Maternity pay bullsh*t for teachers

[Teacherprebaby]

My school (state/academy), offers 6 weeks at 90% and the remaining at SMP so £185 a week. This is discrimination against women who want to have children. Am I being unreasonable to bring this up with my school?

When I say discrimination what I mean is, we need to keep reproducing as a society for society to continue, women are the sex who are tasked with this. Our lives should not be negatively affected because of this.

I know there are a million and one arguments to be had as there have been on this thread. I'm not saying I have the solution. I'm lucky enough to have a very comfortable life, many women are not so fortunate, many women simply cannot afford to have children. I don't agree with this.

It’s not discrimination, it’s the government guidance and many companies follow this

You are right actually. It's my first pregnancy and my eyes have been opened. Of course we are all aware that women's rights are a huge issue but for me it was another issue that women are facing that I have not faced myself.

Honestly, it's been threads I've read on here since becoming pregnant, reading about women struggling, it's heart breaking.

Have they had it taken away, in the manner of OP’s academy? If so, it’s not on. As women, we should be fighting for each other, not racing to the bottom. I got my maternity pay and won’t have more babies, so I have no more skin in the game, yet I still see the value in protecting the pay of the women coming up behind me.

I had stat mat pay when I had my ds in 2002, it was 6 weeks at 90% pay them 12 weeks unpaid, but I had to return to work when he was 29 weeks old. I’d have taken much longer unpaid, but was unable to.

By contrast when I had my eldest in 1997, I had 6 MONTHS full pay, then opted to take a further 9 months unpaid, so she was 15 months old when I went back.

We did this mental thing of saving ahead of having the children so we could fund the drop in income..the actual time off now is much better, but it’s a reality that having babies costs money, and it’s generally a choice people make, you don’t HAVE to have children.

many women simply cannot afford to have children. I don't agree with this.

But if they can't afford the time off for maternity leave, then they probably can't afford the future with a child, for example when that child needs childcare. So should they be having a child?

That's simply the statutory minimum. If the school are thereby guilty of discrimination then so too are hundreds of thousands of other employers in every field of industry or endeavour.

I don't disagree that it's shitty. Vote with your feet and get a job at a school with a decent maternity policy. Employers only give enhanced maternity pay when there's a good business reason to do so. If they can still recruit snd retain good quality staff without a good mat pay policy then that's a reasonable way to save on expenses. There's a teacher recruitment crisis, so if all teachers of childbearing age move to schools with better policies that is literally the only way to make it better.

The benefits available to single and low income mothers are quite plentiful – in many cases higher than if you worked full time.

Your point is that SMP is too low, but that’s the fault of minimum wage rates as this is what it’s based on. It’s not discrimination now fathers are legally entitled to share the leave. If you want to argue it’s too low, fine, but do not weaken your argument by claiming it’s discrimination, because it’s not. You can’t subscribe your own meaning to discrimination.

@OpizpuHeuvHiyo there is also a school funding crisis

You're right.

A lot of yoing women spend their 20s thinking that feminism is a battle fought and won a long time ago and everything is fine now.

Then they get pregnant and find that sexism is still alive and well and structurally embeded in all sorts of places.

This is why feminists can be dismissed as nasty old harridan witches. It takes a lifetime of experience to start getting really angry. You haven't even started with the joys to come of being expected to work as if you have no children and look after your children as if you have no job. A woman's place is in the wrong, according to society.

I had my children years ago. At that time people would save for a year or two or more to have the money to cover maternity absence. I put back having my children to save for this time.

So should all jobs be paid the same salary and benefits package?

I get the impression that you may already be pregnant, in which case congratulations, and the following may not apply. If, OTOH, you are doing the responsible thing of checking the mat pay policy before planning a family then I would strongly recommend finding another job, citing the below-sector standard of mat pay as a factor in your exit interview, and counting very carefully the weeks you need to be in your new role to receive occupational maternity pay.

You are unlucky to be in an academy which does not follow the burgundy book. Most mirror it and a few are slightly more generous. Nevertheless there is a recruitment and retention crisis in teaching and if you are not yet pregnant then you can vote with your feet and leave.

If you are pregnant, you can raise the issue with your school if you wish but if the question is 'why don't you offer Burgundy Book equivalent terms of occupational maternity pay?' then the answer will be 'because we don't have to.' Sorry.

That's a great point, I don't have an answer for that to be honest. It's just sad. An unhelpful statement I know.

Actually, as a teacher you’re in a much better position than most in that you can take advantage of shared parental leave which means you would get full pay for the school holidays, while not having to do any work at all!

Just to add, if you are already pregnant, if you find the MTPT Project (maternity teacher paternity teacher) on Twitter they have helpful guidance on using your due date and the school holidays to maximise your leave.

OP women face discrimination from the minute they get pregnant. Sometimes before. It's called the patriarchy.

In this specific case your employer is supplying the legal minimum. The answer is to change the law. To make this happen you need to agitate for change. I am not sure posting on Mumsnet is going to be enough.

Unfortunately you may find that once you have your baby you are too bloody knackered to do much more than get through the day.

No one hates women more than women, eh!

State schools get a better policy, usually 6 weeks full pay minimum. However, academies can do what they like - privatisation! Thats the problem.

Employers who support women have better outcomes with staff long term but it seems a race to the bottom. My work give 26 weeks full pay so I am a dedicated employee. I’d have stopped giving a shit if I was only getting the minimum!

What's it got to do with being a teacher?

I'm worried that despite multiple people telling OP it isn't discrimination she still keeps saying it is. And OP is a teacher.

Jesus, I hope you are more mature in your workplace.

Most people save before having children, ask partner to up their hours, make cut backs etc.

Yes, it's not great but a child is a luxury especially in a world, where we want careers and not be a housewife.

It's not just women, you could ask your partner to be at home instead, you could do more hours/ take up tuition for extra cash etc. It's not just a woman problem unless you are a single parent that has been left holding the baby.

I’m a teacher, theres always a couple of members of staff on mat leave in my school!
One particular TA has just had her 2nd DC. She has not returned to work but has chosen to resign and be a SAHM. She is single. The amount of benefits she receives really surprised me - She is far better off on these benefits than she was when she was employed. There’s something drastically wrong with a society whereby it pays more to stay at home than to go out to work if youre on not much more than minimum wage.

It's the long ball game though, it may seem easier now to give up work but then you are stuck. It's hard to get back into work after 5 year gap, everyone says they will study but let's be real- everyone is tired.

Then housing is another thing to think about, who actually takes HB as tenants? I'm not sure if it's changed but I remember no-one taking them. You aren't allowed much credit etc.

So, yeah it's a difficult decision when you take everything into account .

The falling birth rate is a huge concern to everyone and is a crisis-in-waiting.
The aging population is increasing but the birth rate is falling. From a basic financial POV, there will be fewer tax payers funding an increasing pension budget within a few years. From a more practical POV, there will be fewer employees available to support an aging population.
We should be actively encouraging women to have children by making it financially viable. Every parent should receive 6 month’s government funded maternity pay that can be split between both parents as they wish, childcare should be much more heavily subsidised - get rid of child benefit and increase the value of childcare vouchers, all schools should provide low cost wrap around and holiday care on their premises staffed by outside providers. We need to get those babies being born!

@Soontobe60 but won’t we just be building up a bigger problem if we increase the population now, will have even more elderly people in the future and even fewer resources