To think the amount of SMP is entirely unreasonable?

There is nuance with small local businesses but big businesses have no excuse, if some can finance real enhanced packages then others can too, not to is a choice

I believe state provision should be increased

As a Brit in the US, in comparison one of my team just had a baby. She has 2 weeks paid, and up to 3 months unpaid.

What is adequate though? I think 6 months is fair and reasonable. I believe a year is too much because of the knock on effects to employability. I think fathers should take the second 6 months and this would do more to fight patriarchy than women insisting on their whole year off (sometimes several years off if they have more than one baby).

I don't think that women who have had babies are the most important group of people to prioritise above all those other people who have good reasons for wanting extended leave from work.

But how do you expect companies (especially smaller ones) to be able to afford to pay enhanced SMP for more than 6 months while also paying for a replacement for the worker on mat leave?

For gods sake, so women should lose their jobs if they want to take their statutory right?

Christ on a bike, this thread has proved that women often prop up the patriarchy. Adequate maternity leave is a feminist issue

They offer good packages if they have more higher paid men then women in their work force....

*repeated mat leaves

I know this sounds a bit hard core, but I'm not sure it's reasonable or fair that an employer has to keep a job open for a whole year because someone has had a baby.
If someone had longer term health problems as a result of birth, I fully support people getting time off, as they would for any other illness. But honestly I think it's harmful to women this idea that you can just take a whole year off because you want to and the employer has to facilitate it. There are people not getting that time off when they have cancer or other really serious illnesses. Or a dying family member that they are caring for.
And of course, you can have repeated

It was a policy that meant well but there are a lot of unintended consequences around women's employability compared to men and how women are the default parent societally, even when both mum and dad work full time.

Paid leave. If the mother wants more than 6 months off, that’s her choice but she needs to pay for it.

The notion of women being paid 50% of their wage is ridiculous. Why should high earning women be entitled to more statutory pay than low earning ones, when they are the ones who should be in the strongest position to support themselves financially?

Well ‘most large companies offer good packages’ has been demonstrably untrue for me. They don’t necessarily and as people, including me, have pointed out, an ‘enhanced package’ is not necessarily very good and you won’t find out until you are in situ.

and unfortunately I’ve never seen mat pay discussed on glass door for anywhere I’ve worked 🤷🏻‍♀️

we had our first in 1984 and then it was 6 weeks at 90% of pay and then falls off a cliff and in 2024 it is just as bad unless you are lucky enough to have a good employer. I too two weeks of annual leave to have those 1980s babies and because I was at a new employer for each of the three i did not even get the 6 weeks at 90% pay (and it was awful having to express breast milk at work with such a tiny baby at home).
It annoys me that in 2024 so many people think after the 6 weeks you have loads of money still coming in whereas only PAYE employees get the 6 weeks and after that get very little, not enough to keep paying childcare for an older child, not enough to pay London rents etc. All I can say to younger women is I went back to work very quickly and it HAS worked out okay. With our 4th/5th (twins) I was self employed so was taking work calls from home the very next day as no 6 weeks of 90% pay in the 90s for me either as was a sole trader.

@ABirdsEyeView I understand the pressures on especially small businesses. & I'm in no way saying mat leave beyond 6 months should be paid, just available as unpaid leave if the mother chooses.

However, I think many women want those additional months off, it's good for them, it's good for baby. Many men in my business support it as their wives have benefitted from it, allowing them to keep working! Equally, shared parental leave is a great option.

Totally think small businesses should be better supported with this kind of thing. 100%.

@SouthLondonMum22 are you talking about paid leave or leave in general? Do you want to remove a woman's right to have months 6-12 off with her baby??
Not saying they should be paid, but surely she should have the choice

@anonhop it's not the employer's (or state's) responsibility to support women who want to stay home for extended periods of time to breastfeed. In the end, an employer has hired someone to do a job and it's not unreasonable to expect them to return to work in a reasonable amount of time to do it! There's a lot of pressure put on other employees and smallish businesses, in covering maternity leave and the end result of women insisting they need a whole year off (with good pay) is that employers will quietly decide not to employ younger women where they can avoid it.
Breastfeeding once established, can be done through expressed milk - it may not be as convenient but it's not impossible. It's not the employers responsibility to make your life easy and convenient at their own expense.

I think we have to consider the wider problems we are causing for women if we make ourselves too risky to employ. And we do need to make fathers more responsible for their own children's care because mum being the default parent all the time is hindering women's career prospects and quality of life.

Lots of nurseries are doing the top ups on 2+ and leaving babies funded, since there are fewer trips and consumables, and it gets a family in young.

I've just done a calculation for my niece, whose baby is due in 8 weeks.

With her partner earning and her on SMP, they will get £742.12 a month in UC in addition to their income. But if they weren't paying rent, they'd get sod all.

I’d make it compulsory too. Use it or lose it so it can’t be carried over to mothers.

I'd say it can be used at the same time or at different times during the first year.

The vast majority of women aren’t breastfeeding at 6 months.

Have the nursery confirmed that?

Ours did, initially, but then introduced a supplement per funded hour and then a daily consumables charge, so we now pay £240 less per month than we did before the 15 hours free came in, which is still around £480 per month - and that's one 2.5 year old, for 2 days a week.

Some nurseries are cheaper, though! And the funded hours kick in earlier now.

SMP is impossible to live on, as is MA. It's just not enough.

You are being unreasonable. SMP is a minimum in line with contribution based maternity allowance (state benefit) to be below tax thresholds. Your employer is not obligated to pay any enhanced maternity pay, but decent ones do to retain valuable staff.

UK maternity rules are pretty decent when compared to some countries (there are some far better of course) and there are protections for pregnant workers’ rights and job security. The US is pitifully bad in this and any other employment rights.

I agree it would be nicer to have more paid time at home with child but you can take up to a year before having to return to work - you could’ve saved to cover this or just cut your cloth and live on one income for a short time.
I’m assuming you knew your company’s maternity pay rates and leave periods before planning your pregnancy?

You could start a political campaign to improve maternity rights but won’t help right now!

I see the ‘well, what did you expect?’ And ‘In my day…’ brigade are here already. YANBU, OP. It’s a paltry amount that turns having children into a luxury life choice, and we wonder why the birth rate is dwindling.

@Gogogo12345 going back to work while BF is very hard for most women. Breastfeeding should be made as easy & accessible as possible.

Genuinely glad your daughter was able to do it though, kudos to her.

My criticism isn't with women only taking 6 months, but forcing everyone into the same regulations when families, women, babies & jobs are different.

My DD went back to work when her child was 4.5 months old and breastfed until 20 months. It's doable. And only 1% of mothers are exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months anyway so would hardly call that " many"

What’s the point in getting angry about it? That’s how it is. It is possible to save up in advance, and it’s totally up to you how much you spend on baby stuff. We’ve barely spent anything, due in a few weeks. It’s a choice to have a baby, you make sacrifices if you want that. If it takes one of your salaries to pay your necessary expenses, surely you have the whole other salary to save?

6 months at 75% then 3 months SMP is pretty good though. I don’t understand why you’re complaining about that when many women have SMP the whole time.