Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think this is a more suitable amount for Maternity Leave?

30 replies

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams · 08/12/2013 09:52

Minimum wage, for your contracted hours, for six months?

Seeing as it is the amount the Govt think we can survive on?

OP posts:

NorthernLebkuchen · 08/12/2013 09:55

Maternity pay isn't set up for you to 'survive' on. Maternity pay assumes that if you are dependant on YOUR income you will return to work at 6 weeks and if you're dependant on somebody else's income you can manage much longer off but need your right to return protected.

Madamecastafiore · 08/12/2013 09:57

Why should I get paid minimum wage for any period of employ? I have worked my way up gaining qualifications to do a certain job.

LittleBearPad · 08/12/2013 10:01

I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying mat pay should be £225 odd a week? (35 hour week)

Original poster

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams · 08/12/2013 10:02

Madame - min wage for the time you are away on Mat Leave only. Or are you one of the Lucky Ones who gets extra Mat Leave Pay from your employer over and above the stat minimum.

OP posts:

Lj8893 · 08/12/2013 10:02

Tbh I think we are very lucky in this country to get any form of maternity pay, many other countries get nowt!

My job is only just above minimum wage (I'm talking pence!) and I have taken 9 months off.
That is my choice, and I probably won't return to my job when its finished either as I will be looking for something more flexible.
To be honest I think its just a bonus that I'm getting £136 a week for sitting on my ass all day going gooey over my baby

Waggamamma · 08/12/2013 10:03

Wouldn't that be fabulous?

Unfortunately it's not the governments or employers responsibility to pay us in full to have babies.

We're saving like mad at the moment to save for mat leave for a second baby (hopefully!). I don't expect anyone else to pay for that as it's our choice as a family to have more children. I very grateful for smp.

It's not very fair on people who can't have or don't want a family not to be entitled to 6 months off on full pay.

Original poster

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams · 08/12/2013 10:03

Im.saying - if you have a 40hr contract then Mat Pay should be 40 x min wage per week (minus contributions of course).

If you have a 12 hr per week contract then 12 x min wage per week (minus contributions). Etc.

OP posts:

thatstoast · 08/12/2013 10:05

I'm not sure what your point is? You think you should have slightly more money but for less amount of time, is that right? That would be the consequence for me. Could you explain why you think minimum wage would be better?

noblegiraffe · 08/12/2013 10:06

Why only 6 months? I got SMP for 9.

Original poster

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams · 08/12/2013 10:08

I just figure since we are advised to EBF for the first six months til weaning, and we are also told that Min Wage is the minimum someone can receive in income, then the two should match up.

What happens after six months I havent decided yet

OP posts:

Lj8893 · 08/12/2013 10:09

waggamamma put it much better than me!

Artandco · 08/12/2013 10:11

I got full pay for first 16 weeks, then half pay for 16 weeks. Then. Even then I went back after 16 we as couldn't afford the half pay. Even though its much higher than min wage. I live in London and have a high rent ( for a tiny place)

Kelly1814 · 08/12/2013 10:14

Try living in a country with 45 days paid maternity!

You are so lucky that in the uk you are basically paid to have a baby!!

janey68 · 08/12/2013 10:23

Re: the bf issue.
As far as I'm aware there is no correlation between the two things though. Bf rates are low in this country, pitifully low beyond feeding for the very early weeks. But it's more about education and social class AFAIK. In other words, if a mother values bf she will do it, and will express milk if necessary after retuning to work. If a mother isn't going to bf, she won't, even if she's not working.

I had my children in the days of 12 weeks paid leave so I returned to work while still bf and indeed continued bf them til over a year. Conversely, I knew quite a few mums who didn't work and didn't bf.

So I'm not convinced the bf issue is hugely relevant.
Overall I think maternity rights in This country are pretty good. It's about balancing employers and employees needs and I think the right to the SMP plus additional time up to a year off us pretty good. The shared parental leave is a massive step forward too- I think fathers have been sidelined too long

LittleBearPad · 08/12/2013 10:24

Plus you do get 6 weeks at 90% of full pay then 33 weeks SMP. The state shouldn't pay for people to have children.

janey68 · 08/12/2013 10:30

Tbh I think there's a natural human tendency to perhaps always wish for slightly more than the current situation. When ML was 3 months, people probably thought that was too short, then when it extended to 6 months they thought 'why not 9?' Etc ....

If you talk to old gimmers like me (late 40s upwards!) honestly, we'd have laughed in your face if you'd told us that within 15 years women would be entitled to a whole year off, most of it paid, plus dads entitled to two weeks (used to be zilch) plus the new shared parental leave entitlement. To us, the conditions nowadays seem unbelievably generous.

WooWooOwl · 08/12/2013 10:38

What the government thinks is the minimum we need to live on isn't really all that relevant when it comes to deciding what people need for maternity leave because the government doesn't take into account people's income/rent/mortgage/bills/childcare fees/transport costs before they go on leave to have a baby.

There's a reason it takes two people to have a baby, and only one of those people needs leave from work beyond normal holiday entitlement, so the other parents income would need to be taken into account too if it was going to be done your way.

We already have good maternity entitlement in this country, and unfortunately no one needs to worry if they find themselves pregnant and unable to afford it because the government steps in and fixes the problem with taxpayer money.

We really don't need to do anything more to make it easier for people to have children that they can't afford.

janey68 · 08/12/2013 10:44

Actually it's always struck me as strange that there is SMP which isn't linked to the enployees return to work. Tbh I think any form of maternity pay should be linked to some responsibility to return. A woman can leave a job, not intending to return, and receive money whereas any other non pregnant woman or a man leaving that job wouldn't.

noblegiraffe · 08/12/2013 10:48

The requirement to work is prior to the maternity leave, you need to have been with the same employer for a certain time before getting pregnant to qualify for SMP. It's an earned benefit.

Boobybeau · 08/12/2013 11:00

Not sure this is entirely helpful but the actual bf recommendation set by WHO wnd unicef is to Solely breastfeed for 6mths before introducing solids and then continue until at least 2yrs (they always leave that bit off) so if you were going off of this for what materinty pay we should be entitled to it would mean we should be paid for 2yrs I guess!

For what it's worth, I'm extremely grateful for the mat pay I got as like someone else said, it was my life choice to have babies so it's my responsibility to pay for them.

janey68 · 08/12/2013 11:02

Yes, i understand that. It's just struck me as a bit of an odd one. I can understand enhanced maternity pay etc, and benefits which have a direct link to the employee returning. But it's always stuck me as odd that a pregant woman leaving a job and not intending to return has a financial advantage over any other employee, male or female, who may have worked for the company the same time and leave on the same date. One gets paid for a while and the others don't.

CrohnicallySick · 08/12/2013 11:15

Boobybeau- that is true, however generally speaking it is easier to leave a breastfed baby that has started weaning, as they can have some solids and water while you are away. My daughter is just over a year and only breastfeeds during the evening and night so it isn't a barrier to me going to work at all. Not all breastfed babies will take a bottle, even if you introduce it early. My daughter had at least 1 bottle of expressed milk a day from birth to 3 months, at which point she decided she didn't like bottles and it was a real struggle to get her to take any milk from one, so I couldn't leave her for any extended amount of time until she was around 7 months and eating enough to keep her going.

Boobybeau · 08/12/2013 11:34

I totally agree crohnicallysick I returned to work when ds1 was 8mths old and I bf him until he self weaned at 2 1/2. I was just pointing out that I don't think bf is taken into account when dishing out mat leave.

janey68 · 08/12/2013 11:45

But isn't there a higher bf rate among professional working women anyway? That's what I was alluding to earlier. I'm not sure there is any link between giving more time off and higher bf rates at all. It seems if a woman values bf she will do it, regardless of whether she works or not

CrohnicallySick · 08/12/2013 21:33

I was trying to point out that 9 months paid mat leave (plus the option of another 3 months) is perfectly adequate for bf purposes, as the vast majority of bf babies (even those that refuse a bottle) will be ready to be apart from their mother at that age. While it would be nice to have paid mat leave till age 2, it's not necessary to allow bf to continue.

Flip

1 2