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.

HavelockVetinari he just didn't want to look after a baby. I believe this is the same as many men. They prefer to go to work. So not only is this article offensive (suggesting men are inherently worth more pay than women) it's a waste of time. There is so much discussion about why men aren't taking a share of the parental leave. Oh it must be the SPL pay, inflexible work place, society, etc etc. The fact is you could offer many guys £300 000 a year to be on parental leave with a guaranteed promotion upon return, and they still wouldn't take it.

And saying well men are usually the breadwinners is just going around in circles. Until they start sharing childcare responsibilities, they always will on average have better careers, and therefore will always be the breadwinner.

The thing is this could be a good thing if this wasn't so incredibly sexist. It acknowledgeds that in lots of cases it's not possible for two people to be off at the same time or for men to take their paternity leave. Perhaps this is case of trying to buffer the financial loss of two people being off at the same time. Most people save in advance to cover the loss but it's not possible for everyone.

This isn't the right approach though and tbh I'm not sure what is. Perhaps it would be better that as a couple you get a joint payment for x weeks and then if you're a single parent you get the same amount - but there's no man gets x and woman gets y. This would then help with today's living costs. However I fail to see how our government could afford it or the increased paternity pay that is being suggested.

It should be the same whoever takes leave, but I don’t like the way they have framed this argument - it sounds as though they have talked to some men who are just making up excuses.

Looking at stats the pay gap kicks in after a woman has taken maternity leave.

Who has a ‘breadwinner’ husband before children in 2019?