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

because generally babies come around when you have enormous bills (so large mortgage/rent, big outgoings) rather than retirement which you plan for a long time before. You sound very organised Lenin , I can assure you, we were very much less so and even then, if you are the main wage earner, £400 (in London), does not get you far enough, even without a mortgage.

I disagree with this report on many points, most of which have been voiced more eloquently by other posters but I'll chip in as perhaps the more people that say this the more the "think tank" will listen.

I'm not at all sure why this report seems to be suggesting effectively penalising high earning women for their salaries by offering them only a flat rate whilst also seeming to be desperate to encourage women into the workplace. Why push people into the workplace because they think it will improve the lives of women and their children but then make it no more attractive in terms of mat. leave to climb the career ladder and earn 60k or to stay on the bottom rung on the minimum wage. Why not reward women for their efforts, abilities and achievements in the workplace?

well it's also luck too (and good planning helps!)

lots of people have bought houses when they were very expensive so still have very large mortgages. And sadly, we have many friends who have lost their jobs recently - that's the sort of thing I find quite scary (as there still don't seem to be many jobs out there).

we are also in a 2 up 2 down, in a similar sounding street (perhaps you are on the same street as me!)

I've had an idea.

We save for pension - why not be able to save for "parenting"?

Yes, of course you COULD set up a savings account and religiously pay into it each month - but it would be taxed when you earnt it, taxed when you saved it and taxed when you saved it.

And I did, in fact, set up just that when pg with my second child - I saved the equivalent of one and a half month's salary, which enabled me to stay off on v frugal means for three months (hence going back after nine months with him, rather than the 6m previously).

But why not set up a scheme whereby people who want to have children can apportion part of their salary towards funding a year/two years/three years off, tax-free - from whenever they start working? That way, it would top up whatever the Government see fit to pay as statutory maternity pay and it would mean it was a more "in reach" target than pension.

So, like a private pension, a private parenting fund, for use when you have children, however you see fit (but paid at monthly intervals, perhaps?), supported with tax breaks - what do you think?

leningrad - I agree. We live in a small 2 bed flat, bought long before our two kids were ever thought of. I'm always surprised at friends who chose to take on the enormous mortgage then have kids.

It's meant that we are a little cramped and won't be able to upgrade until the kids are in school, but it's also meant that I've been able to spend 13 months at home with each and work part-time while they are small, freed from the pressure of an enormous mortgage.

I know, though, that we are very lucky in many ways.

but hunker, part of the thesis of Reform's report is that the current situation is unfairly weighted towards the well-off, and penalises lower income earners who can't afford to take advantage of the system.

The system you describe would advantage the wealthy even more. No lower income family could afford to put aside huge chunks of cash - tax breaks or not.

I don't agree with all Reform's proposals but I do agree that the inequality they outline exists.

I agree it's a nice idea - but it doesn't solve the problem Reform sets out in their report.

It would also unfairly advantage people who plan for their future - but you know, so what?

It would give AN advantage to people who are on pretty average incomes - it would top up anything the Government gives all of us - it MAY mean that they could offset some of the amount of SMP they give to those who have large private parenting funds and therefore give MORE to people who haven't planned ahead (not everyone will think they're going to have children before they do, not everyone will be able to save much, if anything, etc).

I think it's worth looking at, definitely.

Well, I saved up £6k(unbelievably)so that I could cover my mortgage for 12 months whilst off work after Dd. It can be done, but I went without loads to do it.

Sorry I went to bed and didn't answer your q leningrad.

I am not sure what the answer is. I would like to see a system where government resources are directed towards the neediest and those who have children in the most difficult circumstances - ie unplanned or in financial hardship.

I don't feel that the current system does this - enough.

However i guess it depends what you think the biggest inequality is - Reform seems to think the big problem is that lower income families take home less SMP overall than higher income families.

I think the real tragedy is that lower income families are not able to spend as much time at home with their babies as higher income families (according to Reform's figures). Their proposal does nothing to address this as far as I can see. It just makes it impossible for any woman to spend more than 6 months at home without giving up her job. I don't think that's progress in any way at all.

I've thought more about it - if people don't go on to have children, the parenting savings could be added to their pension fund.

I agree, TYV, that moves to make 6mo the "optimum" time to spend at home really undermine the work that's already been done with moves towards longer paid maternity leave - and for who is this optimum? Employers? That's great - yes, let's make employers the cornerstone of family policy, that makes a lot of sense for society.

Why not encourage employers to make their businesses more family-friendly? Tax breaks for businesses with nurseries - better tax breaks for better Ofsted reports, maybe.

i haven't read all of this but the report doesn't seem to be suggested that we do away with whatever occupational maternity companies/employers may offer, so some people will still get considerably higher mat pay than others.

i think there are problems in offering a flat rate of £5000. what happens if you choose to only take two months mat leave - do you get £2500 per month?

what are people classing as high / low income? i guess DH and i are middle income but i was only able to afford to take 6 months off with DS and am worrying now how we will afford me to have the same time off should we get pregnant again in the near future.

The thing is, DH earns considerably more than me, so its a nonsense to suggest that having £5000 (or current maternity pay) instead of his pay, is at all workable.

I suspect this is the case for a lot of families. We are now working on DC no 2 - and I only work part time, which makes the pay disparity even worse. But this was true in the first pregnancy too, when I worked full time.

I know people who's husband's couldn't even afford to take the two weeks paternity leave, as its not properly paid.

That needs sorting out.

I also think that the pay has to be linked to time off, otherwise its just encouraging women to go back to work early. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Little babies need their mother (or a parent, but we certainly can't aford for it to be DH) at home for a reasonable time. Women should not feel pushed back to work, and this policy is designed to do exactly that.

I think I'm gonna be contentious, but I think what we have now is perfectly adequate - why is it the employers problem? It causes small employers huge financial and other stress to have staff off for up to a year - employing temps etc, not knowing if staff are going to return etc - I was lambasted for only paying SMP but we couldnt afford anything else, and tbh, didn't see why I should either - I as an employer hadnt chosen to have a baby?

Ideal world? Yeah, every parent should have a paid year off, but guess what - it ain't gonna happen.

At the end of the day, having kids is a choice.

sits back and waits to be flamed to a cinder

You see, I think the child should be placed at the top of the pyramid in our society - ahead of everything. With the mother and the father equally below it. Children are an essential investment - as we aree learning to our peril now re our own chronic replacement rate. Even people who do not have kids have to accept this logic.

Humans want to have children. A society needs them for it to be a healthy society. Mothers want to mother, at least for the first one or two years. Just stop discriminating against them because of it.

I think this glances off one facet of the problem -

""Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost nothing, no matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components of capital, but as a free gift of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature?s productive power to labour, which, however, appears as the productiveness of capital, as all other
productivity under the capitalist mode of production."(Marx in Capital 3:745) Without question, capitalism has ignored base-level costs that have not been factored in to costs: first, natural resources and
ecosystem services; and second, domestic labor. Concerning the extraction, exploitation and non-valuation of natural resources, change is just beginning."

© Celeste Newbrough 2008. Sex, Mates, Gender. p 18. evolutionaryfeminism.net/SMG_Part_1.pdf

Free distance learning

AND family uni acomodation!

Dear All,
My eldest began uni this week - on the Isle of Man we get the fees paid by the government - but as we as parents both work we did not meet the criteria for maintenance grants. Also there are no maintenance loans available here so even though my son would have been happy to take responsibility via a loan he cant. It's great that the government here pay the fees but even with that help we have had to remortgage. Quite simply our income is above the limits (just about) but we have a big mortgage (not a big house though! - house prices here are high)but cant stretch to £3500 pounds a year accomodation plus food, travel (including back and forth to the island at hols etc) and books etc (we estimate £4000 a year). Our son is looking for work to help and has worked and saved during the hols, his job here will help when he is here for hols and his boss has said he's happy to have him work during his hols. However getting a job at uni will not be that easy during a recession? The good news is we hope he will be debt free - but our family has had to remortgage and our family will still have to do without sometimes I feel to do this. I strongly believe that education is vital and have therefore gotten behind him and took the decision to remortgage but boy do I wish we had the choice for maintenance grants etc - but I guess whereever you are in the world the system has its plus points and negatives.

Manxie101