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!

To get 30 hours you need to earn about £700 plus a month. I don't have the family support or the money upfront to be able to qualify for the nine months and three year funding. Even with UC help.

Does it not occure to you that making this conversation a taboo like this actually prevents the honest discussion about parental support that supports the maintenance of the taxpayer pool to maintain things like health service, education, pensions, public transport, environmental management etc.? If nordic countries managed it, by having open and honest conversations, instead of being beady eyed aunt Lobelias, careful that noone shoud have more than them, then, perhaps, it isn't such an utopia? But no, let's hide behind bashing women for their choices, as if the children were created by parthenogenesis 🙄

Canada has relatively recently introduced an entitlement to low cost childcare for all
(see guardian link)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/11/canada-universal-affordable-childcare-uk-parents?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

but there are concerns about how this is playing out - the research on nurseries shows that high quality nursery care is as good or better than parental care for the under 3s but if you are delivering that for a whole population then some of that care will not be high quality.

there’s also a strong political lobby in the U.K. that believes under 3s/5s are best off with a parent and would not support any change in UC that required a parent to go back to work with a very small child.

You need to pay it upfront first. Sending my son for three mornings a week (autistic) nearly killed us financially. A sigh of relief when we got the three year funding!

Because you're not comparing like for like.

You're asking businesses to keep a mother's job on hold for two years and guarantee giving it back to her again after that time. But the business needs will have moved on and the vacancy will have been filled. It's a way bigger ask than one year, which is already generous on an international scale.

I'm as pro-mother as you can get. We need mothers and children in this country, the birth rate is declining and the pension bills are mounting. But this is too extreme.

For your own sake as well, you'd be out of the workplace for two whole years, you'd feel left behind when you went back.

It's just not a practical idea.

And if you were benefits-bashing - I really think there are other unemployed people who could more easily go back into the workforce than mums of young kids.

This isnt about working mother's who also claim UC.
Its about people who don't have a job.

The thought of interviewing (with no childcare), and then starting a new job and finding childcare (and paying for said childcare up front) with a tiny baby make me feel weak. Totally different to going back to a job you know, that is at least partially familiar to you, that you have had time to look at and reserve childcare for.

But Nordic countries seems to manage it?

why should children of working mums suffer? ( day care under 3, is known to not be as good as parental care?)

God I can’t imagine anything worse for working women. Many employers would simply never hire a woman of child bearing age again.

Denmark has one year of maternity leave

https://www.norden.org/en/info-norden/parental-benefit-denmark

Sweden has 480 days (not sure if that is working dats or not?)

https://sweden.se/work-business/working-in-sweden/work-life-balance

Norway one year.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/parental-leave/

This makes sense.

But I agree with you @Bucdynovehbkfdg.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm glad I had my DC in the mid 2000s when I could stay at home until they went to school. This was particularly useful when their dad walked out on us and introduced them to their "new Mum" less than a month later. I'm aware Mums have to cope with this whilst working, but I'm glad I didn't.

Excellent, since you obviously can do the research, now do a full expose on nordic support for parents and we can compare it to UK? It will illustrate my point about UK maternity rights stinginess perfectly. And 480 days is more than a year.

Because they don’t want to upset business by making them keep jobs open for more than one year. Mums can apply for sabbaticals or to extend their parental leave if they want to but the employer doesn’t have to say yes and probably only will
if there are a great employee.

In the noughties lone parents didn’t have to look for employment until their youngest child was 16.

what’s wrong with the state paying mothers to create the taxpayers you need to pay your pensions?

I cost the state more by working with tiny kids and getting tax credits to pay for nursery. My mortgage and outgoings were a fraction of what they had to pay for my childcare. But I wasn't allowed to stop work as it would have counted as making myself unemployed and I wouldn't have been entitled to any tax credits.

If a parent isn't working and getting UC then job hunting with a baby would be hard. If you are already working then it's not so bad going back to your usual workplace with your colleagues.

For a start, not all of the UK has 30 free hours from 9 months. Only England does. Maybe get your basic facts straight!

many people on UC are working

• don’t have to look for work there are activities and 85% child care to a maximum currently £1,031.88 for one child
• £1,768.94 for 2 or more children

www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-childcare-costs#how-much-you-can-get

Age 1

You will not be expected to look for work. The only work-related activity you will be expected to do is to have regular appointments to discuss a future move into work.

Age 2

You will not be expected to look for work. The work-related activities you will be expected to do are having regular appointments with Universal Credit and work preparation activities, such as writing your CV.

www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-if-you-have-children#support-with-childcare-costs

It’s a hang over from before help towards childcare costs came in plus it has been reduced - years ago you didn’t need to look for work when you had children under 12, then 7, then 5 now it’s 3 but you have to get “work ready” in the year prior.

I really wish people would stop linking the decision to be have children, specifically the decision to carry a child, with the economic prosperity of the country. It will lead to an inevitable malignancy of thinking.

Anyway, the reality is that, the more prosperous the country the lower the birth rate. The more availability of childcare and financial support, the lower the birth rate. Give women choice and options, they seem to decide to have less children or no children.

There are two separate debates to be had. One is the need to financially support people who have children and who decide to work.

The other is about how the country prospers and grows. This cannot be solved by the idea that women need to have babies and there should be ways to make that happen. Because prosperity and incentives don’t make it happen so what is the alternative?

So lots of people are happy with the inequality in terms of said motherhood. Cool.

BTW I started a few new jobs while I had a child under 3, yes it can be daunting but it’s okay. I was also a full time student.
And most likely I will be going back to a different role after this mat leave too. So I don’t actually believe it’s impossible.

And as a result I no longer need UC, now my oldest is 8. Would this have been the same if I just hadn’t bothered? 🙄

but ultimately I would rather every mother got 2 years!

I have 3 children and returned to work ft between 9 and 12 months old. My husband doesn't keep me, I actually earn more than him. Personally I wouldn't have wanted to take 6 years out, the impact on my career and pension would have been huge, I think up to 1 year is about right, I breastfed way beyond 1 (until between age 2 and 3) and still managed to return to work. I think extending statutory maternity pay to 12 months for working mums would be good, if you work for a decent company you usually get 6 months + full-pay anyway, our policy is 6 months full-pay after 1 years service, I thought it was generous.

Universal credit should be reduced to 1 year off work, we (England) now have funded childcare from 9 months old, I know the nurseries where we live allow you to spread the hours over the year, it works out as 2 x 10h nursery days fully funded. There's no excuse not to work, unless you can support your family without government help and can make the choice not to work, benefits shouldn't be funding people to sit at home raising children.

It makes sense that an in-work entitlement would be different from an out-of-work entitlement. They're two different situations with different elements to balance. Not everything that isn't exactly the same is unequal.

Realistically its going to cost the government more paying for 1-2 year old childcare than paying the benefits premium given for not working.
Everyone has the same option too. If a single mum they can apply for universal credit and try to get by on it until 2, if they have a partner they may be eligible if on low income or renting.
If theyre on a high enough income with one parent to not qualify then they can cut back on spending and make do on more than people on benefits have whilst taking that extra year.

Why just the public sector?
We just need tax payers full-stop to service pension payments AND everything else that governments pay for.

Nobody would have children SOLELY to provide future tax-payers, but I get irritated with child-free people who are annoyed by others’ children or sneer at parents, conveniently forgetting that
they will be funding council services & pensions they will be benefiting from.
SOMEONE has to have the children.

For what it’s worth I have Danish friends and the Nordic countries generally are increasingly becoming countries where families do not stay together and women have only one child.

the number of single parents (both mothers and fathers) is very high and climbing. Many Danish children are only children and again the rate is climbing.

sone countries look at that and do not like what they see.

by comparison I have other friends who live in Switzerland. There the culture is very very different and even school is not full time and there is a collective horror at the idea of a family needing two full time working adults to support it.

my kids are older now and I have no skin in the game but it’s not obvious that the Nordic countries are the example to follow.

You can fix that by making it parental leave rather than maternity leave. In Sweden we get 18 months and the goal is always that parents split that 50-50 but that doesn't always happen. Often the mum takes the first 12 months and the dad the remaining 6 months. 100 days are earmarked for the dad, if he doesn't use them up you lose them. You get the same number of days wether you are working or not, you just get a lot less imoney if you are not working leading up to the birth as the allowance is based on your income.