Reforming maternity pay

Rhoda Klapp

Is there any indication that fathers would take more paternity leave? All new mothers are certifiably insane from late pregnancy to birth plus one year. New babies are nasty selfish unreasonable creatures with no consideration for others. Who would want to be home with them when he could be in a nice office surrounded by colleagues and keeping his career going?

John Moss

One reason for family breakdown is the appalling homes which were built in the 50s and 60s and in to which many families were trapped.

The high rise, balcony access flats and maisonettes were just not compatible with family life and while ever we continue to believe a three bedroom flat on an upper floor is suitable for a family, we will fail.

Families need houses with gardens. We have to build more settlements to accommodate this, but also address the very poor quality of much of the existing social stock if we ever want to help the most vulnerable to have a decent home and a decent life.

TomTom

Another scam on the taxpayer - flat-rate payments for earnings-related taxes.

They used to clip coins but modern political fraud involves making the middle class pay twice for everything

Andy Leeds

Any employer who employs a woman of child bearing age is mad. In my experience not only are children 'nasty selfish unreasonable creatures with no consideration for others', but they usually pale into insignificance beside their Mothers. Once they have a child any consideration for other people is the first thing to go, presupposing that they ever had any in the first place.

Rmh

The paperwork is so small it is not worth even flagging as an issue.

The core issue is one of pay and how much.

The second core issue is time off and how much and for who.

I think fixing the childcare voucher system errors would be good and zero cost to the tax payer.

However if you could raise that level it would be excellent. And keep it index linked too. Not risen since it was brought in.

In fact it is a good policy by new labour. Just needs a tweak.

I speak as a hr person and parent.

Stephen

@ Andy Leeds.

Spot on: I'm glad I have retired and don't employ people any more. Why should an employer subsidise child-rearing? (Why should the long-suffering taxpayer, come to that?)

sarah

@Rhoda - if new mothers are so bonkers maybe it's got something to do with what you go on to say about how any sensible father would rather get out of the house if it's got a screaming baby in it!

Splitting parental pay between parents would get rid of the (perceived) problem Andy Leeds identifies. And, Andy, I find your comments about mothers quite astonishingly rude.

Focusing on mothers is increasingly out of date - my husband has a small business and the only person who requested flexible working around children - and eventually left to look after the children full time - was a dad.

Rhoda Klapp

New mother are bonkers. It's probably ordained by nature for good reasons. But there's no living with them. (They are still bonkers at weekends when hubby is home)

It is also nature which dictates that when you have a mother at work, and a child sick or hurt in home, whether cared for by nanny or hubby, she can't put work first. Mostly men can put their problems on the back boiler. I speak in generalizations, of course, but I've seen it. Those mothers who can concentrate on work at the expense of their kids are the ones who have the ambition to succeed, to break the so-called glass ceiling. This does not make them nice people or good mothers. Indeed, ambitious men are usually flawed too, if they put work before family, but men are forgiven for it. They are classed as a success. But maybe not by their kids.

Oh, and somebody should stand up for the view that says none of this is the state's business to encourage or penalize.

Andy Leeds

sarah, you should be on the receiving end of the inconsideration for others which mothers all too often seem to exhibit then you might actually understand. Example, I was sat in a cafe last week and had the handles of a pushchair shoved up my nose - coffee split everywhere etc - and not a word of apology from the Mother until I said something. Same cafe a few weeks earlier two mothers were sat having coffee and allowed their children to run riot, messing with two very heavy doors. Again they were unconcerned at the disruption their children were causing to other customers and actually to the potential harm their children could have come too had they stuck a hand in said closing door. This sort of behaviour is all too common.

Ruairidh

Splitting current leave and pay entitlements between parents seems like a sensible cost free step.

Adding more entitlement to unpaid leave however strikes me as a fairly hollow gesture. I'm a father with another on the way and despite earning an above average wage I cannot afford to take time off unpaid. Loosing my wife's salary from the household budget is something we can bear, voluntarily loosing mine at the same time would be financial suicide. I imagine most families where both parents work and there is a mortgage will be in the same boat. If you want fathers to take additional time off it needs to be paid and I'm afraid that means paying higher earners more than just statuatory (which won't cover the mortgage & bills).

Arthur

For a chief economist it is alarming that the author does not seem to be aware that the UK is on the verge of bankruptcy.

It is little social projects like this that when added to all the other little projects puts an enormous burden on the country.

Tax payers should not be supporting maternity pay and the law should but out, too.

It seems incredible that we have created a culture that thinks it OK to pay people for doing nothing.

Until we wake up to the idiocy of this sort of socialism we will continue to sink as a nation.

Kate

God people are horrendous. Although I'm now feeling quite chuffed that I've managed to keep myself in gainful employment for the past few years despite packing a uterus with intent. Who knew my fertility was that terrifying to a bunch of mean spirited small businessmen?

McSweeney

Well I see this one has brought a full selection of charlies out of the undergrowth...

Why should the taxpayer subsidise child rearing? Because the children are going to be the ones paying with their taxes for all your retirements and your trip to NHS with the dodgy prostate. That would be the most sensible reason for making it easier for people to have them.

Sharign mat/paternity leave is an excellent idea and would make it more difficult for employers to discrminate against women of child bearing age - after all, maybe it will be that 26 year old man you just hired who wants 4 months off...

Rhoda Klapp

McSweeney, indeed there is no fairness problem or piece of social engineering which cannot be solved by government taking my money to give to others more deserving. And they are so wise in the way they spend it.

sarah

@rhoda - I was certainly rather tired when I had young babies - I wouldn't go farther than that - maybe the fact I split the childcare equally with my husband after quite a short spell of maternity leave helped me stay relatively sane ...

I'm personally rather more stressed by children's illnesses than my husband - but nothing in my experience (of colleagues more generally) makes me think women are more distracted than men by this issue. Surely both women and men should aim for a rational balance between fretfulness and ruthless ambition - but so often a narrower spectrum of behaviour is permitted to women somehow.
Parental leave (within reason) is I assume counterbalanced by parents' tax in the longer run. If I hadn't had maternity leave my husband (not earning at that time) would have had to give up developing a small business (which has since paid lots of tax and employed several people) to look after the children.
@Andy - women (I guess) are proportionately quite a bit more likely than men to be in charge of pushchairs - but I don't think that means mothers are especially delinquent. And it is very tiring looking after children.

Andy Leeds

Sarah, you miss the point. The women I mentioned didn't give a damn for other customers and it was all about 'me, me, me and my children'. They were inconsiderate and bloody rude. I could quote loads more examples but that was just two in a 2 week period. The same attitude permeates the work place where those who do not have children, or whose children are grown up are treated as 'second class employees'. You were lucky enough to have maternity leave, but who do you think covered your absence ? Or when you demand to have your leave in July and August because of school holidays who is it who is busy manning the phones etc ? There is an attitude by those with children that they take precedence. They shouldn't and it is time the balance was brought more into line. Frankly with the burgeoning plethora of 'rights' for those with children I would not advise anyone to employ a woman of child bearing age. Its not worth the agro.

sarah

Andy - you must have an awfully low tolerance threshold or something! I just don't register this evil mummy syndrome at all! I work in HE so the July/August thing isn't much of an issue - actually though I always envy people who can take their holidays in June or September - cheaper and maybe nicer. We've paid a nanny two lots of maternity leave and you do get it back in the end. In the real world I just don't think there is this friction between those with smallish children and those with no, or much older, children. Most people are tolerant of other people's needs whether they relate to children, sickness or whatever.
The big reason people work flexibly or off site or whatever in my work is having a long commute - but how they organise their work doesn't impact on anyone so that's fine by me.