I was shocked beyond words reading the letter by Yeh Siang Hui in the ST Forums. In particular, I was put off by his declaration that "a pregnancy in the workplace is nothing but bad news". With narrow-minded people like him, I wonder how many of his female colleagues will suffer should he become their superior one day.

As I read through the letter, I realised too that everything that he mentioned seemed to go against not just government efforts to encourage higher birth rates, but also throwing the call for more grace to the dustbin. It is also people like him who will probably and can only rule with an iron fist; not that there’s anything wrong, but I feel that this impairs creativity at work and spells a mundane work life.

Ever wonder why people enjoy working at Google?

Maternity leave not a perk

I REFER to Tuesday’s letters, ‘Working mums penalised in other ways’ by Ms Mabel Tan and ‘Pregnant employee bullied by manager, now stay-home mum’ by Ms Swee Bee Lan.

Their letters suggest they expect employers to reward pregnant employees in the same measure as other employees, even though a pregnant employee who takes maternity leave is (other factors being equal) inevitably less productive than her single or non-pregnant colleague in a similar position in the company.

This would be unfair, not only to the employer, but also to other employees who have to cover the duties of their pregnant colleague.

Consider this: Two employees each have 120 units of work to complete in a year. One becomes pregnant and goes on maternity leave, completing only 90 units. The other has to cover her duties, thus completing her own 120 units, as well as the 30 units of her pregnant colleague – a total of 150 units.

In such circumstances, it is right and legitimate for an employer to reward the worker who has been more productive, more than the worker who has been on maternity leave, whether by a bigger year-end bonus, better promotion prospects or more days of leave.

The rationale is simple. The measure of reward and recognition an employee receives is commensurate with the level of her contribution. An employee who chooses to become pregnant and take maternity leave chooses to compromise her level of accountability to her employer.

In the same way, if I cover the duties of a pregnant colleague over and above fulfilling my own duties, I rightly expect to be recognised by my employer.

There is nothing discriminatory in an employer rewarding one employee over another on the basis of different performance levels, regardless of the reason for the disparity in productivity. Ms Tan and Ms Swee’s labelling of such corporate practices as acts of discrimination reeks of petulant resentment.

A pregnant worker surely cannot expect her employer or colleagues to regard her pregnancy with the same joy and excitement as her family or friends – as, after all, a pregnancy in the workplace is nothing but bad news.

In respect of colleagues, their workload will increase (not necessarily with any assurance of extra reward). In respect of the employer, the pregnant worker not only does not contribute to the company during her maternity leave, but she actually causes loss to the company as she continues to draw pay for zero productivity during that period.

It is therefore perfectly understandable – and human – for an employer or a colleague to exhibit signs of dissatisfaction.

Ms Tan and Ms Swee should therefore think twice before labelling the less-than-enthusiastic response to their pregnancies as ‘discriminatory’.

Yeh Siang Hui

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_267806.html

And oh, if I were you, I’d be careful on what I say about him:

NUS- Faculty of Law – Alumni Directory

Notices

The Law Society of Singapore (no longer available)

Article extracted on 18th August 2008



Reader's Comments

  1. Like that how to have kids? | Blog of The Not So Sensitive New Age Monk | August 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    […] don’t have the solution but if you do have please leave a comment. Like that how to have kids?: […]

  2. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 19 Aug 2008 | August 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am

    […] Discourse – Bad News on the Doorstep: Our government is not stupid – Simply Jean: Like that how to have kids? – Yawning Bread: Side-stepping the death […]

  3. Neo | August 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am

    I think all the SME doesn’t welcome the government’s initiatives to increase the maternity leave. Although rules are in place to protect the pregnant workers from being fired, the employers (SME) will simply don’t hire married female workers especially (those who can possibly conceive) in the first place.

  4. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 34 | August 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am

    […] Life and Times: Spy vs Spy – Bad News on the Doorstep: Our government is not stupid – Simply Jean: Like that how to have kids? – Yawning Bread: Side-stepping the death penalty – BothSidesOfTheJohorStraits: The Advisory Council […]

  5. holeybaloney | And people want to know why S’poreans are not having kids | May 10th, 2014 at 11:28 am

    […] Apparently this is not his first attempt at blasting the Maternity leave issue. The original letter on ST Forum is gone, but simplyjean has a copy, aptly titled “Like that how to have kids“… […]

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: