To think the amount of SMP is entirely unreasonable?

[SMPWTF]

I knew the amount prior to TTC but only now at 6 months pregnant is it actually registering.

£184 a week, and it’s taxed. If it weren’t taxed the amount would be £736 for a 4 week month.

How is this even close to enough?

DH and I earn similarly, respected careers but we’ll never be millionaires. Our household bills for our small semi-detached home are just over one of our whole salaries.

I understand that in the ideal you’d save up for maternity leave, but in practice that’s difficult for most people. The start up costs for preparing for baby are very expensive. We have been lucky to have been gifted a lot of big ticket items but even so the costs still add up fast. I can’t imagine even trying to save anything for a second maternity leave if you’re paying childcare fees for your toddler - probably one of the reasons we’ll be one and done.

I don’t think working people should have to save for years per child they have. Nor do I think people should only have children if they can afford to live on one income, because then we create a society where only either end of the wealth spectrum find themselves in a position to start and grow families.

No wonder couples are having fewer or no children.

Why can’t women be paid at least 50% of their wage? So many companies offer 6-12 months full sick pay, so why are so many still reluctant to meet this offer for parental leave?

The notion of women being paid 50% of their wage is ridiculous. Why should high earning women be entitled to more statutory pay than low earning ones, when they are the ones who should be in the strongest position to support themselves financially?

Paid leave. If the mother wants more than 6 months off, that’s her choice but she needs to pay for it.

I know this sounds a bit hard core, but I'm not sure it's reasonable or fair that an employer has to keep a job open for a whole year because someone has had a baby.
If someone had longer term health problems as a result of birth, I fully support people getting time off, as they would for any other illness. But honestly I think it's harmful to women this idea that you can just take a whole year off because you want to and the employer has to facilitate it. There are people not getting that time off when they have cancer or other really serious illnesses. Or a dying family member that they are caring for.
And of course, you can have repeated

It was a policy that meant well but there are a lot of unintended consequences around women's employability compared to men and how women are the default parent societally, even when both mum and dad work full time.

*repeated mat leaves

They offer good packages if they have more higher paid men then women in their work force....

For gods sake, so women should lose their jobs if they want to take their statutory right?

Christ on a bike, this thread has proved that women often prop up the patriarchy. Adequate maternity leave is a feminist issue

But how do you expect companies (especially smaller ones) to be able to afford to pay enhanced SMP for more than 6 months while also paying for a replacement for the worker on mat leave?

What is adequate though? I think 6 months is fair and reasonable. I believe a year is too much because of the knock on effects to employability. I think fathers should take the second 6 months and this would do more to fight patriarchy than women insisting on their whole year off (sometimes several years off if they have more than one baby).

I don't think that women who have had babies are the most important group of people to prioritise above all those other people who have good reasons for wanting extended leave from work.

As a Brit in the US, in comparison one of my team just had a baby. She has 2 weeks paid, and up to 3 months unpaid.

There is nuance with small local businesses but big businesses have no excuse, if some can finance real enhanced packages then others can too, not to is a choice

I believe state provision should be increased

how does it impact employability as the women are already in jobs? Career progression arguably but that will happen if 6 months or a year are taken.

in this scenario it’s 6 months, is that 6 months full pay? Or just 6 months leave generally speaking?

no one is pushed into 12 months leave, women have the option to return earlier and paid leave is only 9 months.

but I agree for enhanced pat leave but probably not for the same reason as you.

im blessed my dh gets 6 months full pay pat leave and I the same mat but this isn’t standard

I know where you’re coming from. I had a lifesaving major surgery and my employer gave me 8 weeks off with gritted teeth and a lot of kvetching, but in that team over the past decade I’ve seen women taking 13 months off 2 or 3 times and nobody bats an eyelid.

As they shouldn’t - it’s a legal entitlement but I think if you haven’t been seriously ill, you underestimate how much protection and ‘give’ that you actually get from an employer.

Its such a significant difference when you work in the public sector or an industry that effectively offers full pay for 6 months. I wonder if there has been any research about how this supports families; and maybe helps women to stay in work or to have more than one child?

@ABirdsEyeView society as a whole benefits from a healthy birth rate (broadly we need a new generation of workers to support those who go on to retire). Society also benefits from women who are/would like to be parents working; as there is an economic gain from this.

Smaller organisations probably do need more support to meet the costs of doing so; but I think we should be trying to move more towards a system of full pay for the first 6 months (which we see in the public sector and some industries)

I agree it's insulting - they want more women in work and more women in professional roles and then pay a pittance

If you told a man he would have to carry a baby for 9 months give birth accept all the physical emotional and emotional changes having a baby brings and then "live" on SMP - as a main earner - men wouldn't have children

The ill thing though is the future viability of you in the role. But it’s still fucking terrible And we all should be really critical of the firms we join and the benefits they offer

@fitzwilliamdarcy

On the flip side at my work I knew several colleagues who had full paid sick leave of 13 weeks ....injured playing football at an age should know better ....and my company didn't offer any full paid EMP at the time

I'd have been better off breaking my arm whilst giving birth

I actually think that's pretty good. We get 13 weeks at 90% but topped up to full pay by SMP them straight onto SMP for the next 26 weeks. If you have a working partner then it's not too awful. Paying for nursery once you go back to work is the killer.

same here, DS1 was at childminders at 3 months and I went back to work full time. That was 18 years ago

But it's not really about the woman wanting extended leave as though they just don't want to work - it's about the child having nurture, bonding, care etc. It's an investment in the people who will form society in the future. Plenty of children will of course be fine going into a nursery at a very young age but if it is possible for mothers to stay with their children then surely that's a positive thing?

Unfortunately this has become a luxury that most people can't afford to take.

There is state provision. There is UC which is - rightly - much higher for parents than those without children.

That's ridiculous... Having kids is an absolute necessity if you want working age adults to exist who are going to pay taxes, to pay for the pensions. In fact it may as well be 'if you want a pension you have to have had a child'.

You cannot possibly compare injury or illness (serious enough injury or illness to be off work for an extended time period of time) to maternity leave. It’s offensive to both categories really. Women do deserve maternity pay and rights but comparing it to sickness is silly.

My DD was not born in the UK, and this is exactly what I had. Quite common in America too, I think?

The one thing I think shouldn't be allowed is women going back to work already pregnant again, working for a few weeks then getting another lot of maternity pay. Should insist that you actually work ( as in physically working) for at least 9 months before getting another lot of maternity pay elsewhere you get some women working about 3 months over a 2 year period