Scrapping Shared Parental Leave

[EasterIssland]

It's in the news that it's been requested for it to be scrapped because it's not being used as needed and to get a new system in place.

I'm in between two minds about this, we took Shared Parental Leave with my son, our salaries were similar (I actually earned few ££ more than him), so we took 50/50 time . And I think it was good for my son to have 121 time with myself as well as 121 time with my DH and at the same time spending time together as a family. I'm spanish and right now in spain mum and dad can have 4 months off (which can be at the same time) when a baby is born, however, many dad's decide to delay a few months the shared bit so the baby doesnt go to nursery that early and many of them end up not using their bit as too busy at work (I've seen it a few times now)

I also take the new leave wouldn't be full salary, specially for the partner, as it'd be unfair for a mum to be circa £150/week salary whilst dad/other mum's are on full salary

So im unsure what needs changing so that the system works better.
Would 52 weeks for the mum at the current ML allowance + x amount of weeks at same salary really work? Unless the allowance is really increased to nearly match the salary I can't really see how this would work and how partners would decide to take more leave as it'd impact their home income

Would your partner have really taken chase of it if the allowance was higher ?

www.theguardian.com/money/2021/apr/26/shared-parental-leave-scrap-deeply-flawed-policy-say-campaigners

AIBU : A new system is needed and xyz should be done so it gets better
AINBU : I think the current system is good and a new one would not make partners taking more time off anyway

@bunglebee my understanding is that there are lots of SAHMs though which might skew the stats?

DH was too new in role to take it with last baby but it would be hard for him to take 6 months now. I earn a good professional salary but his is around three times mine! We wouldn't miss mine at all, but his would smart. Also he is in a leadership role it would be incredibly difficult to just duck out of and I think he would be afraid of ramifications. I don't know what the solution is, really. We could probably get by on my salary plus £650/700 a month or whatever it is but it would be a significant financial investment.

@MySocalledLoaf

Over about one a breastfed child will mostly ask for food during the day if they are hungry. They don’t need milk. I just stopped feeding my 2.5 year old; I have been working full time since he was 11 months old.

Yep and I'm not disputing that. But a baby less than a year does need it and what happens if you go back to work at 4 months?

I agree with a pp that men and women should both get one year.

@forinborin

My previous employer paid all men and women 6 months parental leave and I can tell you the uptake is great. Very few men will turn down 6 months full pay, and it normalises men taking paternity leave, and stops women being forced to take the parental leave burden through economics. And they don't require evidence that the other parent is not taking leave? So if both parents are working for your company, they both can take 6 months paid at the same time?

For a large company? Yes. Why not?

But isn't half the point of maternity leave that mum has physically given birth and mums are the only ones with breasts to feed the baby?

I fully understand that it's also for bonding and either parent can do that so from that perspective it's great.

@Countrygirl2021

But isn't half the point of maternity leave that mum has physically given birth and mums are the only ones with breasts to feed the baby?

I fully understand that it's also for bonding and either parent can do that so from that perspective it's great.

If the mandatory part is at least 26 weeks for either parent then it’s plenty of time to establish feeding, recover from birth etc.

I’d personally have loved e.g.

Give birth & off for 6 months full pay, followed by 2-3 months (could be unpaid if saved up for)
DH off for 1 month post-birth, then 5 months from e.g. 8 months - a handover month of FT carer and no need for nursery until over 12 months.

The rate of employment for mothers in the US is 71% vs 75% in the UK. It's not a colossal difference. Many/most US mothers who work and breastfeed do so by pumping at work.

and the WHO advise to BF for two years

This is because WHO advice on BF isn’t specific to westernised countries.
A child in a western country with access to complete nutrition and calories doesn’t actually receive any medical benefit from BF beyond 1 year. You can argue the emotional/attachment impacts as much as you like but medically no. I have a paediatrician and midwife friend who have both told me this.

However if you live in a deprived country or don’t have access to complete nutrition then yes BF till 2!

For a large company? Yes. Why not?
Of course - I was just surprised as employers often ask for evidence that the other parent (mother usually) is not taking leave. I definitely had to sign something for my ex's employer saying that I would not be taking any leave myself (I wasn't working at that time). Thinking of that, it probably was an HR disaster waiting to happen.

You cannot compare US to UK. It's like apples and oranges.

And now you've just admitted that the mothers are pumping. Why should they have to? They should be at home BF their babies if they WANT to.

There should be a requirement for SPL to match maternity provisions in a company so men are better encouraged to take the leave.

I 100% intend to use SPL, taking 5m enhanced maternity and DH taking 4 months statutory SPL, so would hope that sort of flexibility is enshrined in any new policy.

@An0n0n0n

Men should be given 52 weeks paid leave AS WELL. It would bridge some of the childcare gap and stop employers choosing to employ men for fear of them having a baby and taking time off. It would also do huge amounts for showing some men how hard childcare can be a lnd closing the mental load disparity.

I know quite a few industries where , by the time you returned, you'd be so out of touch you'd be almost unemployable.

@InsanelyPregnantAndSore

and the WHO advise to BF for two years

This is because WHO advice on BF isn’t specific to westernised countries.
A child in a western country with access to complete nutrition and calories doesn’t actually receive any medical benefit from BF beyond 1 year. You can argue the emotional/attachment impacts as much as you like but medically no. I have a paediatrician and midwife friend who have both told me this.

However if you live in a deprived country or don’t have access to complete nutrition then yes BF till 2!

Oh Jesus I know that as well. But right now the SPL would mean a mother goes back anytime up to 6 months old when, if she wanted to BF, she should be able to BF to one year and the father should also not miss out/share the load.

It's actually pathetic to think being proposed 6 months is a good amount of time before going back to work for either the mother or father.

@Horehound

You cannot compare US to UK. It's like apples and oranges.

And now you've just admitted that the mothers are pumping. Why should they have to? They should be at home BF their babies if they WANT to.

Fine, but: sharing some leave is not the barrier to breastfeeding in the UK. Our crappy rates are nothing to do with the fact it's possible to share leave, especially when so few do. Shared leave is great for lots of reasons (including for babies) and it does not stand in the way of EBF. Nobody wants the US's policies or are arguing for women to be routinely back at work two to four weeks postpartum.

@Lostatsea1988

I read the article differently OP. My understanding is that they are pushing for 'use it or lose it' equal parental leave for both parents, which can't be transferred. Presumably mum and dad get 6 months each, if Dad doesn't want to use his then baby will have to go into nursery at 6 months. Most families won't want to do that: a) baby still very young b) nursery costs / difficulty of finding nursery place for such a young baby and c) throwing free money down the drain.

If this became law I expect employers would no longer be allowed to discriminate between men and women in terms of parental leave. I.e. if a female employee gets 3 months full pay, a male employee would have to too.

I am a big supporter of the proposed changes (if backed up with equal pay legislation as noted above). Not enough men are taking pat leave either because:

a) they would rather their wife just took 12 months / the wife would rather just take 12 months; or
b) they are not being less than they would be if they were the mother.

My previous employer paid all men and women 6 months parental leave and I can tell you the uptake is great. Very few men will turn down 6 months full pay, and it normalises men taking paternity leave, and stops women being forced to take the parental leave burden through economics.

So it'd be what I did with my dh? first 6 months myself and the 6-12 my husband? So the mum would still give up 6 months then? My question would be is this at the current allowance? if so I cant see it working, and they cant force the companies enhancing it. It'd need to be the government giving more money

My partner took shared parental leave and had 6 months off, including the standard two weeks plus some holiday. It made sense financially for us to do it that way and we would do the same again if we have another child.
We are the only people we know that have done it though and some friends were quite puzzled by it, and hadn't even heard about it being an option.

The ‘use it or lose it’ system will still only work if companies actually have decent parental leave policies. We won’t be doing by shared parental leave because my husband earns double what I do and we can’t afford to live on Statutory Paternity Pay while he takes leave. As it is, we don’t think DH will take any paternity leave but instead use his annual leave for paternity leave then he can have full pay. I won’t be taking the full 39 weeks because my company maternity isn’t that generous, calling it ‘enhanced’ maternity leave is definitely a stretch. So we can’t afford for me to take a full year, let alone share that leave between us.

Both DH and I have the same level of qualification and the same number of years experience in niche areas. He earns double what I do and likely always will do. This is because of the sectors we’ve entered. My sector is still more female based and DH’s sector is still more male dominated.

@forinborin We did have some (not many, but some) couples at work who both qualified for 6 months full pay each! And they were allowed to take it staggered or simultaneously or hybrid. So I know one couple where the mum took 6 months paid and 6 months unpaid, and the dad took off a month when the baby was born, then went back to work for a while, and then he and the mum took off say months 7 - 12 together. (The mum was on unpaid leave by then).

@bunglebee it's not a barrier bits it's not a reason to shorten a mother's time off either.

You think shared leave is a great idea and are happy a mother and father should get 6m max each. Personally, think both parents should get a year off.
6 months is nothing.

I was really confused because that article says that SPL is 'usually unpaid' - but that's surely only if people are using it during the period that mat leave would also be unpaid (the last three months)? There's no time when you'd be entitled to statutory maternity pay but not to statutory pay for SPL.

We did SPL for our first (I had six months, DH had the next four), I'm currently on mat leave with our second and we're still weighing up whether to do it again - on the one hand we both think it was a fantastic thing for our whole family the first time, on the other I'd like to take longer than I had the first time myself, and that might mean DH taking less or none. So I'd be very much in favour of it being two separate pots of leave rather than the current system where it's the mother's leave by default, 'given' to the father if she chooses (I also think it's unfortunate that this means that men actually have no right to take the leave).

It's need scrapping and maternity leave should be means tested - £150 per week when you are a working or professional woman and the main earner is an insult

[quote Lostatsea1988]@forinborin We did have some (not many, but some) couples at work who both qualified for 6 months full pay each! And they were allowed to take it staggered or simultaneously or hybrid. So I know one couple where the mum took 6 months paid and 6 months unpaid, and the dad took off a month when the baby was born, then went back to work for a while, and then he and the mum took off say months 7 - 12 together. (The mum was on unpaid leave by then).[/quote]
Ah, that's pretty great then! Thanks for explaining.

A lot of people introduce a small amount of solids just before 6 months so I’m not sure what the statistic that only 1% are exclusively bf actually means. Mine was having a small amount of food to suck on and about 5 bf throughout the day, no other milk and that would not have been compatible with working. There was a clear advantage due to allergies, I think it is absolutely a step backwards to force mothers to go back after 6 months. Not everyone is in a position to take 6 months out of their job (eg self employed, senior management etc). Fairest thing is 12 months shared leave, split however the parents want. Our maternity leave in this country is pretty generous when you look at USA. Australia etc

@InTheNightWeWillWish that's exactly why discriminatory pay practices between men and women need to stop. If a company pays a mother 3 months full pay and 3 months half pay it should be made to pay a father the same. And then it would make financial sense for your family for your husband to share care of your baby.

I think use it or lose it, coupled with equal parental leave policies, would be so, so revolutionary.

It's the only way it's going to work, and change.

I'm not overly in favour of it as I feel it can be used to pressurise breastfeeding mothers to return to work and stop breastfeeding earlier than they might have planned.

You get paid for 39 weeks (statutory) total and this is split between you. Any maternity or paternity pay the company offers is discretionary. The trouble is, as seen by the gender pay gap, men on average earn more than women, so when it comes to statutory or self funded pay when 39 weeks has expired, it makes more sense to give up the lower salary (i.e. the woman stays off).
We are splitting the leave, and having to fund some of the leave ourselves as we are taking around 50wks off between us in total. We’ve been lucky and have been able to save, but this isn’t possible for a lot of people.
This cycle is self perpetuating, so the woman will have longer off as it’s cheaper, will be out of the workforce longer, and less likely to move on to higher paid positions as quickly as the man. So when the next child comes, the woman is still paid less and the cycle is repeated.
I think it’s a combination of rubbish maternity and paternity leave, gender pay gap, and traditional attitudes concerning men taking more time off that’s harming the uptake. A ‘use it or lose it’ scheme would definitely have its benefits. Increasing the paternity leave would be a start, two weeks is pittance, especially if the woman has a traumatic birth.