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.

It’s a shame they are reducing the maternity pay but overall I think more parents taking shared parental leave can only be a good thing.

My partner is lucky as his company offers three months shared parental leave on nearly full pay. I think it will be great for him to bond with the baby and also better understand the challenges of looking after a baby and a toddler all day! In both our companies only a handful of people have taken spl so far.

It’s a cynical move to save money by indirectly cutting what the mother can take. Pretty disgusting actually.

I understand that in other countries SPL is organised differently and it is actually only a good thing if partners can really share. I think one can also take parental leave in England at the same time now which would have made a difference to us (of course one can argue why it takes two people to look after a baby but it is good for the family and I believe that the work force can survive it). My point is that babys are still breastfed at 6 months and that I would not like to force women to give up on this for shared parental leave.

Whenever the issue of shared parental leave comes up on MN, the main reason given for people not using it is that it’s not financially beneficial for the dad to use it. So this company are doing a very positive thing by making it more economically viable.

I’ve also seen a (very small) number of posters say they are against SPL because no way are they going to hand over some of their precious time off to the baby’s dad. Which of course is up to them because the mum has to transfer it, it’s not an automatic right but to be quite honest I can’t have much sympathy for that point of view because it’s not putting the child at the centre.

Ultimately, women in this company are getting a far better deal than the company is obliged to provide, and they now have the option of far more affordable SPL. Bloody great and long overdue. Just wish the chance for 6 months off and then being able to hand a few more months over to my dh had been around when I had babies.

Such interesting responses and shows how out of step I am with public opinion (on here at least). I’m so surprised by the results and glad I posted, because now I know to keep my mouth shut IRL

I can see all the benefits of equality and choice- for women with and without children. And support SPL and the right to choose. Just not at the expense of women’s rights. I’ve experienced discrimination as a mum myself (previous company) and believe in equality. But I really don’t think the impacts will be all positive.

I am a successful career person, working towards exec level so I really do care about my career. I work full time and my DH does a lot of the wrap around childcare (he works flexibly). He’s brilliant and supportive of my career, but we would never do SPL. In the early days we felt that I was the best caregiver as the mother.

I have 2 DCs and not planning any more children, so the policy change won’t affect me, but I’m still concerned about it. I’m thinking about the impacts of such a policy on other women in my company and wider society.

Personally I wanted to spend the first year with my babies. I breastfeed - so that probably colours my views of the need for mum. With my second baby I’m choosing to go back early when he’s 10 months. Even though my DH provides excellent care in the toddler/ school years, we both agreed to use a lovely childminder neighbour we know and trust to provide 1-1 care (DH will do drop offs/ pick ups). I understand some men want to look after young babies, but a lot of men wouldn’t want to or couldn’t cope with it. It’s quite different looking after a baby to a child. I don’t think we can re-program a whole section of society to do something which hasn’t until recently been the cultural norm. It’s unrealistic to suggest the policy will engineer this large-scale social change overnight and free women from the responsibilities of infant childcare. And I believe there will be unintended consequences....

Some of the concerns I have are:

• Women choosing to take a full year being worse off than a mum and dad splitting it 50/50. This is the issue I have with the change to my company policy and wonder if other companies are doing the same?

• Women who don’t have a partner entitled to SPL being worse off

• Increasing rates of PND/ PNA (among men and women)

• Negative impact on breastfeeding rates- pressure to bottle feed against personal preferences

• Dad looking after baby for financial benefits- not because it’s best for baby and mum (it’s quite tempting to opt for 2 x equal SPL packages instead of 1 x maternity package isn’t it?) he might not be best placed to provide care - my DH certainly wasn’t

• Dad pressuring mum to share leave when she doesn’t want to

• Controlling partners forcing sharing of leave concurrently, so the man can have a holiday for his hobby

• Employers pressuring mums to undertake SPL (doesn’t need to be explicit- could just become the norm)

I’m clearly old-fashioned, but I honestly believed most families see mum as providing the better care for baby in the early days, especially when you factor in breastfeeding and the hormones that go with it.

For the poster who mentioned 6 weeks mat leave in 1980s/90s... I think that’s a moot point. Back then families were not as reliant on 2 salaries to pay the mortgage so it’s not a comparable situation.

YANBU OP, you've given this a lot of thought and I agree with you.

Isn't it flat out discrimination against single mums?

I'd love to see more fathers stepping up though.

Fair enough OP you’re entitled to your opinion. But the fact that you assume men might pressure their partner to give them the time to pursue their hobby... personally I think that’s ridiculous. Some of us have children with men who actually want to spend time with their children!

I also completely disagree about the breast feeding issue because bf rates have far more to do with the socio economic status of the mother than whether she goes to work or not. A mum who is committed to bf is likely to continue after returning to work. I was an avid bf and back at work after 3 months with dc1. As were many of my ‘mum’ friends who returned to work in professional roles quite soon after the birth. Conversely there were other women I knew in the town where I lived who had babies the same time as me who didn’t return to work but didn’t bf. It would be really interesting to see the actual stats but it’s definitely an established fact that the factors determining whether a mother bf either at all, or beyond the first month or so are nothing to do with whether she’s returning to work

@acciocats Not actually ridiculous - I know of one man who spent his 3 months doing a lot of cycling. Took off time concurrently it would seem mainly to indulge hobby and cook etc. Fair enough but didn’t see much childcare. It will happen that people will take the mickey if allowed to take the leave together

Re breastfeeding. I understand what you’re saying and funnily enough wrote a paper at uni on the determinants of breastfeeding. Agree that cultural norms play a big part. But actually not everyone can express. I have tried and I get hardly anything. Even with a hospital grade pump! Whereas my babies can suck lots of milk out and feed very quickly. They are 90% quintile and ebf til 6 months. It’s weird that only my babies suckling can fully draw out my milk, but that’s the case for me. I’m giving up BF to go back to work. I wouldn’t be able to keep up my milk supply being unable to feed for 10 hours a day.

That’s unusual then OP and in a specific case like that then a couple might feel that the mum needs the whole year off. The same with very unusual cases where a mother has such severe birth injuries that she’s unable to work within a year.

My point is that this company are taking steps which will promote equality. They already provide better t and c than they need to by law, and if they can only make SPL more favourable by making ML without the SPL element a little less favourable (but still better than statutory maternity rights) then I (and clearly many others) feel that’s still a step in the right direction. It’s pitiful that several years after SPL was introduced the take up is so low. Most couples claim it’s because of the financial disincentives to take it. Therefore this company is listening to public opinion and acting on it. If some mums still don’t want to share the leave then they are still getting more favourable conditions than the company are obliged to give. They can still take a whole year off if they want. That’s pretty damn good compared to any time in the past and indeed compared to many countries in the present.

Fair points made there by @acciocats - I don’t disagree with you. I guess it’s just a feeling they are missing out on the current package to benefit a minority of men. It is more than they need to provide by law that is very true. But the change is a downgrade from the current policy.

Again I’m glad I started this thread because I can see that opinion is really split about this. So I will be careful about who and where I discuss it IRL!

I am with you OP in that I think many attempts at spl are actually making the situation worst for both parents - often there are controls on when the additional paid spl leave can be taken e.g. it must be in the first 6 months - this results in either leave not being taken or taken concurrently which means the overall family childcare period is shorter. I dont think most employers are at all trying to encourage equal parenting which is about much more than the first year but are just ticking a box. If I am wrong and these sort of policies do result in more men taking off meaningful amounts of time for childcare I will be pleased to be wrong.

The reasons you give including misuse for hobbies and the argument that policies should effectively tie women to early years care - I’m sorry but there is no way I could begin to even argue with those, wouldn’t know where to begin. To remove choice, which is what the current system does, to make the first year financially incentivised for women to stay at home and for fathers to effectively not be involved in full time or equal caring is not good. Countless projects on Shared and equal care, policies and practice, including scandenavian countries with high male involvement in early years care, high breastfeeding rates and high uptake of take it or leave it paternity leave and SPL are excellent sources of evidenced based debate on the topic. Colleagues of mine are working on their study of primary and equal care giving fathers as I write and we’ve just had a fantastic meeting of parenting and fatherhood sociologists from Norway with lots of stats and qualitative data pooled together on longer and shorter term outcomes. It’s absolutely a move towards greater gender equality and the current system of enforced first year care tied to mother financially is not the best system.

I dont think anyone is arguing against shared paid parental leave just that if introducing results in lower maternity pay offered then that is not an especially great solution in the actual real world esp if the policy is not actually set up in a way that means a meaningful uptake by fathers so the actual value to a family of enhanced pay falls and so far no policy in the UK seems to achieved a good update by fathers afaik.

Like I said RicStar the main reason given for the depressingly low take up of SPL is the financial disincentive. This is a company which is providing a greater incentive for couples to share leave. It doesn’t mean they have to, and frankly if a woman is determined to take a whole year off then she’s going to still do that. This company are giving an enhanced packets already

package

@Thoughtlessinengland those were just unintended consequences that popped into my head! I’m not claiming to have an evidence base for them. But the government should have prepared a thorough evidence base for the policy before they implemented it! We are not in Scandanavia so the transferability is quite limited. Especially Norway which is an oil rich nation. Where working conditions are exceptionally family friendly and not comparable to the UK. Working hours are shorter. The government properly funds policies unlike ours. I admit I haven’t done much research around this. I wish we could wave a magic wand and have true equality and choice. But the success of a policy is in its implementation and I don’t think SPL policy in the UK is taking into account the potential negative impacts. Not that I can see anyway

Shared leave should lead to more equality in the workplace which will be good for women in the long run

@SharedParentalLeaveImpacts

Re breastfeeding - I am doing shared parental leave at the same time as my partner, so will be continuing to breast feed (not expressing). When I go back to work at 9 months I’ll probably still continue bf at night. So it doesn’t have to impact bf.

@user1487194234 I really hope that will be the case and that my children will benefit if they become parents in future

I’ve always said (I’m a woman in the construction industry) that equality needs to be as much about providing opportunities and encouragement for men to care for their children (and other caring roles and occupations) as much as encouraging women into STEM subjects.

I think it's reasonable. The company is still generous too; many employers including mine only offer statutory maternity and paternity pay anyway.

Two pregnancies at the enhanced level of pay is reasonable too. It doesn't stop anyone having more babies, it just means they have to plan ahead and budget for doing it on SMP.

Think it's very reasonable and goes a long way towards more equality in the work place. The long mat leaves over and over leads to discrimination of women in the workplace.

43%of women don't want equality in the workplace.

Just sharing my personal experience of SPL as I'm lucky enough to have an extremely generous employer.

I'm taking 9 months off in total (26 weeks full pay, 13 weeks statutory. Remaining 13 weeks if I'd chosen to take them would've been unpaid). My husband works for the same company and he took 13 weeks of SPL fully paid ON TOP of a very generous fully paid paternity package and then a couple of weeks of holiday, too.

In total, my husband was off fully paid for 5 months when our DS was born. I feel extremely lucky. It's obviously not viable for all companies to do this but my first experience of parenthood has been vastly improved by having my husband home and no financial burden.

Jumping a bit of this thread just to add my bit. Whilst I think that anything to help equality along is a good thing, I also don't think that the only reason shared parental leave has had a low uptake is because of low pay for men. Personally speaking it would have been a cold day in hell that I would have parted with any of my maternity leave. The same can be said of every one of my female friends. I obviously appreciate that this won't be the same for everyone, but a big part of why there's not been huge uptake is because women want to be at home with their babies. I gave up a career that I loved and took a huge paycut to become a childminder and be at home with my children. I'm not the only one.