Nick Clegg announces changes to parental leave today - What do you think?

I think it's a good and perfectly sensible idea.

I agree that there is still a perception that maternity leave is spent lounging around sitting at home doing nothing (some comments to this effect were read out on my local radio station, grrrr) so let men have a go at it then.

It would certainly suit me as I have flexible working patterns - not sure how DH's employer would actually feel about it though in reality.

public sector worker here on BASIC pay no enhancements here can people pleases top assuming we all get the same.

Re: the predictable squeals of outrage from small business groups. As an employee of a small business who's about to take their THIRD maternity leave from the same company, I have to say that if this were implemented now, I would be much more likely to return early. I'm only delaying my return because the cost of childcare when I return will leave me worse off than staying at home on SMP. If I could share it with DH, I would, and I'd be back to work like a shot. So my small business employer would benefit from getting me back sooner. Possibly even soon enough for them to avoid all the costs of taking on a replacement.

It annoys the tits off me when people start chuntering about the impact on small businesses whenever anyone pushes for a change to maternity rights. The costs are actually quite negligible - depending on what you've put in your employees' contracts - and won't change in aggregate as a result of this proposal.

Pension auto enrolment was introduced last month with barely a murmur but will have a much greater impact on the cost of taking on new employees than any change to maternity rights. But somehow the prospect of women being given more freedom and flexibility always seems to bring people out in a frothing rage.....

As someone who has alwasy had a fairly gender neutral relationship (and out earned the husband by 10x) and we both worked full time this is marvellous news. The sooner we stamp out sexist patterns the better. The fact Nick Clegg is outearned by Miriam G his wife and even part time Mrs Cameron may well out earn her other half clearly is terribly helpful in ensuring those in charge understand mother marriages where men do as much as women at home - see Rifkind's piece in today's Times about working fathers dealing with child sick at 5.30am. This is how couples are not, circa 1850, wife at home cleaning whilst man earns.

However the bottom line remains that in the UK unless you are in the money wasting public sector on the whole you get 6 weeks at 90% pay and then it's down to subsistence level something the press never mention - they give the impression you are on full pay for 6 months even if that full pay is £100k ay ear. You're not. So most people will childcare for other children to pay for, a mortgage and the like cnanot live believe it or not very easily on £115 a week. This is not a bad thing as it makes women get back to full time work and not lose their jobs and become pin money or no money servants in the house. In other words the low level of maternity pay can ensure women keep their careers and works in their interest.

It may be no coincidence that for 5 children I had no maternity pay rights at all so 20+ years on I earn fairly large sums and did pretty well. Had I been the only one in the relationship able to stay at home on high pay my career could have been shot to pieces.

Anyway it is a good move.

it will also make it harder for sexist men to suggest to wives they should be home doing bottom wiping (as only wives get maternity leave) whilst he swans off to the office to be treated like a God.

I really don't understand why so many people seem to be against this.

Re, women having a mandatory two weeks of after the birth then being forced back to work. This is the situation anyway and I don't see employers forcing women back to work.

It'll cost too much! Well I don't see how it will really cost any more, no extra ML is being given. The only change seems that you can now divide ML in a way that works best for individual couples.

We don't (and can never have) a perfect system that suits everyone but this is a good step forward and the man taking the ML instead of the women will work better for a lot of couples.

Perhaps it's slight progress, but it's not enough, especially in terms of properly funded leave for either parent.

@bealos no its not. So it is right hthat it is being made one.

I think it's a small step in the right direction. If employers know that, not only could potentially the women in her 20s/30s/40s request time off in future for Mat leave, but also the men (of pretty much any age) it makes it a bit more difficult to justify to themselves not hiring a woman of childbearing age in case she falls pregnant and needs to go on Mat Leave. (apologies if that does not make sense, my brain is not all there today)

Basically, it means that men and women are equally "risky" in terms of potentially being off work for an extended period to care for a small child.

The sort of companies that offer enhanced mat pay tend not to bitch about the cost of employing women. It would be a bit silly if they did, since they're under no obligation to offer any enhanced benefit and presumably do so in order to attract and retain good female employees.

Having said that, when dc2 is born next year I'll be taking the first 6 months off and dh will take the next 6 months. Part of the reason is that I want to be with the baby for 6 months, but it also make sense for me to do so since I get enhanced maternity pay for that time. Under the new legislation this would obviously be a factor to be considered.

Dh's employers are equal-op bastards so he'll be telling them of his plans to take paternal leave at the latest possible moment. They will probably try and sack him - luckily he's already briefed his union rep and they've been speaking to their legal dept. He's hoping not to return after the 6 months off.. bad companies attract no loyalty.

'The right to request flexible working' is a joke.

May I change my hours?

Let me think about that.

next day

No.

All legal requirements met.

It is interesting, as if that doesn't change employers will still be able to claim that hiring women of 'childbearing age' is 'too expensive'.

@yorkpud I wondere whether there will be attacks on that as it is essentially discrimatory of company policy.

oh I'll cheer up.

notenoughsocks I also wonder how many grandparents will jump at the chance tbh, plus it will drag up questions about how many rights grandparents have which troubles me a bit tbh.

Plus, my youngest sister is 17, my mum chose to have three children youngish and hire nannies (at great expense) so she could go to work and take promotions, so that when the time came (now) she could power ahead for the rest of her career without having childcare to worry about. She graduated from her PhD last week and her pension won't kick in for another 16 years. She has already told me that she's not looking after any of our babies. And fair enough tbh if they want to keep a roof over their heads in retirement.

Plus I am one of the lucky ones who has quite young parents. People who have their first child late 30s/early 40s won't have parents fit enough to look after their children even if they are retired.

The retirement age is going to be 68 FFS.

I really can't see how this will help the majority of parents who will still have the problem of finding affordable childcare long after the parental leave is over.

In my area it's not even that childcare is unaffordable - there's an acute shortage of nursery places and childminders. That's what forces the lowest earner out of work - not a "perception that women have to be the primary care-givers."

Don't really get who is paying for the man to be off if he takes the leave instead of the woman??

So if for example I had a baby and took the intial 6 weeks off for maternity leave, could my husband then take the remainder of the time up to nine months to look after the baby when I go back to work? If so would his company be eligible to pay him (p)maternity leave for that time in the same way they would pay a woman? Therefore, is it more likely for the one in a company that pays a better maternity package to take the majority of time off??

small steps, right direction.

I too worry about the actual strength of the request. Being granted the 'right to request' might amount to very little irl, esp in certain industries, particuarly male dominated industries, with a deeply ingrained un-family friendly culture. I know from experience that having a partner in these sorts of industries can practically force couples to adopt 1950s routines.

Not really sure how many fathers/grandparents/aunts/uncles etc. will leap at the chance, but everybody looks like they might be about to, it might help reduce discrimination against women of a certain age.

@glitterknickaz If that is going to be a problem in 2015 then it woudl be a problem now. As nothing is changing. And its not a problem now as far as I am aware.

I really do agree with it by the way - I have family doing it this way already (very family friendly company they work for).

Yes 'nobody' is - but what of a family dynamic where a woman was put under unreasonable pressure to return by her partner for whatever reason at the expense of her health?

the aging population may help. I've had several line managers recently who've had to take time off for ill parents. They can hardly demand this flexibility themselves and then deny people time to look after ill children. i think it encourages them to accept that we are all people and not machines and therefore have a life outside work.

I am really quite depressed at the tone of this thread. DP has just texted me thrilled about this as it is something we have been waiting for before having children as I am the main earner.

I think attitudes will change with an increase in awareness. I'm 25 and lots of my male friends have been looking forward to this announcement of ages.

In the nicest way possible do you think the thread is a bit biased as many posters are SAHM and their DP is the main earner so it wont make as big a difference for them. I think this could make a huge difference to loads of women.

I hope in three years time there will be threads saying "AIBU to ask DP to take 6 months parental leave so I can take up a promotion?". Here's hoping!