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 must be a strange one. Went back behind my desk Full time at 6 months. Husband took the remaining of the parental leave. Still breastfeeding at 20 months. It’s tough yes but if wanted can be done.

I agree that spl is good for women the more men they take it the easier for women to get into new roles as companies won’t be thinking about us taking 1-2 years off to take care of children.

@Thoughtlessinengland I only know a very few couples who have taken SPL but I agree completely with your observation. It’s about establishing a dynamic in the family as much as anything. A man taking a few months off to care for his child during the first 12 months is far more likely to go forward with a genuine understanding of what it entails and a desire to continue being hands on. It establishes a pattern in the family which says ‘men can care/ do domestic things and women can work.’

@Summerandsparkle yes you’re spot on. This is what it’s like to have it all in the real world. It’s nigh on impossible for me. I travel on trains, meet clients and have an older child who demands much more attention than the baby. I’m up twice a night breastfeeding at 9 months old and can’t see that changing until we switch to formula.

I also have hospital appointments to manage for my baby’s health issues - and a lengthy nighttime routine to manage said medical issues. These challenges are not unusual in my circles- I know lots of families in a similar situation juggling lots of plates. Add in an early return to work and pressure to continue bf = mental health issues.

I think it’s possible to work and continue bf if you have a naice office job with somewhere comfortable to express, have lots of free time when you’re home to bf (it’s your firstborn) and you have no problem expressing. Meanwhile for the rest of us it’s just not an option. So yes I do believe breastfeeding rates will fall.

@Acciocats it’s a jolly when a man takes it at the same time as his partner so they can go together on a long holiday. Or to indulge his hobby of cycling. You don’t need two parents to look after one baby. It’s a nice to have and a jolly unless the mum is struggling with physical/mental health issues or baby is poorly. Men who take leave while mum back at work are definitely not on a jolly!!

But presumably OP, if you were affected by the new company policy, and if you could only afford 6 months off and then your dh was taking the next 6 months, then you would still have bf for at least 6 months, no? Because you understand the benefits of bf, you are clearly an educated person and believe in it? And then at the point where your child is weaning anyway, you might have switched to ff, having given your child an excellent start? So you wouldnt be a statistic contributing to a fall in bf rates.

Another fact you haven’t mentioned is that to take entire year off means a women is in a pretty advantageous position anyway. A woman doesn’t get full pay for 12 months, so she’s already taking a financial hit by taking that much time off - if she really can’t afford it she’ll be back at work earlier. So it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that SPL would be the only factor pushing women back earlier than they want. You must have been able to afford your year of ML, no?

but you don’t need SPL to achieve equality in childcare! Honestly my circle is made up of families where mum took a full year maternity and dad then took over additional childcare when mum went back to work. I can’t understand the argument. A family will arrange childcare according to who is best placed to take up responsibilities. It’s not a class thing either. Our school is in a council estate. There are plenty of dads doing pick up that are roofers / delivery drivers / builders. I just don’t see the connection between SPL and ongoing childcare in the real world

Fair points there @Acciocats about other factors affecting bf/ return to work. I recognise I’m in a privileged position of having a decent enhanced maternity package that has enabled me to comfortably take 10 months off. A lot of women and men don’t have that luxury

SharedParentalLeaveImpacts:

Did you start threads and campaign about the parents who were disadvantaged financially by SPL before the company revised its policy?

Did you start threads and campaign about all the women who aren’t as financially well off as you and couldn’t afford a whole year off on ML?

Because the fundamental point here is that you are looking at this totally from your own little bubble of wanting a year off and then your dh stepping in and doing more, while company policy has to look at a broader perspective and trying to make things manageable and equatable for all.

To return to my earlier point: we are not all the same. Many women want to return to work earlier, and will often continue bf long term too. They feel that the best thing for their family is for the dad to take some leave during that first year as well as continuing to be hands on afterwards.

I hold my hands up and say that the issues raised in this thread (including by myself!) are not representative of the experiences of the majority of families in the UK having a baby. Enhanced maternity leave and SPL is predominately the preserve of the ‘middle class’.

Precisely. And even among those who qualify for enhanced maternity packages, you are still ‘extra advantaged’ in having been able to afford a whole year off!

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.

8I have 4 examples from real life- all my friends who have told me that’s what their company offers. No fraud involved*

So there appears to be all sorts of confusion about SPL. I'm the dad and I took SPL for both of my children. The first was the last 3 months of the 12 months leave, in 2017. The second was 6 months taken this year, overlapped with my wife for the 3 middle months, so our DD had care from one of us up to 9 months.

My company's policy for SPL is to match the maternity policy. That is, 6 weeks @ 90% pay, then 50% pay to 12 months. A very generous policy. My wife's employer policy was not so generous, it was pay reduced until 9 months, which was unpaid for the last 3 months. My company policy for SPL started at the point since the child's birth, so for me from 9 months for DS, and from 3 months for DD, so I got 50% pay. There was a whole heap of paperwork for HMRC and employers etc that we provided to prove that we weren't scamming the system.

If your company is promoting a policy that you get a SPL for the partner which kicks in when you go on leave, not based on the child's birth/adoption date, then this is probably quite unusual. I'm not saying it's not the case but I think that's what's causing a lot of confusion here, because I don't think it's the norm.

SharedParentalLeaveImpacts

I applaud your determination to have your dh involved and hands on in the upbringing of your children I really do. And I completely agree about it being for the long haul... we have our children for 18 years before they technically reach adult hood and I know from my own three kids now well into their 20s that they keep needing you well beyond 18 ... it’s about building a life long relationship.

I guess we all have different perspectives, and looking at this as a woman in my fifties, who had babies almost thirty years ago, having been a firm bf advocate despite all the barriers of 3 month ML, no paternity leave, no flexible working and a working world which was pretty firmly stacked against women ... I just think that everything possible needs to be done to encourage men and women to genuinely experience equality as far as possible. I feel dh and I (along with our peers) had to fight hard to get away from the stereotypes roles of ‘earner’ and ‘carer’ and you’d hope that by this stage of the 21st century we’d have got a bit further. My peers and I would have given our right arms for SPL - paid or unpaid! I’m in favour of anything which promotes equality and ultimately makes for a better experience for everyone - men, women and children

I think it's completely fair.....I didn't get any full paid maternity leave - 6weeks at 90% and 12weeks at 50% - as main earner I had to go back after 18 weeks but had my DH employer had as good a package as this at least he could then have stayed home - as it was DC started at childminder at 20 weeks old

Actually thinking about it OP, the revised policy could actually be better for some of those women you’re concerned it could negatively impact on.

I mean, for a couple on a tight financial rein, the woman is unlikely to be able to afford the hit of a year off on ML. So it’s a choice between either returning to work earlier and using childcare straight away, or returning to work earlier but having the dad at home for a few months caring for the baby.

I would love this. DH only gets 2 weeks, plus he’s the higher earner. I don’t want to miss out on too many opportunities at work so I’ll be going back after 15 weeks. He’s going to take 4 weeks on statutory later on in my Mat leave to help me transition back into work. It’ll hurt financially!

I believe women should potentially get a little more to allow for physical recovery, but if we truly want to level the playing field at work we need to make parental leave more attractive to men, rather than just making women the default choice.

if we truly want to level the playing field at work we need to make parental leave more attractive to men, rather than just making women the default choice

This, exactly

Discrimination still goes on with women of childbearing age. Never documented obviously, (there was a stronger candidate, he has more experience of team leadership etc) but a large part of this is the 'year off' women are likely to have. Employers are more likely to be fine with either parent juggling school pick ups etc, than a long period where cover has to be arranged, training someone else etc. The possibility of a man taking 6m off should encourage hiring the best candidate rather than the best man.

@SharedParentalLeaveImpacts

Do you still consider it a ‘jolly’ for both parents to take spl at the same time when they have multiple children? My partner and I are taking the first few months off together because even on a full night’s sleep keeping up with my first born alone is tough. Having experienced colic the first time round, it’s not something I want to go through alone again either. There are no hobbies being indulged here, it’s constant child care and house work.

At my company the pay for mat leave and spl is the same, so not all companies offer different packages.

Govt policy is that SPL can be taken in any which way including overlaps. Such policy was designed for a reason not randomly because someone wanted to give men an opportunity for a jolly. Nobody randomly one morning thought oh let’s give the overlap too amongst the choices. Numerous evidence bases were consulted and a range of SPL options designed. In our case we partly overlapped because my mental health needed it and was the best decision ever. With my entire family on another continent I would have fallen apart otherwise in those weeks. And yes the rest gave my spouse the chance to do primary infant care by himself. I wish we could do it this time for the baby due next month but we just can’t affoed my spouses pay to take that hit. So he will return after 2 weeks and become part of the statistic of the “vast majority of men do not take SPL”, when reality is that we really really couldn’t afford it this time round.

I’m going to have to leave the thread now for childcare reasons... lol!

In summary, views are split almost 50/50. I’ve learnt from views and analysis expressed here that I hadn’t considered before so feel much more enlightened and informed. So thanks to all who posted. I hope people have learned from my thoughts too. Even if it’s just that there are women out there like me that care deeply about their career but don’t want to do SPL. And that’s ok. It doesn’t make us complicit in the patriarchal system! We still want equality.

I’m on the fence as to whether the policy Ts&Cs changes are unreasonable or not. So I’m not going to worry about the potential consequences for other women. I will support the policy change if anyone asks me at work.

I still don’t think it’s fair that a couple taking up SLP can get 2 full packages instead of 1 mat leave package. I acknowledge that pp say this is unusual. If they are right, it’s a marginal issue and not worth worrying about. But it’s definitely happening on the ground. I feel quite strongly that a woman’s right to maternity leave should be protected.

I think the takeaway is that most people do think men should be actively supported and encouraged to share childcare responsibilities. And that SPL in principle is a good thing. We just disagree about the ‘when’ and ‘how’.

@SharedParentalLeaveImpacts

To be honest, OP, I think that you are coming at this from an unusual position of privilege. I don't mean financially, but in terms of your domestic set up.

A lot of women are in a similar position to their partners before they have kids and then they spend their maternity leave(s) facilitating their partners' careers as they climb the ladder, so by the time you have a couple of kids you are behind your partner AND they (and their employers) are used to you picking up more slack at home AND they are working in an executive role that (so they claim) requires/travel/more hours/more responsibility and carries the promise of significantly more reward if they are seen to be keeping their nose to the grindstone. It is like a gradual creep.

SPL is really helpful in helping women break the chain. I took 13 months with my DD. Loved many bits of it but was climbing the walls by half way and really unhappy. Going back to work meant my husband took a lot more on, actually it still isn't 50:50 as he works out of home more than I do (though I earn more - am relatively senior professional), but it isn't always straightforward managing a return to the work and effectively handing half a job (ie domestic administration) back to your other half, which is what many women end up doing. Lots of women get stuck in that trap of doing everything and going back to work, then cutting down their work because it is unmanageable.

Clearly your husband actually has the more flexible job so he is more able to pick up the slack later on and get involved, but a lot of women find themselves pigeonholed into facilitator and struggle to break free of it.

My DH now has a more flexible policy at work which will pay him full pay for 6 weeks and half after that for any part of the first 9 months. I will go back at 7.5 months with our next child and he can then take the last 4.5 months at a better rate than I would get. For us, I think that is perfect and gets us into the swing of managing two jobs together. I breastfed to 6 months, initially convenient and fine but very touched out by 6 months and very keen to stop! But not everyone is the same. I also had a birth injury, but actually found being back at work less tiring than lugging baby stuff around and I was able to go to the physio in my lunch break, walk around unencumbered on my commute etc, as I didn't have any family help before that. So actually things improved in my body better than being stuck at home. I know that isn't the same for everyone - I have an office job not one that is very physical.

If I have to choose, I am pro having a variety of relatively decent options vs one that is very generous to women but only on the basis they do it all.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but personally I’d have zero respect for anyone who doesn’t agree with SPL in principle.

It’s been a long time coming. I’ve had babies though the era of no paternity leave, and seen the very positive benefits of the 2 weeks leave, followed by the more recent legislation for SPL. During that time women’s t and c around ML have also increased exponentially- from 12 to 24 to 52 weeks. So everything has moved in the right direction. The only real disappointment during all this is the fact that so few couples have taken advantage of the SPL - for the main part because it financially disadvantages them. I applaud any company taking proactive steps to widen access. I see it as putting children - and their right to be cared for by both parents - at the centre too.

Of course when you look at individual cases there will always be some couples where the woman takes the whole year’s leave, some who where the man might take the larger chunk and some where one partner gives up work full stop. But policies aren’t based on individual circumstances: they are about providing a model which promotes equality and still enables flexibility for choice. The issue in this particular company’s case simply seems to be that their maternity package has been particularly generous in the first place, so what is a real step forward might be viewed by those who don’t wish to avail themselves of SPL as a disadvantage. It really isn’t though. It’s a choice between a very good maternity package or a bloody brilliant shared parental leave package. If I was 20 years younger I’d be asking the OP to reveal the company so dh could get a job there

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with SPL; what people are saying is that maternity leave is not parental leave, it exists for different reasons, and should not be cut.

But presumably OP, if you were affected by the new company policy, and if you could only afford 6 months off and then your dh was taking the next 6 months, then you would still have bf for at least 6 months, no? Because you understand the benefits of bf, you are clearly an educated person and believe in it? And then at the point where your child is weaning anyway, you might have switched to ff, having given your child an excellent start? So you wouldnt be a statistic contributing to a fall in bf rates.

Breastfeeding for 6 months is great but it is recommended for longer. That’s why at the 9-12 months health visitor checks they ask you if you are still breastfeeding. So I’d imagine that’s where they get their stats from.

**From NHS website:
Exclusive breastfeeding (breast milk only) is recommended for around the first six months of your baby's life. Breastfeeding alongside family foods is best for babies from six months.

You and your baby can carry on enjoying the benefits of breastfeeding for as long as you like. Breastfeeding into your baby's second year or beyond alongside other foods is ideal. **

Like @Thelnebriati says parental leave is different to maternity leave.

I know I’m going on about breastfeeding a lot here but I do think it can’t be overlooked. Your milk adapts as your baby grows and there’s so many benefits for not only your baby but the mother. Including reducing the risk of cancer and so on- and the longer you breastfeed the better. Returning to work would only end that journey for many women due to the reason states above.