Proposed changes to flexible working, and flexible parental leave - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills have asked if we'd like to contribute to their Modern Workplaces Consultation, which contains proposals for changes to flexible working and flexible parental leave (as well as updates to equal pay, and to working time regulation). 

Possibly the most significant of the proposed changes concern statutory maternity pay (or maternity allowance), and maternity leave - the idea is that the existing system would be partly replaced with a statutory parental pay and parental leave allowance, to be taken by either parent.  Have a quick look at the executive summary for the detail.

You can let the government know what you think about these proposed changes by filling out their surveys on flexible parental leave, and flexible working. Do also post your thoughts here on the thread - we'll be passing it forward to BIS on Monday 8th August, when the consultation closes.

[Ellypoo]

I think making the 12 months mat leave available for use by either parent is a good thing; I know it probably isn't feasible to give anything for self-employed fathers, I suppose.
I think though, that support also needs to be given to smaller employers who do struggle to replace/find cover when people are off on mat leave - it will certainly help women's employability if the leave can be taken by either parent, but in reality, how many fathers will take it up unless the Mum's are paid more than them? SMP and SPP are such low low rates, it is a very difficult decision to make.
Eg, I am the main income earner in our house, and my husband is self-employed. I am intending to take 5 months maternity leave and then return to work full time - we just can't afford for me to take any longer off. Also,the company I work for is a small company and so would struggle to cover my absence for much longer than this too.

[jellybeans]

'
I think the proposals are more about cutting mat leave by stealth (knowing most men won't take their month off with the baby on derisory pat pay) and getting women back to work.' I agree kellykettle

The swedish model that Clegg would adore involves a system of pushing mothers back to work and pulling men back into the home. That must be the reason for the fathers only leave and it was a reason why that was the case in Sweden. This isn't about choice or it would be gender neutral. I had a feeling that they would eventually cut mother's leave and hey presto.

[jellybeans]

Interesting article about the Swedish system here

[Barbeasty]

I like what happens in Germany, at least in the public sector. The father has to take a period of paternity leave ( I can't remember whether it's 2 or 4 weeks) to "activate" the mother's entitlement to a full year of maternity leave.

This encourages the father to stay at home and bond etc, and rather than losing maternity leave, the mother gains extra entitlement.

Now, as to the policy that the mother can return to her job any time up to 12 years after the birth in the public sector.... That's real choice! How much easier would it be for SAHMs knowing they had a career to return to?

[fluffles]

working patterns are changing and a lot of people are being forced into freelance/self-employment. the government is encouraging this.
maternity leave and paternity leave is very difficult for the self-employed and this doesn't seem to be adressing that issue at all.

[smelli]

My employer provides a very generous maternity package (6 months full pay). Looking into the future with a patental package, I can see that men in my firm will end up taking the parental leave for financial reasons. I feel sorry for their partners. I feel sorry for the babies. No health giving breast feeding for them, I guess. But then again, I suppose the company will probably find it all too expensive with double the exposure to paternal pay and will stop it.


I think maybe they should stop messing around with this and spend some serious energy into delivering equal pay. Which we are still waiting for.

[Solopower]

I think we need to look at the bigger picture, and think about what we want for our country? My wish list is:

Equal pay for men and women
A chance for families to choose what work/care model works for them
More children to be born (to look after the oldies who are living longer!)
Happier, healthier families
Fairness so that people without children - who may also be carers of course - have their needs met too.

Forcing women into work or men into the home - or anyone into anything - isn't going to achieve this. I'd like to see a system that respects people and trusts them to make intelligent choices, but which is affordable for employers, and doesn't make assumptions about what is and isn't 'normal' or 'valid' as a lifestyle choice.

[Solopower]

Whenever a government wants to introduce something there will always be an element of social engineering - so what's this government's agenda, and do you agree with it? Also, this government, like all governments, will be wanting to cut costs, so it's unlikely that families will end up better off under this legislation, imo.

With childcare arrangements there simply can't be a one-size-fits-all approach, and if a more 'flexible' system takes time and money from one partner to give it to another, that is not flexible but social engineering.

[FidgetPie]

I think it is a great idea, the use it or loose it idea normalises the idea of men having some time at home.

And renaming it parental rather than maternity helps reinforce the message.

Overall I think it is great for gender equality as it makes men as much if a 'risk' to employ as childbearing age women (I know plenty of people who in private admit avoiding giving jobs to women they think might disappear off to have babies, so love the idea that their male employees could take 6 months off).

[Solopower]

Sorry to go on, but this is something that has perplexed me for over thirty years. As a family we've tried out so many different models, but what worked best for us at one time of our lives might not be right at another or for others.

For example, just because your children are over 12 (and feel out of school clubs are too babyish for them), they don't suddenly become able to look after themselves in the holidays! In recent years, my most difficult childcare problem as a single parent working full-time, was what to do with a teenager in the holidays. Colleagues might not be very sympathetic when you want to take time off to make sure your 14-year-old son doesn't have all his friends round to your rented flat and start causing a nuisance to neighbours - and possibly putting your tenancy in jeopardy! - or in worst cases getting up to mischief in the streets. Not all 14-year-olds can be trusted to behave impeccably, and news of a 'free house' goes round quickly.

Parents can't be in both places at once! Society needs parents to be vigilant all the time You can't do this from your work station.

[Solopower]

I've got some suggestions, which might be wildly impracticable but I really want to nail this one. So many families have to live in such stressful circumstances.

1. Can't the government get each and every employer to draw up their own policy wrt parents/other carers on their staff, while giving them guidelines including rules about discrimination, and a certain amount of money to cover leave for each employee to be divvied up as the company saw fit? This would be clearly stated to any prospective employees.
   
   
2. Could something be sorted out over the entire period of someone's working life, eg three years' paid leave to be used over a 40/45-year working life as the employees see fit, whether they are parents or not. Those who don't use theirs could sell it on to someone who wants more, or retire three years earlier.
   
   
3. Someone mentioned on another thread the idea of giving employees a certain number of leave credits which could be used or exchanged or sold on to colleagues if not used.

[toniguy]

I am all for anything which encourages BOTH parents to play an active role in caring for their baby.

Re: the financial aspects: yes, in an ideal world we'd all like to be paid as much while on maternity/parental leave, as when working - but we need to be realistic here

When you track the development of maternity and parental Rights there has been huge improvement over recent years. Many of my older work colleagues were able to take only 3 months maternity leave, paternity leave did not exist, so their husbands either literally had a day off for the birth or if they were lucky were able to use a bit of annual leave. Also there was n no subsidised childcare at age three, so childcare was very expensive right up until the child' began school.

When you put it in context, parental
Rights have improved a lot. Its one of those things where each generation will want the best deal possible, but it needs to be grounded in what is workable for businesses and affordable.

I think the concept of parental leave which can be used by fathers is a hugely positive step though. The idea that if you employ a woman of childbearing age, she'll disappear off on ML for years is a genuine problem and a barrier for women in the workplace. Also, I don't see this as a negative issue of trying to force women into the workplace-surely it is just a reflection of the fact that nowadays women are just as likely as men to have a career,'and men are just as likely as women to want to be hands on parents

[gillybean2]

What is the situation for separated/lone parents where the father isn't around to help.

Does the mother get penalised because she can't have the fathers weeks even if he chooses not to take them or refuses to acknowledge the child as his?
Will the father get the paternity leave regardless, even though he doesn't use it to help with the child at all - have know this to happen (separated father went off on holiday with OW on his paternity leave)...!

What about where a mother is widowed? Does she also lose the weeks asigned to the father..?

[AdelaofBlois]

I think that, on the whole, preserving an entitlement for women and allowing the rest to be transferable makes a great deal of sense. It would certainly have suited my partner and me, DCs were taking EBM after 3 weeks so even breastfeeding wasn't such an issue. There is actually little here which changes the status quo if a father doesn't take leave. I do have some reservations though:

1. Overlapping leave sounds wonderful when you think back to the time of early families, but can cut against the very heart of the proposals. If equality in expectations is to be achieved, men need to make the same sacrifices and that means going it alone. Sitting around helping is not enough-they should actually be childcaring if that is what the leave is for. If giving men a chunk that they have to use or lose means increasing leave times (and four weeks added to compensate for four weeks otherwise not used would make sense), so be it, but allowing a long overlap is not helpful. I know others here like it, but it is deeply counterproductive to much that could be achieved.
   

1. I am concerned as to who chooses and when. These proposals could be used by either partners or employers to force women back to work earlier than they wish. They also sound even more inflexible than at present-we all know women who've taken nine months and wanted less towards the end, or who took a small chunk of time and ended up ill. Flexibility goes with choice-it is ridiculous to expect a couple to make a decision before labour even starts and end up bound to it-especially with a first child.
   

Basically, birth mothers need to be at the heart of the process. That does indeed mean allowing them greater choice on how to apportion care in their families. But it also means acknowledging the huge physical and mental changes around childbirth and care, and their unpredictable nature. This comes nowhere close to thinking about women's bodies and needs-just economic units redistributed more rationally.

[Solopower]

Great post, Adela.

[toniguy]

Agree with nearly all of adela's post- but I think we shouldn't underestimate the huge mental changes which come with parenthood. Yes, actually giving birth has physical effects (though the vast majority of mothers will be fully recovered from these pretty quickly) and yes there are hormonal changes. But becoming a parent is a life long thing. I am wary of any thinking that almost sanctifies the first year of life to the detriment of everything else. If we want BOTH parents to be involved, positive hands on parents 'right the way through to the child' turning 18 (and beyond) surely it starts with acknowledging that both parents are equally important, both can have an equal influence on the childs development, and both should be at the centre of deciding how the child is cared for

[AdelaofBlois]

Just a quick note after reading the summary-the four weeks proposed as exclusive to the 'father' (actually, legally, non-birth partner) will be in addition to the current leave allowances. Hence no woman would have to take less leave under these proposals than at present-there is no cut by stealth here.

I'm also not really sure what is meant by 'lost' allowance in some posts here-single parents, widowers etc. These women are not in any worse position for the absence of a partner (see above)-they are in exactly the same situation as any other individual woman.

But it is clear that ALL parental leave (not just the reserved portions which could be dated around birth, but all that is transferable) can be taken concurrently. I find that bad, others here probably don't.

But, to reiterate, what none of this does is answer the dilemmas of a mother desparate to return to work having weaned her kids, with a partner willing to use her portion, but alas not having the foresight to have seen that eight months previously. Or the woman who had a CS who needs help now, and whose partner has booked his leave for later, or not at all. Until there is some response to such changes women's health will continue to suffer more than it should as a result of birth.

[AdelaofBlois]

@toniguy. I don't underestimate the changes that non-birth partners can undergo, or the need to allow their involvement early on-it is so critical to setting up patterns and affection later.

But, any 'choice' always helps those with power. Others here can see how this may change little without economic or social expectations being equal-all that will happen is that it will 'make sense' for women to take most of the leave (which may then be used as an argument for the naturalness of their doing so). I'm worried within partnerships too-that ultimately partners will be able to use leave for childcare to sun themselves while the carer does the work. Or that they may force her into employment before she is able because they wish to arrange their lives like that. The law needs to protect the most vulnerable to pressure, and that is far more likely to be the birth mother than her (usually male) partner.

And that's why I really want the leave to be non-concurrent except immediately after birth or if one partner genuinely can't care for children any longer (in which case they are not on parental leave, surely?). Both partners being equally involved to me means both caring on their own, not one caring and the other supporting-that just cuts the mother's time at home (compared to now) without doing anything about gendered expectations.

[jellybeans]

' These proposals could be used by either partners or employers to force women back to work earlier than they wish.' I share these concerns adela.

[toniguy]

Why should these proposals do that? And as far as partners are concerned, surely it is a matter for BOTH parents of a child to come to agreement about how to carve up working and caring responsibilities. One parents wishes shouldn't trump the other. If you believe that one parent's rights are 'superior' then you cant really Argue in favour of parents having equal resppnisblity

[toniguy]

P.s while I understand the importance of protecting the rights of pregnant women and mothers in the workplace, it needs to be in the context of protecting fathers' and employers' rights too.
I'm not sure how healthy it is to work on the assumption that employers and fathers are all dubious characters who are waiting to push their employee/wife back into the workplace in two minutes! IME employers want good reliable people in jobs, nothing more nothing less. And as I said in my earlier post, fathers are the other, equal, parent and as such should discuss with the mother the way childcare and working is shared out

[AdelaofBlois]

I agree it is a matter for both parents, and welcome these changes for that reason. Indeed, as a non-birth partner who has had to save holiday allowances for five years, get lucky with non-contact time and then change career in order to provide care I'm very much in sympathy with many of them. They may even allow me to indulge our joint broodiness and stop objecting to a third child. But there are specifics that bother me:

1. The system offers new opportunities for physically and emotionally abusive partners to force women away from families and themselves on them. This issue might seem minor, but good legislation anticipates who is adversely affected by change and prevents detrimental outcomes. There needs to be real attention paid to safeguarding those women at most risk, even if they don't fit pleasant ideal relationships.
   
2. Concurrent leave allows leave to be divided, but without imposing any restrictions on who actually cares. One of the criticisms many Scandinavian women I know make of their systems is that joint periods of leave turn into long 'Saturday barbecues'-men play and do a bit, but everyone accepts that children are really women's work. The consequence of this is that women will end up with shorter leave with no real change in broader attitudes to care. The norm should be one carer at one time for most of the leave.
   
3. One basic problem, and I know it sounds daft, is what if partners don't agree-surely there has to be an assumption that one partner has 'leave rights' to assign, rather than that both are totally equal. The biological facts of birth and a sense of her own bodily needs are one reason it should be a woman but the other strikes me as more basic, which is it seems arrogant beyond belief for those of us who haven't given birth to insist on equality here as long as so many other inequalities exist. A move towards equality which would allow a woman to assign leave to her partner sticks in the craw ideologically and linguistically (why assume they are hers?), but overall would seem a practical and fair way of effecting change without stripping away hard won rights.

[toniguy]

I don't disagree broadly with what you say adela, but I do think on the level of the individual partnership, it is less about 'political' pressure and more about the quality of the relationship and the dynamic between the couple.

In other words, if my husband and 'me had a certain allocation of leave to split between us, I don't think I'd approach it thinking 'men have historically had more power in the workplace and in relationships, therefore I need to be really wary that my hubby is trying to do 'me over!'. I would approach it as a joint venture in which we both have desires and views which carry equal weight.

Its also worth remembering that for every man who conforms to the stereotypical 'stick on the BBQ, open a few tinnies while wife minds the baby' view, there is no doubt a woman who behaves possessively and doesn't actually want to let the babys Father do too much in the way of feeding, changing etc. She sees it as her territory.

I think the basis for reform needs to be that if we want parents to have equal responsibility, we need to afford them equal rights as far as possible. Its actually what very many mums and dads are striving to attain these days anyway. I don't know many fathers these days who see themselves as the remote disciplinarian whose role is to work 9 to 5 and 'keep' his family. And I don't know a single teenage boy who expects his adult life to conform to that model. Any more than my teenage dd expects her future career to be any less important or fulfilling that that of her future partner