MNHQ here: 'Pregnant then Screwed' is launching a campaign (and inviting you to a march on Halloween) - tell us what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Some of you will know of the campaign group Pregnant then Screwed, which came to prominence a few years ago by highlighting women's experiences of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace.

On Halloween, they're holding marches in locations across the UK (London, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow) to 'demand recognition, respect and change for working mums'. In deference to the day, they're inviting people to turn up dressed as mummies - the Walking Dead kind.

Here are the changes they're calling for. We know that in the past MNers have expressed support for more and better exclusive, paid paternity leave - but we'd love to know what you think about this list:

1. Increase the time limit to raise a tribunal claim from 3 months to (at least) 6 months for pregnant and postpartum women.

2. Require companies to report on how many flexible working requests are made and how many are granted.

3. Give fathers access to 6 weeks non-transferable paternity leave paid at 90% of salary.

4. Give the self-employed access to statutory shared parental pay.

5. Subsidise childcare from 6 months old, rather than 3 years old.

Over to you - and if you'd like to join the march you can find all the details here.

Thanks
MNHQ

again, first paragraph there should have been In bold. Bloody phone

At the moment with the high costs of childcare we could at some point get into a situation where only the rich can breed and we will need to import all the other workers for non high-level jobs from other countries. Is this really a situation that we want?

The comments on this thread are so disappointing .

I will be showing my support at the march! I'm taking unpaid annual leave to attend, which is a big deal to me as I've only just got another job after losing my job simply for having a child (a job I worked very hard in for years, including many 80+ hour weeks while pregnant, so p*ss off with your "poor ickle pregnant woman" comments). Some things are just incredibly important and we need to do what we can now to make things better for future generations.

Psst maxima your bolding is working fine.

Utterly disappointed by the lack of empathy on this thread. I'm lucky enough to have no childcare costs (both kids in school) and a decent job with amazingly understanding bosses...doesn't mean I can't empathise with women who are facing discrimination or finding childcare costs insurmountable. Partly cause I've experienced both in the past but also cause my experience is not the be all and end all

Crikey - this thread's really brought out all the misogynists hasn't it? Agree with pps that the lack of empathy displayed is stunning (as well as the laughable grasp of statistics!)

I agree with all the suggested changes. The only thing I'd add is that 6 weeks non-transferable paternity pay would be useful if fathers could choose to split it (so some might take all at the start to support mother after a difficult birth, others might save a month for the end to take over leave while mother returns to work).

But having a portion of leave that only fathers can take is critical to takeup - Sweden didn't see takeup increase until they brought in the "daddy month" and that pattern has been repeated elsewhere: www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15

I’m coming to the march. It’s the last week of my maternity leave!

Agree with those PPs who have said that affordable childcare is actually beneficial to the economy.
My French friend has her sons in a local nursery where the fees are means-tested, so she pays €1.50 per hour each. The French government appear to recognise that she and her husband may be low-paid now, but keeping them both in the workforce is important (and an investment!)

Is it really that difficult to see that this isn’t a case of the odd person mismanaging their finances and wanting someone else to pay for their child to go to a childminder. It’s about a fundamental imbalance in the system which means that women are penalised and can’t go back to work because (for various reasons) they’re priced out of it.

But why are women more priced out of it than men? That's what needs addressing. Childcare costs should be bourne by both parents before we start looking to the state for additional support. So fathers need to pay their share (even if not in a relationship with the mother) and this needs to be properly enforced, and married women need to stop assuming all childcare needs to be covered by their wages alone.

I don't want to pay more tax to enable a load of feckless men to shirk their responsibilities.

@BarbarianMum agree with your point that childcare should undoubtedly be the responsibility of both parents - we hope that if some of the changes we are requesting are implemented then the outcome will be a culture shift so that we start to see children as the responsibility of both parents. The problem is that we still live in a culture where childcare usually falls to the woman. As the gender pay gap exists then the father is likely to earn the most so when you are considering who takes the financial hit and stops working, then that is more likely to be the mother as she is likely to earn the least

@slightlyglittermaned

Crikey - this thread's really brought out all the misogynists hasn't it?

No. Where?

Do you understand the difference between disagreeing with another woman and being a misogynist?

People like you, and your overuse of terms, is degrading its meaning.

But why are women more priced out of it than men?

Because they tend to earn less than men so it makes sense to lose their wage rather than their partner’s. Because they have to physically stop working (unless you’re the woman up thread who was on the phone 48 hours after giving birth) at some point to give birth and to recover. Because it’s the way our society is set up - the assumption is that women will give up Work, not the man. I agree this all needs to be addressed but in the meantime, as part of a culture shift, we have to address the reasons one parent has to stop working at all

As I understand it, the gender pay gap pre children is closing fast. One of the reasons that it may not close entirely is that, often, the man in a couple is older than the woman so is more advanced in his career at the point of conception and therefore earns more at that point in time. What's really bad (career-wise) is what happens after the child s born. I still think what really stuffs things up for women is not the affordability of childcare but the attitude that the "care" of the child is her burden alone - her money, her time, her having to juggle work and motherhood. Increasing the affordability of childcare will not change that. Look up the mum upthread who can't afford childcare unless she can earn 47k a year. No mention of the father at all, no suggestion that his wages or time might contribute in some way, just an desire that the state should plug the gap.

As it happens I do support subsidised childcare when the joint incomes of mothers and fathers are low. But I don't believe it's the most effective measure for addressing that fundemental disparity that child bearing has on men and women.

@BarbarianMum Here are a couple of useful stats - 1) by the time a woman's first child is 12 years old, her hourly pay rate is 33% behind a mans. 2) women who have had children by the age of 33 earn 15 per cent less than their peers who remained childless.
There is no doubt that children have an enormous impact on a woman's earning potential. One of the reasons for that is childcare - childcare often costs more than a woman's wage so it doesn't make sense for them to work. Now of course the fathers wage should be taken into consideration but if you are a couple and you are doing financial sums based on what is best for your family, then inevitably if one of you earns less than what it costs for childcare, you are going to think - what is the point in that person going to work when it would save us money for them to stay at home and look after the kids. Due to the gender pay gap, the low earner is likely to be the mother. It's a vicious circle, so we need to break that link.

@JoeliBrearley1

RE. #2. How about women who haven't had children?

Yes Joeli I'm aware of those stats. Do you have any for the current gender pay gap before children?

If a couple decides that its worth sacrificing the woman's career rather than looking at childcare as a joint expense, then I'm not going to validate that position by calling to subsidise their childcare. You keep going on and on about the cost of care vs the woman's wage -just stop. Equality for women is not going to be achieved by facilitating men not to be equal parents.

@designatedSurvivor yes number 2 works for everyone - men and women who haven't had children. It isn't just mothers who want flexibility

Interesting points, @BarbarianMum

@JoeliBrearley1

Wrong number 2. My fault.

I was asking for clarification on

2. women who have had children by the age of 33 earn 15 per cent less than their peers who remained childless.

How do childless women do compared to men?

If 'peers' was regarding women; are you seriously suggesting that earning less than someone who hasn't had children is unfair? That taking time out and working fewer hours shouldn't have any impact on a career?

@BarbarianMum The gender pay gap for people in their 20s is 5% - the gap widens from 30.

I absolutely agree with the point you are making - particularly this: ''Equality for women is not going to be achieved by facilitating men not to be equal parents.'' - it is just that for centuries childcare has naturally fallen to women so shifting that isn't going to happen overnight and won't happen without some intervention. That is why, in addition to subsidising childcare, we are asking that parental leave is truly equal. If our laws don't support equal care, then how can we expect people to support it.

I was made redundant on mat leave and I will try to attend.

I used to earn a good wage and worked very hard for it and it meant fuck all when push came to shove. I think we'd all do well to remember that when we're slagging off other people for their 'life choices'.

@LostMyMojoSomewhere and @designatedSurvivor you are both talking about 'choice' here so I thought I would address you both simultaneously. You see, the problem is that mothers don't really have a choice. Choices aren't made in a vacuum, they are influenced by all sorts of things. If we look at other countries where the legislation is similar to what we are asking for in the UK, then women make very different choices - they return to work, they work more flexibly, many more fathers take extended leave to care for their children etc. What we are trying to do is to create real choices for parents.

Sorry to hear that @HandbagKrabby - really hope you can make it to the march

Also, @LostMyMojoSomewhere you may note that Sheryl Sandberg herself denounced much of what she had written in that book after her husband died and she realised that she had written that book from a very privileged position and that not all women can 'Lean in' because they simply don't have the choice or ability to do so.

It's quite easy to talk about "rebalancing working lives" when you work in jobs that allow you to work from home or work shorter or longer days. Unfortunately not all of us have the option to just leave work when we feel like it and carry on later in the evening.