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

[SharedParentalLeaveImpacts]

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.

I had anxiety and depression post natally which persisted for some years.

I was very unwell when DC were 6 months.

There's not just physical health to consider in this.

Also many women still BF at 6 months, pumping etc is a PITA. IIRC the frequency lessened between 6 and 12 months gradually, then was down to 1 or 2 feeds a day from 12 months.

So for some women going back to work at 6 months is going to be a big hassle or actually awful, for sure.

Is it 6 months or earlier?

When can the men start their leave?

'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.'

No one is forced to take more than 2 weeks (I think it is, for non manual jobs, a bit longer for manual).

You position women who are ill after birth as doing other women a disservice. Not sure if that was your intention.

Shared parental leave can be taken by either mother or father. If mum is unwell, or has any desires to stay at home longer mum can use SPL.

The difference is that it is not tying the first year of care solely to the mother. It is opening it up - Scandinavian style - to either parent - giving families the flexibility to choose without losing money.

In my case, staying at home for 6 months with DS was detrimental for my sanity and mental well-being so we saved money for some SPL for ny spouse. This time, expecting DD, there isn’t any money so I will be forced to stay home for a certain period (in this case 4 months) when I do not want to. My spouse will be forced to return to work at 13 days which he doesn’t want to. If we had equally paid SPL we know what we would have chosen.

When can the men start?

I mean how long after the birth.

@Fraggling after two weeks for SPL.

Your issue with maternity leave is showing the flaws with maternity leave, not paternity leave. If someone isn’t adequately recovered to be back at work it should be treated as illness and paid accordingly, not bunched in with maternity leave which in the later stages is very poorly paid for many women.

So for some women going back to work at 6 months is going to be a big hassle or actually awful, for sure.

And these women do not have to. They can continue to get paid SPL and take the leave as a parent of their child.

Tying in early year childcare solely to the mother and making it financially impossible andunavailable for the father to perform that role does not work in women’s best interests. In the scandenavian system I’ve had some Scandinavia colleagues chose for mum to take the entire year on SPL some colleagues to split 50:50 and indeed some where mum has gone back at 3 months and dad stayed home for 9 months. All are happy.

@Fraggling they probably just have far more Male employees

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

Precisely my case this time when I give birth in a week or two (!). It is financially incentivised for me to stay home for 6 months and for my spouse to not do that. Sure- I can go back early which I am at 4 months - but then I don’t have the option of transferring that rate of pay to spouse who would dearly love to stay home and send Dd to nursery a bit later. Nope. We don’t have equally paid SPL or paternity leave, so Dd Will have a struggling and unhappy-to-be-at-home mother, getting in the proper maternity wage and an unhappy-to-return-to-work dad who can not afford to take the shit pay SPL currently is. If SPL was a thing here that was equal to mat pay this household would in a heartbeat have mum go back as soon she wanted to and dad take the rest. Next doors may have mum take the full 12 months. ThTs the flexibility we do not currently have.

And I do not for a moment see the argument against such flexibility. If someone had said they are mandatorily removing mothers’ leave and ascribing it to fathers and saying no woman you may not take leave that’s one thing - but introducing gender equal flexibility in parenting and first year care - how’s that a bad thing?

Yanbu. I bf'd my dc and wouldn't have wanted to return to work at 6 months. I suppose in your scenario I'd have stayed off work the full year but had less maternity pay.

I wholeheartedly agree with you OP, maternity should not be cut so SPL can be implemented. I fully agree with the SPL on the whole as it may lead to greater parity in the workplace/home, however, this shouldn't be to the detriment of a woman wanting to take maternity leave.

Totally see why the organisation has done this though - the funding has to come from somewhere.

Sounds absolutely great to me and a real step forward in encouraging dads to be hands on with their child and encouraging mums to take their career as seriously as men are expected to.

It’s still a much better package than any company is obliged to provide.

And on these threads you always get one or two people piping up about women needing time to recover from birth, but honestly, any woman who is physically unable to work within a few months as a direct result of giving birth is in a very very small minority. Company policy is based on what’s within the normal range.

I’ve said this many times: those of us giving birth in the 80s and early 90s were back at work 3 months after giving birth. No one is suggesting a return to that being standard, but it’s definitely a step forward to encourage parents to share the load more equally and to recognise that the vast majority of women don’t need an entire year off and may well want the child’s father to play an equal role in caring and earning.

I honestly can’t see this as women ‘losing out’ because a) it’s still better than the minimum the company have to Provide and b) it encourages parents to both be active in caring and in the workplace which ultimately is great for the child

I don’t think the op is questioning shared parental leave as some PPs seem to believe.

But the fact that her company have reduced the enhanced maternity payments to “accommodate” this.

And yes this will effect women, because only a small minority of men have taken SPL since it’s been offered, so really it’s just a thinly veiled attempt to reduce the enhanced maternity pay they currently offer...

If companies where serious about offering shared parental leave, they would implement their current policy across both parents, not use it as an excuse to downgrade existing ones..

I think it’s a positive move that may encourage more men to take SPL. We’ve done it 8 months/4 months with a month crossover and it’s been brilliant for us as a family.

only a small minority of men have taken SPL since it’s been offered

Because the pay is shit and unaffordable at some £4-500 a month. My spouse can’t take it this time because we can’t afford it. In countries where SPL is paid at full pay at par with maternity the take up is far from fractional. Only so many couples can afford gender equality in childcare at a pay of £4/500 a month. We saved with DC1 to do it and benefitted greatly. This time we can’t afford it so unhappy mother at home and unhappy father at work it will have to be.

@Thoughtless exactly!

Hence why I think the OPs company knows exactly what they are doing by effectively cutting the maternity pay. They might be doing it in the “spirit” of SPL, but any decent HR progressional should know take up by men is about 1-2%, therefore there will be no difference in the amount of men who use it, but they have reduced what they are paying out to the women who are still going to have to take it.

A cynical person would think this is a good saving for the employer as men are very unlikely to take it. And it’s unfair on lone parents who are predominantly female. YANBU OP. And if I worked for your employer, and this affected/could affect me, I would be notifying them that they have unilaterally changed my conditions without my consent.

I think it’s wrong that they're reducing the maternity package. Have they consulted on this? Do you have a union?

I don't know whether it has changed or not but my partner took paternity leave but could only do so if I returned to work. It also could only be taken in a certain time frame. It turned out to be really bad for me as I was still breastfeeding and in the end I basically took all my holiday allowance and cut corners wherever I could. Thankfully my colleagues (especially women!) were very understanding.
So I am very wary of any packages for men that basically make it harder for women to take a year maternity leave; and if men and women can take some month at nearly full pay then it is very likely that the women returns to work earlier. It is just not that easy to take full responsibility for a few months, then your partner and then start nursery/childminder. It is a lot of change for the babys and not all like all this change.

My company offers 9 months on full pay. Lots of men take shared parental leave - it makes economic sense for their partner to return to work after 6 months, and for them to take 3 months on full pay. I wish shared parental leave had been a thing when we had our kids - I’d definitely have swapped with DH after 6 months at home, and he’d have loved to have some time with the kids.

They clearly just want a way to save money while also thinking it will somehow make them look good. Why would they need to even reduce the maternity pay to afford SPL, unless men at the company are paid a lot more or if there are hardly and female employees.

I am very wary of any packages for men that basically make it harder for women to take a year maternity leave; and if men and women can take some month at nearly full pay then it is very likely that the women returns to work earlier. It is just not that easy to take full responsibility for a few months, then your partner and then start nursery/childminder. It is a lot of change for the babys and not all like all this change.

I am speaking of government policy on SPL and the need for a flexible Scandinavian style take it or leave Full paid paternity leave and SPL system. It has enormous implications for gender equality. Women should be free to choose to takes years leave but the leaveshould notmandayorily be incentivised only for women.

Yanbu. This was always going to happen. I see this as a backwards step. Especially for mothers.