Why is maternity leave from work 1 year but from UC it is 2 years?

[Bucdynovehbkfdg]

this isn’t a benefit bashing thread, I believe that people should claim what they’re entitled too. I just don’t understand why all mothered aren’t entitled to the same amount of time off with their children.

I’m currently on maternity leave, and obviously we have up to a year off work.

i was just wondering why parents in UC don’t have to look for work until their baby is 2?

But why doesn’t the government make maternity leave 2 years, so that all mums can spend an equal time with their children before returning to work?

there’s 30 free hours from 9 months now, so there’s really no excuse mums of UC to not have to look for work at age 1, the age when working mums return to work by?

Obviously I know it would differ between SMP/OMP/unpaid part of mat leave, but even if the extra year was unpaid some working mums would be able to take it!

please don’t make this about carers and disabled children because it’s not about that either!

Because being a parent is a lifestyle choice not a community service

Mums on UC probably have less of a support network on average than families who don't need UC. It's hard to work around childcare without a support network - the hours and days don't match up etc. The free hours are term time only.

I'm probably more towards the "why don't you just get a job" end of the political spectrum but I can't get worked up about mums of young children needing UC.

I think it should be equal for all parents. Either 1 year for all or 2 for all. Why is there a difference depending on if you work or not?

I don’t have family nearby to help with childcare, so I will have to pay for the additions I need?

Also, I’m not annoyed about individuals claiming ng it. More that the government isn’t treating all mothers equally

I agree op, it should be up to 1 or 2 years for all. If the government will pay for those on UC to have 2 years, they should pay SMP for those working to have 2 years.

Nobody has children out of public duty though do they? At least I hope not.

This is how I feel too

Don't be disingenuous. Public sector requires taxpayers. Without children, the taxpayer pool evaporates.

Essentially historical reasons.

over time the length of maternity leave from work has got longer. In the 80s and 90s it was much shorter than a year. Now a year is fairly standard although it is possible to go back earlier and often people do for financial reasons.

on government benefits, it used to be the case that mothers of children up to 12 did not have to look for work. The age has come down at various points since the 1990s and it’s now quite young.

”free” childcare is the reason for some of the drop in the age at which mothers are expected to look for work - in the 90s there wasn’t really much pre school or wrap around childcare that enabled a full time job (as opposed to being a 9-12 pre school session focused on early learning) and what there was cost a bomb.

This is such an ignorant and tone-deaf post, I don't even know where to start.

Yet another woman bashing women because of how the system works.

No - Your employer is not going to pay you for more than a year...to not work. You chose that situation, nobody else chose it for you. You know how MA works. Other women not looking for work when their child turns 1 will not be in the same situation as you. I'm guessing you have a partner who supports you in life? Not all women have that. Educate yourself before you speak.

Another crass post from the world of Mumsnet. Shock horror.

Mums on UC probably have less of a support network on average than families who don't need UC

What?

I suspect this is because of the burden it would place on businesses? I guess holding a job open for someone for 2 years would be unworkable.

Hey, FYI, the government pays SMP, and then the last 13 weeks are £0, no one expects the government/company to pay a full salary.

This isn't a benefit bashing thread. Of course it is! 🙄

I mean, that’s absolute rubbish as she’s literally said it’s the system she’s questioning, not the women taking advantage of it. Why’s it tone deaf?

Maybe because it’s because of the 30 hours childcare available from 9 months?

It’s not! I used to be on UC while in work and on a low salary! Most UC claimants work you know!

Because it would make hiring women even more of a liability.

In Romania you can take 2 years but it still has very low female workforce participation and birth rates because it makes employing women a huge risk.

Under 2 the cost of childcare is likely to more than whatever a woman on UC would earn so it would cost the state more to prove a point.

I know. I claim and work.

UC also pay 85% of childcare costs!

Weird that so many governments are concerned about falling birth rates then, why would that be 🤔

This does make sense