A report (by the TUC -www.tuc.org.uk/news/fathers-working-full-time-earn-21-more-men-without-children-says-tuc) found that fathers working full-time get paid a fifth more than men with similar jobs who don’t have children. The report shows that dads who work full-time experience, on average, a 21% ‘wage bonus’ and that working fathers with two kids earn more (9%) than those with just one. The findings are in stark contrast to the experience of working mothers, says the report. Women who become mothers before 33 typically suffer a 15% pay penalty. If more childcare options were available, women might be more able to continue working more hours a week, therefore having less of an impact on their long-term career prospects.
During and after maternity leave, your own income and opportunities are likely to take a backseat to the welfare of your child. The decision a woman makes at this stage has a big impact on her work experience, her career progression, her salary increases, any bonuses, her pension pot and various other factors in a way that a man whobecomes a fatherdoes not tend to worry about. When women are starting with less money than men due to a prevailing pay gap, then the wage gap is exacerbated even further by these factors for women who are mothers. A couple can make a joint decision for the woman to stay at home with the children, but that doesn't mean that they will have joint consequences further down the line. Whilst for some, income is seen as "household" money, if a relationship breaks down, then typically, a man will still have this extra household money in his account, in his pension pot, in his pocket. This isn't necessarily the case for the stay-at-home partner who has put her (or his) finances and career on hold to look after the children. It also leaves many women stuck in abusive relationships because they simply can't afford to move away from the situation.
The post asks for suggestions of what the government could do to help women during and shortly after maternity leave. One suggestion would be for the government to continue to pay pension contributions to the woman's pension pot or for fathers to have the option of paying in to the mother's pension pot during the time that she has reduced her hours or is an at-home mum. This would help narrow the pension gap further down the line and leave women less vulnerable should a relationship end in divorce and her partner subsequently re-marry, leaving her without a pension later on.
The above are my thoughts for if a woman is in a relationship, but in the case of single mothers, the situation is far more dire. I am fortunate enough to have family support, however if I didn't I simply would not have been able to continue working. I was able to continue in my job with reduced hours as I am fortunate enough to work for an employer with good flexible working practices. If I didn't have family support, I would've had to leave my job. The costs of my mortgage, bills, food etc with the addition of nappies, full time childcare and various other baby paraphernalia would have exceeded my income by some margin. If I had left completely, there is no way I would have been able to return to the workforce at this time as I wouldn't be able to find a job with my current hour pattern at the same level (most part time jobs are in low wage care, retail, service industries - it is very rare to see 3-day-a-week jobs advertised in many "career" type positions, so I would have been unable to return to work until my child was at school age.
Whilst I have reduced my hours, I am unable to progress up the property ladder as my mortgage was based on my full time income and if I am to remortgage, I would not be able to borrow the current amount I have outstanding. Despite being able to pay my mortgage, I am unable to shop around for a better deal when my fixed term ends, because I would not meet the criteria for borrowing the amount outstanding. Perhaps the government could encourage mortgage lenders to look at re-payment history rather than solely look at income figures.
Bringing forward the free childcare places from 9 months would have a huge benefit to women who are left literally holding the baby after a relationship breaks down. There are many posts on mumsnet about CMS payments too and how women are expected to pay for everything in the absence of a father who has opted out of parenthood. Or perhaps sometimes the father will contribute £10/wk or some small amount which doesn't even cover 2 hours of childcare a week. Another thing the government could do would be to make claiming CMS payments easier/automatic. There are many women who don't know the current whereabouts of their child's father or who have left abusive relationships and may be reluctant to claim. This disadvantages the women and children, so a system that automatically enrolls all fathers at the point of signing the birth certificate would be hugely beneficial.
Another factor to consider is that many women also pay commuting costs. If commuting every day, a season ticket is a cheaper option for paying this cost. If commuting 2, 3 or 4 days, a season ticket should be available at a proportionate cost. Could the government lobby for rail companies to offer this?
If baby is born prematurely, the first few months might be spent in hospital and parents might not be able to bond with their children as well or might have to return to work before any of the major milestones. Having 15hrs childcare from 9 months would perhaps enable parents of premature babies to go back to work on reduced hours and have some additional time at home with their child/ren. Either way, another suggestion for government would be for mat leave to be calculated from expected due date, rather than date of birth so that families of premature babies get more time to bond and witness milestones as the baby grows (premature babies are more likely to hit milestones later as they are however many weeks behind themselves developmentally).