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.

Twinkle, I'm just challenging Anna's point that the first 4 months ore for the sole purpose of mum's physical recovery. I think there is more to maternity leave than just physically recovering from the birth.

And, of course, it also depends what you do for work. I sit at a desk. And that is much easier to do post birth than run after a two year old with a new born in tow as well. If I was say a heart surgeon I'd have to stand up a lot more and then perhap... oh wait I'm not man therefore I'm not a heart surgeon.

Well yes there is more to it - I agree with you. Including breastfeeding for one thing, which should certainly be enabled by maternity leave provision, even though as you say not everyone chooses to. It took me many many weeks (months) to recover from a very difficult natural birth, both physically and emotionally. If I'd been forced back into work earlier than I was I don't think I'd be recovered yet tbh.

Eleusis - I very carefully said that the four months were both for resting at the end of pregnancy and for recovery afterwards.

Here in France I can assure you that the ten weeks post birth are absolutely chock full of (obligatory) medical appointments for the mother to get her back in shape. It is all about the mother and nothing to do with bonding.

Starlight - indeed, breastfeeding is very time consuming - hence the availability of extended maternity leave in the UK, where the government openly promotes breastfeeding.

The French government doesn't promote breastfeeding nearly as much (despite official recommendations that follow WHO guidelines, like the UK) because it is politically/conceptually impossible to require women to return to work ten weeks and(or fourteen weeks, if they are lucky enough to get extended breastfeeding leave) after the birth and to promote exclusive breastfeeding for six months.

The trouble is that Government's maternity leave provisions and breastfeeding aren't that compatible. Am I right that ML is 9 months now (or is it a year). But is it still that you get 90% of your pay for 6 weeks and then you're on £100 a week?

When I was on ML it was 6 months. I was lucky that I got half pay for 12 weeks before going down to £100 a week. There is no way I could have afforded to stay off for more than 6 months on £100 a week even if the provision had been there. As I had to finish work 6 weeks before the birth due to health problems I only actually got 4.5 months at home post-birth. Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for 6 months and we can't all express very effectively.

Twinklemegan - the deal in the UK is that mothers' expenses are met for childbirth and recovery - ante-natal care, childbirth and post-natal care are free on the NHS and you get six weeks' full pay for physical recovery (obviously we can debate whether we think that is enough).

Mothers' expenses for breastfeeding receive a contribution from the public purse of £100 per week (I think, but am not sure - someone please correct me) for the remaining period up to six months, and no pay (I think) thereafter up to a year. At the end of the breastfeeding period a mother is entitled go back to her old job.

That's not such a bad deal, really, is it?

In France you can get one extra month's breastfeeding leave, providing you can prove that you are breastfeeding and that your paedatrician is prepared to back you up (not a given, by any means). You can also take a "congé parental d'éducation" thereafter, up to your child's third birthday (when he/she should be at school all day). The congé parental d'éducation gives some financial benefits to mothers (not much, but not nothing) and protects her job.

Ah Anna, what you say about the French way coincides with my limited understanding of the priorities of maternity services in France: not overly keen on breastfeeding, and almost militant on insisting that mothers get back into shape after birth - the second priority being largely overlooked in UK beyond pelvic floor exercises.

It makes sense then why mothers are given 4 months of maternity leave at almost full pay in France, rather than 6 weeks in UK. 6 weeks in UK to recover from physical effects of birth (sufficient for most women) and 4 months in France because a longer period is necessary to also get back in shape!

blueshoes - absolutely. No self-respecting woman in France could possibly return to work after maternity leave with a single kilo above her pre-pregnancy weight. And as for leaky breasts.... a complete no-no.

anna,

Starlight - I know what you mean, it seems immoral, doesn't it? We were brought up to think that we had to give before we received.

But you know what? It is, as you say, your legal entitlement. Do not deny yourself (or let yourself feel guilty about) that to which you are legally entitled - just be thankful that, sometimes, the ways of the world are on your side.

I was pg again before I even returned from ML!

Purely from the point of veiw of the employer, what you're doing has the potential to make things very difficult financially for a lot of small businesses. In fact (anecdotally) a lot of small to medium businesses won't employ women they think may take maternity leave for this reason. Personally I think what you're doing is really taking the piss out of the system, whether it is your right to do so or not, but then my partner works for a medium sized business that couldn't afford what you're proposing. I hope you work for a big corporation Starlight.

Starlight - my recommendation is that if ever, anyone, hints that you are being immoral/profiteering etc and tries to make you feel guilty, you explain to them that, yes, you think you are very lucky that you happened, by great fortune, to be childbearing at a time and place in history where women were getting good deal relative to their employer. But you are not immoral for enjoying it - just thankful.

Callisto - don't go there, please - see my post to Starlight on whether or not to feel guilty.

In my ideal world, this is how maternity/paternity leave should be structured (hehe) economic-wise:

(1) full or close to full pay - period to allow mother to recover from effects of childbirth and erm if you are in France, get back in shape. Mother only, but on the basis some women need a shorter time than others, transferable to the father.

(2) less pay - period when baby is still little and getting used to being out of the womb, not properly weaned, mother is bf-ing (if she chooses). Transferable between mother and father.

(3) nominal or no pay but with job protection - where one parents wishes to stay at home during pre-school years. Transferable between mother and father.

It then depends on the priorities of the government of the day how long each period is and the amount of pay linked to each.

At no point is anyone, mother or father, forced to take maternity/paternity leave, whether (1), (2) or (3) beyond say 2 weeks for the mother for health and safety reasons (I believe current UK position).

But if either one decides to do so, the Canadian parental leave position as described by sprogger sounds best ie it can be used entirely by one parent, or consumed by both parents in series or in parallel. The amount of pay depends on who is taking the leave, and which period that parental leave relates/is assigned to.

Whether or not the father is likely to take the leave in reality is a red herring. Like Niecie, I don't agree with the premise that just because men are not likely to take advantage of paternal leave (because they earn more and are less erm maternal) that we should not offer it. The conclusion of the article is fundamentally flawed.

Cushioncover sums it up neatly: "Only when employers know that taking on a man is 'equally as risky' as taking on a woman will woman be on a more even footing" in the workplace. I am also with Eleusis that you start by offering and it is when drip-by-drip men see other men taking advantage of it that it slowly becomes normalised in the workplace for men to stay to care for their children as well. It is nowadays pretty normal for men to take the full 2 week entitlement of paternity leave - that is a recent thing and was not the case before. We are making progress in little steps, as it must be, as business concerns need to be taken into account.

If you're definitely not returning to work after ML (you said you were going to resign), is there an option to "resign for maternity reasons"? I did this after my first pregnancy, because I was actually moving to a new area and would definitely not be returning. That way the school could appoint a replacement without having to wait for the 12 months, which made life much easier for them.

Of course, it only works if you're absolutely certain you're not going back,and the person I spoke to at the LEA actually tried to dissuade me from doing it.

I don't believe that there will ever be a time when employers face a reality of paternity being equally risky to maternity in terms of leave taken. Men are never going to penalise themselves unnecessarily in their careers and will never take as much paternity leave as women take maternity leave (unless they want to use it to do career-enhancing courses etc).

Or has that changed with the new entitlement?

Anna, I shall just add that when DP's company was in dire straights some months ago if an employee had done what Starlight is going to do it would have without doubt bankcrupted the business. Thank goodness it has since become more profitable. I'll leave you all to it now.

Callisto - OK. But it is not Starlight "taking the piss out of the system" - she is only doing what the system allows her to do. The system is wrong, not she.

Starlight - it's a big corporation that can afford to employ cover etc while keeping your position open so go for it. If it was a small business I would say resign before you take a year of maternity leave. Especially if it is just for your CV.