Should the father's employer contribute half of any maternity pay?

[AyeAmarok]

Would this work? ls it "fair" that it's the woman's employer who has to take all the financial hit, when it's both parents who chose to have the baby? (meaning they are more likely to be wary of hiring or promoting women).

Making the man's employer contribute as well, could that go some way towards making it equally as "risky" to hire men as women and then it would be less likely to mean that women of childbearing age are discriminated against.

The sharing of the maternity/paternity leave goes some way to address this, but the take-up is still really low, and the pay isn't actually equal so the financial consequences are still not equal on the man and women's employer.

I'm thinking this through in my head and thought I'd float it out on this board and see what you thought? I know there are loads of potential issues that I haven't thought of, probably some really obvious ones!

But could this be a way of stopping women being so unfairly treated when it comes to having a family?

(happy to be told it's a terrible idea!)

Higher taxes for the company, yes. But it might balance off because they wouldn't be paying as much in mat pay, as what they have paid into the "parent pay pot" for their total number of employees, men and women, would then contribute towards the newly increased SMP.

But that doesn't help the discrimination - I'm still thinking.

Interesting concept. Can you imagine a man walking into an interview and being asked "So how promiscuous are you?!"

Well, one could introduce a tax for any "surplus man" they employ. Like, if they have 5 women and 6 men, they pay more taxes, while if they have 6 women and 5 men, they get a discount on their taxes (just a small one, to compensate for the risk that she takes maternity leave and they have to hire someone else for the time).

Companies sure would not like that. But it would be easier to implement than taking the money from the father's employer ...

Of course in this brave new world, they would all employ transwomen to get out of the extra taxes.

Hmm, I'm not sure that's statistically sound, though I could be wrong.

I suspect that the most common system, given that something like half of all companies are pretty small, is the statutory minimum. Then public sector often, but not always, has better terms and has generally more than the average % female employees.

Larger companies are more likely to have more generous policies as they have more flexibility to afford them.

"Higher taxes for the company, yes."

I meant higher general taxation - I believe the poster in Sweden said the more generous provision was state funded.

Interesting concept. Can you imagine a man walking into an interview and being asked "So how promiscuous are you?!"

Men would be subjected to "slutshaming", too! Equality!

My statistically sound post was to the engineering companies are more generous thesis!

Supply of bananas and condoms to demonstrate requisite skills?!

When shared parental leave was announced my employer cut maternity pay by 33%. Justification being that as they mostly employ men they would have to recoup the costs ignoring the fact that the uptake is very low and also that they cut maternity pay a full year before the new rules came into effect.
My point is, if they were to do something like this they would use it as an excuse to further cut maternity pay. It always comes down to the bottom line.

And the Internet would be littered with comments about what a drain men who can't keep it in their pants are on the economy and asking why on earth employers should have to pay for a man's choice to have sex.

"I just think that the financial consequences need to fall evenly on the employers of both parents, not just the woman's."

Unfortunately, as I said above, the business disruption falls mainly on the business of the person taking the leave, which may well be more costly in lost productivity than any pay.

So initiatives to even up the leave are important.

It's bollocks, for example, that men (AFAIK) have no right to shared parental leave if the mother didn't take maternity leave, meaning men with SAHWs are a better bet for the employer than men with working partners (well, we knew that anyway from the perspective of late night working etc but still).

I'm not meaning to whataboutthemenz here, but since working parents can opt to take shared parental leave simultaneously, why can't a man do so with his SAHW? Good for both of them and the baby.

My company now pays the same for maternity and parental leave.

I'm not aware of any men having taken them up on the offer yet (16 weeks full pay) though, so it hasn't done anything to make men as 'inconvenient' as women in the eye of the employer, which is the crux of the issue.

Spare, do they do that regardless of how many weeks the mother has taken?

That's a fantastic offer and I'm shocked more haven't taken it up, even if in last 16 weeks of the year. Have many had the opportunity (eg working partner) to do so? Is it a function of timing (the policy has been in place a year or so meaning anyone giving birth just after implemetion would only now be arc the end of their year)

AHellOfABird the UK companies with the most generous maternity provisions (eg six months at full pay, or even more!) are companies like Jaguar Land Rover, British Gas, Volkswagen, Shell - all very high paying highly skilled industries, with very few women.

AHell,
When the new parental leave rules came in, the lovely head of HR decided to standardise the package. I don't think there is any condition on the mother's paid leave but legally, only one parent can be off at any one time.
We are a big US financial company which might make us unlikely candidates but is significant for a few reasons
A) HQ has no concept of paid leave, let alone having a year off. So the head of HR for Europe has free rein to draft what is appropriate for Europe, and the US didn't question it
But b) the men are nearly all high powered banker types, who are workaholics and very emotionally and financially invested in their work so I think less likely to take time off. Probably because they both love their work and have more than salary to lose by being out of the office - if a big deal happened while they were away, they wouldn't get that share of bonus pot.
I genuinely couldn't tell you if any of them have recently become fathers, which might answer why no one has taken it.

I'm watching closely. I suspect it will start with someone taking a month or so, and momentum building up from there, rather than someone starting with multi-month leave

Industries like retail, leisure and hospitality have poor rates of pay and lots of women, and very poor maternity pay packages.

I'm not meaning to whataboutthemenz here, but since working parents can opt to take shared parental leave simultaneously, why can't a man do so with his SAHW? Good for both of them and the baby

They don't take it simultaneously. If one parent takes it the other has to be at work. I'm sure both parents getting 6 months pay to be at home with baby is great for them but they are not the only parties to be considered. Some of you do seem to think employers have a bottomless money pit.

I just think that the financial consequences need to fall evenly on the employers of both parents, not just the woman's

Then it is up to couples to sort out their parental leave which is already available. You keep saying it should fall on both but not giving any explanation of what that means or how it would work

I'm responsible for my employees, nor any one else's.

Here in Sweden parental leave is paid by the state not the employer

What do mean by this ? In UK the statutory rates are paid by employers but employers can recover most of it from the state.

Some employers by way of contract pay much more. Is the state paying the much higher proportion which some employers voluntary pay in the UK pay?

It's paid direct to the claimant. We log on to the FK website (DWP equivalent), register the days we plan to claim for and they pay it direct into our banks. You have to give your employer 28 days notice. The state pay 480 days at 80% of salary and most employers top it up to 100%.

I would like reimbursed SPP to be 90% of pay for six weeks also, or at the very least for two weeks, to ensure at least some leave is taken

I would like to see this happen too. Preferably at the end of the mothers maternity leave so the father can really help her get back to work and get used to taking some responsibility for childcare

Lass, if a woman ends maternity leave and goes onto parental leave, then her husband can take parental leave at the same time, AFAIK. Do correct me if I am wrong, though.

Not proposing any enhanced pay, just the statutory, so the father's employer is in the same position whether his male employee has a SAHW or not. Of course, few families could afford the WOHD to take leave at ShPP rates if no other salary, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be legally allowed.

NB in the situation of both taking parental leave at the same time, the total entitlement is still 12 months and the clock runs down at twice the rate, of course.

Here: actually, parental leave and maternity leave can be simultaneous if woman has given binding indication to end maternity leave early. Sparechange, this could be useful for men in your company, I didn't know that this was possible...

For Shared Parental Leave (SPL) to start, the mother or adopter must do one of the following:

end their maternity or adoption leave by returning to work
give you ‘binding notice’ (a decision that can’t normally be changed) of the date when they’ll end their maternity or adoption leave
end maternity pay or Maternity Allowance (if they’re not entitled to maternity leave, eg they’re an agency worker or self-employed)
A mother must take a minimum of 2 weeks’ maternity leave following the birth (4 if she works in a factory). The adoptive parent getting Statutory Adoption Pay must take at least 2 weeks’ adoption leave following the placement.

The mother must give you notice (at least 8 weeks) to end her maternity pay, or tell Jobcentre Plus to end her Maternity Allowance. Adopters must give you notice to end adoption pay.

SPL can start for the partner while the mother or adopter is still on maternity or adoption leave if she’s given binding notice to end her leave (or pay if she’s not entitled to leave). This is different to Additional Paternity Pay and Leave.

*Example
A mother and her partner are both eligible for SPL.

The mother goes on maternity leave 10 weeks before her baby is born. She decides that she’ll take 16 weeks of maternity leave and gives you notice.

Since the mother has given binding notice, her partner can start SPL as soon as the baby has been born (as long as they’ve given at least 8 weeks’ notice).*

Aye, I have no idea if you are citing a specific survey there, you may well be!