Boss sparks outrage over shocking texts to employee's maternity leave request: 'Is this a joke?'
UK Career Expert Ben Askins regularly shares social media videos calling out questionable workplace behaviour.
But a recent video the author and expert posted recounting an 'ugly' response to a pregnant woman's 'reasonable' maternity leave request saw him branding her employer as among 'the top three of the worst bosses I've come across'.
Ben shared the text exchange to his TikTok account in a video that's since been viewed almost 590,000 times.
The messages started with the pregnant employee confirming that her manager had received her 'email about maternity leave requests for February'.
The boss replied: 'I saw it, and I wanted to talk to you about it. Is there any way you'd consider reducing how long you want to take? If you are sure you are going to go ahead with it, would you be open to discussing it all. I am just a bit worried about the costs from our side.'
The female employee - clearly stunned by her boss's reaction - then tried to justify her reason for taking her legally-entitled maternity leave. She even offered to be as helpful as possible to the person who would be temporarily replacing her.
She replied: 'Oh ok, um I was kind of hoping to take as much time as possible. This is my first child and wanted to get as used to being as parent as possible, especially as my family lives quite far away.'
A boss has been slammed online for his guilt-laden response to a female employee's reasonable request for maternity leave
'I will ensure all my responsibilities are handed over seamlessly and help interview for mat cover but I really do want to take the full amount,' she continued.
However, the uncompromising boss continued to badger his pregnant employee over the 'burden' she was allegedly causing by taking maternity leave.
'The challenge is that this is a small company, and it's quite a burden to have to pay both your mat leave and your mat cover. I am just not sure how we can cope,' he replied.
By this point, the pregnant woman continued to politely advocate for her 'rights' – even making generous offers to assist her employer while she's away on leave.
She wrote: 'I appreciate that but this isn't fair to put on me, I am happy to support but I am well within my rights to do this.'
'I will try and support however I can, make sure everything is in place for a smooth handover and can also be on call for emergencies if that helps?'
The worried employee ended the message: 'Is my pregnancy going to be a problem for my role in the company?'
Most likely aware that he was wading into precarious employment law territory, the boss at this stage tried to downplay the discussion.
'Not at all! Your pregnancy is absolutely fine by me, we are a family company,' he replied.
Nevertheless, he continued to guilt his employee about the maternity leave request.
He continued: '[J]ust not ideal timing for me that is all. But if you are not going to help out and reduce the time then nothing really further for us to talk about I guess.'
Employment expert Ben, who is reading aloud the text messages in the social media video, is unable to bite his tongue at various points during the re-telling.
One of his interjections dissected the 'disgusting' behaviour of the manager.
Ben was adamant that the boss in this scenario was 'fully aware of what he's doing'.
'He's trying to use guilt to basically get her to kind of waive her rights [to take the full length of maternity leave]… because you can then sort of go, 'Oh no, she agreed with it'.
The workplace commentator added that the woman's request was entirely 'reasonable' and noted that she went above and beyond with offers of additional assistance as far as recruitment for her replacement and handover.
Ultimately, Ben said it was not the woman's 'problem' that the business may struggle financially with her leave entitlement - and that it's her right as a company employee to take maternity leave.
'That is not her f***ing problem, that is your problem,' he said. 'If she's not an equity holder, she's not a director in the business, it's not her company, that is a YOUR problem.'
The video has attracted nearly a thousand comments – many of them outraged by the employer's unconscionable behaviour.
'This is the kind of boss that makes you start looking for another job while you're on leave,' read one reply.
'She should not even have to justify anything,' added another.
'The gaslighting and guilt is beyond diabolical,' chimed in a third.
Many of the comments were also aggrieved by the manipulative language used by the manager in his text messages.
One commenter wrote: '"Not ideal timing for me." Yea, I mean sheesh, couldn't think of your boss while conceiving your baby?'
Another boldly questioned: 'Did they just suggest she get an abortion for the sake of the company's bottom line?!?'
A third added: '"If you're not going to help out" is an insane thing to say especially after she already stated she's more than happy to arrange cover and everything else before she leaves.'
It was unclear from the messages what jurisdiction the worker was in, but many commenters noted that maternity leave was a legal employment right in several countries – including Australia – and that she may have grounds to take legal action against her employer.
'Wow….. save this, go to an employer lawyer. Get settlement, enjoy!' read one reply.
Another wrote: 'This is a slam dunk mat discrimination case. Employers need to understand that claim awards are potentially unlimited.'
Unfortunately, it also appeared that this exchange was not an isolated incident with many commenters piping up to share their own horror story responses to previous maternity leave requests.
'I had a line manager refuse to discuss it with me because "your baby could still die right up until the end"', read one jaw-dropping comment.
'My old manager tried to convince me to have an abortion… they wondered why I didn't want to go back after having my baby,' read another wild reply.
Worryingly, comments on the TikTok video saw other female workers recount their own stories about the reaction to their requests for maternity leave (Image: stock photo)
Another person wrote: 'My old boss tried to tell me I only got half maternity time with my second child cos I'd already done the full maternity bonding time with my first.'
While many comments were outraged by the boss's responses, there were a small chorus claiming to understand where the employer was coming from.
'Whilst he's being improper, you can't avoid the fact that small companies will avoid employing women of childbearing age to reduce costs,' read one reply.
'For small businesses, maternity leave - even if protected by law - can have a massive impact on the company, especially if it's not performing well financially,' read part of another comment.
Another contributed: '[S]o many companies like this don't like hiring young women because the potential for taking maternity leave is high.'
A disheartened female worker responded to the viral video with a defeated comment that attracted over 1,600 likes.
The woman wrote: 'We're judged by society if we don't want kids and then punished by work when we do. We're judged for working 9-5 and having a career with kids but then also judged if we stay home full time with kids. Women can't win.'
In Australia, the Paid Parental Leave scheme is managed by Services Australia and provides financial support to eligible working parents to take time off work to care for a newborn or recently adopted child.
Some employees will receive parental leave payments from the Australian Government Parental Leave Pay, while others will receive e mployer funded parental leave payments. In some instances, a person may receive both.
According to the Fair Work Act, all employees in Australia are eligible for up to 12 months unpaid parental leave if they have completed at least 12 months of continuous service with their employer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer must let in sunlight to avoid further lobbying scandals
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton long ago predicted that lobbying would be 'the next big scandal' to hit politics, warning of the dangers of what happens behind closed doors. 'We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way,' he said in 2010. It was somewhat apt that despite introducing the first real oversight for lobbyists, the former prime minister was caught in just such a scandal after he departed from office. Despite a repeated cycle of scandals involving what Lord Cameron spoke of, lobbyists have continued to work in the shadows. As this newspaper has exposed, the Starmer government is facing serious questions over 'cash for access' after businesses were approached by a Labour group offering private meetings with 'an influential Labour figure'. The Labour Infrastructure Forum (LIF), which is run by lobbyists from Bradshaw Advisory along with an advisory council of senior party figures, has offered businesses the chance to meet 'key policymakers' to help 'shape the discussion'. The forum has offered sponsorship packages for potential clients, including breakfast meetings for almost £9,500. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has spoken at an LIF event. • Labour 'leaving public in the dark' about payments from lobbyists Although the LIF insists that the sponsorship money is used to cover costs, the group declined a request by The Times to disclose details of which companies had sponsored events at what cost until its next annual report. The Labour Party too has declined to say which senior figures had attended any LIF meetings. Yet undercover reporting has shown Gerry McFall, director of the forum alongside his leading role at Bradshaw Advisory, boasted of meetings between his clients and senior figures in government, including Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary. There is a clear problem here that must be addressed. The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists, which was set up during Lord Cameron's premiership, governs lobbying and is supposed to ensure it is transparent and open. Businesses who regularly engage in lobbying, known as 'consultant lobbyists', are required to register their activities. Yet the LIF was not required to register as it did not fall under this category: in-house lobbyists who are employed directly by companies, think tanks or 'forums' are not required to register. This must be addressed: all lobbying activity should be recorded, along with the details of who exactly is meeting which ministers. That being said, ministers should show more common sense. Mr Jones should have done due diligence before speaking at an LIF event. The same goes for Mr Reynolds, the minister most exposed to the potential influence of businesses. The lack of records charting his meeting with a Bradshaw Advisory client at a Labour conference highlights another flaw in transparency rules, which does not require ministers to report meetings at such events not deemed to be in a ministerial capacity. Even if the party insists it was instead 'held in a political capacity', Mr Reynolds should have realised that he should strive for transparency. • How we exposed Labour's cosy links to lobbyists None of this is to say that all lobbying is inherently bad, or that onerous restrictions are required. It is essential to good policy making that ministers hear from businesses — particularly a government that has as little private sector experience as this one. But it must be done in an open and transparent manner, something lacking at present. According to an analysis by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, registered Westminster lobbyists account for just 0.5 per cent of registered lobbyists across a host of similar countries. If Sir Keir Starmer is to avoid further such scandals, he must strengthen the oversight. By letting in as much sunlight as possible, it will go some way to curtail any sense of wrongdoing, real or perceived.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: Clifftop mansion being offered in latest Omaze Million Pound House Draw had its price slashed by £2million a year ago
A cliff top mansion currently being offered in the latest Omaze Million Pound House Draw saw £2million slashed from its asking price, we can reveal. The four-bed mansion in the Cornish coastal village of Porthcothan - close to millionaire's playgrounds of Padstow and Mawgan Porth - is described as being worth 'over £3million'. But little over a year ago the same house was marketed with a £5million asking price. While the final sale price hasn't been released, shortly before the sale progressed to the company behind Omaze, its guide price had fallen to £3.5million. This week neighbours told the Daily Mail the house - named Llawnroc, which is Cornwall spelled backwards - has never been lived in since it was built over a decade ago. One said: 'The previous owner thought it was terrific but I wasn't surprised when it appeared in the Omaze draw. 'The £5million asking price was laughable. It would probably sell at about £2.5million. 'I know a lot of people around here have bought a ticket for the draw but if I win it'll be up for sale the next day.' Bath-based management consultants Colin Price and Sharon Toye spent £1million building the house in 2014 having demolished a 1960s three-bed house bought for £1.75million three years earlier. But the construction was far from straight-foward as Mr Price acknowledged in an interview with Homebuilding & Renovating magazine following its completion. He said: 'The build was tricky and it would have been something of a disaster if we damaged the cliff while digging down but our builders managed it with great skill, and the project was finished on time even considering we experienced one of the worst winters on record.' In 2014 during construction a spectacular rock arch in the bay cliff collapsed after it was battered by towering waves and storms. Even before breaking ground on the new house, a number of residents voiced concern about whether the cliffs would be impacted. One wrote: 'The amount of bed-rock that will have to be removed to lay the foundations and accommodate the new building is both startling and very worrying. I assume that a comprehensive geological survey has been carried out on the site (which is very close to the cliff edge) and to which accountability may be applied in the case of structural damage to any of the nearby properties and especially the cliff itself. 'In the absence of such a survey I would hope that the Planning Authority would undertake one before any permissions are granted as the ramifications of any damage occurring in this area of the cliff are too serious to contemplate. I would like to see any assurances in writing.' The original design was refused by Cornwall Council and an appeal also upheld the decision leading to the removal of a circular roof for a more conventional pitched roof The striking design has four 'lenses' of floor-to-ceiling glass - intended to mimic binoculars looking out to sea. Ten years on a number of neighbours still grumble about the design - which saw the home double the size of its processor. The original design was refused by Cornwall Council and an appeal also upheld the decision leading to the removal of a circular roof for a more conventional pitched roof. One said: 'The first design was completely unsuitable for this bay and was rejected by the council, they also lost on appeal but what they have built is actually worse if anything. 'So this is what we are left with, most people still think it's wrong for the area but what can you do? 'People walk along the coast path all the time and stop to look at the houses, you can see into almost all the rooms because they have glass walls. 'I personally wouldn't be keen on having people staring into my sitting room or bedroom. Another neighbour, who has lived in the village for 45 years, added: 'There used to be a community along the clifftop but now just three of the 15 houses are lived in. 'It used to be a quiet lane but now it's like the M1 with people rushing back and forward, different people every week on holiday. 'I have no idea who any of my neighbours are, you see different cars going up the road every week, they could be up here burgling for all we know. 'I would love to leave this house to my family but there's no way they could afford the inheritance tax bill. I feel sorry for the young people around here.' The quiet cove of Porthcothan Bay, is dubbed one of Cornwall's 'best kept secrets'. The unique design is energy efficient and the bedrooms have been planned to capture the morning sun from the east, with the main living areas placed in a triangle widening towards the sea views and sunsets. The property has 3,390 sq ft of accommodation. On the lower ground floor there is a bedroom with en-suite, a home office that could also be another bedroom, a utility and a large open plan kitchen/dining room with a pantry and walk-in fridge and bi-fold doors that open to the garden. Upstairs there are three bedrooms, two bathrooms and an impressive sitting room. Outside it has driveway parking and a secure garage, a partially covered terrace dining space, a sunken fire pit in the garden, and an outside shower to wash off sandy feet from the beach. The property has a gate leading onto the coastal path and the beach below. While a winner of the latest Omaze dream home has yet to be selected, the competition already has a track record of winners quickly putting the homes on the market - dubbed the Omaze curse. In June the youngest ever winner Lauren Keene, 24, followed in the footsteps of the vast majority of winners by cashing in on her six-bedroom Hollywood-style home in the Wirral, Merseyside, by putting it on the market for £2.5million, a discount of £500,000 on the original £3million valuation. The full time nanny and her partner Ryan Mitchell spent only a few nights at the spectacular house due to them living and working almost 200 miles away in Gloucester. Like many other winners of Omaze's Grand Designs-style homes, Lauren is also said to have been put off by the expensive running costs of her new dream home. Instead she and her Ryan, a software engineer, are buying themselves a much smaller and more practical semi-detached home in Gloucester. The Mail can now reveal that all, but a handful of the 39 winners of Omaze home draws in the UK, have sold or are planning to sell their multi-million pound prizes.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Inner London to lose out in funding rebalance, says IFS report
Councils in inner London are set to become the biggest losers under a government plan to update council funding rules, a think tank Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found some London boroughs could see their funding levels drop up to 12% once inflation is taken into areas in outer London are set to gain from the changes, the researchers found, along with urban areas outside the capital including Nottingham, Wolverhampton and government argues the overhaul is necessary because councils' funding has become out of step with local demand for services. The new funding system, to be phased in over three years from 2026, will see changes to the formulas used by government to capture levels of demand for council-run services, along with the differing cost of delivering them.A greater share of funding will be redirected towards areas with a higher share of properties in lower council tax bands, whilst the portion of business rates income that councils have been allowed to keep since 2013 will be IFS predicts the proposed changes are set to redistribute around £2.1bn in annual government funding, with 186 authorities losing out and 161 will not be possible to say exactly what the changes will mean for each area until the plans are finalised later this the think tank said Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster would see their overall funding drop by 11–12%, even accounting for a proposed funding floor to limit areas are set to lose out under the government's proposed method to even out differences in council tax revenues, given they have low rates and many properties in higher bands, it added. Outside London, the East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber regions are set to see the biggest increases in funding, according to the with relatively high - but not the highest - population densities are also set to fare well, it estimates, including outer London boroughs and councils in Blackpool, Nottingham and added that the widest range of outcomes would be seen in shire district councils, where some councils where business rate income has grown most, such as Mid Suffolk and North West Leicestershire, would lose such districts in more urban areas, such as Harlow, Crawley and Norwich, are among the biggest share of funding going to the very poorest areas will be substantially larger, it added, than for the least deprived. 'Moving the pain' The shake-up will affect the share of central government funding distributed to councils in England, including income they are allowed to keep from business currently represents around half of their income, with councils raising the rest locally, subject to a 5% cap on yearly is allocated according to a complex mix of formulas taking into account factors like population and ministers argue the current rules, which have not been updated in over a decade, are failing to reflect higher demand for council services in poorer Liberal Democrats said the changes would "come as a shock to the system for many councils," branding the changes "robbing Peter to pay Paul"."The government is moving the pain of chronic council underfunding from one community to another instead of delivering the economic growth that would deliver the revenue to fund local services everywhere," added deputy leader Daisy Cooper. 'Decisive action' A spokesperson for the local government department said: "The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind."That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services". Although there is widespread agreement among councils that the current system is badly in need of updating, designing a new one poses a political headache for ministers ahead of a significant set of local elections due next local leaders have warned that current funding levels do not cover the rising cost of mandatory services such as adult social care and special educational needs, despite real-terms funding increases in more recent years. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
