Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be concerned maternity package has been cut to pay for shared parental leave?

177 replies

SharedParentalLeaveImpacts · 29/12/2019 13:56

My company has a fairly generous enhanced maternity package. Not as good as the 6 months full pay some civil service friends get, but still above the statutory.

Next year, men will be entitled to the same package if taking Shared Parental Leave. The terms of the policy will change so that beneficiaries would effectively receive about 25% less overall. There is also a cap on the number of times you can take it. I’m unwilling to give any more details as it could be outing (I have name changed).

This won’t affect me personally but I could see this coming when the government legislated for SPL. I know companies don’t have to match maternity packages for men. But our company did a review of competitors and this is what others offer. So they have followed suit.

I can understand why they are doing this as the policy needs to be funded (we employ a lot of men and it could cost a lot).

AIBU to be concerned that women are going to lose out? Not me personally but other younger women? Or should they be grateful to receive above the minimum? Did the government not consider these potential impacts when designing their policy? Is this happening in other companies?

Please note I’m not willing to say what the industry is or give any more details about the specific policy. So will ignore these questions.

OP posts:
PTW1234 · 29/12/2019 14:01

I don’t think women will lose out of men actually do start to take up shared parental leave, it can only be a positive step for women.

However making parental leave shit for everyone isn’t exactly going to help either!!

In reality very few men are taking up the offer, most companies imo are just box ticking and not actively promoting the benefits.

WorraLiberty · 29/12/2019 14:06

Sounds fair to me and it's still above statutory.

Brefugee · 29/12/2019 14:07

there are always losers. Frankly I'll support anything that gets more men doing this because it can only be good for women in the workplace (for eg. women who don't want children, women with older children etc etc)

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 29/12/2019 14:07

They don’t have to offer nothing over SMP and it’s better it’s equal for both sexes than one getting more.

Shared parental leave is good for women and their careers so companies should be doing what they can to ensue men take it.

returnofthecat · 29/12/2019 14:10

If they've cut it to fund leave for the men, they are clearly eyeing up men with the same amount of suspicion as they eye up the women.

So this does actually help level the playing field - women of child bearing age are less likely to be discriminated against in interviews.

I'm all for it.

MrsSpenserGregson · 29/12/2019 14:13

Overall I'd say it's a good thing, as encouraging men to take longer paternity leave will help women's careers in the longer term. Yes, there may be some shorter-term financial pain, but if the woman is going back to work sooner than she otherwise would, due to her partner taking enhance paternity leave, the family won't be paying childcare costs at that point because dad will be at home with the baby, and mum will be back earning her full salary, so surely it evens out ..?

HardofCleaning · 29/12/2019 14:14

Why should only women be eligible? Definitely more fair and will enable more women to maintain careers ..... I can't see how allowing men to share parental leave could possibly be a bad thing.

Dontdisturbmenow · 29/12/2019 14:14

There are hundred of threads here about fathers not doing enough, not being involved, not bonding. This is the best way to get what women want, men being more involved. It should be rolled out everywhere.

HirplesWithHaggis · 29/12/2019 14:15

Bit sad we're viewing reduced maternity benefits as a way to get more women into the workforce. :( Though I do.understand the point.

memberofseven · 29/12/2019 14:15

I agree with you op.

DDiva · 29/12/2019 14:15

Sounds like an amazing package originally, I really dont think anyone can complain. Anything above statutory is a bonus and being split fairly between men and women can only be a good thing.

Fraggling · 29/12/2019 14:18

A cap on the number of mat pays you can have?

That doesn't sound right to me

Fraggling · 29/12/2019 14:19

'Bit sad we're viewing reduced maternity benefits as a way to get more women into the workforce.'

Also this.

doritosdip · 29/12/2019 14:19

It's a good thing imo.
SPL is good for mum, baby and company as well as men
2 parent families don't need more PL than one parent families too- treating everyone as a family unit is fair

Original poster
SharedParentalLeaveImpacts · 29/12/2019 14:24

Yes there is a cap of 2 pregnancies

OP posts:
HardofCleaning · 29/12/2019 14:25

Bit sad we're viewing reduced maternity benefits as a way to get more women into the workforce

Obviously ideally the parental package would remain the same when offered to men or women but OP speculates the increased cost means the package is slightly reduced. Do you really think it would be fair to keep a higher maternity package for women at the expense of families getting to choose which parent stays home with the kids? Unfair on both parents.

TowelStripes · 29/12/2019 14:26

If you've named changed why can't you be 'outed' as someone that works for the company. It's not like you'll be individually identified, is it. Bit OTT.

AdriannaP · 29/12/2019 14:27

If you want more equality in the workplace and in life, then offering paid paternity leave is a good step. Going forward it could also mean women of a certain age will not be disadvantaged when interviewing for jobs as package is the same for men and women. In my organisation the package is exactly for those reasons and of course would also be unfair if men couldn’t take paid parental leave.

SimonJT · 29/12/2019 14:30

Sounds good to me, it needs to be evened out across all industries. Maternity leave where I work is very generous and paid for the two pregnancies.

Parental leave is unpaid if you take more than the statutory two weeks. I adopted and so my workplace weren’t able to discriminate based on sex so I received the same package that a mum would.

Fraggling · 29/12/2019 14:33

Why is it more expensive to give some of the leave to men anyway?

After 6 months sounds like you get stat leave ie another 3 months on stat pay them 3 months unpaid (unless stat has changed I may well be out of date!). So what do they need the extra money for?

OR have they decided that if men are to take leave then they need to be paid more than the woman would have been? Which feels a bit off tbh.

katmarie · 29/12/2019 14:34

I'm guessing the cap is for the enhanced package and any other pregnancies would only get statutory pay. It's a bit depressing that the way to make things fairer is to reduce the package overall. We wouldn't want to see that happening in an equal pay situation for example, reducing mens pay doesn't help women who have been underpaid but does make things fairer. But as it's all above the statutory requirements there is not much you can say really.

Thoughtlessinengland · 29/12/2019 14:37

No views on the cap but ABSOLUTELY a fantastic step to incentivise SPL rather than more maternity leave. Better for women, better for society, better for the workplace

RhodaDendron · 29/12/2019 14:39

Yanbu. Maternity leave should be protected for recovery from birth! So many friends have excitedly told me how they’ll be splitting mat leave with their hands-on dp, only to find that they’re not fully recovered from birth after 6 or 9 months. Not to say this is the case for everyone - and the partners are equally adept at baby care as the mums - but recovery can be a long slog alongside months of breastfeeding and sleep deprivation, and 12 months maternity leave is important to address that!

BonnyConnie · 29/12/2019 14:41

This might force their partners to take on some of the responsibility and actually benefit them. Part of the problem with the previous arrangement (by and large still the current arrangement) was the women became the default young baby carers no matter how much more they earned than their partners or how much they didn’t want to do it simply because the government had legislated them into this servitude. If you assume that all women want to sit at home for nine months to a year with a young baby while their partners carry on as normal then yes, this looks bad. But if you are of the kind that both parents should care equally for their children as much as possible then this is a big step in the right direction.

HardofCleaning · 29/12/2019 14:42

@RhodaDendron

It's very unusual to not have recovered 6 months after birth to the extent that they couldn't work! And in that case the woman could just decide to take the full maternity package. Many women are fine to work after a few months and would like the opportunity to decide for themselves not be forced to stay home because another woman somewhere wasn't recovered for 2 years after birth.