A third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of maternity leave, according to a new study.

A survey of 500 managers by law firm Slater & Gordon shows that more than 40 per cent admitted they are generally wary of hiring a woman of childbearing age, while a similar number would be wary of hiring a woman who has already had a child or hiring a mother for a senior role.

A quarter said they would rather hire a man to get around issues of maternity leave and childcare when a woman does return to work, with 44 per cent saying the financial costs to their business because of maternity leave are a major concern.

The study also saw a third of managers claiming that women are not as good at their jobs when they come back from maternity leave.

"Pregnancy discrimination is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for such attitudes from these employers, who frankly are dinosaurs. British business simply can't afford to lose out on half of the available talent pool," said UK Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson said.

Union boss TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: "It is illegal to not give someone a job on the grounds that they may have children in the future.

"Employers that do this are not only breaking the law but being incredibly stupid as they are missing out on many of the country's brightest young workers."

Sweet, any evidence relating to Australia?

Will it come to the situation in Italy?
There it has been know for young women, on being hired, to have to sign an undated letter of resignation in case of pregnancy.

re: the title of this thread

Managers in fear ........ of maternity

In Australia today ... Managers are in fear of nothing.

They are riding roughshod over their employees every day using fear, intimidation .... sacking them for misdemeanours ...... in breach of their own safety & code of conduct protocols. >:( 

Seems to have taken a sharp increase since the last election. 

Being a former male Nurse.
I used to hate having to work with female staff who were pregnant.
I laugh at Military guys who whinge at having females amongst their ranks.
I feel like saying "What's the matter? Not tough enough to carry an extra load?"
That was what it was like. The Medical Industry was very sexist in that, me being the male - I was always placed in the 'heavier/harder' sections. I was told to aid female staff who not only earned twice what I got, but my 'aiding' was basically doing all the things of 'their' job - that they could not do because of their pregnancy.
I would even state that female staff, nearly at full-term, didn't really look as if they were 'really there' at all ...when you look at them in the eyes. :o
Saying this: I got to see/experience MANY female staff that worked harder, stronger, etc than I and I laugh at tough guys in work places who think they are 'all that', as I have worked with women who would leave them dead.
I can say this of many 'Miners, Soldiers, Footballers.'  :P

So I sympathise with Australian Businesses who are
'scuttled' by all this 'Anti-Discrimination' that shackles and chains this country like a Criminal against 'Freedom of Choice'!
Why should a Business be forced to employ people who 'hold back' or even 'scuttle' its future??
A Business should have 'Freedom of Choice' and if a woman is sooooo desperately in need of money, that she must be forced to work while Pregnant - then she is obviously being IRRESPONISBLE to the child for she cannot 'afford' to have one.
This is the 'root' problem of the World these last 100 years.
All the over-fishing, pollution, wars, extinctions, environmental desolations and more - all point to the need to provide 'more jobs' for OVER-POPULATION.
Mexico & India are the best examples of IRRESPONSIBLE over-population: having more children than the nation can afford (Duty of) Care for. In fact, these parts of the world - dump such a problem on the doorstep of other countrys.
It is a problem far worse than Nazism, Terrorism, Apartheid,
etc and a problem that causes these too.
It is a problem that the UN (of Politics) will never have the guts to address and point the finger at.

Alas, the only Military cure for such a problem ...Nukes.  :(

I suspect there would be some ocassions that a male would be preferred by a manager, particularly in a highly skilled job where the occupant would be difficult to replace.

In the case of low skilled jobs such as retail I doubt it would even cross the managers mind when employing staff!

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 12^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Sweet, any evidence relating to Australia?

Try looking into your own sense and you'll find it!!

This PPL scheme will cost women jobs.

Maybe our population might finally grow in a very 'productive & wealthy' manner, besides the odd 100,000 a year.  ::)
Australia is a Business,
not a Nation of People.
Women in Australia are brought up to be 'career' orientated.
Some are bitter about this and consider 'all men' as sexist/misogynists/etc ...like Juliar Gillard, who attained 'career achievement' upon the back (stab) of a Man (Rudd)
= Denial. ::)
Juliar Gillard: Prime Minister -  Power (on behalf of USA)
Gina Reinhart: Mining - Money - Gold-digger
Quentin Bryce: Govenor-Gen - Cultural Superiority (via being British).

I have no problem with women being Career orientated,
but there is a price to pay for this.
You sacrifice being a 'Breeder'.
Very rare is it to be able to juggle a Career with Children.
There are short-cuts like Nannys, Day-Care Centres, Grand-Parents, etc.
But these are all a 'lack of parenting', a poor substitution for actually 'being there' for children and it reflects on how they grow up as adults.
If a woman wants Children - then she must 'commit' to them. They are not 'Pets'.
I admire women who are Career orientated
and the character of Ripley from the Alien movies is a favourite of mine. A woman who can indeed do well, in the name of achievement. But the price she pays - is that 'reproductive' aspect, as 'symbolised' by the Aliens and their 'out of this world/control' reproduction.

If a Business/Company just wants to hire Men and be 'uber' fantastic - then so they should.
They will lack a lot of other 'attributes' that women bring to the workplace, besides potentional 'relationship' opportunities.
They will lack a sense of 'beautiful' in how they go about their business and will eventually move towards 'ugly' dealings.
They will lack the ability for their company/business to 'associate' with the society that they seek to benefit from.
The Business/company will become 'alone' at the top, to the point where most of the Male staff will become Gay, for want of coping with the 'celibacy' of success.
:D

Its a plot by the muslims to destabilize Australian economy.

King FriYAY II wrote on Aug 12^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 12th, 2014 at 12:40pm: Sweet, any evidence relating to Australia? Try looking into your own sense and you'll find it!! This PPL scheme will cost women jobs.

I beleive I said some time ago that costing women jobs was the basic idea.  You see - ToJo know as well as you and I - well, I - that the MADIF is unsustainable in the short and long term, and you simply cannot have an economy in which everyone expecfts a job that pays AWE.  Can't work.

Treasury will have advised ToJo on this issues and it is obvious that they are seeking to address the problems of the MADIF by engineering an involuntary system in which businesses will simply not employ women, who will then be forced to stay home, thus allowing a steady resurrection of the economy and demolition of the current savage imbalances in it.

Less women in work = less people on unemployment.....

My ex says :-  They should pay one to stay home!

I replied :- "They always did since the advent of the single living income, since women received all found and keep, and a bit of the necessary for tennis etc weekly."

Pretty sad to see human consciousness dictate that
women have to earn a $$$ living to justify having kids as well.
If women have to $$$ work - then obviously they should be having children (in this over-populated world!!).
But they work to pay for the 'Joneses Lifestyle' that they are doing the wrong thing if they don't buy the latest 'Gizmo' from the Science sector.

Its obvious that North America, Australia lack a Religious 'moral' code of their own.