Proposed maternity leave cut would impact breastfeeding rates - discuss

[hunkermunker]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7971473.stm

Yes, of course fathers are important and it would be good if they could have more time off - but is decreasing statutory maternity leave the way forward?

Realistically, would many dads stay off work for longer at £117 a week, whilst their wives/partners went back to work?

Or is this a way to get women back to work sooner?

And if paid maternity leave goes back to six months for women, what impact will that have on breastfeeding? Realistically, this means many women going back to work before their baby's ready for solid food, it can therefore mean more hassle with expressing, getting the baby used to a bottle or cup, etc.

HM - I suppose I was working along happy-mum-happy-baby lines - ie, a woman who stayed at home for a year while desperately wishing to be back at work (or desperately needing the income) might not be in the best position to nurture her baby.

Boffinmum I disagree that maternity leave should be in any way linked to breastfeeding (I say that as a passionate bfer).

Ultimately maternity leave should be about giving a chidl the best start in life - ie having one or other parent present in their life full-time for as long as possible. By linking that to bfing you would only further disadvantage children who were not breast-fed, whether by choice or not. There is no justification in further penalising these babies when they have no choice over their feeding method.

"Ultimately maternity leave should be about giving a chidl the best start in life - ie having one or other parent present in their life full-time for as long as possible."

No - I do not agree with this. See my earlier post about what maternity leave should be about.

I think there is some rationale for 90% in that there are some costs involved in going to work - travel, lunches etc.

But I don't know if that's anything to do with the decision to only pay 90%. Does anyone know why that is?

Hmm, yes, I don't think there should be any forcing of women done here - so if you're happier at work and you have a job, it may well make sense for you to work.

But yes, the "happy mum, happy baby" line is trite, helps nobody and makes the person saying it look pretty dim, imo. It's like those who trot out "breast is best" and expect it to miraculously increase bf rates, because SURELY if women know it's "best", they'll ALL breastfeed, won't they? [bangs head on wall]

At the moment, many, many women are forced to go back to work sooner than they or their babies would desire. And society can only suffer if that continues, imo - lots of women juggling finances, childcare, general discontent - not a recipe for a happy start.

Anna, of course there is an element of both those things to it as well (post-partum recovery etc). Which is why there is a period of compulsory maternity leave to ensure that women take time to let their bodies recover from labour before restarting work.

But personally I don't think that most of my maternity leave was about MY recovery. As far as my ability to work went, I was fully recovered after about 2 months with my first baby, sooner after my second. My decision to stay off work longer was for my baby (and for myself of course as I wanted to spend time with them!)

Actually paid B/F leave is a reality in some countries. One of my friends in Belgium managed to extend her paid mat leave (which in Belgium is only 16 weeks, we really don't realise how fortunate we are) so she was off until her baby was 6 months old. It's put in place to promote bf. I think that if you have a baby and are bf then your employer has to provide you with a suitable place + time to express. If they can't then you're entitled to this bf leave. She is a police officer and so could claim the bf leave. (you can't express when you're out on the beat!)
I also think that cutting mat leave would impact bf rates. Most people I know who went back to work stopped bf for that reason.
I also think it's a bit unfair to increase mat leave only to reduce it again a few years later. A more Scandinavian approach to maternity would be much better for babies and mums, whether bf or not.

Boffin - it's not illegal for a woman to work two weeks after the birth, or four weeks if factory work. It is illegal to employ a woman as soon as that, postnatally. It's a protection for the woman. If she wants to work by (I don't know) setting up her own business, then she can do.

I'm dismayed at the prospect of reduced maternity leave. Of course the leave should be extended, for both parents, and they should both be permitted to work flexibly while their children are small.

I'm not so much concerned about its effect on bf - just extend the leave for all, and increase the support for breastfeeding, and everyone's needs will be met better.

The baby's needs are clear: loving, consistent care from at least one person who loves him, and even better two, if there's a dad around as well.

I think that it would be great for dads to have more paternity leave but it doesn't need to impact on the maternity leave. I'm from Sweden where it's all parental leave, approx 12 months, but 3 months are earmarked for the dad. It's then up to the parents to decide who takes what time. Of course, the goverment pay for the parental leave and most people get about 80% of their normal pay while at home.

I would like to see fathers given the option to take three months paid leave out of a 'family allocation' of a year's leave after birth (the woman can take the whole year if she wanted).

Childcare could be delayed until the baby was 9 months or a year. It's fantastic bonding. Most importantly, IMHO, if a dp has done the day to day care giving for three months I believe they would be far less likely to 'delegate' (aka offload) all the logistics of childraising (organising care, dealing with the school, housework, feeding etc) to the missus for the next 18+ years...

I would like to see fathers given the option to take three months paid leave out of a 'family allocation' of a year's leave after birth (the woman can take the whole year if she wanted).

Childcare could be delayed until the baby was 9 months or a year. It's fantastic bonding. Most importantly, IMHO, if a dp has done the day to day care giving for three months I believe they would be far less likely to 'delegate' (aka offload) all the logistics of childraising (organising care, dealing with the school, housework, feeding etc) to the missus for the next 18+ years...

I'm without doubt that it would cut bf rates at 6 months and for some women having difficulty in the early days that would increase the feling of "well it'll only be for a little while anyway" and make more mums switch to ff.

In addition I hate the presumption the the government/any media seem to make that women are never the main earners in a partnership. Where women are the main earners SMP is never going to sustain a family for 9 months (minus the 6 weeks at 90%). I think increasing SMP for 6 months with a lower rate, but at least current level, for 3 months and then the option of either a further 3 months unpaid for the mother or 3 months at x% for the father. I think that we need to make it financially a better option for more families for fathers to be involved.

I'm sure it will cut rates. I would have had to go back to work when DS was 5 months, and so would have started thinking about it at 4 - he was still feeding like a newborn. I leaked milk constantly and would have been engorged. I would have stopped. It was touch and go at 11 months! Most of the friends I know have been similar. I work for possibly the most family friendly organisation in the UK (on paper!) but don't think I could have handled expressing at work.
Why are people calling for unpaid longer paternity leave? Are men not entitled to parental leave?

I don't think they would take it, SM. Not many of them anyway. So, the more cynical me might wonder whether they are trying to cut maternity leave back to 6m again, since they know not many men would take it?

I agree with you hunker.

I don't think that many men would want to take that big a chunk of paternity leave because of financial issues/worries about job security especially at the moment and also a lot of men aren't that interested in tiny babies.

The last point is a bit controversial but i know from my own and friend's experiences that its as DC's have got older that the dads have got a lot more interested/involved.

I think the government are trying to reduce maternity leave by stealth and using smoke and mirrors to detract from this.

i think it is a bit skewed to tout the reason of equality in helping women back to work. As this assumes that many jobs are much more valued than bringing up children
What would be equality if is motherhood was recognised as an important and worthwhile job for society and renumerated properly, and that actually many mothers are very good at it.

What is the solution though for places not wanting to hire women? I know it's illegal but how do we restore the goodwill.
(Not arguing for cutting maternity leave - and I'll be on it myself in a few months! - but really would love to know a solution)

of most couples that i know the woman has high powered job and husband does something less well paid.
Women are good workers and most employers know this

I think these proposals are a remarkable reinterpretation of equality. Maternity leasve isn't just about breastfeeding - I failed bfing my ds1 but I still valued my maternity leave, and I had a much better than SMP scheme. I'm now bfing ds2 at nearly 8 weeks and hope to continue at least until I return to work when he'll be 9 months - then he'll probably need some milk feeds during the day but I hope to be able to offer him my milk morning/evening.

I would love to see paternity leave rights improved in some way but don't agree with cutting women's entitlement, breastfeeding or not, to pay for it.

I also fear that we're likely to see a loss in women's rights to maternity leave which isn't replaced by an extension of equal rights to both parents.

"By traceybath on Mon 30-Mar-09 20:07:38
I think the government are trying to reduce maternity leave by stealth and using smoke and mirrors to detract from this."

I think that's very unfair!

a) this is NOT a government proposal - it was suggested by the Equality and Human Rights Commission who are an independent body - nothing to do with government. Their job is to come up with new policy ideas and suggestions and to challenge existing legislation, as well as to hold organisations to account on existing legislation.

And b) it was this government who extended maternity leave from the pitiful six months max it USED to be.

There's no suggestion in the articles I've read that the government have welcomed their proposals particularly warmly, or are rushing to endorse them. Rather the reverse.

I think that's a fair point youngvisiter, it's not government policy. The articles though do seem intended to create the impression that government policy will be shaped by these recommendations.

God knows there are many things this government have done/propose to do that piss me off, but credit where it's due, they have done a lot for maternity leave and parental rights generally and I don't think they should be slagged off for some blue-skies proposal from an unelected committee that is nothing to do with them.

I'll reserve my ire for the many wanky policy proposals they are actually guilty of

I cant see how cutting mums time with there babies is guna make it any easier to breast feed that is for sure. I was lucky my partner got 4 weeks leave and took weeks hoilday time exstra. would it not be better to say that any father can have 3weeks more holiday to take at any point with in 6 months of the birth and keep the full mums allowance the same or at worst less 3 weeks?
Women need all the help they can get to stay breastfeeding.

i am all for one year paid maternity leave but just wanted to point out that exclusive breastfeeding rates in the U.S. - where there is no mandated paid maternity leave, yet official advice is to BF for one year - are much higher than in the U.K.

CDC data for U.S. show 14% of six month old babies are exclusively BF, compared to just 3% of five month old babies in the U.K.

I think the average time off U.S. women take is something like 3 months. (usually unpaid.) Expressing is a big part of the BFing culture there, as is becoming a SAHM and abandoning work for the first few years of a child's life (if financially possible).