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!

OK, so you have 2 years off, in that time others have to keep your job ticking over. The work has to be done by others or maybe by a temp. You aren't the only one on mat leave, so that may apply to several positions. You go back to work and decide to have your second child and before you know it you are on mat leave again for 2 years. And so it goes. When I had my second there were 5 women all pregnant at the same time, obviously no one planned that to happen, but it cause problems for managers.
Yes, I'm in favour of maternity leave but I can see it from both sides. The business or service still needs to function, and in the 2 years you aren't working legislation, processes whatever may have changed, and when you return training may be required.

The government should be planning to put early-years childcare in place as happened with schools. All children benefit from early years education and this would also allow mothers to return to the workforce / find work more easily.

Could you have worked your way up if you took two years out of the workforce for each child? It’s hard enough for women to progress their careers, adding in a two year maternity leave leave would really disadvantage women with children who may want, or need, to have a career. It would maintain reliance on men or the state and reduce women’s choices even further.

My eldest daughter who works full time but is currently on mat leave with her almost 6 month old is wanting to go back to work at the end of june once her paid mat leave ends .they need the money! She has a job to go back to but cannot find a nursery or child minding place free to take her baby when she reaches 9 months old and the 30 hours kicks in ( or even before shes 9months)
She therefore cannot go back to work because of this
Id have her if i was close but im 2 hours away so she cannot get her to me and pick her up as well as working 9-5 everyday and no other family close to where they are . Her hubby also works full time
Apparently she should have put the babys name down for a nursery place before the baby was born soke say as soon as she found she was pregnant but no one told her this as a first time mom
Theres a 3 year waiting list for most nurseries and childminders in her surrounding areas so they are well and truly stuck

No-one "owns" their child and children are never "property".
You are responsible for your child until he/she is an adult.

The earnings threshold for UC is extremely low, so if the mother of the baby is not required to look for work, it’s likely because she’s a single parent. Try it out - she won’t be baking cakes and going to toddler groups whilst her partner earns a wage to pay the bills. She will likely be below the poverty line. And you’re jealous of that. Get a grip.

I didn’t know that!

thats a stupid rule, agree it should be aligned

But presumably if a working parent took two years off from work - so maternity leave followed by a career break for example - they could claim UC in the second year, assuming their income was low enough.

Sorry, it should say non working parents. I went back to work on UC (well then tax credits) when my eldest was 10 months!

it’s more working vs non working

No, I think all children should have a parent at home until 2 if the parents choose that for their child. Maybe people earn just above the UC limit but are not rich…

This is such a trollishly simplistic approach to early years childcare.

There is ample evidence that the love and care that children receive especially until age 3 massively shapes their personality, intillectual ability and ultimately (if you want to look at it from a purely transactional angle) their ability to function in society. The evidence is that on the whole children remaining with their caregiver for their first 3 years is most beneficial or at the very least very high quality early years care. What proportion of our early years care do you think is of adequate quality? What proportion of parents do you think could realistically afford to take 3 years off work without pay to look after their child? Do you think it's realistic to expect that only the top <10% of earners can actually afford to raise a child? Do you think it's ultimately helpful for society if there isn't access to the good quality childcare/benefits necessary to succesfully nurture children?

It baffles me that this is people's attitude towards literally our next generation

The availability of childcare is so difficult. I put a deposit down after the 20 weeks scan! Otherwise you get left with horrendous places I wouldn’t send an adult never mind a child

People can be very good parents without being at home full time for the first 2 years of a babies life.

I never said they couldn’t… my 8 year old is doing really well at school and extra curricular activities

Make it equal. make it one year for both.

I didn’t realise this was a thing and you’re absolutely right. I am at the end of the spectrum asking why people on UC are having DC though…if you can look after a child, you can get a job although I appreciate circumstances change.

There is so much more the government can do to help parents. I had DT, not extra help there.

Nursery fees wiped out my salary so I became a SAHM. We couldn’t claim CB because DH earned £55k, yet other families could have two incomes of £49k each and still receive CB.

It makes no sense.

This "Genuinely interested in how you managed to find and work in new jobs whilst also a full time student and looking after a toddler."

Presumably you had to chop and change childcare around your hours? Who looked after your child(ren?) when they were sick or you were studying?

I could barely cope working PT with two. Even then I had to drop out of open university as the lack of sleep was affecting my actual job and I was getting ill and making mistakes.

Large numbers of mums get universal credit and don't work at all or even look for work. They have a partner that makes enough to meet the income threshold to be classed as working but not enough to not get top ups. That's another anomaly because if those mums were single they'd be accused of sitting around at home all day claiming benefits or told they need to work harder.

In Scotland it's from age 3 as far as I'm aware with some parents on low incomes getting the free 30 hours at two years old

It's going to be much harder to look for a job than go back to an existing job. Just think about it, if you go back to an existing job you arrange childcare so that you can work. If you're not working it's going to be almost impossible to pay for childcare to look for a job. There's the time you need to put in to filling out applications, going for interviews, with full responsibility of caring for the baby at the same time. Not everyone is lucky enough to have family to help out.

I worked part time as a waitress while at uni! And then did teacher training full time in a school! My daughter went to nursery and I used term time only nurset when I was a teacher, so that helped

Why would you think that.. they’re probably more likely to have it because they are more likely to have other family members in UC.

We had ZERO family help, should we get an extra year too? AFAIK it’s not exactly a qualifying criteria for benefits.

OP is right.

Why would you think that someone on UC would be likely to have others in their family on UC?

It's the DWP that make the rules on this one. It used to be far more generous back in the days of income support

Ehh this is being greatly reduced.

And the age that they expect you to look for work is coming down, it’s gone from 12 to 2, and there’s more work focused interviews in the second year now…

They will be in line in a matter of time.