It's a lifestyle choice

Am getting rather enraged listening to the debate on Radio 2 about women and maternity leave. There was a woman on who was surprised when she applied for jobs to find out they didn't want to employ her because she was pregnant. Well, of course they don't. If I needed to employ someone I would hire a guy, as cute as possible, because he's not going to get pregnant and leave me up shit creek without a paddle. They cancelled her interview, which she thought was appalling, but they were just saving both their time as they knew they weren't going to give her a job.

Why would someone, particularly in a small business, hire someone who is then going to stop work for at least a few months? They get trained up then they leave and the employer is stuck in the same place they were, except they now have the bother of maternity leave and pay. Their colleagues then also have to take on extra work with no more pay whilst someone gets paid for fulfilling their lifestyle choice. It's not discrimination, it's sensible business. Hell, if she's that great she won't find it hard to get a job once she's had children and can go back to the world of commerce.

As a woman who doesn't want to have a child, these women who take the piss with their maternity leave and such behaviour tar us all with their brush. An employer doesn't know that I don't want kids and am not going to leave them in the lurch after only a few months, so for that reason they may not employ me, or another young woman. The way I understand it, women can go on mat leave for up to two years and then can inform their employers that they aren't going to come back to work. How is that regulation for good business practice?

Because having kids isn't a right, which is why I don't think people should get handouts from the state for having children. If you want a child then that privilege comes with the responsibility and in my opinion that responsibility is paying for it. These days, everyone chips in with paying for children in the form of taxes for child benefit, council houses for single mothers, state schools, the free at the point of use NHS services and all those transport initiatives other people got but I never did. Hell, my parents had to pay private school fees because the school in my area were so bad.

With this government it's harder and harder for people to be able to fund themselves I know, because the tax burden has risen so much and the state wants you to be reliant on them. But I don't understand how these women can not see the point of view of the employer.

I don't pretend to have the answers but I see this legislation as incredibly damaging to women wanting to get employment. The contract between an employer and an employee should be just that: between them. Politicians, most of whom have never had a real job in their lives (don't forget where this legislation arises from!)should be the last person sticking their honks into this business.

Harsh? Maybe. But it really does annoy me.