Cut maternity leave and give new paid leave to dads -- what do you guyst think?

[Page62]

link here

i would really welcome this

It is quite a ridiculous situation though in general, from the point of view that if you are on benefits (paid for entirely by the government) and have another baby you are better off but if you are working you are significantly worse off. Why should people who work not get extra help from the government too? In terms of mortgage size, this is likely to be proportionate to the amount of tax that they normally pay.

I am not wanting to get into a moral debate about benefits btw, just pointing out that it seems rather unfair.

In terms of the recession giving families more money would be inflationary economic policy (assuming that they money came from the government, not employers).

AbetaDad - I would have hated to be forced to stop work 1 month before my due date. In jobs where it is unsafe, fair enough - sometimes the mother chooses to stop or the company has to provide alternative safe duties.
As I could not afford much leave I would much prefer all the leave to be after the baby is born.
I do feel strongly there needs to be a decent provision (not minimum wage) for at least 6 months to establish breastfeeding.
After this, lower rate leave could be offered to be taken up by either parent.

Jackstini - Very much agree.

That is why I said that the mandatory month of leave before and after the birth should be on full pay and only then after that should the Maternity Pay drop to the mimimum wage level. All covered by Govt.

Paying maternity pay at the full time minimum wage rate after the first month is fair in my view and paying at a higher level than that is difficult to justify to tax payers when so many people are on minimum wage anyway. I think the solution has to be fair but also politically possible.

I hate to see women struggling to work in the last month of pregnancy and coming back a few days later. It is sick in my view that society puts that pressure on women.

Employment rights should of course be absolutely fully protected as well - which they are not [that's the other elephant in the room].

As I read the report, they are not planning to cut maternity leave - actually to extend it.

6 months mother only plus
4 months mother
4 months father
4 months either parent.

This wouldn't have a massive impact on b/f would it? If it is working and you're happy you take an extra 4 months (and then another 4 if you really want to) you then go back to work leaving your 14 mo with your DH.

Completely agree with Page 62. I think it would be a genuinely brilliant idea.

"Paying maternity pay at the full time minimum wage rate after the first month is fair in my view and paying at a higher level than that is difficult to justify to tax payers when so many people are on minimum wage anyway"

But the people who are on maternity/paternity leave are tax payers by definition!

Those who earn more pay a hell of a lot more tax too (and will again in the future).

brettgirl2 - I agree again but....

... its what is politically feasible that matters. I do not think society would accept that higher paid women should get paid more maternity pay than lower paid women. It would be seen as unfair.

But higher paid women also get a lot less benefits when they are working (and paying lots of tax).

For example, I have to pay the full cost of child care (apart from the contribution of voucher scheme), whereas others have up to 80% paid for. I get no tax credits.

It basically means that there is absolutely no way I can afford to have another baby until my first is at school. It seems to me that we have a system which actively dissuades those on 'higher' (and not necessarily stinking rich - I wish!) incomes from having children.

Most maternity is topped up by employers isn't it? There is no way I could have gone down to minimum benefits levels (I don't know if SMP is more or less than those though), so I would have returned to work after a month, which given that I had c-sections would probably have been a very bad idea (and problematic for those who don't drive). Oh and as both my children were almost a fortnight early would I have had six weeks after birth, or lost a fortnight I wonder? I would also have moved to formula after that first month to try and share the available sleep!

"Most maternity is topped up by employers isn't it?"

Er, no. Most employers comply with statutory requirements and that's it.

Paternity leave doesn't work for the self employed - there is simply no mechanism to claim for it, and in any case if my DH walked off and left his business for 2 weeks, it would take months to recover financially. I don't see what benefit that would be of to our child(ren).

I guess it depends on whether benefits are important when you choose your like of work. It was certainly one of the reasons that the NHS appealed to me (and very scary it was to leave for pastures new). I wouldn't expect employment benefits if I decided to be self employed, but I would expect flexibility and a different sort of job satisfaction.

Most mothers I know have got a fairly good deal from their employers - I don't know anyone who only got SMP. Not saying that this is widespread though, why is why I was asking. Just contesting ABetaDads scheme really.

So just because my husband decides to be self employed because it suits him, he should forgo the legal rights to paternity leave that other people get?

Do you really think that? So, you chose the NHS for your own personal reasons, which legal rights are you prepared to surrender? The right to paid holiday? The right to vote?

What a strange argument.

You may not know anyone who just got SMP, but then if you worked in the NHS I'm not surprised. The public sector always has generous maternity leave. In the private sector, particularly at lower pay end, there is nothing else but SMP.

No, I'm just saying that different career choices have different benefits/issues. So if you work as a contractor for example you shouldn't complain about not getting holiday leave, because your rate of pay reflects that, and if it what you chose to do then it's part and parcel of that way of working. Many people decide to work for the public sector because they decide benefits are more important that pay (probably less the case now, but definitely when I was looking at careers). There were plenty of things I decided against for work/life balance issues, and self employment to me has always seemed to risky a choice (although I have friends who tried to persuade me, and there clearly are some great aspects to it). Isn't that sort of weighing up of options a fairly normal thing to do?

I agree at the lower paid end of pretty much everything it's fairly crap (I was always amazed at some of the pay rates at the most unskilled end of the NHS - they can only have been for those with other sources of income, because there is no way they could have been a living wage).

So you do think my husband shouldn't get statutory paternity pay just because he's self employed.

Fine, you're entitled to your view. I think it is a completely unfair and indefensible situation myself, and nothing you have said has demonstrated to me why it is fair.

There are plenty of careers that are "risky" in terms of salary/job security/benefits but the deciding factor seems to be that as long as you are on a payroll and paying PAYE you get SMP or paternity leave. If you aren't, you don't. That isn't fair.

But if you are self employed your hours are our own choice surely, and you don't get "paid" at all. I can see that it might feel crap, I just can't see how it could be different I guess. You wouldn't get paid holiday or sick leave either would you?

It's saddening that so many women here want to limit the choices of other women. These proposals just give people more options. If you are against other families making their own choices about how to look after their children then you need to have a good look at yourself.

But there could be an enhanced NI package for self employed people that they are able to opt into surely? This could give extra options. It could be worked out based on your declared income (and therefore the contribution that you make).

And lots of people just get the statutory. I only get SMP on maternity leave (and don't have a low paid job).

Although there would certainly need to be a qualifying period of at least a year because it would need to be tied into the tax return system.

The other option of course is to set up an ltd and pay yourself a salary - then you are entitled to the same statutory benefits as anyone else.

nooka/georgimama - SMP is much more generous in the public sector as is the protection of employment rights more generally. The private sector is very mean and most firms pay the minimum SMP allowed under the law.

The scheme I suggested was really aimed at the private sector because it is the private sector that objects most strongly to having to pay SMP, provide basic maternity rights, or any kind of flexible working for parents at all.

Indeed there was a news item last night on TV saying that the private sector is even now lobbying to undermine the proposed increase in flexible working provision.

In my view, the public sector and private sector employee as well as the self employed should all get the same maternity payements from Govt. I just do not think it financially or politically feasible for Govt to pay full pay for 6 - 12 months to every mother and add a large chunk of fully time paid leave for men as well - even though in an ideal world that would be desirable.

I suppose the bottom line is that people have to work out whether they can afford to have children - it is a financial sacrifice that comes with personal rewards. However, under the system I describe then a very large number of low paid women would be able to have at least one child without any impact on their income at all and fathers would be more involved from the start. That seems like a step towards fairness in an imperfect world.

"SMP is much more generous in the public sector as is the protection of employment rights more generally."

No, that's not SMP. SMP is the same for all qualifying women. Some employers have more generous discretionary schemes, and the NHS/public sector is one of them.

"I just do not think it financially or politically feasible for Govt to pay full pay for 6 - 12 months to every mother and add a large chunk of fully time paid leave for men as well - even though in an ideal world that would be desirable."

Totally agree. Can't be done.

"a very large number of low paid women would be able to have at least one child without any impact on their income at all"

Actually the very low paid, thanks to child tax credits, working tax credits etc are no worse off by having children. As usual, it's those in the middle, earning too much to qualify for credits but by no means well off who suffer.

The government wastes a hell of a lot of our money though. I'm sure that G20 summit cost more than the combined income tax of all that contribute to mumsnet.

georgimama - yes. Sorry getting my SMP and DMP mixed up in haste.

Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is standard for everyone as you say. Discretionary Maternity pay (DMP) is down the employer that I think is unfair in the private sector.

In all my time and my wife's time working in the City we never once saw any bank or professional services firm ever pay more than the bare minimum SMP. I doubt it is different now.

What was disgusting about that was that most of the women were at the bototm end of the pay scale in these firms and it would have cost a few £100k per year to increase DMP to a sensible level for say 6 months for women in these firms and yet these firms routinely paid millions of pounds each year in sponsorship and corporate entertainment (jollies) without batting an eyelid. Shows where their priority lay.

On the working tax credits issue I would like to see payment of full time minimum wage on top of working tax credits and the other benfits you mention to all women on maternity leave. There will of course be women above that level of pay who do have to take a pay cut to have children. Not sure what we can practically do about that.

That would be lovely, and whilst it would represent a significant cut in income for a lot of women it's still probably double what they get now. But it isn't going to happen is it. These are pipe dreams.

Those bankers and the government are both the same - more interested in big headlines and splashy PR than the nitty gritty that would actually make a difference. The G20 nations have just pledged 1.1 trillion to the IMF. Where exactly is that going to come from? I don't even know how many noughts a trillion has but I know it's a lot.

Well, it could at least be in partial relationship to what has been paid in?

And the government could stop wasting so much money?

The minimum wage thing is your idea, and I suppose possible but there are many other options and possibilities!

Sounds a good idea Brettgirl. I don't think anyone should be penalized for having babies, after all as a society we need them. I do however think we should all take responsibility for the choices we make, so long as we are in a position to make choices that is.