Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

British Airways told 'do better' as maternity pay policy emerges

British Airways told 'do better' as maternity pay policy emerges

Reply

Old Feb 8, 19, 5:39 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Programs: Mucci Blue, BAEC Gold, Blockbuster Video card
Posts: 1,182
The whole thing needs revamping. Shared parental leave, which in theory is a great idea imho, turns into a bad joke when firms pay SMP (as mine does). Fortunately Mrs P and myself are in the enviable position that we could afford for me to take some at that minimum, but many families aren't in that position. The fact that a friend in same industry got 6m at 90% was just galling.

For me the only sensible way forward is to evolve to a state where the starting assumption is equality in parental leave (in duration AND pay structure), which is how it seems to me to be in for example Scandinavia. Then the debate about whether there's a commercial hit to be had in employing, say, female flight crew at or around family starting age hopefully largely goes away.

And that seems a goal worth striving for to me. I'd be more than happy to see loads more women in the cockpit. I was gutted when I got an all female flight crew last year (inc. BA Celeb Julie Levy) that my son wasn't there to pop into the flight deck and see this for himself as it would have set a great example.
GaxxyFlyer likes this.
Pascoe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 5:53 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OSL
Posts: 2,071
Bit surprised at the somewhat Neolithic attitudes here but dont know why I am surprised.

A few facts: society benefits from birth so, yes, even if you choose not to have children it is in your interest that others do. Look no further than Japan and China to see where were heading. Wealth decreases when fewer are born as result of increased costs (healthcare et al). Pretty basic macroeconomics.

Companies that have better gender balances are largely equal or better performers and diversity in all forms is proven to be economically enhancing. Im worried people think men should be in a cockpit and women can go elsewhere. Such single-minded attitudes is the last id want to be in the hands of in an emergency.

I do think scandinavia has gone too far (said as a scandi) and that the correct parental leave is somewhere in the middle. In my ideal scenario parents get 6-8 months with ca 40% for the man as a minimum up to 60% and if below 40% parental leave is forfeited.
Pascoe and GaxxyFlyer like this.
dodgeflyer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 6:25 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Programs: BAEC Gold, PG Flyerbonus Priority, UA MileagePlus, Hotels.com Gold
Posts: 290
BA, or any other company, don't have an extra pot of cash in reserve to spring out and pay for a year's full pay parental leave for everyone. The total pay (or total cost of employment) for anyone is going to be pay plus benefits - if you increase the cost of the benefits then the pay will go down, all else being equal.
And there is a wide choice of airlines to work for - if BA's pay and conditions aren't good enough to attract pilots or any other staff (or attract those of a sufficient standard) then they'll have to increase the offer. If, as seems to be the case, they've got enough then they don't need to, even if some people think their current offer isn't sufficiently modern.

I would have thought it better to be paying people more when they're working and less when they're not, within the limits of the law and bearing in mind the need to recruit staff as above. That probably does make me a dinosaur, but I'm not so sure it does make me wrong, or an idiot.

I might be wrong, but I think you work for BA - have you left/are you leaving because of this outrage and moving to one of the much better employers mentioned in this thread?

Last edited by NWIFlyer; Feb 8, 19 at 3:12 pm Reason: Remove quote and response from deleted post
omk298 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:30 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold / OW Emerald
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by dodgeflyer View Post
A few facts: society benefits from birth so, yes, even if you choose not to have children it is in your interest that others do. Look no further than Japan and China to see where were heading. Wealth decreases when fewer are born as result of increased costs (healthcare et al). Pretty basic macroeconomics.
Originally Posted by omk298 View Post
BA, or any other company, don't have an extra pot of cash in reserve to spring out and pay for a year's full pay parental leave for everyone. The total pay (or total cost of employment) for anyone is going to be pay plus benefits - if you increase the cost of the benefits then the pay will go down, all else being equal.
I am a bit surprised to see some people so sure they are entirely in the right where the issue has good arguments on both sides, as I quoted above. If you want to be heard you have to weigh one against the other.

Getting outraged like a 5 year old who didn't get their way, however, doesn't make anyone sound good.
omk298 and nancypants like this.
thebigben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:34 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 5,804
I am reminded of the debate between the CEO and the CFO

CFO - What if we pay for staff training and the leave?

CEO - What if we don't and they stay?

Also it should be noted that the company does not pay all the maternity benefits, they get part of it subsidies through the tax system. https://www.crunch.co.uk/knowledge/t...nts-employees/
Worcester is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:36 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OSL
Posts: 2,071
Originally Posted by thebigben View Post
I am a bit surprised to see some people so sure they are entirely in the right where the issue has good arguments on both sides, as I quoted above. If you want to be heard you have to weigh one against the other.

Getting outraged like a 5 year old who didn't get their way, however, doesn't make anyone sound good.
It is very hard to argue with the fact that a balloon demographic is actually value destroying. It really is basic maths. Particularly in a country which is restricting immigration.
Worcester likes this.
dodgeflyer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:38 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold / OW Emerald
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by dodgeflyer View Post
It is very hard to argue with the fact that a balloon demographic is actually value destroying. It really is basic maths. Particularly in a country which is restricting immigration.
It's not necessary to question that to question the argument. You'd also have to talk about the effectiveness and cost of maternity leave vs immigration or other forms of incentives like childcare vouchers.
thebigben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:46 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,138
My one takeaway from this thread is it's amazing how many people can't cope with someone having an opinion different to their own, and feel the need to belittle or denigrate that person for it
ajeleonard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:46 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 5,804
Originally Posted by thebigben View Post
I am a bit surprised to see some people so sure they are entirely in the right where the issue has good arguments on both sides, as I quoted above. If you want to be heard you have to weigh one against the other.

Getting outraged like a 5 year old who didn't get their way, however, doesn't make anyone sound good.
omk298 view is based companies being liable for the pay but this is wrong actually 92% paid for out of tax credit in the vast majority of cases especially of those who are higher rate tax payers it will be a fraction of what they have already paid in tax. I wonder how many can spend extra on their flying because we all subsidies their winter fuel allowance, triple locked pensions and TV licenses.

I actually have have on of my staff on maternity, so I happen to have some expertise. It may be good for omk298 to explain what makes them such an expert?
Worcester is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:51 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 345
A bit of perspective is needed here: yes pilots go through training and its immensly costly.

It is all well and good people saying their employer gives them dozens of weeks at full pay, pilots cost a heck of a lot and to sustain anything near full pay is really quite a burden.

However, I agree that airlines can and just go further to improve the paternity package.

AFAIK, once female pilots know they are pregnant, they are taken off flying duties and placed on ground/office roles until they are ready to fly again. Not sure if the period beforehand affects their packages.
nancypants likes this.
SinoBritAsia is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:51 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold / OW Emerald
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by Worcester View Post
omk298 view is based companies being liable for the pay but this is wrong actually 92% paid for out of tax credit in the vast majority of cases especially of those who are higher rate tax payers it will be a fraction of what they have already paid in tax. I wonder how many can spend extra on their flying because we all subsidies their winter fuel allowance, triple locked pensions and TV licenses.

I actually have have on of my staff on maternity, so I happen to have some expertise. It may be good for omk298 to explain what makes them such an expert?
So, is it 92% of the marginal tax, or even better 92% of the cost that is recouped? Either way, if this is true, it would be a cost-efficient benefit for BA to provide, so they could make the effort. Generally speaking for an employer to provide what benefits are tax-effective seems a no-brainer, so that the employees can get compensated better, even though it's not straight-up cash.
thebigben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:54 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Programs: BAEC Gold, PG Flyerbonus Priority, UA MileagePlus, Hotels.com Gold
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Worcester View Post
omk298 view is based companies being liable for the pay but this is wrong actually 92% paid for out of tax credit in the vast majority of cases especially of those who are higher rate tax payers it will be a fraction of what they have already paid in tax. I wonder how many can spend extra on their flying because we all subsidies their winter fuel allowance, triple locked pensions and TV licenses.

I actually have have on of my staff on maternity, so I happen to have some expertise. It may be good for omk298 to explain what makes them such an expert?
I'm not an expert - just have a different viewpoint. Happy to learn from others who know more.

So if companies don't have to pay for this maternity leave as you say (or only pay a small fraction), then why on earth doesn't every company offer a year at full pay? I can't believe that companies are refusing to offer valuable staff benefits that would cost them only 8% of the value to the employer just to spite the employees.

If the reference to fuel allowance, TV licences and pensions is a dig at my age then a) at least 2 of those 3 should be scrapped immediately and b) you have my age very wrong!
omk298 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 8:02 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 5,804
It was merely an example of stuff we may have to pay for which we personally don't necessarily agree with.

As again I can speak from experience, organising cover for some one who is off has it's own set of costs. I suspect this is easier in an organisation of many thousands of people than a micro company like ours.

I do know that companies like Goldman Sachs who do go way further, carry on with their programs and tend to extend them.
Worcester is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 8:13 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Programs: BAEC Gold, PG Flyerbonus Priority, UA MileagePlus, Hotels.com Gold
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Worcester View Post
It was merely an example of stuff we may have to pay for which we personally don't necessarily agree with.

As again I can speak from experience, organising cover for some one who is off has it's own set of costs. I suspect this is easier in an organisation of many thousands of people than a micro company like ours.

I do know that companies like Goldman Sachs who do go way further, carry on with their programs and tend to extend them.
And if companies want to go further then why shouldn't they? Every company should be able to make a decision about the benefits to offer staff, to fit with the roles/skills/etc they need.
It will be significantly easier to manage when you are big enough to have an HR department rather than being a small company. It's one of the reasons I dislike the idea of forcing companies to offer long parental leave.

Reading the link you posted above, it looks like companies can get 92% of statuary pay back, not 92% of total parental leave pay. Which explains why not all companies are more generous.

Last edited by omk298; Feb 8, 19 at 8:17 am Reason: Added last bit after reading a bit more
omk298 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 9:33 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA EP 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 5,193
Alright, I'll bite.

So, even if you don't care about corporate contributions to society, the demographic challenge if the population falls suddenly, equality of outcome for everyone regardless of gender, childbearing, etc, let's resort to some economics:

The last time I looked around, BA was short of pilots. They're still short of pilots now.

Pilots don't grow on trees. It takes a lot of effort and time to find the right sort of person, additional time to train them, a lot of money to train them, and a lot of time to get experienced pilots. Add on even more for commanders: by the time you're talking about a Captain, it takes huge money and most importantly time - the most costly thing of all - to make more Captains.

So, do you want to make some of your potential pilots feel like they don't want to work for you? Do you really want to scare people off working for you when you already can't get enough people ?

So, do you really want to present some of your pilots (the women) - your precious, expensive, rare, hard to replace pilots - with having to quit to have a family without penury?

Do you then want to present some of your other pilots (the men) with working for an employer who is clearly hostile to people with young families, so they quit to work in some other occupation or company?

Do you want to pay for the additional fatigue on the people with families, who can't take time to look after their young family without penury? If you think paying pilots leave is expensive, try paying for passenger reaccommodation for flights cancelled due to fatigued and sick pilots.

Recruitment is expensive. Training is expensive. Experience, many thousands of hours of flying time for an experienced commander, is really expensive. Wet leases are expensive. Opportunity cost because you haven't got crews to fly routes you have demand and airport slots for is very, very expensive.

Save money. Treat your people better when they have families. Simples!
flatlander is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread