Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

PT/lower paid staff receive full wage when on mat. leave in my gaff - FT/higher paid don't!

78 replies

TheDetective · 02/10/2011 18:19

Just a muse I had today while chatting to colleagues in work. My work pay maternity leave as following: 90% of full wage for 8 weeks, followed by 18 weeks 50% pay plus SMP. After this its 3 months SMP only.

We realised that those who are working FT or for a higher salary are getting a bit of a bum deal. Those who earn say £2000 a month, drop to appox £1500, and those who earn £1000 will stay bringing home £1000.

I'm a little screwed, as the main wage earner in my household - and as a result can actually only afford to take 8 weeks maternity leave in reality, plus some annual leave.

I know lots of employers only pay SMP, and some aren't entitled to pay at all, but I wonder how the above scenario is justified?

Any opinions?

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 02/10/2011 18:31

Of course it's fair. Your employer isn't responsible for your family finances or for your situation as the main wage earner. If anything your quarrel is with the level SMP is set at. It could be set higher by the government with the proviso that local arrangements plus SMP can not exceed basic salary. Your employer has done nothing wrong though - and in fact is generous imo.

kat2504 · 02/10/2011 18:32

It is fair already. Everyone gets the same percentage of their wages. Then everyone gets smp from the government. All workers are already being treated exactly the same.

If they give everyone a 5% pay rise at the end of the year then the person on £1000 will only get £50 a month extra but the person on £2000 will get £100 extra but I bet you won't be moaning about that being unfair. It works both ways.

Lougle · 02/10/2011 18:33

It does make sense...in a way.

Person A earns £1115.66 pcm. Their 50% pay is £557.83, and the SMP is £557.83, so in actual fact, their total is the same as their 100% pay - £1115.66.

Person B earns £2000 pcm. Their 50% pay is £1000 and the SMP is £557.83, so their total is £1557.83 - a drop of £442.17.

BUT Person A is still getting substantially less than Person B. They are, however, getting proportionally more of their normal wage than Person B.

flowery · 02/10/2011 18:33

The only way it could be made fairer is by changing SMP which is the flat rate bit causing the 'unfairness'. But you said you don't think SMP should be changed? Your employer is already being fair.

If the problem is the woman is the main wage earner the man can go off on Additional Paternity Leave now so the woman could go back to work sooner without having to put the child in childcare.

KatieMiddleton · 02/10/2011 18:33

Surely your employer pays the relevant percentage of salary and claims back the SMP.

The part timers don't get it on top. Not anywhere I've ever worked/had dealings with.

margerykemp · 02/10/2011 18:34

Most people have a drop in income on mat leave. Didnt you budget for this?

Its unfair that anyone isnt paid full pay. Work on mat pay needs to be equally valued to 'normal' work.

Original poster
TheDetective · 02/10/2011 18:35

I think it should be fair and the same for all who are employed by my employer, however that may be (and I don't know how - thats why I am posting).

Those on a lower wage in my place already get higher percentages paid for unsocial hour payments. We get a 30% supplement, those on a lower paid band get 37-50% supplement. I don't think there is anything wrong with this at all before anyone asks!

I just see that I want to have children, but can't afford to take much maternity leave to spend time with my child :(

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 02/10/2011 18:38

It is fair! It is the same!

The totals are different because your salary is different.

The supplements are a totally different issue. Surely you can see though that people on higher pay bands earn more overall? More pension contributions etc?

kat2504 · 02/10/2011 18:38

But these people on less than you will be even less able to take time off. Really, it is already fair. And as has already been pointed out, people may not even get the smp on top as often the employer claims this back. So it is most likely that everyone will be on just the 50%.

The unsocial hours thing is a totally different question and without having any idea of the hours or nature of your work I can't comment on that.

bigkidsdidit · 02/10/2011 18:40

But it is the same! 50%.

I'm really confused about what you're trying to say Confused

oneofthosedays · 02/10/2011 18:41

Yes op, why don't you have your 8 weeks and then your DH can do the remainder of the mat leave? A lot of employers don't pay anything extra at all so entitlement would only be SMP which is a huge drop, whichever wage you are on.

I feel incredibly grateful that I got a similar package to you which enabled me to stay off a hell of a lot longer than if I had only got SMP (or I would have a lot of saving to do!), of the few perks I get at work, the mat leave was the one I am the most thankful for.

Northernlurker · 02/10/2011 18:43

bigkids - on the £2000 example the op would lose 25% whilst on maternity leave whilst somebody on £1000 still gets what is effectively their full salary - that is because SMP of £100 and a bit is a bigger proportion of their salary than it is of hers. Nothing to be done about that.

KatieMiddleton · 02/10/2011 18:44

Additional paternity leave can't be taken until the child reaches 20 weeks old.

Original poster
TheDetective · 02/10/2011 18:46

Kat, the person on the lower wage would be able to take the full leave as they are receiving the same as they would if they were not on mat. leave.

OP posts:
WoTmania · 02/10/2011 18:46

Confused I don't really understand your problem. You are still on more money per month than the PTers and if you took SMP out of the equation your problem wouldn't exist. I have a hunch YABU

tyler80 · 02/10/2011 18:47

Are you sure there's not an extra bit. Our policy is similar but is 50% + smp as long as this is lower than full time salary, otherwise it's capped at full time salary

noblegiraffe · 02/10/2011 18:47

I was able to take the full year off, not because my husband earned loads but because I had saved thousands of pounds beforehand for this purpose.

Maybe you should have done the same?

Northernlurker · 02/10/2011 18:50

Tyler - I expect that is the policy with the OP too - but it doesn't solve her prblem because what she is unhappy about is that through frankly freak of numbers she loses a larger proportion of her salary than somebody on half that salary does. I can see it makes life hard - but it isn't her employer's fault. The only other thing they could do is pay everybody 100% of salary - but very few offer that kind of thing.

activate · 02/10/2011 18:50

your choices are the same as the majority of the population

save up while you don't have kids to fund the time off

or take 2 months off then go back

or change your life substantially so you can afford it

or do a combination of all the above

we all do it
none of us are entitled to an easier ride
some people get an easier ride due to accidents of birth or career - tough - that's the way the cookie crumbles
work with what you've got and stop moaning

KatieMiddleton · 02/10/2011 18:50

Just to check is it 50% plus SMP or 50% including SMP? Not that it matters because you are both getting the same percentage from your employer regardless but just curious.

Original poster
TheDetective · 02/10/2011 18:51

If it was my DF who earned £2000, and I earned £1000, we would still have £3000 a month. If it is me who earned £2000, and DF who earned £1000, then we have a £500 pay drop. Maybe I am stuck in a small minority of people in my situation.
To put it in real terms for me, I earn £1900-2100, DF earns £600-700, drop of £500ish income for us will really make life much harder due to ongoing commitments (mortgage, car, bills, loan payments from student days) I wish he could be the one to get pregnant, and breastfeed! Would be a hell of a lot easier on us then!!!

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 02/10/2011 18:51

The scenario is justified because it is fair.

Your employer pays everyone a percentage of their salary, the same percentage. Then they are obliged to add the flat rate SMP on top.

What would your solution be?

oneofthosedays · 02/10/2011 18:53

I didn't know that KM, DS is 4 now so don't think that the additional paternity was available then(?). Still an excellent option though I think. Well worth considering op if your DH earns less than you as the amount he would get will presumably be a higher % of his normal pay.

Original poster
TheDetective · 02/10/2011 18:53

Plus Katie.

By the way, I am not pregnant. I already have a child. I would like to have more - but will have to wait for DF to earn more to make the drop manageable.

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 02/10/2011 18:54

OP - having a baby knackers your finances. It's the way it is. You will be more knackered because you are the major wage earner but that is not something your employer can reasonably be expected to rectify.