To think that if stat mat pay is good enough for women it's good enough for men?

[NewAccount270219]

I just read this press release from the TUC:

www.tuc.org.uk/news/tuc-calls-overhaul-shared-parental-leave

It's a subject close to my heart because DH and I are in the 1% who have done SPL, it's been brilliant for us and I would like to see higher uptake. But this bit really annoyed me:

The TUC believes take-up is low because the scheme is so low-paid (£145.18 per week) making it unaffordable for most fathers.

Statutory paternity pay and shared parental pay should be increased to at least minimum wage levels.

SPL is paid at the same rate as statutory maternity pay! If I was on leave right now I'd be being paid exactly what DH is - but it's too low for him but good enough for me? And suggesting that both paternity pay and SPL are raised to minimum wage but NOT maternity pay?

Look, I get that in many families (not ours, but many) the man is the higher earner and that's a barrier to him taking leave. But basically this seems to suggest that women's wages are optional - 'pin money' - and so it's fine to throw them some token mat pay, but men need real money. And I find that sexist and offensive.

Itsallgone

For the record, my earnings outstrip my husband's by £20k pa. Maternity leave was a massive financial hit for us, it is a proper kick in the teeth to suggest I'm worth less financially for statutory pay when I pay more taxes and earn more money

So why didn't your husband take up Shared Parental Leave if financially it would have made sense, even before a 'man' uplift.

You've just provided a good example of what I was saying in my post above, couples don't seem to always make maternity/shared paternity decisions based on financial reasons any way. Men aren't avoiding looking after babies because they aren't paid enough, it's either because they don't want to or because the woman wants to/feels they are expected to more.

I agree that financial reasons aren't the sole reason men don't take SPL. 1% of families use it - there's a gender pay gap in the UK, of course, but it is not the case that 99% of men earn more than their partners.

So why didn't your husband take up Shared Parental Leave if financially it would have made sense, even before a 'man' uplift.

Because it wasn't available...SPL is a pretty new thing. Our youngest is 6 years old, SPL is only 4 years old. My husband and I would have been delighted with him taking time to be a new dad and for me to go back to work sooner.

Really bloody stupid initiative from TUC. The rate of SMP is not the issue with getting more dads to take parental leave, the problem is that the 6 weeks at 90% of earnings is not shareable. This is a HUGE disincentive. It worked for me as DH earns less, so I was able to take 12 weeks, enjoy the benefit of the 6 weeks at 90% pay, and then let him take some parental leave. But if the situation is reversed (as it is in most households) it's just a huge middle finger to the dad.

Either the 90% pay should be shareable (I guarantee this would have well paid DHs around the country taking 6 weeks at the drop of a hat), or in an optimum world, dads would also get 90% pay for the first 6 weeks.

Totally agree OP. Its on both a political and personal level that men think this.

I earn more 30% more than my DH and always have. I wanted to take the first half of the parental leave available, but I wanted to share the rest and suggested he might want to take the second half or some of it. He said we couldn't afford that. I pointed out we would be financially much better off with him on SPL. His face was like - it was like that never even occurred to him.

He never ended up doing it of course.

Maternity discrimination & low levels of SMP have existed for decades and decades but as soon as men start taking more parental leave suddenly it's being looked at? Thanks so much TUC. So ridiculous!

Women receive full pay for the first six weeks before moving onto statutory pay. Men receive no time off on full pay, they go onto statutory pay from day 1. If my DH had received full pay he’d have taken leave for as long as the full pay lasted. As it was, he couldn’t take any leave at all because we couldn’t afford to live on statutory pay for even one week. Imo he should at least have had the same time on full pay that a woman gets.

As a woman who earns more than twice her husband's salary this has me raging. Being able to afford maternity leave (especially as for years I was with an employer who paid statutory only) has been a major factor in leaving TTC late.

The press go on about women "selfishly" putting off having children until much later but fail to recognise the financial barriers.

The whole system is based around an outdated and regressive model of man as breadwinner with an important job and the little woman at home maybe having a little job for pocket money.

And they wonder why there is a pay gap between the sexes! (Not gender pay gap, because let's face it, the gap is due to likelihood of getting pregnant not whether you wear lipstick 🙄)

@SosigDog it's only 90% pay is it not?

Men have been able to take additional paternity leave (basically they've been allowed to take anything after 20 weeks) since 2011 itsallgone

So after 20 weeks you could have gone back to work and your husband could have taken over and as a family you would have been financially better off. I'm not getting at you personally (as it happens I've been in exactly the same position and made the same choice as you!) but it's clearly not as simple as give men more money / rights and they will choose to stay home with the baby.

As me, you and butteredghost all demonstrate.

"the problem is that the 6 weeks at 90% of earnings is not shareable."

No, that is NOT the problem.

Women who have given birth need time to recover from the birth and bond with their babies. The right to 6 weeks of maternity leave at 90% pay should NOT be messed with, it should not be taken away and given to men - not unless men can magically give birth now!

I'm all for extending paid paternity leave (incidentally, fathers get 2 weeks FULL PAY when mothers only get 90% albeit for 6 weeks) and I'm all for absolute equality after the 6 weeks; equal parental pay for whoever is on leave. But don't mess with those 6 weeks for mothers.

Father’s DO NOT get two weeks full pay. They go onto statutory pay from the beginning. Hence why I found myself 24 hours post c section as a first time mum with zero help and support, because DH got no paid time off.

We were lucky that DP’s company paid full pay for the two weeks and were flexible enough to let him take it a bit more gradually (which isn’t technically allowed). I do think the 2 weeks paternity should be on full pay or 90% as standard so all men can afford to take it.
Agree though that pay for the period after that should be increased for everyone though! As PP said, even when the woman is the higher earner there are lots of excuses for her taking the leave.

@AnotherEmma
Apart from some point of principle I'm not sure why the 6 weeks at 90% should be bound to the mother. As I said in most families the father will earn more, often very significantly so. So all that the current system does is deprive families of more money than they might otherwise have had AND discourage fathers from taking paternity leave.

Why should a mother not be entitled to take 12 weeks off on SMP, then the father can take 6 weeks at 90% (etc etc)? This would benefit a lot of families.

Agreed that you should be able to chose which you has the 6 weeks at 90% (or split it, e.g. 3 weeks of it each). Ideally you'd be able to both have that, but unlike SLP that wouldn't be cost neutral compared to the previous system where only the woman was entitled to it.

Also agree that companies who offer enhanced benefits should offer them on an equal basis.

If you’re already a SAHM you don’t get 6 weeks pay because you don’t have a job. So you should be able to transfer those 6 weeks between parents as you see fit. The DH of a SAHM should be able to take the full 6 weeks since she obviously won’t be claiming them. Why should families with a SAHM lose out on paid time off?

I find that one (the SAHM) a bit more difficult. I think it's a reasonable requirement that both parents be employed to do shared parental leave, as I don't really see what is being 'shared' otherwise. Again, there's also a big cost implication if instead of shifting entitlements between people you're creating them anew - and if you're putting that kind of cash injection into the system then I think it could be done in a more wholesale way.

I guess the problem with any kind of proportional benefit system - like the 90% pay for six weeks - is that it can be quite 'to those that have more is given'. Which is why government policy generally avoids them in favour of flat payments.

I earned twice husband’s salary when i went on maternity leave with our first. I took 9 months and then he took unpaid leave for the next four. He would have been a sahp if we couldve afforded it.

The money is only part of the issue. The major issue is the desire to parent equally.

pastabest in all honestly we didn't know that was a thing at the time so we only crunched the numbers for my pay.

It's still a kick in the teeth though that an organisation that's meant to be about fairness and equal treatment in the workplace is only really championing fairness for men rather than everyone.

I thought we'd be over this sexist crap before almost quarter of a way into a new century but it still abounds. Sadly the way things are going I can see women having the same problems when my daughters are adults.

@Butteredghost why did your DH not take the SPL once you pointed out how much better off you'd be?

Totally agree.

I don't think money is really what drives the decisions anyway. My observation is that where the man out earns the woman "it's just not financially sensible" for him to take SPL but where the woman out earns the man, somehow the money is found for her to stay on mat leave.

FWIW, we earn about the same and did 6 months each last time and planning to do SPL again next time.

A lot of the time it’s not even viable for two weeks paternity leave. My dh always took it as holiday as the loss of wages was enormous.

My observation is that where the man out earns the woman "it's just not financially sensible" for him to take SPL but where the woman out earns the man, somehow the money is found for her to stay on mat leave.

Same. My experience is also that it tends to be women who are most hostile to the idea of 'sharing' 'their' leave, rather than men saying they don't want it, though it may just be that women are more vocal about not liking the idea than their partners.

We looked into taking shared parental leave by our company offered enhanced maternity pay-4months full pay plus 3months half pay-only. They don't offer anything above statutory for shared/paternity :/.

As far as SMP- it's an absolute joke in this country.