To think the amount of SMP is entirely unreasonable?

A lot of small employers might not offer enhanced maternity pay because they can't afford it.

I am very torn about this being in a business that moved from SMP to 6 months 90% of pay and return to work bonuses - then found that customer demand has dropped and has had to make 3% of the work force redundant.

My work offers 100% normal wage for the first six weeks, 50% after that. Used to just be SMP, but they found they were actually making a small profit for some reason on the SMP so changed the policy. I don't know if this is true for all small businesses/organisations, just saying what was true for us as a small charity.

And on finding a job with a better maternity package - I like my job, it's genuinely flexible and the wage was higher for less hours than comparable jobs. They did increase maternity pay as outlined above before I became pregnant.

You can't be serious?

You want these small firms to close and make 20 people redundant?

"Then I’m not sure you can afford to be in business."

Stupid thing to say. Should you pay twice at the supermarket and get half the groceries? Businesses are run on tight margins. But they keep people employed and paying all that tax which keeps the country afloat.

Absolutely agree. The government needs to pay higher SMP. It should not be down to private companies. It is in the government's best interests to encourage women to have children and be able to return to work.

It's double job seekers allowance.

"Do we live in North Korea?! 🤣"

Anyone can do what they want. They just can't expect other people to pay for it.

"Surely it's easier for an employer to cover 3 years worth of maternity leave in one go, than 3 years of maternity leave 18 months apart".

How would this work in reality, You'd end up with the 'North Korea' situation you are keen to avoid, with an employer asking the woman how many babies she's planning up have, so they know how long to recruit a replacement for! And you can't reasonably expect an employer to pay a woman to stay home for an extended period having babies, when they also have to pay the cost of the new employee.

I also wouldn't fancy keeping someone roses seat warm for 3 years then having no job. If I was a younger woman, I'd be thinking about my mat leave. Will the boss be in the hook for a temp to cover the temp?

The whole thing is madness. I think 6 months, full pay with at least one year of full time work between claims and claims limited at 3, is more than fair.
Babies are important but so is the wellbeing of all employees too - no one gets paid time off to look after their dying parents - there are limits to what the state/employer should be responsible for.

No, everybody does not benefit.
This country (in particular the SE of the UK) is over populated already.
The world is overpopulated.
The massive Ponzi scheme whereby young people pay for the pensions of the old needs to be reformed. Increasing the population is not the answer.

What an ignorant statement to make. Well small businesses are the backbone of our economy so we’d all be fucked if they went out of business.

I don’t think people realise how hard it is for businesses in this country to make a profit. I’m not a business owner but I appreciate how difficult it is. If they increase prices loads it fucks up the economy further through inflation.

The bottom line is we have a productivity problem in this country and we simply cannot afford to keep subsidising people to the extent we are. Our workforce needs to be more productive before we can afford to extend benefits further.

But why don’t small businesses just pack up shop and give up, if they can’t afford to fund unlimited maternity pay. Cause that would be great for the economy and jobs!

But the person is counted as employed the whole time they are on the first maternity leave So builds up holidays as well. The council I worked for was 3 months to get enhanced pay. So joing Jan one year. Go on maternity leave Jan 2nd year. Year off then return 5 months pregnant. Take 5 weeks holiday. Then work a few weeks until 2nd lot of maternity leave . You don't have to start the 3 months again just don't give in notice in that time You could take 5 weeks holiday and a few weeks " sick" and never actually be in the workplace

@Worrywartandall Many small to medium-sized businesses have tight profit margins, it’s not uncommon at all. Why would you think that they’re raking it in? They’re small with a limited number of customers. Paying an extra salary can be difficult.

But it’s not weeks later it’s likely months a lot of employers have a qualification period for mat pay and smp does too so this is a non issue

luckily the company I work for has neither you’re entitled to full pay from the day you join

Then I’m not sure you can afford to be in business.

But ideally a better smp would be reclaimable for small companies

You've obviously misread. They can go back just not have another year of maternity pay a few weeks later

Agreed that many women are physically unfit for work post birth and pregnancy but that’s not very helpful if the employer only offers SSP. It’s back to square one.

Wtf why shouldn’t they be allowed to go back? They should be fired?

@Oldermum84 In theory, yes. But if a medium-sized company that’s hoping to grow won’t be thinking that longterm, they’ll be wondering whether they can afford to cover X number of maternity leaves in the next five years and that could affect their hiring decisions.

It’s not fair, but it’s realistic. Not every company could afford generous packages.

Apart from the planet, which is dying.

I run a small business and I can't afford to pay people for months of not working. It's as simple as that. I'm not a benefits system.

I think the government should be contributing to it, because at the moment it comes directly out of my business.

It's hard enough as it is, because I'm paying 2 salaries and getting the work of 1 person, and even then that's assuming I can find someone to replace for short term maternity leave rather than long time job, especially someone who has the skills required.

If it were cheaper to have children more would be born. If more were born, more would pay taxes. If more paid taxes, it could be made cheaper to have children. Everyone benefits.

Surely it's easier for an employer to cover 3 years worth of maternity leave in one go, than 3 years of maternity leave 18 months apart. Or would slightly small or larger in between be easier for the employer? Should an employer have the right to dictate how long an employee should wait to get pregnant again (in order to stop anyone "taking the piss")? Or should someone wanting 3 children have to state their intention when going off with the first and be forced to quit? Hmmm... Do we live in North Korea?! 🤣

I agree that new parents should be supported, but I’m also wondering where the money is supposed to come from to do it? Should the employer be required to generously top up SMP as well as paying for temporary cover for the parental leave? If the government should increase SMP, how will they do this?

As some PP’s have said, if companies are required to offer generous packages, I think that’ll put them off hiring women. I’m not sure what the answer is, but i think it needs to be carefully thought out and possibly limits imposed.

It's not only the money though - it's the employer having to find temp staff to cover, which isn't always possible (it takes time to recruit and train staff to the point where they are actually valuable). This results in other staff having increased workloads - these will also be people with small children or caring responsibilities or illnesses of their own.
It's not 'just life' to have 3 babies on the bounce and 3 long mat leaves, it absolutely is taking the piss.

I would support 6 months of fully paid leave but with limits on how often you can claim it and not one straight after the other. The employer (and the other employees who get landed with the cover work) have a right to expect the person being paid for the job, to actually be there.

DD has a teacher in her school who has had a baby nearly every year that my dd has been in secondary school. I can't see a private sector employer being happy with that if they had the cost of paying years of wages.