Maternity leave/pay proposals from think-tank Reform: what do you think?

[GeraldineMumsnet]

Earlier this week we got invited along to the launch of a report by Reform about maternity/paternity pay and leave.

The gist of its proposals are:

• Change current maternity pay to parental pay

• Abolish salary-related element of maternity pay and pay it at a flat rate (£5,000) for all parents

• Stop making the pay dependent on amount of time taken off work

You can read the full report here.

The report's authors are keen to get a debate going and will be following this thread to hear your reactions, comments and ideas.

Thanks,
MNHQ

I havent read the whole artcle as I just popped on but... I think the idea of parental leave is a good one, as it promotes choice like someone has already said.

However, I think the damage that is considered to be done to most mother's careers is more impacted from a lack of reasonable and affordable childcare after the maternity/parental leave has ended. At one end you have people who earn so little it is not enough to cover the costs (even with vouchers) and at the other people who earn too much and so have to work full time in order to pay their childrens nursery fees and pay the mortgage.

The whole attitudes towards child rearing and family life in business need to be addressed in this country. I dont know what the answer is, and although some of the points here might be in the right direction it is not enough to make a big change imo.

I have read the full report gradually getting more and more

This Reform is suggesting an optimum Parental Leave of 6 months, paid at a flat rate of £5000. "Reform has set this leave period at six months as this exceeds the United Nations ILO convention 183
recommendation of a minimum maternity leave of 14 paid weeks. This is to help protect women?s health during pregnancy, allow for physical recovery following childbirth and support mothers? breastfeeding."

They make a big deal about how higher paid employees get more money- well duh! People used to more money have higher bills... On this flat rate I'd have been back at work when DD was 4 months old

But this bit is the aspect I find most worrying "Employers would still need to provide cover when a staff member was
away. However, this leave could be arranged in a more flexible way. This would make it easier for parents to keep in touch with the workplace by doing an occasional shift or attending meetings."

What childcare provider can cover odd days at short notice while you pop in for the odd shift? DH is in retail and they regularly call on his night off to say someone's sick or they've had a crisis. They are looking at this from the employers and employment side and seem to have overlooked the main point of the exercise which is a small baby.

I've only skim read this. However:

Leave

The idea of two six month blocks of leave is clearly more workable than the Government's strange recent idea of sharing a one year entitlement (which would be a logistical nightmare of liaison between unconnected employers and was unworkable for dozens of other reasons). However:

1. This leave would penalise single parents, whose child would only have the option of six months of direct parental care, not 12;

1. Connected to this, it is unclear how this would work with non-nuclear families. Would a non-resident parent have the six month right (presumably); what would happen if there was a non-resident biological parent and a resident step parent?; what about situations where a parent is deceased and there is a step-parent?

1. A leave as short as six months does not support breastfeeding to six months. A mother who had health issues due to pregnancy and had to start leave fairly early could be forced back to work after, say, four and a half months of her child's life. Now add in the possibility that this child belongs to a single parent...

1. I don't see how giving extra holiday instead of paternity leave really reduces red tape. All the same proof of entitlement would be needed, and presumably there would need to be legal safeguards to ensure that this holiday could be taken immediately after a child's birth.

Pay

1. I have always found the Government's focus on ever extending periods of SMP slightly odd. For many women, surviving on SMP is a struggle, particularly given that, after the first six weeks, it is less than minimum wage (for a full timer). I therefore welcome the principle of a decent amount of pay, even if it needed to be for a shorter period.

1. The slant towards benefits for high earners comes from the six week period at 90% of full pay. This could be removed in many ways less drastic than the proposed grant. For example, employers could be forced to fund this portion, and with a similar lenth of paid leave for a father. Or there could be a flat rate throughout.

1. I think that less well off families may actually be forced back to work if pay is not linked to time off. Think of the number of families for whom a £5,000 'windfall' could resolve problems with mortgages, debts, etc. If that payment was not linked to remaining off work, some families could actually be forced back to work very quickly indeed to get the 'double whammy' of salary and leave. I think that de-coupling the two is a very bad idea indeed.

1. It may be hard for employers to operate their own enhanced pay schemes alongside this set up. Commonly employers make up SMP to a set percentage of salary (e.g. pay 100% of salary for six weeks, then 50% until six months). If the decoupling of pay and leave occurs, it may actually encourage shorter periods of enhanced pay.

That's it for now. May be back with more. Overall, I think that this could hurt just the people who need help the most : the single parents with low salaries and high debts!

Oh, and they've overlooked the fact that European law requires benefits to be maintained throughout maternity leave. Since benefits (car allowance, childcare vouchers, etc) are one of the main ways that high earners get better pay than, for example, a shop worker on an hourly wage, this proposal would not address that inequality.

Their other "problem" they want to tackle is that so many women work PT. If they would only read MN they'd see that this is through choice in a large number of cases. Similarly a lot of lower paid families are better off working PT and getting TC than working FT and getting nothing.

My main beef with this is that there's no recognition of women as breadwinners. If the government want us to breastfeed (it'll save the NHS a whack in years to come), and if they want us to keep buying houses, then they'll need to do better than this.

Having said that, on SMP and with careful use of annual leave and savings I was back to work when DS was 5.5 months. With the new proposals I'd have had similar time off and would have been a couple of hundred pounds better off each month. I really needed 9 months but couldn't afford it. Those first few months back were brutal, and we all suffered badly.

The concept of parental leave is excellent though - there should be choice. But that shouldn't come at the cost of mothers having the time they need to feed and care for a newborn.

flat rate of 5k for everyone? that is ridiculous!!!!

I haven't read the whole proposal but trust the reports on here

A £5000 flat rate? Well, most of us will be going back to work at 4 months at that rate. I think it is a ridiculous idea. One of the reasons that I stay with my employer is the excellent benefits I get (6 months on full pay), although I am not on a huge income.

It seems very bizarre to say 'well some women don't get as much maternity leave as others so we are going to reduce your maternity pay to match those less well off.' You might as well say, 'well other people don't get paid as much as you so we are cutting your wages by half to match people who work at Asda'. I don't know, it might be fair, let me just check my Communist Manifesto...

And 6 months an optimum time for maternity leave? Rubbish, how can you exclusively breast for 6 months when you are only going to have 5 months after the baby is born?

Yes, a long time off work does make it harder to go back, which is why employers need to see maternity leave as a valid life choice and make allowances for the difficulties it entails. I found going back to work so tough that I have now instigated a Maternity Buddy System whereby pregnant mothers are paired up with woman who have been on maternity leave to offer them support and a listening ear before the go off, while they are off and when they return to work. This is being done in my own time, and is nothing to do with my day job I just think it is a necessity.

sorry, a bit of an outburst up there.

yes i can see there is a perceived disparity regarding maternity pay but it seems grossly unfair to 50k mothers who have paid proportionately more tax and will never qualify for tax credits.

Equally just because they have gone on materntiy leave doent mean there mortgages, bills, whatever have reduced.

i worked my bloody arse off in the run up to my maternity leave, but in masses of overtime to ensure everything was shipshape (admittedly my own choice) - i deserved every bit of my maternity pay and more.

Current system disadvantages the lowest earners: agree

Flat rate of maternity pay: agree and think 5k is probably a fair figure

Stop making pay dependent on length of time off - I sympathise in part but ultimately disagree. It is not fair that women who are in a position to take more time off get more money - but it seems to me that their proposed system runs the risk of forcing highly paid mothers back into work as little as 2 weeks after the birth, and of giving employers the idea that maternity leave is about a lump sum, not about time spent with the child.

Optimum length of time off work for mothers 6 months: disagree ^profoundly*.
Optimum for employers and in purely economic and career terms, possibly. But it takes no account of current health recommendation re exclusive bfing for 6 months and bfing for a year - impossible to do on 6 months mat leave. It also take no account of prohibitive financial cost of putting a child under 1 in child care. Most jobs do not pay enough to justify this. IMO low earners would actually be more likely to return to work if their jobs could be kept open for 2 years, as childcare costs drop signifcantly at that point and many low-earners would find it profitable to work at that point, if they had a guaranteed job. Finally it doesn't take into account the extremely painful emotional separation of putting a very tiny child into childcare.

Fathers should be more involved and take more paternity leave: agree - but I am not convinced that their proposals would ensure this. Nordic countries have mostly only overcome employer/paternal resistance by making a part of parental pay contingent on the father HAVING to take some paternity leave. I don't think that merely giving the father access to the pay would increase uptake. I think if they are serious about increasing paternal involvement there needs to be a pot of money only available for paternity leave and/or a compulsory period of paternity leave.

Productivity not presenteeism - broadly agree with the whole section, particularly regarding childcare and lip-service to flexible working.

No longer tying pay to time off work - as I said above - sympathise but ultimately disagree. I think that:

1. If the pay is not tied to time off work then there shoudl be a MUCH longer period of compulsory maternity leave, equivalent or long than the current 90% of salary period (6 weeks). Otherwise you might find a situation where women, particularly ones in very high paying jobs, were financially forced to go back to work 14 days after the birth of their child which would be completely wrong. Also the impression given to employers would be that women, having had the lump sum, had effectively "had" their maternity leave rights and could now be pressurised back to work.
2. Time available to the mother should remain at 1 year, to enable mothers to exclusively bf for 6 months and bf for one year in line with government recommendations. This is virtually impossible for most women under their proposals of 6 months. There should be a compulsory period of maternity leave of at least 6 weeks. Time available to father should be up to 6 months with a compulsory period of (say) 6 weeks.

Apart from anything else, the system they propose (of 6 months to mother and 6 months to father) effectively penalises single parent families unduly, as two parent families will be able to spend 6 months longer with their child.

I've now read the full thread and just to disagree with a couple of the point on here - a few people seem to have assumed they are planning to take away the discretion of the employer to offer benefits eg

Bumperlicious: "I think it is a ridiculous idea. One of the reasons that I stay with my employer is the excellent benefits I get (6 months on full pay), although I am not on a huge income."

They have specifically said in the report that employers would be free to offer more than the statutory amount (at the moment 6 weeks at 90% + SMP) so those benefits would be unlikely to be affected.

can someone please explain to me how a 5k flat rate is fair?

'While professionals and managers get gold plated maternity benefits and can afford time off, those in casual and low skilled jobs receive the least pay and take the least maternity leave'

I'm not sure it's the job that you do that determines that but your earnings with respect to the family and the sort of organisation you work for.

In our antenatal group, 2 people worked for public sector organisations. THey both got a whole year off (with 6 months of it being paid at a high rate, a % of their salary) and then had the option to take a 5 year career break and still come back to a job.

1 person worked for a multinational company and got 4 months off on 90% pay.

1 person (the most senior) worked for a small company and got the statutory minimum.

2 people had part time jobs but weren't the main wage earners so also took off a year.

What that analysis (in the report) does not reflect is that it often depends how much your income is needed as to how long you can take off. Dh and I have either always earned the same or me slightly more which has meant I had to go back to work as soon as I could (or as soon as my 90% pay had dropped) so went back pretty quickly.

Had it been paid at £5k (is that for the 6 weeks at 90%?) then it wouldn't have made a difference to me as I'd still have needed to go back pretty quickly.

I also think if the £5k was paid no matter how long you took off (so 3 weeks or the 6 months they are suggesting), then this will be an incentive to most people to take as little time off as possible, get the £5k, then go back to work and start earning again (especially lower earners I would have thought).

'They have specifically said in the report that employers would be free to offer more than the statutory amount (at the moment 6 weeks at 90% + SMP) so those benefits would be unlikely to be affected.'

Theyoungvisitor, if this is the case then there is no difference to the current situation other than they are upping the SMP and not making it contingent on how long you are off for. Or is this relating to the 6 weeks at 90% of wages? Is that a statutory requirement? Maybe I'm not understanding it properly.

Anyway, I agree with Foxy about it not necessarily being about being a high paid professional. I was talking to a couple of (childless) city financial workers this weekend and they were bemoaning their lack of maternity benefits and I was bemoaning my lack of income, but in the end, in this matter I am better off.

I think there needs to be a serious attitude change more than anything. There needs to be a society wide realisation of the value of parental leave and maternity leave. I had one guy at work having a go at me about his taxes paying my leave, and childless colleagues whinging that they should be allowed 6 months off on full pay. There needs to be studies into the consequences (societal and financial) of mothers going back to work too early, not to use it as another stick to beat mothers with, but to enable a systematic change of how we as a society view mothers and maternity leave. (I guess I am including fathers in here too, but I kind of think that paternity leave sort of comes into it's own later on, when bfing has stopped and the mother is recovered from the shock (physical and mental) of being pregnant, giving birth and looking after a newborn.)

Theyoungvisitor - you say: "Optimum for employers and in purely economic and career terms, possibly. But it takes no account of current health recommendation re exclusive bfing for 6 months and bfing for a year - impossible to do on 6 months mat leave."

I took six months maternity leave, and DS has always been fully breastfed. I'm back part-time (3 days a week) but honestly don't think it would be any different if I was full time - it's just the extra childcare was exactly the same as the extra money I'd have earned, so I'd have been working for free. I express milk at work and the nursery give it him.

Now I understand that not all jobs would work with expressing, and not all women can express enough. But you're wrong to say it's impossible as it's clearly not!

I agree with everyone who says that the mother needs to be afforded the most time off work as possible in order for her to breastfeed. The current leave allowances should not be rationed between parents as a way of pretending we are giving men and women a better deal. Everyone benefits when a baby is breastfed. Mother, father, child, the workplace of both parents, the NHS, taxpayers....

This think tank is thinking about really long term solutions, not just about quick fixes I hope.

A baby who is breastfed exclusively till 6 months as mine did only starts taking a very small quantity of food by 8 months, definitely not enough to allow long breaks away from milk. 9 months off for the mother is just barely enough to get a baby over its most dependent phase of life - that is by adding on a month before due date. My daughter is now 9 months old and has been in full time nursery care with me going there to feed her in my lunchtime since she was 7.5 months old. Ideally, It would have been better if we could have afforded me to take a year off work. But we couldn't.

'I know we want people to work but it's one or two years out of fifty; I think we can more creative, flexible and generous than these proposals.'

Hear hear Lenigrad!

Again, I agree that women who want to stay off should have that choice. But I think it's incredibly sexist to have it enshrined in law that it has to be women.

As I said, I've been able to express milk fine so I could go back to work at six months, and I could have done that earlier as well (when DS was first born, all his milk was expressed as he wouldn't latch). So why is my freedom of choice taken away? I know women that couldn't breastfeed, and there are plenty of women that don't want to for their own reasons, so why are these women forced by law to be the partner that takes time off 'because it supports breastfeeding' when they don't?!

There are a million reasons why women don't breastfeed, mostly to do with education and support. These things need investment and work and I really support that. I don't think the few couples that would choose to have the father take time off would even begin to impact on that.

Rhian, I did that with dd1. I went back to work (full time) when she was 4.5 months old. She took a bottle, I expressed, etc. The workload plus child care made me feel like I had hit a brick wall. I don't have pleasant memories of my daughter's first year of life. I felt like an automaton the whole year. surely it was aggravated by her traumatic birth and my PSTD and lack of any family at all to help out but then I don't think my situation is at all unique.

No one deserves to feel that way in the first year of a child's life as it surely can damage the bonding between mother and child. The bonding (secure attachment vs insecure attachement) between mother and child later later reverberates in the way children treat their peers and other authority figures once they get to school age and beyond. These for me are further reasons why maternity leave should not be rationed between parents. The bond of a mother and baby takes precedence of any other bonding in the first year of life. Sorry fathers.