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.

Employers definitely know who is taking which bit. We did it twice with a 7/5 month split each time and there was heaps of paperwork. Both our organisations did 6 months full pay then to statutory in the same pattern, so your 'entitlement' kicked in at the point you went on leave, ie DP got 2 months stat each time. It would have been amazing if DP had got 6 that as well!

While I am pro equalizing parental leave benefits, do you have scope (via a union?) to ask that they implement an equal benefits policy for a year and look at the costs after that? This is because take up of SPL by men is incredibly low. Especially if you are, as it sounds, in a male-dominated industry. And where it is taken up it is often just for the last month or so to support the mother going back to work so is basically zero cost (except for if the role needs filling or covering).

I'd be asking them to implement it first and cost after a trial period. It sounds like an attempt to cut benefits by stealth. I'd also be making the point that limiting the number of leaves is going to give them a staff retention issue.

@Summerandsparkle fine to agree to disagree.

But please try not to make nasty bitchy comments : ‘I couldn’t abandon my baby at 3 months old.’ I didn’t ‘abandon’ my baby either. I organised good quality childcare (and paid through the nose for it.)

My children have grown into happy healthy well adjusted adults (as no doubt they would have done if I’d had a 6 month or 12 month ML or indeed if I’d given up work and stayed home) That ultimately is what matters.

This is what happens when you get equality in the work place. Things inevitably balance out to an equal playing field. You can't choose to share rights but get better financial stakes than those you can share with.

I work for a government agency, in a make dominated field. As a government body they really support and promote shared parental leave, and many men I work with have used it to a greater or lesser extent, some going on to reduce their hours as the baby got older. This has prompted a lot of discussion from time to time amongst the men with older children, with the general feeling being that they would have loved the opportunity to spend more time with their children when they were younger.

Certainly, when our DC were born I felt that DH had had a similar life changing experience as me, but only had 2 weeks to get used to it, whereas I had a year! Ok, I needed some of that time to recovery physically. In the case of my second pregnancy that took about 5 months. I do feel though that there is an element of “gate keeping” amongst mothers of older babies that they want to be a full time parent and do the weaning, see the first step, soothe the first tooth etc and have “first dibs” on this, regardless of what the father would like, when, in reality, there is no reason why he shouldn’t, allowing for breastfeeding.

@Bikeskirun I could have written your post -except instead of 2 weeks paternity leave, substitute 1 day I had my babies before paternity leave legislation and because my dh was in a job which didn’t have flexible leave (teaching) he literally was only able to take off the actual day of the birth and was back in work the following day.

I think the introduction of paternity leave and also extending ML to more than 3 months have been great advances... and the introduction of SPL even better. Real milestone in acknowledging that children have 2 parents and encouraging both of them to play a hands on role in caring. I feel strongly that the more children see dad as well as mum doing things like caring, school pick ups (not to mention domestic things which often go hand in hand because let’s be honest, it’s easier to stick the laundry on if you’re home rather than at work) the better the family dynamics can be. It’s about normalising these things rather than raising children to think that roles are carved out based on gender.

In the long run for women's careers it is better. As it won't be harder for women of child bearing years to secure a job without the employer being worried about them leaving to have kids or needing cover as men will be equally as 'risky'. This is making it equal for women. Equal rights. We want equal rights for women. Well this is part of it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. We want to be treated equally but don't want men to take on the parental leave too? But expect to just waltz back in to our job with no change. Men need to take on half of this burden too if we don't want women's careers to suffer. My post is a bit jumbled. But I know what I mean. Women are seen as a risk to businesses as they might leave to have kids needing maternity pay plus then paying someone to cover them. It costs the company money. So men are preferred and that's often why they are paid more. However if men started taking paternity leave equally well then that means women aren't risky any more. Anyone is!

in the long run for women's careers it is better

And better for numerous other longer term societal outcomes too over and beyond individual careers. But the line to counter this is but won’t anyone think of the child/the child’s place is with the mother/the mother and not the father is the child’s natural carer. That is precisely the way in which the logic of intensive motherhood functions in society - it sort of props up patriarchy in numerous ways right from get go. Policy level changes are just one of numerous ways to tackle it. A team of colleagues of mine are working on food and school lunchboxes so older kids - and the same notions play out there too, with an enormous amount of load on mothers, working in numerous subtle ways - the thing is all pervasive and the way conversations on SPL are effectively shut down (to the great benefit of men at a population level) is precisely through “child’s place is with mother/wont anyone think of the child being chucked away/selfish woman wanting fancy holidays” etc.

It's not a race to the bottom for the benefits though, is it, especially considering a great deal of the early- expensive- period is covered by the government.

Firms should level up, not down.

My partner is lucky as his company offers three months shared parental leave on nearly full pay

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.

Some evidence from the thread that companies are doubling up on parental leave packages.

I have 4 examples from real life- all my friends who have told me that’s what their company offers. No fraud involved

@Zone4flaneur the company in question is levelling up- they are levelling up SPL so that parents using it are not disadvantaged. The OP explained that funding this means the package if you dont take it is slightly less advantageous (though still in the OPs words, ‘generous.’)

The alternative is for the company to persist with a system which is a disincentive to parents who wish to share caring for their children

Regarding all the discussion about dads not doing their share of childcare if they don’t look after the baby on a full time basis for part of the first 12 months. I think this is nonsense. What matters afterwards has far greater impact on equality and women’s career progression.

What about those dads who go on to part time work when mum goes back to work? Or more flexible work to accommodate family life?

I know lots of couples with young children where this is the setup. In fact I know more couples where mum is the main earner and partner supplements the household income and provides wrap around care. This is my life- my DH does far, far more childcare than me. But we still didn’t want to do SPL because we felt that I would be best placed to care for our DC as babies. It has not held back my career. I have a lot more in my pension pot already than my DH will ever have.

So in this arrangement (which is really common at my DC school!) the years of childcare my DH will do far outweighs what he could have done under SPL. That first year becomes irrelevant in the life of the child.

I do think our set up is more equal than one where dad is off for 6 months but then goes back to work full time and his career progresses, while mum goes back to work and her career stalls. It’s a choice between both going full pelt in your careers and using full time, wrap around childcare. Or as a couple prioritising the career of the person with more prospects- in our case that’s me, the woman. That’s true equality isn’t it? SPL is a red herring if it doesn’t make a difference long term to a woman’s career.

The men I know who do more wrap around childcare than their partners do various jobs- tradesmen, university staff, work in public sector, delivery drivers, tech companies.

While the women are in management in private sector, qualified professionals (doctors, other clinical staff, senior teachers, lawyers) and senior staff in third sector organisations.

Regarding all the discussion about dads not doing their share of childcare if they don’t look after the baby on a full time basis for part of the first 12 months. I think this is nonsense

Agreed. We’re going to be working for 50 years. A year or two out for mat leave is nothing. Flexible working for everyone is far more important. We have male/ female directors in our company who will do at least 2 school pick ups a week. Family friendly policies are the way forward and devaluing maternity leave is not. Let’s face it- breastfeeding rates are already low and making women return to work early won’t help this.

@sharedparentalleavesimpact you’re conflating your own personal circumstances and company policy though.

@Thoughtlessinengland’s recent posts about this have been spot on, really excellently articulated.

In your own particular circumstances, you don’t want to use SPL because you believe that you need to be there full time for the first 12 months and that it’s what happens after that first 12 months which really matters for the dad and the child. Which is fine. That’s your choice. But it’s not the case for everyone. Personally I would have loved to take, say, 6 months off and then transfer a few months to dh. I agree entirely with your point about all the other years of childhood being important, which is one reason why neither dh or I sacrificed our career or aimed our sights so high that we’d be jet setting off round the world and compromising on time at home. For us, we figured it would be better for both of us to have pretty decent earning careers than one stellar career and one having to give up completely. But the point is, those are our feelings as individuals. There is nothing sacrosanct about the first 12 months which means only the mother can fulfil the child’s needs.

Company policies and govt legislation needs to be grounded in making things as equitable as possible regardless of gender. The company policy you describe is a real step forward in putting things on a more equal footing and it sounds as though it’s a well thought through response to the low take up of SPL. They have listened to people saying ‘yes we want SPL but up to now we’ve been financially disadvantaged If we take it’ and they are taking action to make it more accessible. Ultimately that’s good news for everyone- mums, dads and most importantly children

Yes I agree that @Thoughtlessinengland posts are well articulated and I agree with much of it.

I’m simply sharing my real world experience - mine and the families I know. Good policy design and implementation requires continuous evaluation of evidence to see if the outcomes are what the policy intended. And assess whether there are any unintended consequences arising (negative or positive) so that the real world impacts can be understood. If at an aggregate level breastfeeding rates suddenly drop or PND rates increase, for example, we would need to reassess the policy and tweak the design to ensure the objective of equality is not at the expense of poorer outcomes for families. Policies are implemented in the real world - not in controlled conditions .

Yes but the outcome so far since SPL was introduced has been that there’s a shockingly low take up. Many couples report that this is because of the financial disadvantage to couples using it. Therefore, what this company is doing makes perfect sense in attempting to widen access. It has to fund its decision, which is why the situation is slightly less favourable (though still generous) for couples who do not choose to use it.
So you’ve kind of answered your own post really!

Btw I also think the bf issue is often brought up in a way that’s not entirely relevant on threads about returning to work.

The fact is, bf rates have far more to do with socio economic status and level of education than whether a woman returns to work at 3, 6 , 12 months or not at all.
To translate that into ‘real’ terms: a well educated, professional woman who is back behind her desk within a few months of giving birth is far more likely to be breast feeding than an unskilled woman who gives up work because she can’t afford childcare. That’s just simple fact.
There is so so much more behind the decision to bf or ff than whether a mum is working.

@Acciocats but I haven’t answered my own post though In the situation I’m describing, the couple choosing SPL are financially better off than a woman taking the full year herself. Where’s the equality in that?

If the packages did run concurrently as other posters described (so there was no financial benefit to take SPL over full mat leave) then I would have no issues with it and the enhanced package would not be reduced.

I have calculated that I would be £5,000 worse off if taking a full year, than equivalent paid male and female colleagues doing SPL of 6 months each. How is that fair on women?

@Acciocats I know about socioeconomic determinants of breastfeeding. I also know that I can’t return to work full time and continue breastfeeding. I also know other women who tried and couldn’t sustain it. It’s bloody hard work and not the pressure a lot of women can handle when having to work, feed during the night, perhaps looking after older children. Going back to work DOES disrupt breastfeeding for many women and is entirely relevant. I also don’t know many women who are going back to work and sitting behind a desk. I think your view of working mums is quite narrow!

How is it fair if a couple who use SPL are worse off than a couple who don’t?

Because that’s been the situation until now.

I understand your point, but where we disagree is that you think it would only be ‘fair’ if the company magic up more money so they can stop SPL financially disadvantaging couples while simultaneously keeping women who want a whole year off on the same Very generous t and c that’s been available up to now. Money doesn’t come from no where. In the circumstances I can completely see why the company are making SPL more accessible, because the outcome since it’s introduction has been a very low take up.

And it’s not as though the women who still want a whole year off are really ‘disadvantaged’ anyway because the package is still more generous than the company is obliged to give.

The fact is, bf rates have far more to do with socio economic status and level of education than whether a woman returns to work at 3, 6 , 12 months or not at all.
To translate that into ‘real’ terms: a well educated, professional woman who is back behind her desk within a few months of giving birth is far more likely to be breast feeding than an unskilled woman who gives up work because she can’t afford childcare.

I agree but surely we want to increase breastfeeding rates for everyone though, regardless of their level of skills or whether they are more highly educated. Why do we have to be superwomen and do everything. Most women I know, even in more professional roles, didn’t express for long once they were back in work and switched to formula. It’s a huge challenge especially when it’s likely you are getting up several times a night to feed while having to be up for work the next day.

@Acciocats I understand and agree with all your points there. I can appreciate that resources are finite, it’s above statutory so should be grateful for that. However the part I’m uncomfortable with is that there is a financial incentive for a woman - who might not want to- give up a proportion of her mat leave for SPL. Because the family will be better off- or the man wants a jolly if taking it concurrently. In this case a new mum could feel pressure to go back to work earlier than she wants to. Because it’s a no-brainer financially to get 2 x parental packages isn’t it? If this resulted in her cutting short her breastfeeding journey and her (or partner) developing PND, that would be an overwhelming negative impact on that family. That’s the kind of unintended consequence I’m talking about.

SPL and wider long term sharing care are not somehow mutually exclusive. It is not either or. All couples where SPL has been taken in my circuit have involve financial sacrifice when it shouldn’t have been needed and then forwards the couple have sustained and built a vastly gender equal setting going forward into later years. How SPL automatically prevents later year gender equality I don’t understand.

Why is taking time off to care for a child considered ‘the hardest job in the world’ when done by a woman but an excuse for a ‘jolly’ when done by a man?!

Honestly, I do seriously wonder sometimes whether some women really want equality!