Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

I think it depends on the profession. Certainly in my profession, it woould be impossible to take 4-5 years off work. I think many women plan to go back, but find it impossible to enter the workforce at the same level and the same salary as before and are forced into jobs they are really over-qualified for. Just because your child starts school doesn't mean it gets any easier. In fact, it might be even more difficult as they have so many weeks holiday you need to find cover for and you need to earn a certain amount to pay for childminder/afterschool/holiday clubs. I know that if I had left work to be sahm I would probably not be able to go back into the job I am currently doing which gives me both flexibility and money for it all to work. I didn't study for years in order to work at the checkout in ASDA during school hours. Sadly I think this is where a lot of highly qualified and educated mothers end up in the end. I do wish it was easier to take a few years off without being written off for good. Hopefully this will change.

i also could not take a prolonged stay off on mat leave - untenable

Agree FairyMum. I wouldn't have wanted to take 4/5 years out of my career - I'm pretty certain I wouldnt be where I am at management level in the teaching profession if I had done. I think in reality, although women may believe they can have 4/5 yrs off and then simply slot back into the workplace at their previous level, it just doesnt work out like that. Also, a lot of women I've known who've taken a long time out of work, end up lacking in confidence in their own ability, and end up underemployed when they eventually work again. Either that or the 4/5 yrs suddenly extends into 9/10 and then suddenly you're not talking about a small proportion of one's working life. I've even known a couple of women who've told me that they have another baby after several years at home simply as a means of holding off getting back into the workplace!! I also agree with FairyMum that it doesnt necessarily become a lot easier when the children are in school. In many respects, the childcare issue becomes more tricky as you have to juggle before and after school care, holidays etc.

absolutely sprogger. Parenting is NOT a woman's task, and more than it is a man's task. Children have two parents for a reason, and as soon as parenting is seen as a joint responsibility, then choice will become a meaningful thing.

ANY more than a man's task, doh

Here's a link to an organisation called 'Time for Parenting' which is campaigning for more financial help for SAHMs and dads (among other things like flexible working etc) - www.timeforparenting.org

Opportunities in the work place will be equal when parternity pay is the same as maternity pay. And that means 6weeks @ 90% plus that pittance for the rest of the 6 months (or however long it is now). Men will take the leave when they get paid for it. And when they take the leave, women will have equal status in the work place. Let's face it, business wants employees who come to work.

So, women could take the first six weeks while they recover, and men could take the second six weeks. Or each take 8 or however many weeks you want.

I would like to know how it works in other European countries/Scandinavia, they are frequently mentioned as having got it right so what do they do? Why has our govt. not got it right? I as another one would not be able to take extended time off work if we say 2 yrs maternity leave is what is needed then we will have fewer female dr, pilots whatever (or they wont have dcs).
I like this thread and the way it goes round and round then downa completely different path

Fairymum - from memory, I'm sure we'd be better off if we earned the same money with us both working 16 hours a week rather than just me working 37 hours a week. And that is crazy and very unfair IMHO.

PLEASE EVERYONE READ THIS:

Me working 16 hours a week
DH working 16 hours a week
Combined total = my current salary

Tax credit entitlement to April 2008 - £237.70

Me working 37 hours at my current salary

Tax credit entitlement to April 2008 - £129.63

Will someone please explain to me why that is right and fair? There is no reason why the first option should cost us any more than the second - neither requires childcare.

'tis also very unfair that if you are a couple where one works and earns 59k (I've forgotten the cut off for CTC for the sake of this discussion can we please assume it's 60k makes the maths easy!)and you have no cchildcare costs you get CTC if you have a baby. Yet if you both work, both earn 30k and have childcare costs (of whatever size but we all know they are huge) and have a baby you get nothing. It's pretty clear who needs the tax credit IMHO. (I am happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong)

The other interesting thing is that on average first time mothers are getting older (see the 40 thread on the home page) so more Mothers will be at a place in their career from which it will be harder to take leave get back to the same position if they leave their job etc etc

The system's crap isn't it?

Apparently Norway gives 54 weeks paid leave, of which the father must take 6 weeks. Both parents have the right to one years unpaid leave as well.

Sweden has 480 days paid leave of which the father must take a minimum of 60 days. So they share the leave as well. They are also entitled to work reduced hours until the child is 8 yo.

However, apparently the men don't take advantage of this paternity leave which is a shame but it just reaffirms the point I made earlier about why would men consider giving up work to care for their children when women who do that are not respected or valued by society?

To those of you who say that you couldn't have taken 2 years off, that is not really the point. The opportunity to take 2 years maternity/paternity leave allows parents as a whole to have more choices about whether they stay at home or not which is what it is all about. The fact that some of you wouldn't want to do that is neither here nor there - it shouldn't mean that just because you don't want to do it others can't do it either.

I agree with Sprogger that if there is equal maternity/paternity rights for both parents then women are less likely to be seen as the weak link in the work place and always about to disappear to have babies.

yes Twinkle

Niecie it is the point if the men don't take the leave to which they are entitled then the women wont as well.
As a side thought do you propose the 2 years is all paid? at what rate?
Bohemianbint I hope you don't think I was being rude to you earlier? I did say it wasn't rocket science. (that refers to somethuing about 6 pages back )

They don't do 2 years paid anywhere else as far as I am aware so no precedent for it. A year paid and a year unpaid doesn't seem unreasonable though. It is more about protecting jobs and employment rights so that women don't have to start at the bottom of the pile again when they go back to work.

A friend of mine worked for the Civil Service as an accountant and took a 5 year career break. The condition of this was that she did 2 weeks work a year to keep up to date and keep her hand in, so to speak.

Wouldn't a similar scheme applied to those on maternity leave ease some of the concerns that some people have about getting out of date? Mothers could do it whilst the fathers did their share of the child care!

1/2 and 1/2 seems reasonable!
Civil service T&C are horrendously expensive for the poor taxpayer though. Untenable for everyoen apart from those who decide their own T&C I would have thought a la MPs payrise just please remind me why theirs needs to be linked to RPI plus a lump sum and noone elses does?

No idea about the MP's payrises. Doesn't seem fair. does it? For all its faults (and there are many) this is one situation where the House of Lords is needed - to stop the Commons from awarding themselves unreasonable payrises. Nobody else gets to do that, as you say, so why should they, especially when they are using our money!

(Now this really is going off at a tangent and miles away from the OP)

Starlight, the 6 weeks at 90% is the key. Paternity leave for some £100 per week is a joke. Paternity leave needs to be exactly the same as the maternity offering.

eleusis - no, paternity leave should not be identical in length to maternity leave (unless you really, truly believe that men take as long to recover from the physical effects of pregnancy and childbirth as women ).