Tackling the Big Two: maternity leave and childcare
NS March 31st, 2009
The Times and many other news sources reported yesterday on the new proposed changes to maternity leave in the UK, scrapping plans to increase it from 9 months to one year by 2010 and instead introducing a system where mothers’ leave is reduced back down to six months but at a higher rate of pay. Currently, women are entitled to nine months of paid leave: six weeks at 90% of their salary with the remainder paid at the statutory rate of £117.18 per week. Under new proposals, pay for the six month period would be at 90% throughout.
Once the six months was up, “parental leave” would kick in wherein both parents would have the right to take a four month period of leave with at least eight weeks paid at 90% and the rest at the statutory rate. This means fathers* would be entitled to four months leave as opposed to the paltry two weeks they receive now and women would have the option to take another four months leave after the initial six months they automatically get. Fathers would not be able to transfer their leave to their partners so if their portion was not used it would be lost. This would help ensure that more fathers actually take the leave rather than passing it off on their partners. Both parents, regardless of whether they take advantage of the parental leave, would also be entitled to a further four months of “family leave” which would be divided up between them and paid at a lower rate, though it is not clear whether this can be used at a later date or must immediately proceed the maternity and parental leave periods.
The aim of doing this, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is to level the playing field between men and women a bit more — both at home and in the workplace — by giving fathers a chance to bond with and care for their children in the early stage of life and set the tone for more equitable parenting. I wholeheartedly agree that this is important not only to the child and the father, but to the couple’s partnership as well. The more equal a couple feels with regards to childrearing, the more equal they feel with regards to other areas of life as well. Considering that so many marriages or partnerships fail because of resentment and a skewed division of responsibility (or perception of), I view this as a positive step in the right direction: men taking responsibility for the care of their children, strengthening relationships within the entire family, and giving women more options with regards to their jobs and when to return.
Increased paternity leave would also be good for women, regardless of child status, the Commission says. No longer would employers be inclined to bin the CVs of women of childbearing age for fear that they will abandon their careers once they have a baby; if men can take months off after a child is born too, it will be much harder for companies to discriminate against anyone with the potential to become a parent, as doing so would effectively mean disregarding anyone between the ages of 18 and 45. Knowing that even women with no intention of having children get bundled into this category means that support for this measure should be coming from all corners of feminism and proponents of gender equality, not just the mummy set.
To me, a huge benefit of this plan is that giving women six months at the higher rate of pay would encourage more mothers to take the full six months off that they are entitled to. At the moment it is mainly those who are abe to afford to take so much time off on so little pay who are taking the full leave. Many working class and some middle class women must go back before they’ve even recovered physically from the birth, let alone emotionally, because the statutory rate is hardly going to pay the rent or mortgage. So the ‘option’ of taking six months on such little pay wasn’t really an ‘option’ for them in the first place. Hopefully this will enable more women to take time off if the rate of pay is 90% of their usual wage.
Ironically, the other set of women who are predisposed to returning to work early are those in very high profile and powerful jobs. Returning to work isn’t about paying the mortgage to them, but the reality of working in a male-dominated field where machismo rules and time is money. Remember the raised eyebrows over Rachida Dati, the French Justice Minister, who went into the office a mere five days after having a caesarean section? Despite the media interest in such an ‘unusual’ case, women returning to work two weeks or less after giving birth is not unheard of. Do some of them do this because they want to? Sure, but it’s probably a rather small percentage. Even of those who claim they wanted to return to their jobs straight away, I have to wonder how much of that is fear of admitting any kind of physical weakness or emotional vulnerability to their male colleagues and bosses.
I cannot think of another situation where a person would be highly commended and admired by her colleagues for getting back to work five days after having major surgery, even when this is generally against medical advice, and particularly when the surgery resulted in another human life to care for. What kind of message does that send to women competing for the top jobs in the UK but who also want children? That they must work twice as hard to be regarded even half as much as their male counterparts and that allowing their biology to interfere with their job performance would be tantamount to career suicide. In the face of that kind of pressure, it’s no wonder that so many women opt to return as quickly as possible or not to have children at all.
That’s not to say I blame women like Dati for feeling she needed to return quickly; I blame the workplace structure that penalises women’s biology and props up the male body and lifestyle as the gold standard. Unfortunately, until attitudes in the ‘boys club’ change, these new maternity leave proposals probably won’t alter length of leave for those top-rung women. I suppose the only reassuring factor is that at least they have the means and resources to ensure their infants are being cared for properly, and most likely the time and space to express milk at their offices. The working and middle class women who go back very quickly out of absolute necessity often aren’t so lucky.
However, that brings me to another perceived benefit of making the six month leave a more viable option — breastfeeding. Breastfeeding rates in the UK are pretty abysmal and are among the lowest in Europe, as evidenced in this NHS report:
The UK Infant Feeding Survey 2005 (Bolling et al. 2007) showed that 78% of women in England
breastfed their babies after birth. However, a third of these women had stopped by week 6 so that
only 50% of all new mothers were breastfeeding by week 6 and 26% by 6 months. For more details
of the Infant Feeding Survey, please see link.http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/breastfeed2005
So just over 3/4 of new mothers initiate breastfeeding but by week 6, only half of those babies are being breastfed. That quarter drop can largely be accounted for by lack of support and correct information, along with a small percentage experiencing medical problems that make breastfeeding impossible. This is a huge problem in and of itself and would merit numerous posts to address, but that is not what I’m writing about today. I want to look at how many are breastfeeding at the 6 week mark but not at 6 months, which I used to find strange. Why, after persevering through the most difficult part (the first 6 weeks), would a mother give up before the 6-month benchmark so vital for babies’ health? The answer, in many cases, is the return to work.
Without the proper equipment, support, time and means to continue breastfeeding when they return to employment, the task becomes rather impossible for many women. Some give up in anticipation of their return, sure from the stories of difficulty they’ve heard from other mothers and the lack of support by their employer that they will be unable to keep it up. Even those determined to succeed, armed with information and support, are often waylaid by the drop in milk production that inevitably comes if they are not able to pump as often as necessary to maintain supply. Not many small businesses or service-based jobs offer the opportunity to pump, sadly. Even large, multinational, “progressive” companies often have nonexistant or minimal support for lactating mums: herding them into semi-public spaces like supply closets or conference rooms where they risk being walked in on, causing a great deal of stress and embarrassment; providing little or no space for the milk to be stored at appropriate temperatures without being labeled ‘biohazard’ by outdated health regulations or alongside squicked-out colleagues’ lunches; docking break time or wages for taking 15 minutes to pump a couple times a day, even if other employees take the same amount of time smoking or drinking coffee; having to hear behind-the-back sniping about how ‘unfair’ pumping breaks are and how colleagues have to “pick up the slack,” making her feel like a burden and a liability. In the face of such obstacles, is it any wonder that many women who return to work before 6 months end up quitting breastfeeding?
So if these new laws would enable more women to take up and continue exclusively breastfeeding their babies to the recommended minimum of 6 months, that’s fantastic. But this must be done in conjunction with improving lactation support for mums returning to work before that time, whatever the reason, or for those who wish to cary on past 6 months for the recommended 1-2 years and beyond.
As a start, I’d like to see the government stipulate that all new office buildings and/or those over a certain square footage and/or businesses that employ a certain amount of people must have a lactation room(s) and a policy on expressing breaks for returning mothers. Financial incentives for smaller businesses to follow suit would undoubtedly help in getting more places of employment to be new mum and breastfeeding friendly. I wonder too if a scheme could exist where a father could defer his portion of parental leave to a later date, say when they child is past one year of age, if his partner is exclusively breastfeeding. That way a couple who find themselves in the situation where the woman wants to use as much of her leave as possible to carry on breastfeeding wouldn’t be penalised for not using the father’s leave immediately. Pipe dreams, I’m sure, but they make sense, to me at least.
The other issue that needs to be sorted out is childcare. Not just in the first year of a child’s life but until he or she begins full-time schooling. I really don’t know why more companies don’t have in-house childcare for their employees. Think of the time saved in having to drop off and pick up, often meaning a later start or earlier finish for at least one parent (usually the mother). Parents wishing to use the scheme would contribute a percentage of their paycheque to fund the centre and the rest would be government funded, like it currently is at pre-schools and daycare centres across the UK for children over 3. This would take some of the legwork and guesswork out of finding reputable childminders as they would be officially vetted and background checked by a special liasion in the HR department. Sick children could be kept in a room separate from the others with one or two employees supervising them, to minimise the spread of sickness and also allow a parent to report to work. The parent of a child in the ‘sick room’ would be entitled to longer or more regular breaks that day(s) in order to visit with, care for and dispense medicine as necessary. Those who choose to hire a full-time nanny or stay at home themselves should also be eligible for voucher schemes, perhaps toward petrol, food and activities for the children.
I don’t know, maybe I’m too much of an idealist. I certainly haven’t thought out the minute details and costs of these plans but I do know that they make sense, to this mother at least. At some point we have to say screw cost and just suck it up and dole out the cash to implement these kinds of programs and structures. Plans implemented now, no matter how painful the price tag, will have multiple long-term benefits with positive knock-on effects. When businesses complain about the cost they are being blind to the potential for growth in productivity and the dangers of keeping things as they are. We have to start somewhere, right?
Lastly, I want to say how deeply disappointed I am that there wasn’t even a mention of this on The F-Word, the leading UK feminist site. Hell, it wasn’t even discussed on The Times’ very own working mothers’ blog, Alpha Mummy! This is why so many mothers feel marginalised in the feminist movement and in the media, largely fronted and voiced by young and/or childless women. I fight for the same things they do — safer streets, equal pay, an end to violence against women, the freedom to control my reproduction — even when they are not my most pressing personal concerns. But when it comes to issues that mean the world to mothers, things like the right to paid maternity leave, the right to breastfeed in public, the right to give birth where and how we want, the right to affordable childcare…radio silence. Oh, we get the odd murmur of activity if something is particularly salacious or eyebrow-raising but by and large issues that are important to mothers are ignored and it angers me. No, it infuriates me. We are mothers and we matter, goddamnit! Even if you think these are not your fights, they are. When we are marginalised, so too are women everywhere. We are deserving of commentary, we are deserving of discussion and we are deserving of column inches.
So let’s get this conversation rolling. Be you a feminist or a mother or both, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes? What are your ideas for bettering maternity and parental leave, for supporting breastfeeding in the workplace and for improving childcare arrangements for working parents? What about if one of you stays home — should you be on your own if you choose not to return to work or should that role be government-compensated in some way as well? And if you are a father, please share your feelings on the new proposals and what you think it will mean for your family and your career.
*I use fathers throughout because this is how the non-birth-giving parent is referred to in the mentioned articles but I would apply this equally to same-sex partners of the primary parent
- Activism , Career , Feminist Fury , In The News , Parenting 101
- Comments(10)
(sorry, didn’t mean two weeks, meant six weeks!)
What happened to my first comment? Weird?
Honestly? Not sure. I got six months paid at the lower rate, and used savings to scrape it to nine months. But even that was too little time for me. I really wanted to take the whole year but just couldn’t have afforded it without “making sacrifices” (a catch-all term which for us would have meant “defaulting on bills”/”getting a loan”). You know the rest of the story re: mental health (or if you don’t, ’tis at Mothers for Women’s Lib).
I’m just not sure every mother is emotionally ready to go back to work after six months. I certainly wasn’t. I don’t like this idea of cutting mat leave back down to six months. Although the higher pay is a good thing because it will enable women who otherwise would not have been able to take any mat leave to take some, I just don’t see why we can’t have a full nine months at the higher rate, in addition to a several month long partner leave and so on and so forth… I just don’t see why the answer is “oh, but small businesses the economy blah blah blah” because it seems to me once again it’s just another way of saying “what you’re doing isn’t real work”.
As for breastfeeding, I understand that the majority of women who stop do so in the first two weeks in the UK, which is less to do with going back to work and more with chronic lack of support.
Ah, I’m in two minds. I would like to see the *option* of taking a longer mat leave available, perhaps at a lower rate of pay again, not sure.
And as for it not being covered… are you surprised? *sigh*
Thanks for your thoughts, Ruth.
I agree that six months still seems too little but when you look at the complete proposal, a woman could take her six months at (nearly) full pay, then immediately take her ‘parental leave’ which gives her another 8 weeks at 90% and a further two months at the statutory rate. That’s eight months at (nearly) full pay and then two more months at the lower rate. From what I gather she could also then take her “family leave” which could be up to another two months and is paid at the lower rate. That’s still a year off, with most of it paid at 90% and the rest at the statutory rate, none of it completely unpaid. The father/partner could then take his four months of parental leave and two months of family leave, adding on an additional six months of parental care for the child. That gets him or her to 18 months old being exclusively looked after by the parents.
Now, I know that a lot of couples still won’t be able to exercise the option for the father to stay home for those six months because he would be receiving the higher rate of pay for only two of them, but two months is better than nothing. Two months of looking after his child on his own would give many fathers a much better insight into what it takes to care for a child full time, 24 hours a day. I think a lot of disparity between men and women who fall into traditional gender roles of breadwinner and stay-at-home mum could be alleviated by garnering greater understanding and respect for the childcare role. Women know what it’s like to work and they know what it’s like to look after the children. Men often only experience the former.
I know it’s not perfect but I still think it’s a damn sight better than what we have now. And I like that it still gives women a full year off (and at a better rate of pay!) but gives more flexible options for them to share the care with their partners.
As for breastfeeding after the six week mark, I know that the bulk of women who stop are from lack of support but I’d bet that a not-insignificant percentage quit because of a return to work. I’ve known many women who have done just that — breastfed for a few months but then went back to work and couldn’t keep up the pumping and just got too busy and stressed out about where and how to do it and so switched to formula. If they had proper support at work they would’ve been able to continue.
Interesting. Hadn’t heard about this change – must ask my employment law colleagues about it. I wonder whether it’ll actually go through – expect the government will come under a lot of pressure not to introduce these changes during a recession, and I doubt the Conservatives will do it when they’re in power from next year.
I’m a little sceptical as to whether the increased parental leave for fathers will have quite the far-reaching effects that the EHRC thinks it’ll have. I suspect a lot of fathers will feel under some pressure from their employers to forego this opportunity, at least beyond the “standard” first fortnight’s paternity leave.
The expectations for mothers and fathers remain somewhat different. Mothers are “expected” to stop working after they have a child. The purpose of the statutory maternity framework is therefore to ensure that (a) they continue to get paid (something) while they do so, and (b) they are able to return to their jobs afterwards. Fathers are still “expected” to carry on working, so taking eight weeks’ paid parental leave will be seen by many as something of an indulgence.
I’m not saying that’s right – quite the contrary – just that I doubt the new regime will do a great deal to reverse it.
I was talking to my wife about this last night when I first read your post, in particular the figures on breastfeeding rates. TBH, we were a little surprised at how high they are, given the lack of support and the social pressures (some subtle, some not so) in support of bottle-feeding. (All those Cow & Gate-sponsored information packs which dutifully intone the mantra “Breast is best!”, but with the sotto voce subtext: “but formula is just as good…”)
What stunned me – and feel free to be equally stunned that I hadn’t known this before, until Emily told me – was discovering that mothers receiving benefit payments get formula provided for free, but bfing mothers don’t get any payments for the extra food they need. And we wonder why bfing rates are so low, particularly among lower-income groups! Assume bfing campaigners have given a lot of thought to this, so would be interested to know what solutions have been suggested. (Sorry if it’s a little OT.)
I have a friend who went back to work after 2 and a half months (because she hadn’t worked at the company for long enough to qualify for full maternity leave and she just couldn’t afford not to).
She says it is one of her big regrets and she thinks about it all the time and how it could have affected her son. she has since had two more children and took 9 months off with both of those, but that first one always plays on her mind.
Fabulous post NS, and something that will continue to be a really thorny subject.
Sorry for late replies, been busy with birthday party planning for a very special three-year-old.
@John – I don’t know if the measures will pass either but I really hope they do. If David Cameron wasn’t a Tory I’d daresay he might actually pass it but as it is, I doubt the gov’t will do anything to piss off small business owners right now.
Very good point about fathers being pressured not to take their full leave, I (sadly) agree. But you know the only way to combat this? For men who are unfairly pressured not to take their leave to stand up and complain about it. That’s what women have had to do in combatting sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Staying silent and suffering the consequences just won’t do any longer. I realise this is easier said than done, especially when one’s job is on the line, but if men don’t stand up for themselves, who will?
Totally agree with you re: the points you mentioned to do with breastfeeding.
@Tara – I feel for your friend; so many women find themselves in the same situation. I’m glad to hear she got longer leave with her second two and I’m sure her firstborn is doing just fine. Kids are so resilient; it’s us mums whose memories (and guilt) take longer to fade.
Fascinating topic and one of my favourites by far.
Firstly, I don’t have any knowledge of breastfeeding in England, other than a few friends I have who live there who all decided against nursing “because it’s not really done over here”. I was surprised to hear that, and I’m interested to research more and find out if it’s because of lack of support and education on the subject.
I am from Canada and we have a one year maternity leave. Depending on your employer, you can earn up to 98 per cent of your pay for the entire year you’re off. Did that happen to me? Certainly not!! I’m a teacher so I had minimum pay but at least it was something to keep me going. There are a wide variety of different paternal leaves offered here, and the government supports any father wanting to take time off.
As you mentioned, in our situation my husband made so much more money than me, that it was not realistic for him to take a leave. He does software engineering and works in high tech, so he didn’t have a hefty “top up” like public service jobs do. We couldn’t have lived without his full salary, especially with our most recent and third baby. Ironically, my husband was laid off in January of this year and only started a new job yesterday, so he was home with our children for two full months. It was EYE OPENING for him and he has a new and enthusiastic respect for what I do.
And to be honest, me being the one to take the full year leaves with each baby made sense to use b/c of I breastfed all them for at least a year. Two of my kids wouldn’t even take a bottle so it was easier for me to be at home and nurse them on demand. (Obviously had I chosen to go back to work and the babies were forced to drink expressed milk or starve, I’m sure they would have taken it, but I never made it much past an hour or two of them crying!)
That being said, I would say that at least half of our friends have had a husband take part of their leave. Often a woman will take 10 months and the husband two. It is becoming more and more common here, and that is a step in the right direction. (Of course, we are in the upper-middle class category and thus most of our friends have two university-educated parents with decently paying jobs. The situation is likely very different in the lower class.)
I have several close friends – one a lawyer, one running a small company – who went to work after about 4-5 months leave. Now, in Canada this is a SHORT time to be off b/c many take the full one year leave. These women definitely returned to work for the success and advancement of their career. One did not breastfeed and the other had a very pleasant office that supported her pumping and gave her a comfortable and private place in which to do it. Both had complete success returning to work early, although that may not always happen, I’m sure.
I totally agree with you on the childcare front. We are sadly lacking here in this country, in my opinion. Childcare is still unaffordable for many. I mean, I am a reasonably-paid teacher and cannot afford to send my three young children to day care on my salary. GIVE ME A BREAK. I work in a school – where better to have a government subsidized day care!!???? I seriously contemplate moving to Sweden some days – they’ve got it goin’ on in the mat leave and day care categories.
Of course I should be compensated if I choose to be home with my kids, I would have to support that
Or even worse, if I don’t choose it but have to do it b/c I can’t afford to work.
Was this incoherent and disjointed? Of course, I’m a mom of three little ones and don’t get enough sleep!! But fabulous post, I loved reading it.
This is very interesting, NS. The increase in paid paternity leave is particularly good, and overall it seems to be giving a better deal.
I think another important thing is for there not to be a limit on how long you have been in a company before you’re entitled to paid maternity leave, as the experience of Tara’s friend shows.
I went back to work immediately. I came home and sent some invoices out one day while Rosemary was still in SCBU, and was doing a couple of hours work a day within a week of her being home. After a couple of weeks, I developed the ability to grab working time whenever Rosemary slept. I didn’t do any housework or pretty much anything else other than look after her and work when she slept, but Chris was here to pick up the slack (and had already been doing so through the last few months of the pregnancy). But it’s a lot easier to do all that when you work from home and when your husband also works from home.
But… I also couldn’t have taken maternity leave. When self-employed, all you’re entitled to is the statutory maternity pay, and you can only take that if you do no work. No work at all. Which means my sending out invoices or doing two hours scheduling or something would mean I would not be entitled to the incredibly measley statutory pay. There is absolutely no way that we could have paid the mortgage and bills if I wasn’t working at least a bit during that time. As it was, Chris had to increase his workload, so he was working at least 10-hour days most of the time, as well as doing lots of extra household chores that I couldn’t fit in. The only way it would have been vaguely possible was if I had been sensible and organised (which I should have, really) and saved enough money to cover my share of the outgoings for six months. But it probably would have taken six years to save that kind of money. In addition, I couldn’t do completely no work at all, because there are some things that only I can do (not bragging, just being accurate). Approximately 10 hours a month I would say is taken up by jobs only I could do. If I was not doing them, during that time, the clients would stop coming to us for those jobs, because they would have to find someone else during those 6 months and then why would they suddenly stop using that someone else just because I was back at work?
Personally (and obviously I’m biased here), I think there needs to be government money available to pay self-employed women (and men) the same money for six months (or however much other women and men end up getting under the new proposals) as they have earnt in the previous six months. Otherwise, very few of us will take proper maternity leave. All that said, though, addressing the issues for employees is of greater priority, as there are still huge problems, both legal and perceptual, that need sorting out.
Anyway, there are some of my thoughts.
I wasn’t aware of these proposal and find them interesting. Two points to add: the German system is similar – one year parental leave at 65% of income, and the option of father taking some of it, if he takes 2 months in the first year, parental leave for either partner is increased by 2 months I think. Before, it was possible to split the year and many men took up the opportunity – so it may really work here too.
Second point-I changed jobs while pregnant and wasn’t entitled to statutory maternity pay. My employer was helpful by granting me contractual mat pay at 100% for 17 weeks, so hurray for them. What I don’t understand is why pregnant women who change employment (with no break in employment) are penalised by not being eligible for stat. mat. pay. It discourages career moves, and the argument that the employer doesn’t want to pay for someone who hasn’t been with them doesn’t count as SMP is actually reimbursed to the employer by the state. So why this gap? And why not grant additonal mat leave to anyone regardless of continous employment with same employer? (I had to go back after 5 months just because I had the audacity to change jobs although I had worked for 11 years without a break in employment). I think it’s important to have the option of one year’s leave as it’s proven to be good for parent and child. It should not depend on continuous employment with the same employer. Whatever the changes will be, for now I’m glad that at least we’re up to 9 months for everyone. I hope very much though that 12 months should be an option for everyone in the near future.