Maternity pay has gone too far

[EasterIssland]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c781m9v4255o

apologies if there is another thread about it.
havent seen one.

im lucky enough to have a good salary that would allow me saving beforehand . Statutory maternity pay would mean around 20-30% of my salary. Is this too far? It’s one of the many reasons why we decided to only have one. I felt really vulnerable when I was on maternity leave and didn’t feel I kept having spare cash every month. I do understand what she means tho , the sooner we’re back the less we get from the government and more taxes we pay. Coming from a woman hurts even more not being recognised the sacrifices we do whilst we are on maternity leave

Are you saying that women who breastfeed should get longer maternity leave than those who bottle feed?

Seeing as MP's get full pay throughout their maternity leave (yes they do need to go in a few times, but cab take baby with them if quiet), she is a bit i
of a hypocrite

This!

It was a really weird interview, in my opinion,

She was talking generally, but not clearly, about businesses and regulation, and maternity pay got brought into the mix.

The interviewer did jump in and put the 'so you think maternity pay....' words into the conversation.

Kemi didn't respond to it clearly though and I'm still not clear what the message of the conversation was supposed to be.

And that is an absolutely disgusting way to treat people who are doing such an incredibly important thing for vulnerable children.

But it's not a race to the bottom.

Ah OK I see. Thought would be strange. Although if you are working very part time then you are no worse off then really

And where did I say that? I was asking how the system worked. And someone kindly explained rather than making a snarky comment.

And no I don't read the daily mail - nor any other paper for that matter thanks

Looks like it. Didn't ya know us bottle feeding mums don't have the same bond? 🤷😉

I’m currently on maternity leave and it’s definitely not enough, I think it should be based on your previous income because when you’re used to a certain amount each week to cover your bills and other costs, it’s not like you can just say “oh well I won’t pay my mortgage”. It’s like they think our wages are only spent on lavish meals out and spa treatments 🙄
Im having to go back to work at a nursery which my baby will be attending at 7 months old. So whilst he’s getting looked after by a stranger in the room next door to me, I’m looking after other people’s kids, and paying to do this. Just because it still works out financially miles better to pay for his childcare and work rather than stay home with him. And I’m not even on an impressive wage.

That's not how I read her post at all.

I think child benefit reduction should be considered before maternity pay. Not that I condone removing either. Workers pay NI all their working lives, it’s only receiving back what we are entitled to, it’s not freeloading.

Lets look at the basics of human life, we are put on Earth to reproduce, that’s what animals do. If we don’t, the human race dies out. We need future workers to fund the social care of those in their later years. No income, no babies!

Apart from being the traditional type of mysogynistic Tory rubbish from one of its somewhere-right-of-Ghengis-Khan spokespeople, this type of nonsense is a gift to a certain type of employer.
I used to lecture in HR and was always amazed/horrified at the number of (young) undergraduates who regularly ventured the opinion that in future, they would avoid employing women between the ages 18&40!
Given the ageing population, low birth rate, Brexit etc why would anyone choose to halve their available workforce?

They do. And I know this because for the last 20 years of my career I was a beneficiary of it. I don’t believe I was discernibly more skilled or talented (although obviously more experienced) than the numerous younger women I beat in a more than one recruitment process. The major benefit I offered was that I didn’t need childcare and wouldn’t be taking maternity leave. It was blatantly obvious to me.

Perhaps she's of the opinion that parents should pay for their children with a little support from the state, not entire dependence on the state?

Then she’s attacking the wrong thing because beneficiaries of maternity benefits are by definition women who work.

In what way is a woman who works her entire career but takes a couple of maternity leaves depending entirely on the state to support her to raise her children?

Generous maternity leave keeps women in work.

I'd just note that for many women the obligation to keep the job open is as important as the pay. That is an obligation on employers that costs the state nothing. I expect you would oppose that too.

I was responding to the poster who took it to mean that only "rich" women should be having children - by your logic, rich women would be less likely to be working so wouldn't be claiming SMP anyway...

My response was to the poster who assumed that only rich women should be having children.

You're absolutely right, but conversely it's a huge drain on SMEs and the treasury when, having paid out for nine months, the mother then decides she's not returning after all. There has to be some middle ground, give and take.

@usernamealreadytaken-a couple of points.

a) Badenoch is obviously making these statements in an attempt to appeal to the generally old, misogynist, racist, really rather unpleasant individuals who are members of the Tory party and have the power to make her the next Tory leader. The fact that she probably agrees with her own statements is a separate point.

b) When making policy, politicians need to consider the aims of the policy.
What is her aim here? To protect more SMEs (who her own government hit from various angles during their 14 yrs in power)? To encourage SMEs to reduce rights for workers? To impoverish British people, particularly women even further? To encourage British women to have less children? To encourage more immigrants to make up for the falling birth rates amongst Brits? To reduce the population in general?

If she wants birth rates to continue to fall further (v likely to happen anyway), this is a reasonable policy. Is she then willing to accept higher rates of immigrant workers (v unlikely)? Or is she willing to accept falling nominal GDP, reduced consumption, with knock on effects on SMEs, skills shortages, etc?
If she is trying to impoverish the UK population further (this has already been happening in the last 20 years), this is could be a successful policy but would then have knock on effects on SMEs as above and would further encourage social unrest as we saw during the Summer.

She's the gift that keeps on giving.

She's now anti the NMW as it is harming SMEs (no doubt true) and has also said this gem: 'It is not a function of income, many of the people with the most severe mental health crises actually live very comfortable lifestyles, some people call it ‘affluenza’.
“That it’s just not being able to feel a need to do anything that is actually very bad for the human spirit. That we all need to have a little bit of adversity to help us cope. Those who don’t have any actually do badly.”

She really does appear to be an appalling person.

That's not what was said at all. The video is on her own twitter account.

Why would “rich” women be less likely to work?

Wealthier women, IME, are less likely to be working for somebody; they either volunteer, or run businesses (often how they got "rich"). If they are working, they're quite unlikely to be working for a company which only pays them SMP 🙄