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

The emphasis on getting women back to work asap is what's comprehensively undermining family life in this country.

Of COURSE women should be able to go back to work if that's what's right for them/their families, but these proposals don't and won't help. It's tinkering with what already exists (negatively, as far as I can see), it doesn't take into account WHO guidelines on bf (and direct bf is better for babies than expressing) and it doesn't do anything at all about childcare costs.

What's actually needed is a fullscale rethink, from the pov of what's good for society in the longterm, what's good for children's development and wellbeing, not what this Government seems to think is best for the economy in the shortterm (ie getting mothers back to work asap and more children into nursery, from an ever-younger age).

Agree with hunker - what is the point of maternity/paternity pay?

Is is support to every new parent?

Is it enabling parents to continue their lives pre-baby for a certain period of time whilst not in paid work so that they benefit from the recovery and adjusting time needed?

Is it to enable a parent to afford a certain period of time off of work without compromising their lifestyle so that their baby benefits from factors such as breastmilk, continuity of primary carer and love of a parent?

--Child benefit is there as a small contribution for all new parents (and also the new health £190 grant)
--lower income parents also recieve the Surestart £500
--tax credits and income support etc already are there to support those on the lowest of incomes. - including childcare support.
--It is those on family salaries of around £30,000 ish and more who do not qualify for tax credits or paid childcare support . This means that they suffer in two ways - they simply cannot afford to take the optimum leave that would benefit themselves and their baby; in addition to this actually going back to work can prove too expensive (but I feel this is a different issue).

This is why I strongly believe that a period of time at a % of salary (see my previous post) would be the fairest of systems.

Elvislives - we were never going to be able to afford one of us to be a SAHP, we just needed one of us to be off with him for six months, then one part time. Ideally it would have been great to have me off for two months, then DH off for four, or something similar, but that just wasn't an option because of this whole 'maternal' instead of 'parental' leave.

His old job (the one he hated) was also rubbish about any kind of flexible working, so him going part-time and me being full-time wasn't an option, though when he was job-hunting he did look for part-time jobs. As it's worked out now, he has a new FT job he loves (and actually has far friendlier hours, he sees much more of me and DS for more pay), and I've gone part-time as my company is good with flexible working - and I can do freelance as well to make up some money. All that has worked out according to our abilities and companies, and seems fair enough - it's just the initial bit where we were dictated to by the government because of our sexes that I still really resent.

Elizabeth, your comment that no other benefits are income related isn't quite true. What about final salary pension schemes? This is absolutely income related.

Why is maternity pay an issue? I raise this as a genuine query. In my experience, the snide remarks almost always come from male colleagues in the work place who don't understand that maternity pay is not a bean for bean approach.

But the grievance of some colleagues should be taken seriously. For instance, why should those who have decided not to have a family (for a variety of reasons) not also be entitled to have a bit of flexibility in their work pattern?

Hunker, I think given the background of at least some of the report authors, this has more to do with the policies of what might be the next government than the current one. This isn't to say I think maternity rights are safe in Labour's hands.

but hunker, the financial reality is that, for a lot of working women, the decision as to WHEN they go back to work (after having a baby) is a financial one.

They may weigh up other factors (like breastfeeding benefits) but for a lot of people, if it's a question of keeping a roof over your head then that will be the main force behind the decision.

But FIS, that's exactly what it shouldn't be, if we're investing, as a society, in the next generation.

That's why I said we need to go further back than "what do we have now, how can we change it?".

And, speaking as someone who has had to go back to work after each child, first one at 6mo, second one at 9mo and has worked fulltime since the second one was 12mo, I know all about financial pressure.

I was lucky - I could express relatively easily (I donated bm with DS2, because he wouldn't drink it - just wanted me!) and I had a job where I could nip off and express relatively easily and build my breaks around it, etc. But many, many women can't do this, because they find it tricky to express or their jobs don't allow for it, etc.

And the Government WANTS women to bf; it's often a Local Area Authority target to increase bf rates, they can be FINED if the rates don't increase (so it's worth them spending that money on decent bf promotion and support, incidentally). So it seems counterproductive to construct legislation that undermines women breastfeeding. I've often heard women say they won't start to bf because they'll have to go back to work so soon it's hardly worth it.

LeninGrad - I get what you're saying. At around that salary TCs are about £40 a month which is obviously helpful longterm but what I am talking about is real money to survive a year off work whilst evaluating other options etc.

TCs would not help a family earning £30,000 or more a year maintain a mortgage and bills etc as previously, even cutting down on non-essentials.

The fact is that parents need longer off work - either/both/whatever but it can only be managed when bills are met - everyone would benefit long term from this investment.

so you see liztickle, it is not about taking from peter to pay paul. it is about investing in real services. Real follow through breastfeeding support as opposed to advertising campaigns with no substance with really making childcare affordable for all parents, one midwife to one woman which would cut down epidural/c-section/birth injuries/PND/PTSD rates - rather than constructing a budgetary manifesto to 'reach out' to poor people. these things are not quick fixes which will look pretty in a party manifesto.

but then that's re-education surely (if people say it's not worth it)?

I knew I was going to have to go back to work after 16 weeks the first time round (money wise).

But I was told by the midwife in the hospital that even managing one day would give my baby benefits . So I did, for a little bit, but she was allergic to the world and his dog and ended up on nutramigen anyway but even just that little bit (about 10 weeks) made me feel I'd done something iyswim.

So maybe it's the message that needs to be changed.

well I'm sure employees would all be happier but I'm not sure how employers would feel!

Who would fund the full year off paid? Don't forget, employers often have to fund maternity cover anyway.

If everyone got a whole year off paid, I imagine taxes would have to be increased to pay for that as the cost would be astronomical.

One year maternity leave = job opportunities.

I work in the public sector as do a lot of my friends. Here the year of maternity leave is job creation. An awful lot of people get a job as maternity cover and prove themselves and get kept on, maybe in a different role.

Shorter contracts, especially if being messed around with the post holder coming back flexibly - (which is ridiculous unless you have grandparents around for ad hoc childcare) - just won't work. It wouldn't be worth applying for a contract that long, it would be very unsatisfactory and so what would happen is that the role wouldn't get filled, responsibilities would be shuffled around, you'd be made functionally redundant and have to go back into a mess, and having to justify yourself again, when you're still the main source of nutrition for your breastfed child with all that entails.

Probably not very coherent. Sorry.

well the one year's leave is here already

I think the idea of a full year off on full pay is great (and would have meant I spent more time at home) but the burden on the tax payer would be too huge and if you swapped a lot of that burden (financially) to the employer, it would promote even more discrimination in the workplace against employing women of a childbearing age.

and Lenin I see your point, but tbh, for most people the clock starts ticking the minute you're off the 90% salary time (so after 6 weeks) because SMP isn't enough to live off if you're the main wage earner.

I don't think any party will put that much more money towards maternity pay (especially with the pressure on public spending).

I agree with hunker (quelle surprise).

The six month issue undermines breastfeeding recommendations.

I think whilst this report has a great many benefits in terms of enabling workers to continue working, and stabilising women's contribution to the workplace, I think it actually undervalues family life by encouraging both parents back to work within a shortened period.

I happen to think a parent at home, looking after and nurturing their own child/rens development and education is equally as valuable as providing an OFSTED assured nursery place and I think the Reform proposals undermine that.

There is also a severe lack in continuity of care for children between the ages of 3-4 who secure a nursery place. Although the places are currently 12.5 hours a week albeit going up to 15 hours a week, it's incredibly hard to find hours to work around these times, and finding other suitable childcare to 'wrap around' the nursery place is very difficult. Most nurseries only provide 'set' time slots, and most childminders don't want such an awkward, part time placing.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of discrimination in the work place (gone to the point of tribunal and the ex-employers 'settling'), I can well imagine the disadvantage mothers would be with the set payment scheme. It's clear that as many mothers there are who want to 'keep in touch' with work, there are equally as many who want to dedicate their entire first months on leave to their baby. With the set payment meaning that women can go back to work or doing occasional 'shifts' or attending meetings, I fear that many more mothers would feel 'obliged' to do so by employers whilst on leave, and viewed negatively for not doing so. I think it's an added pressure, and I have great misgivings about it being abused by employers to harangue mothers on the pretext of 'safeguarding' their 'career' or job.

Finally, in terms of the added costs and red tape for administering SMP and SPP - as someone who has vast experience of payroll and HR procedures, I can't say that paying SMP and is particularly complicated or long-winded.

Most payroll software simply require an "EDD" date entered in a particular box. It automatically calculates Qualifying Weeks, and all it requires is when entering payroll figures - adding in a set weekly figure in a particular box - the easily calculated 90% rate for 6 weeks, and then the SMP rate for hte remainder.

In terms of "claiming back" SMP - this is also automatically calculated by the software, and incorporated within the same month's PAYE and NIC liability calculations. Therefore, the employer is neither out of pocket, nor is it complicated (despite my explanation ).

Admittedly, smaller companies don't often use payroll software - they use paper method. However, many small employers are now outsourcing payroll functions for nominal fees, and in any case, HMRC is requiring all businesses to submit at least some data online in 2010, so it seems businesses will have to make moves towards computer records anyway.

I think that's it, for me.

Oh please please please dont retract the option for mothers to take a full year off after the birth of their baby. Making the split of 6 months per parent is a nice idea if it is optional but should NOT be compulsory, it should be up to parents to sort out for themselves how to divide the "maternity/paternity" leave. There is no way that DH would have been able to or wanted to, take 6 months off work for various reasons, including finance. If I had been forced to go back after 6 months I would have had to resign - I was still unwell following a difficult birth at that stage.

Sorry - that should say "HMRC will require some data to be submitted online only from 2010 onwards"

By LeninGrad on Fri 17-Jul-09 21:35:58
Scandinavian countries and the French seem to do much better FIS and I haven't seen any discontent there about it. Yes, taxes are higher but again colleagues seem OK with that.

I don't agree necessarily that the French do do much better - their paid mat leave is comparable with ours I believe.

Scandinavian countries do offer a (much) better package but with much, much higher tax rates and a completely different social mind set - probably only possible in a society with a much narrower gap between rich and poor.

Actually, I don't think I emphasised strongly enough in my first post how absolutely disgusted I would be if the current 12 months mat leave were scaled back to 6 months.

I think that is the single best decision this government has taken, in fact. It's something I would march in the streets about, I feel that strongly.

12 months is, on the scale of things, something which costs government relatively little, employers relatively little, benefits casual workers in terms of more attractive, stable job opportunities for mat cover and makes a huge difference to mothers and babies and their long-term emotional and physical health and well-being.

Please, please, please don't say that 6 months is optimum. On so many levels it is NOT.

[fans self and swoons on chaise longue]

And actually, I think 'career breaks' should be viewed entirely differently from breaks to raise children.

Raising children is a pretty important role, IMO, and more important in many ways than ensuring both parents return to work within a year, or in single parent families, the single parent returning to work asap.

I think thats where the balance in the Reform report is tipped - parents returning to work and paying someone to care for your children is favoured over raising your own children. THAT'S where the choice should lie, primarily.