a drinking session. As Apple says above, its all about the changing attitudes to employers and employees over the years that makes you wonder why we're not as productive as we need to be.

Sheepdog in "er, I'm posting this in company time so being a touch hypocritical" mode

 

[Ilovelulu]

I've seen it from both angles at work and through my friends, one of my friends had a baby and fully intended going back to work but when it came closer to the time she just couldn't bear being away from her baby so soon so she took a further 6 months off, she didn't get any pay from her employers and only got the bear minimum state help. It was very hard for her financially but she believes the baby and herself have benefitted alot more for that extra time.

On the flip side I've had work colleagues who have demanded every holiday where the kids are off school, it didn't stress me out as I prefer going away when the kids are back but it p**sed off a few other girls who wanted the time off as well and could never get it. I believe that if you have children thats your choice but some woman expect special treatment at work and thats not on in my opinion.

It happens all the time and unfortunately employers can't really do much about it. However woman are entitled to have babies and take matnerity and return to work, some take the p**s and others are honest and make decisions to return or not depending on their circumstances, thats life.

PS talk about sitting on the fence eh?? lol

 

[Breeze]

I think BB's first comment in this thread, as often happens on here, has been blown up out of proportion.

Has anyone considered what it's like for the small business employer? They simply can't afford to pay someone on extended mat leave AND someone else to do their job.

.

This can cause huge problems when you run a small business.
We own a small company & during the recession it has brought us very near to failure.
So crippling can it be that now there is pretty much a policy of never replacing someone who leaves with a woman of child bearing age. May seem harsh but it's a hard world out there for small businesses at the moment & what's the alternative, the company going to the wall & all the employees losing their jobs.What would be fair about that?

 

[medusa]

Ooh this just yanks my chain.... so woman of child bearing age should not be employed because they are a potential 'drain on the company', 'take the piss' etc etc.
Little newsflash here, she doesn't impregnate herself. takes two to tango, where are the consequences for the father? . Should we also avoid employing men who have partners they might get pregnant? Or maybe just maybe the partners are still working and contributing to the economy because their partner is at home caring for THEIR child.
Or is the assumption still there that if a child is sick, or on holiday from school etc etc, that the women is the one who sacrifices her carreer to drop everything and be the sole carer.
Woman have enough issues as it is with equality in the workplace, now you want to take away the one benefit they fought for?

 

[BusyMum]

when "equality" first came in, I said it would work against young women - given the choice of a female of child-bearing age, or a man (before paternity leave), who would employ the woman, specially as the employer was supposed to pay them the same? Often women would get a job when the employer could pay them less, where they wouldn't when they had to pay the same.

As a mum who returned to work when my child was two years of age, for a small company (had worked for them up to having the baby too then left, didn't go for maternity leave) I can honestly say that I didn't take advantage - in fact I went the other way - my DD spent holidays with grandparents or a childminder, even when she was ill I might have an odd day or two (as holiday) but I was damn sure nobody was going to say that I got it easy or got favours because I was the only one of us with a young child. With hindsight I SHOULD have put my child first, not the job.

 

[Nicky-j]

Sorry, message in wrong place, have edited to remove.

 

[Nicky-j]

so its never happened that a woman has gone on maternity leave on the pretence that they'll be returning when all theyre really doing is taking the cash and keeping their options open? get real girls.

Of course it's happened, but it doesn't mean it happens every time, or that these ladies are guilty of it. It's that kind of thinking that puts employers off taking on women of child-bearing age.

 

[goddess]

Oh dear! I never inteneded to start such a heated thread.

It was just my opinion that as Sara and Claudia have had their babies over a year ago, they had used up all their maternity leave and becuase they hadn't yet returned to QVC, the decision was taken out of their hands.

In the last year Anthony left, Sara and Claudia have been on Maternity leave and Alison has been battling breast cancer. They've drafted in three new presenters and I'm sure that when she's well enough Alison will return, Micheal was Anthony's repalcement and the the two girls were Sara's and Claudia's. Maybe QVC were testing the water with Carmel and Anna before making a decision on Claudia and Sara.

I'll miss Claudia and Sara and wish them well with thier babies.

 

[StumpyBloke (old account)]

the answer for women is to be honest. dont screw the system for money. dont lie about intentions to return to work when there's no intention. its no better than being a benefits cheat.

I would suggest this be addressed to the populous rather than just women.

and for men ditch the paternity leave. get to bloody work and be thankful to have a job.

Why? Good God© BB IMHO, what a dictatorial attitude! Why shouldn't fathers have (albeit much smaller duration) leave with their new kid?

 

[StumpyBloke (old account)]

mothers taking maternity leave have at least been in a job and paid contributions - unlike thousands of others who have never paid in, but take plenty out.

Good point! It is the attitude of many people in this country that it is a right to have kids - new flash - it aint!! If you can afford to have kids without relying on any handouts then have as many as you want! Otherwise, you aint entitled to any!

Personally, if anyone was having kids and were relying on the state to pay for them then I would have them adopted in to decent families - it would do the kids far more good in the end. Otherwise we are just breeding the next generation of money grabbing sponging scum!!

 

[Frazzled]

I work in an environment where new staff have to be intensively trained for a period before they can even be counted as part of the team, this is then followed by a lengthy probationary period.

This makes covering maternity leave with temporary staff very difficult. However, maternity leave is a legal right and we have to cope. I remember the days before the law came in when women were forced to leave, my now line manager was the first person to take advantage of the new rights.

I can only remember two or three women who didn't stay, a couple came back for the statutory period and one had a child with special needs. The many others have all come back to work full time, some of them now have children in their teens and twenties.

So although inconvenient at the time, plus accommodating on-going childcare difficulties etc, highly skilled people, in whom a lot of time and money had been invested, returned to pursue careers. The temporary staff employed over the years, retained their jobs through additional maternity leave or natural wastage occurring.

I do appreciate it's much more difficult for small businesses to cope, but the principle is the same.

 

[NIKKID]

Ohh this is a tricky one isnt it! I totally understand a woman wanting to be home with her child/children but there are certainly a few women out there who have made the situation bad for the cause of women as a whole in this regard!

My DH is an employer in a small comapny and i know in the past he has been stung on a few occassions to the extent that he will not really consider employing a female in a skilled role anymore as he just does not have the time or resources to train/retrain or keep jobs open!

I really like Sara and hope she does come back eventually and i had strangely started to like Claudia just before she left but they have both been gone sooooo long that i hardly give them a second thought now anyway!

 

[Tinkerbelle]

I believe that if you improve maternity leave and benefits the more women will return to work. Very much against the mainstream view but I am living proof it works.

I was offered five months maternity leave on full pay. I returned to work part time and ramped it up to full time. I was also allowed and encouraged to bring my baby into the office with me. He was in the office with me from four months of age until 15 months of age. I stayed with that company for eight years in total and had my baby in year one. I worked my tush off to repay their generosity and turned the business round from a million pound loss into profit. And I clawed back the million debt within five years.

I got superb maternity benefits but I repaid the favour in spades.

 

[Queen Bee]

this thread is very interesting, i've managed dental practices for 20 years and there are obviously most female staff members. In two years, we had 17 pregnancies within two surgeries, one surgery had 11 nurses, 5 receptionists and two floating staff members, 9 dentists, the other surgery had 11 dentists (part time mostly) 11 nurses and 3 receptionists.
so unless we didn't hire anyone of childbearing age (which could realistically be between 16 and 50!) then we could'nt operate as a business.

all of these pregnancies didn't impact on our business as maternity pay doesn't cost the business a penny, it is paid out by the government. Yes the employer pays the stat mat pay but when paying tax, pays minus the mat pay amounts. We always planned our replacements carefully and when our nurses/dentists returned to work part time, then the replacements were also offered part time hours or full time if the staff member didn't return.

I don't honestly understand how business's make such a big deal about mat leave. Women are going to have babies, just as well they do or the human race would grind to a halt, and talking utter nonsense about not hiring childbearing age women is saying you would exclude all females between 16 and 50!

good for Claudia and Sara, I'm thrilled to see they are enjoying their families.