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

so why doesn't one of the parents work evenings and weekends when the other is available for childcare?

Because most jobs are not flexible. If you both have to work 9-5 Monday to Friday, having someone always at home isn't an option. Also there may not be the flexible jobs in your area that pays the amount you need to earn to keep a roof above your head.

If subsidised childcare and crèches made commercial sense, more employers would already be doing it.

For the same reason employers don't like to pay to train their staff. It is much easier to just get new employees already trained (or in this case, not having childcare issues) than to support current employees. Employees are very disposable.

kpo that's true but then we are back to "and why do women mostly rake the hit?" A 5% pay gap really isn't a good explanation.

I'd support a move to truly equal maternity/paternity leave. 6 months each.

But LostMyMojoSomewhere many people don't have the option of changing their hours so that they work evenings, weekends or part time. If they have no flexibility in that regard, have no family support around to provide free childcare and have to pay at last one of their salaries in childcare*, then the obvious solution for many is that one of them give up work. That's not fair unless the person giving up work really wants to do that. In many cases it doesn't help anyone, as many people who give up their jobs (usually women for the reasons given by other posters) really don't want to do that but feel they have no choice, then they're "out of the system" for years when they're not paying in anything by way of taxes, NI etc and when they return (assuming they actually can) they'll be earning much less and also paying less to the state. It doesn't make sense to price people out of working. That's great that you were able to take a flexible role, but you don't acknowledge just how lucky you were and how that simply isn't an option for many people. You are very privileged but clearly don't want to accept that.

I also think it's appalling that you say "women dislike the consequences of their own freely made choices". Once again, it shouldn't just be a "woman's problem", as both men and women choose to have children. Why is it just our choice and our consequences? and why should the consequence of simply having children be that you lose your job/are demoted/are paid less or that you're priced out of working altogether because childcare costs are so high?

(*and that's assuming you're a couple/both contributing, I can't imagine how difficult it is for single parents)

kpo that's true but then we are back to "and why do women mostly rake the hit?"

Because the choice currently is that either one parent takes the hit or both parents take the hit. If one parent is in a job that could earn 80k (if career progression isn't interrupted) and the other could only get to 30k, it doesn't make financial sense to let both parents to take a large maximum earnings potential hit (or get into debt as a couple due to childcare costs).

When people say the Woman's salary is less than the childcare costs, they don't mean that literally the woman is the only person paying these costs, but financially it's not worth doing as it uses up more than entire salary worth and that's why it isn't worth both parents working.

My changes to my working life were simply that I got fatter and fatter as 9 months progressed. Nothing else changed while I was pregnant. I still worked every hour under the sun and got fantastic client feedback, yet I was told I "didn't deserve" the payrise and bonus my non-pregnant male colleague got. So yes, that was the consequence of me SIMPLY getting pregnant.

No, of course nursery assistants aren't raking it in. But you don't just pay the cost of their salary, there are loads of other costs you're paying. I'm based in an area where wages are very low, yet my nursery cost is still £55/day per child. That is a huge chunk of many people's salary
(especially around here where daily commutes also usually cost £15-30!).

Companies required to report what % of workforce is made redundant within 2 years of returning from mat leave in comparison to the rest of the workforce. Sanctions if this is hugely out of proportion.

My old work routinely made returners redundant.

can you please amend your text? you mean 'sex' and not 'gender'. please use the correct terms.

In your example, even in the (highly unlikely) event that childcare costs were £30k

This a perfectly likely amount. If my DD was at Nursery full time, it would cost over 18k per year and if you have more than one child...

I'm not saying it's unreasonable, I'm saying it's a massive chunk of one person's salary. If you are paying childcare costs for more than one child, then the likelihood is it will be more than most people bring home each day. That's why many people feel they cannot go back to work, as they cannot justify getting into debt. I just don't think it's right that people who want to work feel they can't.

Yes, I brought a claim but ultimately settled. When I spoke to the lawyer about it, they said it's unbelievable how many women this happens to and that they were aware of quite a few other cases in my organisation alone. I was extremely poorly towards the end of my pregnancy (which the doctor thinks was exacerbated by my work demanding that I work ridiculous hours during the week & almost every weekend) and in the months after I gave birth (nearly died; wasn't fun). Many women in my situation would not have felt up to fighting and bringing a claim within the current time period, which is why I support the PTS 'Give me six' campaign (as well as their other campaigns).

On a separate note, once my children are out of childcare and I don't have such high costs myself, I'd be more than happy to pay more tax to help those coming up behind me to stay in work (if that's what they want to do). Just as I don't mind paying a bit more so that those who are unable to work (e.g. For disability etc) are looked after, or so that those who are trying to get into work receive benefits until they do. I think it's good that the state helps those at periods in their life when they need a little help.

Quite appalled by some of the responses here - some of you need to realise how privileged you are. You make it all sound very straightforward but it is not for many people.

My husband and I decided we were going to try for a baby as we were in a position where we could afford a child. Then it turned out I was pregnant with twins - what should I have done, chosen to abort one and not the other? My pregnancy was rough and has triggered an auto immune condition, which I could not have foreseen. One of my twins has growth restriction and has a serious illness as a result. I can't just leave him with someone else, he needs constant monitoring and management.

People's circumstances change all the time - redundancy, illness, ill children, multiples, and so many other factors. I hope you realise this could also happen to you. You're essentially saying that no one should have children unless they have £50k of savings in the bank. It's ridiculous.

You speak as though there's no benefit to society of people having children, and of those children being financially stable, well fed and parents who are able (financially and otherwise) to care for those children. That's utter nonsense - have you seen the situation in America and what happens when there is no guaranteed paid parental leave? It's a disaster, and it's a disaster for society as a whole.

And let's remember, benefits and tax credits paid to lower income workers and families are really a subsidy of businesses and their profits, nothing more.

Agree, Coffee, I'd also be entirely happy to pay more tax to fund this. It's in my own interests, even though I don't plan on more children - simply because I value a civilised society and well functioning economy that utilises the skills of all its population, more than I value some ideological libertarian fantasy. Most of the objections appear to have a strong underlying ideological objection couched in moral bollocks.

Also, I note how all the antis are carefully ignoring the obvious impact of these points:

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.

3. HAS A TRACK RECORD OF INCREASING UPTAKE OF LEAVE BY MEN.

TO SPELL IT OUT FOR THOSE TRYING TO IGNORE THAT, THIS GOES SOME WAY TOWARDS LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR WOMEN AS EMPLOYERS CAN NO LONGER COMPLETELY AVOID EMPLOYING POTENTIAL PARENTS.

4. will help many families where the father is driving for Uber, or a Deliveroo rider, or one of the increasingly large number of jobs where companies have been allowed to exploit loopholes to pretend their staff are really just self-employed.

I wholly disagree with #5. A much more comprehensive approach is needed that will reduce 70% of families in poverty. That starts with childcare being subsidized by making the whole cost of childcare a pretax expense. Then benefits also need to be calculated on income after childcare.

All the other stuff is smoke and mirrors. Moving timeframes for tribunals doesn't address the discrimination that is taking place. If we want to create an equal workplace women need to have a choice to work or not work. Right now too many women do not have that choice and I find that unacceptable. If we want women sitting at the boardroom table as a board member we need to support women earlier on.

Moving timeframes for tribunals doesn't address the discrimination that is taking place
No, but if employers knew they were more likely to be taken to a tribunal they might not discriminate so readily, although I realise this wouldn't help much with attitudes.

Suzie Here in NJ USA the state wants to hear from you if you have been discriminated against during or after a pregnancy or maternity leave. The man who heads up the program is a true feminist and a pioneer. IMO it's a much more effective program than employees taking an employer to a tribunal. Namely, if there is any hint of an issue everyone has to go through mandatory training. Also, if there is no formal policy in place they assist the company to put one in place.

The only way to really force change though is to enable women to stay in the workforce as they have a family. Flexible working is somewhat important but as a working parent I could not leave my DC with inferior childcare. Good childcare costs money. We use the government head start program and pay $1500 a month for 7:30-5:30. Food and formula is included in this price. The non subsidized places are $2200-2900 a month but offer 7-7. When you only have one it's affordable. When you have three, not so much!!!

1. Yes - although given Tory policy on employment rights not going to happen.

2. No - in small companies it would be obvious who had asked and I don't see why its anyone's business. Maybe in large companies it would be a good idea.

3. Not unless all women are going to get this first!! You don't get 6 weeks at 90% if you only qualify for MA. Why should the father get a better deal than the mother actually physically giving birth!

4. Yes but perhaps based on previous work history e.g. using NI contributions to qualify.

5. No, simply cant afford it. Unless we are prepared as a society to consider a much higher tax rate there are frankly more important things to spend money on. I agree to keep more women in work there needs to be more help at 6 months, but at the moment people don't want a high tax, high reward society. Id rather more money was spent on the NHS rather than subsidising people's childcare. Maybe stop the increase to 30 hours for 3 and 4 year olds and pull the age down to 2.5 for funded hours. And pay somewhere near the going rate, don't just make all the other parents make up the difference as happens at the moment. As it is now, any more 'free' (!) hours would cause the system to collapse.

I think it's dangerous to think that we can't afford to subsidize childcare. We can't afford not to IMO when 70% of families are living in poverty.

We talk a lot about how taxes need to increase. I'd actually like to see a complete rethink about how as a society we collect taxes to pay for services. I do not understand why the self employed are allowed to get away with paying so much less. I don't understand why we bother to have IHT when the most wealthy are able to avoid it.

Kpo58 agree, i don't do paid work as childcare costs after baby no.2 would have been more than my salary. I couldn't afford to lose money on working in a job with no progression that was not far above min wage (school support staff). I could have gone back to teaching but full time and never seeing my kids did not seem like a good option. My husband's pay isn't great either but he is private sector so his pay does at least go up, he has the opportunity to renegotiate. I don't. We made the best choice for us as a family and I don't regret it at all. Someone genuinely told me the other day that I should go back to work to address the gender pay gap and show girls they can do it. Fuck that! Everyone has to make the best choice for their family. Aside from which, the kind of work I would do and the kind of pay I would earn would not help reduce the gender pay gap much at all!