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

We moved from the UK to Ireland while I was pregnant and so didn't have entitlement to shared parental leave (it doesn't exist), but DH took unpaid parental leave for two months at the end when I went back as it had been our plan living in the UK. The mat leave time is shorter too, so I went back just before 10 months I think, then DH was at home then we transitioned into creche.

It worked perfectly for us: but I actually think what would have been ideal was more like 6 - 8 weeks of paternity leave for us both to be home at the start, and then absolutely, if he was paid, we would have had him take longer off.

My cousin's husband works for facebook and had six months off paid: he took it at the same time as her. I think it would be ideal.

The question is what are they trying to achieve with it. Is it a more equal family life? Both parents to be active parents? I think you need to address the fact that there is a very different physical burden on the mother, which I certainly wouldn't have anticipated. We took a shorter amount 'shared' as we weren't entitled to/able to afford any longer, but in reality, I would have rather not left her any earlier than ten months. I breastfed till two but couldn't express: when I went back to work, DH brought DD into the coffee shop near my work at lunchtime and I fed her and played with them in the part before going back. It was just for the first few weeks but it made the transition so easy. I also think children do need a primary carer at the start, and that that dilutes as they approach one, and so finding a way to lengthen leave at that end rather that switch out the primary carer multiple times in the same timeframe (mum, dad, childcare) is probably idea.

I had a tough birth, and a lot of frequent physio appointments: I really do think the first six months of my mat leave was recovery, I would have been sad if I hadn't the few months at the end where I started to actually enjoy. it, and my daughter turned more into a person.

I didn’t catch that ‘use it or lose it’ would necessarily see an increase in parental leave pay from the article, I understood it would be at whatever rate you company decides to give. Apologies if I missed it.

It wouldn’t (although it would be brilliant if it was) in the first instance. But eventually pressure from men to increase the pay would mount up. It wouldn’t just be a women’s issue/equality nice to have any more for HR - it would be a staff retention issue. Upward pressure.

@EasterIssland

Ive got a question, if your partners would have had the chance of having 4-5-12 months off fully paid ... would you as a couple have gone for it? Without impacting the mum's leave at all. Howmany of your partners would have happily given up x months of their carrier for being at home. And would you have been happy to share the responsibility you've had whilst being the main carer ?

God yes, we’d both have loved that. My partner is self employed so SPL was never a consideration, but if he was employed he’d have been ecstatic to have had as many months off as possible. We didn’t consider a long period of time off for him with our first because of the nature of his employment, but he ended up getting it anyway when DD was around the six month mark because of lockdown (which luckily we could manage financially) and even though it was obviously not ideal circumstances with everything being closed, we were delighted that he did have that time off with her. We had a great little routine of shared responsibility (I certainly have no notion of wanting to keep that for myself as the mother!) it would have been even better to be able to do it in normal circumstances.

Because of your ignorant post basically saying what worked for you should be fine for others. It's not. But my focus isn't actually just on BF really even though I've been sucked into it on this thread. I generally feel like 6 months per parent is not long enough and don't agree with the shared element.
I'm yet to see a post when the people who have actually used SPL talk about the baby, nurturing etc etc. No, it's all about who was gona lose out more financially.

Wow, you’re aggressive.

I’ll unpick your post a little. Yes, I said breastfeeding should be perfectly possible alongside returning to work.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to give parents paid time off and then want them to return to work after a certain period. You seem to want to have a significantly longer period of time off, paid, to allow you to have free time to breastfeed the baby whenever you want. That isn’t practical or sensible.

@NoSquirrels

But, Easter, by normalising that every parent in every job or industry or career is entitled to equal (generous) time off, companies will actually be forced to improve parental leave pay entitlements overall, for everyone, which will knock on to women getting paid more in general, closing the pay gap.

You can’t think individually on this. It’s a societal change that needs to happen.

yes of course but if companies /goverrment doesnt increase the allowance, then I cant see how having 39w off for both parents would help, many say the men dont take the leave because they're the breadwinner, can you imagine what would happen in a scenario where the mum is on leave and the dad who is the breadwinner now is offered 39w off but at the current allowance? that people wouldn't take it because they cant pay the bills... We're not well off but both of us on leave would mean only taking home 20% of our monthly income so we wouldn't be able to pay the bills, and many would be in that position

If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. Change isn’t instant, but if the option isn’t there in the first place nothing can change.

@ShirleyPhallus

Because of your ignorant post basically saying what worked for you should be fine for others. It's not. But my focus isn't actually just on BF really even though I've been sucked into it on this thread. I generally feel like 6 months per parent is not long enough and don't agree with the shared element. I'm yet to see a post when the people who have actually used SPL talk about the baby, nurturing etc etc. No, it's all about who was gona lose out more financially.

Wow, you’re aggressive.

I’ll unpick your post a little. Yes, I said breastfeeding should be perfectly possible alongside returning to work.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to give parents paid time off and then want them to return to work after a certain period. You seem to want to have a significantly longer period of time off, paid, to allow you to have free time to breastfeed the baby whenever you want. That isn’t practical or sensible.

It is reasonable to expect them to return after a certain period, of course but 6 months is really not a lot of time with a baby. Personally I like spending time with my baby and I know DH would have loved a year off too. I think for the first year of a babies life is not too much to ask for, for each parent to be present. For whatever reason, you think 6 months per parent is sufficient. Ok.

I'm yet to see a post when the people who have actually used SPL talk about the baby, nurturing etc etc.

Let me help you out! I thought I had done in talking about the benefits to my family overall but probably not in enough detail.

This was absolutely the right decision and beneficial for my children. They definitely benefited from that closer bond of having a primary parenting bond with DH from an early age. It was so great for them and for DH to have that time together, and for them to have that primary caregiver bond with both of us.

And as they get older they also benefit significantly from having real life examples in their own lives to point to when it comes to challenging gender stereotypes. It’s not just mummies who stay home with babies, because their daddy did it too, and talks with great enthusiasm about it.

In most families I’ve seen where men have taken SPL (after we did it the first time quite a lot of our friends did it with their babies - I think knowing one man who did it and wasn’t torn to pieces socially broke the taboo). My experience is that those men go on to automatically take a more equal share of parenting and child admin down the track. Maybe that’s because they were already the kind of men who’d want to take SPL, but I do think that having had to take on the child mental load entirely for a few months makes a difference too.

I love avivas policy as mentioned in that article! Dh and I would jump at the chance of 6 months paid leave after baby born. Dh really feels he missed out on the bond with ds as he was working and was only able to take 2 weeks unpaid paternity (the first of which ds spent in nicu)
We were lucky in that my mum then minded ds for us after I went back to work but due to the low statutory pay I was also back at work full time from he was 5 months old. We would both have loved more full 1-1 time with him

Lots of my friends made use of it. They are families with two professional people, though. My partner works at the BBC and most of his colleagues seem to make use of it, it's actively encouraged. We would have too, if I wasn't infertile.

@JassyRadlett

I'm yet to see a post when the people who have actually used SPL talk about the baby, nurturing etc etc.

Let me help you out! I thought I had done in talking about the benefits to my family overall but probably not in enough detail.

This was absolutely the right decision and beneficial for my children. They definitely benefited from that closer bond of having a primary parenting bond with DH from an early age. It was so great for them and for DH to have that time together, and for them to have that primary caregiver bond with both of us.

And as they get older they also benefit significantly from having real life examples in their own lives to point to when it comes to challenging gender stereotypes. It’s not just mummies who stay home with babies, because their daddy did it too, and talks with great enthusiasm about it.

In most families I’ve seen where men have taken SPL (after we did it the first time quite a lot of our friends did it with their babies - I think knowing one man who did it and wasn’t torn to pieces socially broke the taboo). My experience is that those men go on to automatically take a more equal share of parenting and child admin down the track. Maybe that’s because they were already the kind of men who’d want to take SPL, but I do think that having had to take on the child mental load entirely for a few months makes a difference too.

Yep, and that's great. I agree with the premise of it to have father's at home more. I agree father's should be at home taking care of their own children, just not to the detriment of the time the mother also has. It's quite simple really.

It is reasonable to expect them to return after a certain period, of course but 6 months is really not a lot of time with a baby. Personally I like spending time with my baby and I know DH would have loved a year off too. I think for the first year of a babies life is not too much to ask for, for each parent to be present.
For whatever reason, you think 6 months per parent is sufficient. Ok.

It isn’t about me thinking 6 months per parent is sufficient. It’s up to each couple to have a grown up discussion about what split they’d want to do.

It rarely is 6 months per parent anyway. Given you accrue holiday during that time, it can easily be far more. My husband and I did SPL, me 9 months and him 3 months. Except I then also took another 6 weeks off and he took about 5 weeks off as holiday. So we had a decent chunk together at the start, in the middle and at the end. I did a phased return to work and DD started nursery part time at 13 months.

It worked perfectly for us, allowed us both to bond with her and for us to understand what the other was going though being at work.

If we had wanted a year off each, I’d fully expect one of us to quit our jobs.

@JassyRadlett

I'm yet to see a post when the people who have actually used SPL talk about the baby, nurturing etc etc.

Let me help you out! I thought I had done in talking about the benefits to my family overall but probably not in enough detail.

This was absolutely the right decision and beneficial for my children. They definitely benefited from that closer bond of having a primary parenting bond with DH from an early age. It was so great for them and for DH to have that time together, and for them to have that primary caregiver bond with both of us.

And as they get older they also benefit significantly from having real life examples in their own lives to point to when it comes to challenging gender stereotypes. It’s not just mummies who stay home with babies, because their daddy did it too, and talks with great enthusiasm about it.

In most families I’ve seen where men have taken SPL (after we did it the first time quite a lot of our friends did it with their babies - I think knowing one man who did it and wasn’t torn to pieces socially broke the taboo). My experience is that those men go on to automatically take a more equal share of parenting and child admin down the track. Maybe that’s because they were already the kind of men who’d want to take SPL, but I do think that having had to take on the child mental load entirely for a few months makes a difference too.

Thank yoou @JassyRadlett I'd have not been able to put it any better why SPL was the best decision we took

@ShirleyPhallus
Going round in circles here. You're happy with the policy, regardless of how it's split. I get that.
I am of the opinion we should strive for more.

But each to their own...

Yep, and that's great. I agree with the premise of it to have father's at home more. I agree father's should be at home taking care of their own children, just not to the detriment of the time the mother also has. It's quite simple really.

Oh dear, and here was me just responding to the point you raised without pressing a further argument on length or timing on leave that you seem to think I have!

But since it’s so simple, let me make it equally simple. I didn’t see that full time as mine to be jealously guarded. After my own physical recovery and establishing breastfeeding, that time was primarily for the benefit of the baby. It was his time.

And therefore it was incumbent on us as parents to use that time as wisely and well as we could for his short term and long term benefit.

For our family, that included keeping a roof over his head with our first, and with both our babies ensuring that they had that time with each of us as primary parent to establish that deeper relationship and understanding. For us it was also valuable to have that time as a solo daytime parent. But that will be different for different families.

But past a mother’s physical recovery time (which will be very different for different mothers) it’s not really the mother’s time. It’s not enshrined in legislation for the benefit of women. It’s there - rightly - to benefit the baby. It’s the baby’s time. It’s quite simple really.

(And would I like to see a more generous system? Sure. I’d love to see use it or lose it brought in, ideally able to run either concurrently or after a woman’s allowance.

Do I think it’s politically likely to be in addition to the current 12-month entitlement? No. So we need to be realistic about what’s politically feasible as well as giving families maximum flexibility to do what’s right for them.

@JassyRadlett

Yep, and that's great. I agree with the premise of it to have father's at home more. I agree father's should be at home taking care of their own children, just not to the detriment of the time the mother also has. It's quite simple really.

Oh dear, and here was me just responding to the point you raised without pressing a further argument on length or timing on leave that you seem to think I have!

But since it’s so simple, let me make it equally simple. I didn’t see that full time as mine to be jealously guarded. After my own physical recovery and establishing breastfeeding, that time was primarily for the benefit of the baby. It was his time.

And therefore it was incumbent on us as parents to use that time as wisely and well as we could for his short term and long term benefit.

For our family, that included keeping a roof over his head with our first, and with both our babies ensuring that they had that time with each of us as primary parent to establish that deeper relationship and understanding. For us it was also valuable to have that time as a solo daytime parent. But that will be different for different families.

But past a mother’s physical recovery time (which will be very different for different mothers) it’s not really the mother’s time. It’s not enshrined in legislation for the benefit of women. It’s there - rightly - to benefit the baby. It’s the baby’s time. It’s quite simple really.

Jeez I dunno why you think I'm having a go at you. I'm really not. And I also didn't accuse you of thinking that the time was solely for you and not for your partner.

I only know one couple who used shared leave and the woman in that couple was the higher earner by quite a long way.

I think it should be that the partner can take six months leave on the same pay as SMP once the mother has returned to work, then the child doesn’t need to go to nursery until they’re a little older and the mother doesn’t have to give up any of her leave and employers won’t have as much incentive to discriminate against women of child bearing age if men have their own separate leave they can use.

Jeez I dunno why you think I'm having a go at you. I'm really not. And I also didn't accuse you of thinking that the time was solely for you and not for your partner.

Because of the ignoring the point of yours I’d actually responded to and a pretty snippy and condescending ‘it’s quite simple really’.

Because you’re talking about it being ‘to the detriment of the time the mother also has’ and how it’s ‘unfair for a mother to give up time with her baby and go back to work with earlier because she had to split time with the father’ and ‘they will feel like it’s been taken from them... it has!’ In the current context we need to get ourselves out of the mindset that that time is for the mother, rather than for the baby and both parents. Maternity leave was only ever given to solely mothers because the idea of men looking after babies was so unthinkable.

Because ultimately this is now and almost certainly likely to remain capped at 12 months’ worth of leave, and while your idea of a year off each (paid?) either concurrently or consecutively would be delightful it’s extraordinarily unlikely.

@TheRebelle

I only know one couple who used shared leave and the woman in that couple was the higher earner by quite a long way.

I think it should be that the partner can take six months leave on the same pay as SMP once the mother has returned to work, then the child doesn’t need to go to nursery until they’re a little older and the mother doesn’t have to give up any of her leave and employers won’t have as much incentive to discriminate against women of child bearing age if men have their own separate leave they can use.

in this scenario woman 52 weeks / man 26 so the woman would still be in a worse position from an employer pov

I can't really understand shared leave to be honest. My exh couldn't feed our baby so what would be the point of him taking leave? he didn't get paternity because it didn't exist in USA. I fed mine until 18 months on demand no man can do that

@JassyRadlett

Jeez I dunno why you think I'm having a go at you. I'm really not. And I also didn't accuse you of thinking that the time was solely for you and not for your partner.

Because of the ignoring the point of yours I’d actually responded to and a pretty snippy and condescending ‘it’s quite simple really’.

Because you’re talking about it being ‘to the detriment of the time the mother also has’ and how it’s ‘unfair for a mother to give up time with her baby and go back to work with earlier because she had to split time with the father’ and ‘they will feel like it’s been taken from them... it has!’ In the current context we need to get ourselves out of the mindset that that time is for the mother, rather than for the baby and both parents. Maternity leave was only ever given to solely mothers because the idea of men looking after babies was so unthinkable.

Because ultimately this is now and almost certainly likely to remain capped at 12 months’ worth of leave, and while your idea of a year off each (paid?) either concurrently or consecutively would be delightful it’s extraordinarily unlikely.

I don't think it's outlandish to talk about how a mother would generally be expecting 9months + off with her baby since that has been the done thing for a long time. So, I personally believe that mother's will see it as their time being taken away. My "it's quite simple really" comment was about my simple thought on what I believe would be a fair amount of time off for all parties, including the baby. It really doesn't matter if you think it's wild and won't happen... A) I didn't say it would, it's merely an opinion and B) you don't know it wouldn't. But it definitely won't if people just sit back and be content with what the current offer is. You're pretty condescending yourself btw.

@minniemomo

I can't really understand shared leave to be honest. My exh couldn't feed our baby so what would be the point of him taking leave? he didn't get paternity because it didn't exist in USA. I fed mine until 18 months on demand no man can do that

Do you think women who formula feed shouldn't be entitled to maternity leave? And do you really think that breastfeeding is the one and only thing involved or worthwhile in the care of a baby?

Exactly @JassyRadlett - it was the baby's time, not mine. As it happens, I was desperate to go back to work both times as well. That was probably made easier by having a partner on SPL, but maybe not.

Incidentally, if one of us had wanted longer, we would have used the career break options available to us (I know not everyone has this, but this should really be part of the 'enlightened employers' approach) OR the parental leave you're allowed up until the child is secondary age- and in fact DP is now doing that as he's SAHDing for a while for various reasons.

The current system is rubbish for various reasons and loads more leave, equally shared is of course the best way to go. But I don't think time with DP is a 'detriment' to my time. As it turns out I don't do babies that well anyway.

There's absolutely no way that the government will mandate that companies must offer an equivalent of their enhanced maternity pay to men. Not a chance. Public policy makers are very, very aware that the result of that would not be an increase in what men are offered - companies would just get rid of their enhanced maternity pay instead. It's already happened, a father brought a discrimination case against Network Rail a couple of years ago. Women at that company no longer get enhanced mat pay. And in a later, similar, case (think it was the Ford one), a body representing working families intervened on the side of the employer (ie, they were arguing against men getting enhanced pay), because of their concern about what it would ultimately mean for women.

Worth noting that men do actually have the right to 18 weeks of unpaid leave all to themselves (called unpaid parental leave - every parent gets it, can be taken at any time before the child is 18). I do not know of a single man who has ever taken this. What's the point of arguing about increasing the amount of time fathers can take off when they aren't availing themselves of the rights they already have?

It may be because it's unpaid, but the last 12 weeks of maternity leave are also unpaid and loads of women still take that - why do we attach so much more value to men's work, so the idea of a man taking unpaid time off work is met with horror, but women doing exactly the same is just seen as the norm?