Changes to Maternity Leave

[HRHCavey]

Not sure if anyone has already posted a thread on this topic, but thought I'd see what people think about this

The MEP's voted in favour earlier today. More here

Thoughts/comments?

i am 25 wks and really struggling now with spd and tiredness(5th baby and im quite old haha) I thinks its such a shame that we all try and work as long as poss to have some decent time off with our baby. The other thing that has always bugged me is the 6 wks 90% pay We would, get more on sick leave, show me a woman who is fit for work before 6 weeks post birth!

I guess it's too much to hope that the changes will happen soon-ish? DH and I are trying ttc #1 at the moment!

It's nice to hear some good news for a change.

ledkr - sick pay for all the companies I've worked for is generally around 20 days at full pay then you hop onto SSP which is about 60 quid a week. So, 90% for 6 weeks is a bit more than what you would have on 6 weeks of sick leave, then you get more per week (125 pounds) for the next 8 months.

20 weeks at full pay for women only is too much IMO. Small businesses will stop hiring women of a certain age because how can they afford to pay someone for 5 months at full pay, plus pay for someone else to cover them AND have no guarantee that the person is going to come back? Or if they do, that they're not going to go off again a year later with another child and cost the business another 5 months+ salary. If a business is struggling along breaking even this will wipe it out and, fair or not, it's going to be a big black mark on a CV before a woman even walks into an interview.

If a proposal like this was accompanied by a law meaning that a couple could pool the parental leave and the man could take half and the woman could take half, or the man could take all or a larger percentage, then that would be more useful to promote true equality, but as it is, in this kind of economy especially, I think it will cause more problems for women than it solves.

businesses claim the money back from the government don't they?

they do claim the money back from the government so i've never really understood why they object.

I agree with lucky.

People often have this idea of "bosses" (no-one on here mentioned it, so a general comment) having loads of money. Yet very often, small companies are struggling now. As we're all aware, even big businesses are making huge cuts. We have to be realistic as to what would be nice and what is viable.

As someone who has done maternity leave covers, I know how expensive it is for a company to have a temp cover during the leave period. It's fair enough to say that the statutory maternity pay can be claimed back from government, but the contract fee for temporary cover is almost always a lot higher than the normal cost to the company would have been. Things like agency fees, higher temp rates etc all ads up.

Rambling above probably makes no sense whatsoever, but what I'm trying to say - it's already risky and expensive for an employer to employ someone that is going to go on maternity leave. Making it more expensive is going to make it harder to compete against men with the same qualifications and experience even if we know we'll be better at the job.

Ah, cross posts re claiming costs back.

Yes, it is a lot more expensive to employ a temporary person than the equivalent permanent rate for that level would be.

From the temp's point of view, you can understand why they have a higher hourly rate - they have to take into account that they might not have back-to-back jobs, company benefits like medical / pension / sick pay, etc. They availability of qualified temps (in my area anyway, I'm not sure if it applies to most) also means that the market tends to push the hourly fees up.

Add to that the huge mark-ups employment agencies add, and it makes a substantial difference.

I'll echo lucky1979, unless the extended time is accompanied by the right to share the leave between both parents then this will mean that it will be the Mother who will be even more likely to take the time off and therefore suffer the damage to her career that this can cause.

The countries that have the most equality in the workplace are those that allow parental leave to be split as required between both parents. Giving it only to the mother denies the parents a genuine choice over their childcare arrangements as the woman is the only one with any real options and flexibility. And that takes away her choices, it basically says "either you take the parental leave or no one does" and what kind of choice is that?

Granting only maternity leave is not about equality and continually creates the stereotype that it is women who "should" be with the child and that they will be the ones to take career breaks.

Employers don't have to use employment agencies do they?

plus, it IS women who hasve to be with the child, certainly in the first weeks while she recovers from the birth and also if she has decided to breastfeed. There is no escaping biology. Though certainly sharing leave later is a great idea.

In iceland they get 9 months, 3 of which myst be taken by the woman, 3 must be taken by the man and the last 3 can be shared if wished.

It almost certainly won't happen anyway, long way to go before it even becomes European law, the 20 wks at full pay is likely to get watered down to 20 wks at at least stat sick pay (which would be way lower than what we already have)

I agree with BadgersPaws. The gender pay gap for young women now is virtually non-existent, but once you have a child it widens considerably - which is partly about the choices women make but has a lot to do with employer's attitudes.

"Employers don't have to use employment agencies do they?"

No, but if they don't you're factoring in the cost of someone from the business (and if they're a small business they probably won't have a dedicated HR person) taking time off doing whatever they are meant to be (and paid to be) doing to sort out advertising the role (which costs money), weed through the pile of totally unsuitable CVs, make a short list, arrange to get them all in for interview etc etc....it's a lot more work that you would think, especially if it's not your day job (usually it will be the accountant or the business owner doing double duty), and there is no guarantee at the end of the day that you will be able to attract the right candidate so you will have to go through the whole process again with the same outlay. You may get lucky, but you may not.

f you pay an employment agency, they will generally send you 5 CVs of suitable candidates which they have pre-vetted for looney tendancies, lying on their CVs etc. You also have a fallback position if they ARE shocking, you can complain to the agency and they will sort it out and send you someone else, while if you hired them yourselves there is no comeback and you have to start the whole process yourself again.

So that is generally why companies use employment agencies, even though they are expensive.

I think it depends on the job whether it costs extra for ML cover. A lot of my friends got jobs out of Uni as ML cover and moaned they were paid less and didn't have job stability but they all did it to get their foot in the door...

So it's not all bad.

Is there a black mark against women who've already had their children or do companies fear they'll have more?

frakkinstein - I was told no training for 3 years after returning from maternity leave as they couldn't be sure they'd get value from the investment. Highly dubious but apparently the assessment for training is on likelihood of staying with the company, not on gender/liklihood of having babies, so men they thought might leave could have been treated the same way!

Employers only get back the statutory element of maternity pay - so if your full pay is more than that, they have to make up the rest, so many employers will end up paying twice - once to make up the maternity leave salary and once for a temp replacement. So many employers will be affected by any compulsory increase in full pay for maternity leave unfortunately. However, as someone said, the fact the MEPs have voted for it doesn't mean we'll actually get it anytime soon!

Having a baby makes you more likely to leave?! Even if you successfully return to work?!

Would women with children joining the company be treated the same way? Or men?

"The gender pay gap for young women now is virtually non-existent, but once you have a child it widens considerably - which is partly about the choices women make but has a lot to do with employer's attitudes."

But that's my point, it's not a choice for women to take that gap in their career, it's certainly not a fair choice between the mother or father doing it anyway.

Many parents, myself included, have to sit down and work out what their plans are going to be.

If the father takes a gap then he'll get two weeks off and after that he'll be out of a job.

If the mother takes a gap then she'll get some form of pay for 9 months and then the ability to return to her job, with the rights to try to change her hours, after a year.

For many couples the "choice" is obvious, it's got to be the mother who takes that gap.

And this just reinforces the gender biased roles that childcare is woman's work and that the man should be the one working to support a family.

Do what the Scandinavian countries do have real gender equality allowing couples to decide how to work their time out and you'll see the benefits. Some mothers will continue to take the gap, and that will then be their genuine choice rather than their only financial option, while others will return to the workplace sooner while the father lets his career take a hit. And it's in those countries that the gender pay gap in the work place is the smallest.

Same out here in NZ, BadgersPaws, 14 weeks paid leave to be taken by the mother only, plus 2 weeks for the dad/partner only, followed by the remaining 38 weeks unpaid to be shared between the parents (although if the mum goes back to work early, the dad can take the full 50 weeks).

The financial side might not be as good but the shared care arrangements - and the fact that it is called parental leave, not maternity leave is a damn sight better for women's careers.

"Same out here in NZ"

And according to the BBC (www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11517459) New Zealand has the 5th lowest gender pay gap...

Frakkin, you're probably right that it depends on the job / industry, and I'll add that it probably depends on the level of experience too.

I work in finance, and I have never worked anywhere (in a relatively long career) where maternity cover, or even short term temps, were not recruited through an agency.

The reason for this is two-fold. Like lucky1979 said, time is money. So for a Finance Director, for example, to spend hours sifting through random CV's, interviewing etc, would cost a huge amount anyway, plus of course advertising costs. Then there is the risk - with an agency, you could request someone they have placed before, therefore they would know what feedback has been given by previous employers. It's too easy to just lie on a CV, or give your friend up as reference. Agencies do the vetting for you, reducing the risk, which would, again, have costed you money even if you skipped them if a candidate didn't work out.

As said by a couple of people on here already, shared care would be best from an equality point of view.

I would like 2 months compulsary for women, with the rest shared between the father and mother if they so choose.

I have commented on another thread about the difficulties for businesses in covering maternity leave, but on the debate about costs of recruiting a temp, how do the new rules really affect this?

Assuming that the Government continues to pick up most of the SMP bill, yes there is the increased 8% that employers still have to cover (for all but the smallest businesses). However, surely all the maternity cover/recruitment costs tie in to the fact that someone has taken maternity leave, not the pay that they are offered.

Most people seem to be able to muddle through and stretch their finances to around the 5-6 month mark anyway (disclaimer: I do appreciate that not everyone is this lucky). Is the aasumption that with more pay, women will stretch their leave further and so there will be greater percentage of women who take 6-12 months of their entitlement than currently?

"I would like 2 months compulsary for women"

Why compulsory? Some women would want to go back quicker than that and they should have that choice if they want it, and to me this is all about choice.

You would have to do something to make sure that companies weren't pressuring mothers into going back but I don't think making a 2 month period compulsory is the way to go.

We're all adults and we're meant to be adults in an equal world. Trust parents to make the choices that are right for them and stop the discrimination that heavily encourages women to take career gaps and men to keep working.

True BadgersPaws, you're right that we should all be free to make our own choices, so my compulsory (sorry for spelling mistake earlier!) idea probably not fair.

Hmm, so yes, I think ideally a mom should have at least the first 2 months or so with her baby - for her body to recover, bonding (but that needed by the dad too, so my argument not strong there), to assist in breastfeeding if mother so wishes, etc, but no, I don't know how you would ensure that without removing someone else's choice in the process.

"Hmm, so yes, I think ideally a mom should have at least the first 2 months or so with her baby"

I personally agree with that, but not every parent will, and not every parent's situation is the same.

Let the parent's decide what they want to do and they'll do what's right for them.

Perhaps just guarantee that a request for parental leave cannot be refused but that no parent is obliged to take it. That seems to cover the bases.