Advanced search


(9 Posts)
uwila Mon 28-Feb-05 15:55:34

I'm sure I'm not the first to spot this topic in the news today, but I didn't see another thread on it. I personally tend to think these offers of increasing the time in which parents are offered £105/week are useless. Don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't stay home for £105 per week. And, I certainly wouldn't let DH do it. I'd rather have another week of 90% of my pay. Or even give fathers some time at 90% of their pay. That would be helpful.

Another point in this article that struck me is what in the world are "children who grow up well"? I would sure like to see Trade and Industyr Secretary Patricia Hewitt define that phrase.

bbc article: Labour Bids to Woo Parental Vote

norash40 Mon 28-Feb-05 16:16:55

Politicians will say what they think the electorate wants to hear. I would like to see Mrs. Blair (prime minister) stay home for that much.

uwila Mon 28-Feb-05 20:21:54


teabelly Tue 01-Mar-05 09:37:05

"children who grow up well" the implication is SAH parents have children who grow up well, and those of us who go back to work don't!

I agree extending the £105pw payment for any number of months wouldn't actually help us...our mortgage alone is £450 pm (not as high as alot of people's) so the additional payments would fall slightly below covering the mortgage. Doesnt leave alot to cover the remaining expenses.

A better idea IMO would be to increase the amount paid for the 6 months paid period...this would enable more to take a full six months if wanted rather than go back after 3 or 4 months beacuse of ongoing commitments. Or, as you say Uwila, allow either the fathers or the monthers the right to the 'maternity' pay/leave ...I earn more than dh, so it would suit us for me to take say the first 3 months and then him to take a further 3 months.

Also I work for a relatively small company and the additional costs (that can't be recovered under the SMP scheme) are at least about £4-5,000 per maternity leave by the time you include pension payments/holiday payments/agency or advertising fees for temporary replacements...these new proposed measures would increase these costs and certainly make smaller businesses think twice about hiring women of child bearing age

uwila Tue 01-Mar-05 11:35:37

Furthermore, I heard on the news that fathers are opting out of taking their two weeks of paternity leave and using holiday time instead. I wonder why? Perhaps because paternity leave is time off without pay, and holiday is with 100% pay. So it seems I'm not the only one unwilling to stay home unpaid.

teabelly Tue 01-Mar-05 13:32:00

Uwila I think paternity pay is now also £105pw - but that was only fairly recent...when ds was born dh had to take it unpaid.

uwila Tue 01-Mar-05 19:34:42

oooooo, whole £105 per week. That's my point.

MunchedTooManyMarsLady Tue 01-Mar-05 19:54:48

when we had the DTs my DH was offered 2 weeks paternity leave. We couldn't afford for him to have his wages cut to the £100 p/wk. Fortunately he successfully argued "custom and practice" and got the 2 weeks on full pay. (Because he had had full pay for our other children he argued that it was his expectation for this birth and therefore what he was accustomed to and the company's previous practice. Hope that makes sense).

I'm a SAHM but if I were back at work and was offered that deal for maternity I know exactly where I'd tell them to put it How do they expect people to be able to live? Having a baby doesn't mean that your expenses go down (or is it only Prime Ministers and wives that get all the freebies?)

MunchedTooManyMarsLady Tue 01-Mar-05 19:56:03

BTW the company rewrote their leave policy after that pretty damn quick.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: