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?

You mean a parent not just mothers.

But there are those who won’t qualify for UC not significantly struggle on smp

the state provision should be enhanced through taxation on the very high earners (80k +)

You're correct that it is not "sickness" but it is "recovery" especially if you have had a traumatic birth or surgical intervention, and it should be treated as such for payment and time off work.

Why? They'll still be taking the same amount of leave in total? What's the difference between going back to work for 3 months or 9 months??

No I don't actually. The person commenting was referring to women/mothers. The passive aggressive correction wasn't necessary. 🙄

Because they are actually being productive for the employer. I used to work for a London borough council and it wasn't unusual. One woman had 3 maternity leaves only actually working a couple of months in between and then left the job when supposed to return after having the 3rd baby. That's just taking the piss

It's not taking the piss. It's life. I'm sure she didn't have 3 kids in short succession to annoy you or her boss. In my local authority you have to go back to work for 5 months (full time, or part time equivalent) to get any enhanced pay. So she likely wouldn't have taken any money from your employer, only SMP from the government.

I only get 18 weeks full pay and then SMP (standard in my sector). Be grateful you get 6 months!!! I'm the higher earner. And we had IVF costs to pay for to have our kids. My ability to save for first child was obviously easier than its been this time again. Oh, and in Scotland so we don't get any funding for childcare until they are 3years old. But if you want children, you make it work.

Paternity pay is even worse. You don’t get even one single day on anywhere near your normal salary. It’s £184 per week from day 1. My DH normally earns £1200 per week, we couldn’t survive on £184. So he couldn’t take any paternity leave at all.

State pension is £220 per week, so not loads more, and for many mortgage or rent still has to be paid.

I would support 6 months of fully paid leave but with limits on how often you can claim it and not one straight after the other. The employer (and the other employees who get landed with the cover work) have a right to expect the person being paid for the job, to actually be there.

DD has a teacher in her school who has had a baby nearly every year that my dd has been in secondary school. I can't see a private sector employer being happy with that if they had the cost of paying years of wages.

It's not only the money though - it's the employer having to find temp staff to cover, which isn't always possible (it takes time to recruit and train staff to the point where they are actually valuable). This results in other staff having increased workloads - these will also be people with small children or caring responsibilities or illnesses of their own.
It's not 'just life' to have 3 babies on the bounce and 3 long mat leaves, it absolutely is taking the piss.

I agree that new parents should be supported, but I’m also wondering where the money is supposed to come from to do it? Should the employer be required to generously top up SMP as well as paying for temporary cover for the parental leave? If the government should increase SMP, how will they do this?

As some PP’s have said, if companies are required to offer generous packages, I think that’ll put them off hiring women. I’m not sure what the answer is, but i think it needs to be carefully thought out and possibly limits imposed.

Surely it's easier for an employer to cover 3 years worth of maternity leave in one go, than 3 years of maternity leave 18 months apart. Or would slightly small or larger in between be easier for the employer? Should an employer have the right to dictate how long an employee should wait to get pregnant again (in order to stop anyone "taking the piss")? Or should someone wanting 3 children have to state their intention when going off with the first and be forced to quit? Hmmm... Do we live in North Korea?! 🤣

If it were cheaper to have children more would be born. If more were born, more would pay taxes. If more paid taxes, it could be made cheaper to have children. Everyone benefits.

I run a small business and I can't afford to pay people for months of not working. It's as simple as that. I'm not a benefits system.

I think the government should be contributing to it, because at the moment it comes directly out of my business.

It's hard enough as it is, because I'm paying 2 salaries and getting the work of 1 person, and even then that's assuming I can find someone to replace for short term maternity leave rather than long time job, especially someone who has the skills required.

Apart from the planet, which is dying.

@Oldermum84 In theory, yes. But if a medium-sized company that’s hoping to grow won’t be thinking that longterm, they’ll be wondering whether they can afford to cover X number of maternity leaves in the next five years and that could affect their hiring decisions.

It’s not fair, but it’s realistic. Not every company could afford generous packages.

Wtf why shouldn’t they be allowed to go back? They should be fired?

Agreed that many women are physically unfit for work post birth and pregnancy but that’s not very helpful if the employer only offers SSP. It’s back to square one.

You've obviously misread. They can go back just not have another year of maternity pay a few weeks later

Then I’m not sure you can afford to be in business.

But ideally a better smp would be reclaimable for small companies

But it’s not weeks later it’s likely months a lot of employers have a qualification period for mat pay and smp does too so this is a non issue

luckily the company I work for has neither you’re entitled to full pay from the day you join

@Worrywartandall Many small to medium-sized businesses have tight profit margins, it’s not uncommon at all. Why would you think that they’re raking it in? They’re small with a limited number of customers. Paying an extra salary can be difficult.

But the person is counted as employed the whole time they are on the first maternity leave So builds up holidays as well. The council I worked for was 3 months to get enhanced pay. So joing Jan one year. Go on maternity leave Jan 2nd year. Year off then return 5 months pregnant. Take 5 weeks holiday. Then work a few weeks until 2nd lot of maternity leave . You don't have to start the 3 months again just don't give in notice in that time You could take 5 weeks holiday and a few weeks " sick" and never actually be in the workplace