There’s no doubt that having babies is an expensive business, but should maternity pay be tripled?
The European Commission is proposing changes to give women full pay for the first 18 weeks of maternity leave. This more than triples the amount currently received by new mothers in Britain.
The EC wants to increase leave from 14 to 18 weeks and upgrade income for that time from sick pay levels to full salary.
At the moment, new mothers receive 90 per cent of their average pay for six weeks, followed by 33 weeks at a flat rate £117.18 a week, known as statutory maternity pay.
Britain would be unaffected by the extra time off as current UK rules give women the right to a year’s leave. But there are huge financial implications from the change of pay which is proposed.
I can only see this alienating businesses against women and make them reluctant to employ us in these days of economic gloom.
Maternity laws in the UK are also being amended from 5 October anyway, which will mean that employers will potentially need to bear the costs of continuing benefits such as car allowance etc for a longer period during maternity leave.
It’s a tricky one this. What you say about employers being less likely to employ women of child-bearing age (and let’s face it that is pretty broad these days!) because of the cost, is no doubt true, understandable in this difficult financial climate, and almost impossible to prove or prevent. So there is an argument for keeping benefits at a “reasonable” level and assuming that employees themselves will save to cover the shortfall (which is what I did).
But on the other hand, the current statutory level is very low. If women are forced back to work after six weeks that is not good for anyone, least of all the child. Many employers of course offer above the statutory rate.
I am undecided about it myself. In the ideal world we should be given greater benefits but it is not an ideal world in which we live and work.
I think it’s a good idea, after all those children will be the workforce of the future.
“I can only see this alienating businesses against women and make them reluctant to employ us in these days of economic gloom.”
This is essentially the problem. On the one hand, the woman who needs upkeep during that time and that is a good argument for marriage in itself.
But the other side is also true that if this legislation passes, businesses would quietly let “possible” mothers slip through and employ either a woman the other side of the maternal years or a man.
This is not right from a moral point of view but business is business and he who pays the piper …
Madness.
How are small businesses or taxpayers supposed to cope ?
Probably another hair-brained idea from a person who’s never created a job in their life.
Of course they said the same thing when maternity leave came into existence at all, but it did not happen. Everything adjusts over time. Women are an integral part of the workforce often doing jobs that men would never do anyway.
Who exactly pays the benefits anyway? Isn’t it a government funded leave, as it is here (part of the unemployment/employment insurance scheme). Businesses are not actually paying the increase are they? The loss to them is not having the employee for the length of time, but that is not going to change. Obviously I do not understand how it works there.
A difficult one. Will it encourage more women to have children and make things even harder for employers and less willing to hire them?
I also think the idea is madness. It’s not only expectant mothers who need leave – what about people who suddenly have to care for very sick parents? When will there be a bit of understanding for single people, who have problems too?
There are pro’s and con’s for both sides of the argument. Being a female of child bearing age, I will admit to telling my current employers in the interview of my inability to have children therefore I wouldn’t need to take all that maternity leave (afterall they can’t ask). Did that admission, swing the vote in may favour? Who knows, they’ll never admit it if it did. (Sorry to say i’d do it again if it gave me the edge over someone else and I really wanted the job).
I guess we’d all like women to be on full pay, not just on maternity leave, but whilst raising children – or as full time MUMS.
But I guess those who would benefit most from this would be those who come from a culture of xareers as ‘breeding reactors’ – vs – those who juggle carrers with starting or raising a family.
Mind you would it be fair to pay someone on £100,000 a year full pay for 18 weeks maternity pay – I guess, that could predispose employers against women of child bearing age.
I’ve written an extended piece on this now, Ellee.
I agree with you Welshcakes, it is USUALLY a womans choice to have children, and illness with older parents is not a choice, it is just as hard for those who have to find time and money away from employment to care for them.
As others have said, if you’re running a small business do not employ women of child bearing age. A small publisher I was working with had 8 women n maternity leave out of 34 employees.It decimated their business.
Maybe it would be possible to make a situation where a family could actually exist on a single adult wage like they used to and women – or men indeed – could actually afford to be a proper parent? Which is what children need – and it should not require two full time incomes to support a family…
That’s what allowing dual income mortgages did, Mutley.
You’re spot on of course.
Mutley
Agree with you.
Nobody has appeard to have mentioned “interfering EU” in all of this.