PDA

View Full Version : Government now planning to cut maternity leave?



Penny1959
28-05-2012, 07:56 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jai-breitnauer/maternity-leave-coalitions-lost-generation_b_1546275.html

Found this on facebook


It would appear that this goverbnment - that is supposed to be family friendly - is planning to cut maternity leave. And just who will look after these BABIES if childminders are deregulated or leave childminding due to not being sustainable after paying agency fees?

I despair

Penny :)

jumping j
28-05-2012, 08:02 AM
I'm starting to wonder if the government are just looking to cut costs, announcing their plans without considering the fallout and repercussions (sp).
It's starting to feel like they're saying the first idea that pops into their heads with no planning or discussion just to see what the reaction is, if no one complains then that's the plan they use, if everyone complains then they think of some other way to cost cut and announce it

Penny1959
28-05-2012, 08:11 AM
I'm starting to wonder if the government are just looking to cut costs, announcing their plans without considering the fallout and repercussions (sp).
It's starting to feel like they're saying the first idea that pops into their heads with no planning or discussion just to see what the reaction is, if no one complains then that's the plan they use, if everyone complains then they think of some other way to cost cut and announce it

It does feel that way Jumping Jax - especially the not consulting bit.

Penny :)

Mouse
28-05-2012, 08:15 AM
I do think the current maternity leave is very generous. The government (tax payers) just cannot continue to pay out such huge amounts in benefits. It's also hard on small businesses who have to pay out.

When we had our children we saved up enough money to cover us while I was off work ( I was employed at time, not cming). I got 6 weeks maternity leave before the babies were born and 12 weeks after. Then it stopped. We managed for me to stay off work longer because we'd saved up in advance.
At no time would I have expected the government or my empolyer to pay for me to have a full 9 or 12 months off.

I think that for a long time benefits in this country have been far too generous & we're now all suffering for it.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 08:18 AM
I actually think that would be a good move Penny.

We all coped with much less leave and I actually feel sorry for employers at the moment ( shoot me down). They have to replace an employee for anything up to or over a year if the mum uses up all the annual leave which she has accrued while being off on Maternity leave, how does that work!!!!!

They then are expected to suddenly reduce a woman's full time working week to 3 days :eek:

How can business continue to sustain this level of leave, especially as there has been talk of men having more time off. I think it has got beyond a joke especially for all the smaller companies who traditionally have employed women and very one sided.

It has now been shown that more and more women are getting into serious debt during these extended leaves. I think there is a lot of pressure for women to take the extended time off or be looked on as some kind of monster who does deserve to have a child. Remember the press when that Head teacher was back at her desk within hours of the birth with her child next to her? Why it was her choice and I think a lot more families would actually be happier and better off if mums had less time off. We all know that babies under 8mths tend to settle in childcare much better than at 9-12mths.

Women have been spoiled and as a country we can't afford to do this anymore. If I had my way i would stop all 3-4yr funding and do it only for the most needy, most people don't need it and could afford to pay for 2 or 3 sessions a week which is all children need really as a good transition into school. I had to pay for my children to attend Playgroup (the pre Ofsted Pre School) and managed even though I was earning very little in fact in this day and age I would have probably been entitled to tax credits but I got no help then.

Maybe if it was changed more employers would be kinder and more willing to employ young girls and women.

Sorry I know this won't be a popular view.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 08:19 AM
I do think the current maternity leave is very generous. The government (tax payers) just cannot continue to pay out such huge amounts in benefits. It's also hard on small businesses who have to pay out.

When we had our children we saved up enough money to cover us while I was off work ( I was employed at time, not cming). I got 6 weeks maternity leave before the babies were born and 12 weeks after. Then it stopped. We managed for me to stay off work longer because we'd saved up in advance.
At no time would I have expected the government or my empolyer to pay for me to have a full 9 or 12 months off.

I think that for a long time benefits in this country have been far too generous & we're now all suffering for it.

Hear Hear Mouse that is exactly what dh and I did.

alwaysright
28-05-2012, 08:21 AM
I do think the current maternity leave is very generous. The government (tax payers) just cannot continue to pay out such huge amounts in benefits. It's also hard on small businesses who have to pay out.

When we had our children we saved up enough money to cover us while I was off work ( I was employed at time, not cming). I got 6 weeks maternity leave before the babies were born and 12 weeks after. Then it stopped. We managed for me to stay off work longer because we'd saved up in advance.
At no time would I have expected the government or my empolyer to pay for me to have a full 9 or 12 months off.

I think that for a long time benefits in this country have been far too generous & we're now all suffering for it.

i'm with mouse on this one, i do think its far too long at the moment, the money has to come from somewhere and its only the last few years that the entitlement has got so long, although i understand not everyone can afford to save, luckily i managed to save a bit, but where i worked when i had my last baby i got 6 weeks at 90% of pay then maternity pay for the remainder of the 9 months we were then allowed. when i had my first child (22) i got 3 months maternity leave, luckily where i worked then it was full pay but if you didnt go back after that then you got nothing!

but i also think this government do lots of things without thinking them properly through!! child benefit......need i say more!!

md0u0131
28-05-2012, 08:25 AM
I also think current maternity leave is too long in terms of finance but I hated going back to work at 9months and in terms of breastfeeding I don't know how id have fed for so long having to go back earlier.

Penny1959
28-05-2012, 08:47 AM
I agree it is long at the moment - and that lots of us had to cope with out any financial help but the reduction in paid leave will mean for some mums that they will not be able to continuebreast feeding for 6 months for financial or practical reasons - yes I know there are breast pumps - but not every one manages with them and not every baby will take a bottle.

I am going to stick my neck out here - (shoot me if you want to) but I think the unpaid leave causes more problems - parents can take a lot longer off if they want to and still expect their job to be available - and to have the right to request to return part time. and do not have to state their intentions at the begining.This causes employers all sorts of problems.

Not to mention problems for childminders trying to manage availabilty of spaces.

I would suggest that all mums have the right to 6 months paid leave and then either return to work or decide to stay at home for longer and look for a job when they want to return to work. I would also say that they need to state their intention 3 months after baby is born so employers and childcarers are fully informed of the parents intentions

LIke many of you I choose to care for my children myself - and until I became registered had part time evening and weekend jobs. However for my own children - with student debt, the cost of mortgages and rent - they often do not have a choice.

But while sticking my neck out - I will also say the benefit system is too generous and encourages people to have more children than they can afford to have - so I would cap all benefits at - not based on research - just on a gut feeling - the first two children (apart from multiple births) - there after I would like parents to cover their own cost of having more children.

I am not against large families - I had 4 children myself - but I am against the state (or rather tax payers) paying for people to have lots of children.

One DD has a neighbour with 4 children - she is expecting again to up their benefits and to stop her having to return to work.

Another DD who works in a children's centre heard the advice guy telling a parent that 5 children was the best number of children for maximum benefits :eek:

So as always there is a lot more to issues and to personal veiw pionts than first appears.

Penny :)

SYLVIA
28-05-2012, 08:53 AM
I would welcome shorter maternity leave. I find settling a 6 month baby easier than and 1 year old that has become so attached to mum and is more aware of her not being around. But I don't like the idea of very small babies in a nursery environment. And Penny, I have thought right from the very first mention of all these changes that it's all about the money without a thought of the effect on children long term.

PixiePetal
28-05-2012, 09:27 AM
I do think the current maternity leave is very generous. The government (tax payers) just cannot continue to pay out such huge amounts in benefits. It's also hard on small businesses who have to pay out.

When we had our children we saved up enough money to cover us while I was off work ( I was employed at time, not cming). I got 6 weeks maternity leave before the babies were born and 12 weeks after. Then it stopped. We managed for me to stay off work longer because we'd saved up in advance.
At no time would I have expected the government or my empolyer to pay for me to have a full 9 or 12 months off.

I think that for a long time benefits in this country have been far too generous & we're now all suffering for it.

I am with you on this. My kids are 18 and 15 now and that was how it was for us.

I actually left work as a nanny at 36 weeks pregnant with DD and registered at that time, got my first mindee when she was 6 months old. My choice to leave it till then and we saved and jiggled the money to allow it.

I had a mindee (who I never minded in the end!) who was 12months old and mum was going back to work but was already 3 months pregnant again and going to be off again. No idea how that all worked out :rolleyes:

I do agree with Penny and will stick my neck out too:o that benefit system should be capped somehow. Going on to have more children as benefits will cover it is so wrong. If you choose to have lots of children, you should be prepared to support them. As I am sure a lot of people do, we just hear a lot about those who don't.

I would have loved to have another 2 children but financially it would have been tighter and for that and various other considerations we decided to have our 2 and stop there.

md0u0131
28-05-2012, 09:36 AM
I do think capping benefits is a good idea. One of my biggest annoyances is people having children they can't afford. Yes I understand people's circumstances change and sometimes "accidents" (hate that word in relation to kids but you know what I mean) happen but I actually think it's immoral to have children and then rely on the state to look after them.

Annelize
28-05-2012, 09:49 AM
Yip money money and more money as always, Never mind how it affect our children who is the future.
Breastfeeding rates is already so low how low will it get if maternity is reduced?
Things aren't as simple and straight forward as it seems.
There is European countries that are doing amazingly well financially that give mums fully paid maternity for a year and some even 2 years and surprise surprise they are also the countries with the higher rates for breastfeeding.
Benefits are ridiculous and should be looked at, there is no problem with providing a bit of help and support specially if you are a person who has been working and just taking some time of to have children. I say the problem is people who have never worked and decide to have children so they don't have to work.
This is a very sensitive subject and there is no easy answer or solution. We all learn about how money, deprived children etc effect things and that they have less opportunities when they come from a poor family. So yes I agree maybe something like if you decided to have more than 2 children you should be able to support them yourself financially. Maybe let the rich pay more tax as the rich is getting richer, the poor is getting help and us, the middle class are working really hard and not getting any where. When I say rich I'm talking about people that can afford to pay thousands of pounds for silly things like a pen made of solid gold etc
But I think we also forget that a mother taking maternity leaves a position for someone to work and get experience (enough experience - 9 - 12 months) to then find a job. Also a mum going back part time and getting paid for only the part time ours again opens a position for someone else to work those part time ours.
And again the main focus is money and not what our babies need. I think my 3 year old daughter benefit from having me with her and my son is only 3 months and has really bad reflux and there is no way that I could get myself to leave him yet. Specially with him having to be fed so frequently with the reflux.
But I guess forcing mums to go back sooner and do full time ours will make childminders smile all the way as they will be full up specially as mums will rather leave their 3 month old with a childminder than a nursery.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 11:13 AM
Yip money money and more money as always, Never mind how it affect our children who is the future.
Breastfeeding rates is already so low how low will it get if maternity is reduced?
Things aren't as simple and straight forward as it seems.
There is European countries that are doing amazingly well financially that give mums fully paid maternity for a year and some even 2 years and surprise surprise they are also the countries with the higher rates for breastfeeding.
Benefits are ridiculous and should be looked at, there is no problem with providing a bit of help and support specially if you are a person who has been working and just taking some time of to have children. I say the problem is people who have never worked and decide to have children so they don't have to work.
This is a very sensitive subject and there is no easy answer or solution. We all learn about how money, deprived children etc effect things and that they have less opportunities when they come from a poor family. So yes I agree maybe something like if you decided to have more than 2 children you should be able to support them yourself financially. Maybe let the rich pay more tax as the rich is getting richer, the poor is getting help and us, the middle class are working really hard and not getting any where. When I say rich I'm talking about people that can afford to pay thousands of pounds for silly things like a pen made of solid gold etc
But I think we also forget that a mother taking maternity leaves a position for someone to work and get experience (enough experience - 9 - 12 months) to then find a job. Also a mum going back part time and getting paid for only the part time ours again opens a position for someone else to work those part time ours.
And again the main focus is money and not what our babies need. I think my 3 year old daughter benefit from having me with her and my son is only 3 months and has really bad reflux and there is no way that I could get myself to leave him yet. Specially with him having to be fed so frequently with the reflux.
But I guess forcing mums to go back sooner and do full time ours will make childminders smile all the way as they will be full up specially as mums will rather leave their 3 month old with a childminder than a nursery.

I think you will find that in these countries the tax rate is much higher than here over 50% in Italy, %05 in Sewden, Denmark, Holland . Can you imagine the outcry if the government here raised the basic tax rate from 20% to 50% :eek:

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 11:19 AM
I am with you on this. My kids are 18 and 15 now and that was how it was for us.

I actually left work as a nanny at 36 weeks pregnant with DD and registered at that time, got my first mindee when she was 6 months old. My choice to leave it till then and we saved and jiggled the money to allow it.

I had a mindee (who I never minded in the end!) who was 12months old and mum was going back to work but was already 3 months pregnant again and going to be off again. No idea how that all worked out :rolleyes:

I do agree with Penny and will stick my neck out too:o that benefit system should be capped somehow. Going on to have more children as benefits will cover it is so wrong. If you choose to have lots of children, you should be prepared to support them. As I am sure a lot of people do, we just hear a lot about those who don't.

I would have loved to have another 2 children but financially it would have been tighter and for that and various other considerations we decided to have our 2 and stop there.

I had this last year Jen. Child was 18mths and she was expecting in Jan. She had gone back to work for the 6 months after the first one, her company required this or she had to pay back 1/2 her Mat pay. She then went on Mat leave with second, born Jan so won't return to work until Jan 2013. Her employer is a major Drug Company and they will have paid her for neatly 2.5 years of which she has only worked 6 months and she was boasting about how good her planning was :eek: I think it is outrageous that companies can be treated like this.

christine e
28-05-2012, 11:20 AM
Agree with rickysmiths and mouse on this one - I too think that maternity leave is far too long. I have a friend who owns a small business employing 2 people and when one went on maternity leave it nearly crippled her business - she really struggled finantially

Mouse
28-05-2012, 11:52 AM
I had this last year Jen. Child was 18mths and she was expecting in Jan. She had gone back to work for the 6 months after the first one, her company required this or she had to pay back 1/2 her Mat pay. She then went on Mat leave with second, born Jan so won't return to work until Jan 2013. Her employer is a major Drug Company and they will have paid her for neatly 2.5 years of which she has only worked 6 months and she was boasting about how good her planning was :eek: I think it is outrageous that companies can be treated like this.

I had 2 mums do this, a teacher and a midwife. Both took maximum maternity leave with their first child, then went back to work already pregnant with their second. They did the required number of weeks, then left again, taking maximum maternity leave for a second time.

SYLVIA
28-05-2012, 03:21 PM
I would hate to be an employer having to keep positions open for 12 months, using temps to fill, then finding out the that person is pregnant again! It doesn't make for happy work environments, I'm sure!

Hebs
28-05-2012, 03:47 PM
In the Ukraine they can stay off on full pay until their children start school at 7 years old and go back to their old job!!!

wendywu
28-05-2012, 04:08 PM
In america they only get 6 weeks off :eek:

Mouse
28-05-2012, 04:38 PM
In the Ukraine they can stay off on full pay until their children start school at 7 years old and go back to their old job!!!

I wouldn't have thought any country could afford that :eek:

With my 5 children it would mean I could have had 17yrs off on maternity leave, on full pay??

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 05:51 PM
DH reckons it's not a serious plan - just the government's way of distracting parents' attention from the whole childminding thing, so they put their efforts into protesting against that and forget about us :(

But to the people who think maternity leave is too long, I might be wrong but I'm just guessing you feel that way because it doesn't affect you...

I am pregnant at the moment and have a 2.5 year old and the thought of having to leave either of my babies with a childminder at 4 months old makes me want to cry - I think it would have killed me.

So I wonder if you'd feel differently if it was directly affecting you.

Mouse
28-05-2012, 06:05 PM
DH reckons it's not a serious plan - just the government's way of distracting parents' attention from the whole childminding thing, so they put their efforts into protesting against that and forget about us :(

But to the people who think maternity leave is too long, I might be wrong but I'm just guessing you feel that way because it doesn't affect you...

I am pregnant at the moment and have a 2.5 year old and the thought of having to leave either of my babies with a childminder at 4 months old makes me want to cry - I think it would have killed me.

So I wonder if you'd feel differently if it was directly affecting you.

But has affected me in the past. I had to decide whether to go back to work when my chiildren were 3 months old, or fund myself to stay off longer, which is what I did.
Why should you expect tax payers to pay for you to stay off work until you feel able to leave your child? Why do you not feel you need to save your own money if you want to take longer maternity leave?

dette
28-05-2012, 06:10 PM
But has affected me in the past. I had to decide whether to go back to work when my chiildren were 3 months old, or fund myself to stay off longer, which is what I did.
Why should you expect tax payers to pay for you to stay off work until you feel able to leave your child? Why do you not feel you need to save your own money if you want to take longer maternity leave?

TAX PAYERS .....DO WE NOT PAY TAX !!!!

dette
28-05-2012, 06:18 PM
I have 7 children and yes i took paid maternity leave after my 6th child but is that not what we pay our stamps for !!!! i was pregnant again 4 month later and took another paid maternity leave.i have worked as a childminder for 13 yr and barely had a break and my husband is an engineer.we are not working the system we both pay taxes and NI and support ourselves and our family.DONT JUDGE US BECAUSE WE ARE A LARGE FAMILY.we are as much entitled to maternity pay for our family as anyone else who works and pays their contributions

Mouse
28-05-2012, 06:21 PM
TAX PAYERS .....DO WE NOT PAY TAX !!!!

Yes, and for that you should get maternity benefit, but why for such a long period of time?

Mouse
28-05-2012, 06:22 PM
I have 7 children and yes i took paid maternity leave after my 6th child but is that not what we pay our stamps for !!!! i was pregnant again 4 month later and took another paid maternity leave.i have worked as a childminder for 13 yr and barely had a break and my husband is an engineer.we are not working the system we both pay taxes and NI and support ourselves and our family.DONT JUDGE US BECAUSE WE ARE A LARGE FAMILY.we are as much entitled to maternity pay for our family as anyone else who works and pays their contributions

I'm sorry, but where are people judging you for having a large family?

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 06:40 PM
But has affected me in the past. I had to decide whether to go back to work when my chiildren were 3 months old, or fund myself to stay off longer, which is what I did.
Why should you expect tax payers to pay for you to stay off work until you feel able to leave your child? Why do you not feel you need to save your own money if you want to take longer maternity leave?

Well for one thing, because I have paid tax for at least 10 years, and for another thing, that's the way tax works - it's like saying to someone who fell off their horse "why should you expect tax payers to pay for your operation when it was your choice to ride the horse". It's all swings and roundabouts with tax.

And I have never ever in my life claimed any benefits and have been lucky (touch wood) to not have cost the NHS too much. So I don't feel at all guilty for claiming my full maternity entitlement.

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 06:44 PM
Why do you not feel you need to save your own money if you want to take longer maternity leave?

PS - you have to tell me your secret :laughing:

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 07:05 PM
DH reckons it's not a serious plan - just the government's way of distracting parents' attention from the whole childminding thing, so they put their efforts into protesting against that and forget about us :(

But to the people who think maternity leave is too long, I might be wrong but I'm just guessing you feel that way because it doesn't affect you...

I am pregnant at the moment and have a 2.5 year old and the thought of having to leave either of my babies with a childminder at 4 months old makes me want to cry - I think it would have killed me.

So I wonder if you'd feel differently if it was directly affecting you.

It did affect me just 20 years ago!! I don't understand what you are trying to say? I had 6 weeks at 90% pay and then 6 weeks Star Mat Leave. I was allowed to take a total of 29 weeks after the birth off so the difference between 29 and 6, 23 weeks was un paid and if you wanted it off like I did I had to save before hand to do that. At that stage i still had a job to go back to. If I had had any more time off I would have had to look for a new job.

No I don't feel any differently because it did affect me. I was happier though because dd settled in very quickly with her cm. As an experienced cm of 18 years now I know that if I can have a child of no older than 6mths they will just about always settle much more quickly than one of 9mth to a year old.

snufflepuff
28-05-2012, 07:09 PM
I think that it's important for mothers to have the opportunity to have a decent amount of time off, and I think they should still have a job to go back to at the end of it (although I often think that they should have to let their employer know in good time if they intend on returning or not.)

The start of a babies life is so important, you don't get that time back. And I think that (in most cases) babies benefit from being at home with their Mum or Dad rather than in childcare.

BUT I don't necessarily think that mothers should be paid for all this time off. I saved to allow me to have more time off after my son was born. I don't expect anyone else to fund my choice to have a child. I know it's not always easy to save- my second baby is due in 6 weeks and we haven't been able to save much this time round for various reasons but we have tried.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 07:10 PM
PS - you have to tell me your secret :laughing:

What an odd remark to make?

I had to save in order like Mouse did to have an extra 3 month off. What is wrong with that. We didn't say it was easy to do but we managed it because we had a very good reason to do it.

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 07:12 PM
It did affect me just 20 years ago!! I don't understand what you are trying to say? I had 6 weeks at 90% pay and then 6 weeks Star Mat Leave. I was allowed to take a total of 29 weeks after the birth off so the difference between 29 and 6, 23 weeks was un paid and if you wanted it off like I did I had to save before hand to do that. At that stage i still had a job to go back to. If I had had any more time off I would have had to look for a new job.

No I don't feel any differently because it did affect me. I was happier though because dd settled in very quickly with her cm. As an experienced cm of 18 years now I know that if I can have a child of no older than 6mths they will just about always settle much more quickly than one of 9mth to a year old.

I totally understand this, but me personally I can't imagine anything worse than leaving my baby at 6 months let alone 4 months (hence why I became a childminder)

I just think mothers should have the choice how long they get to spend with their baby - especially mothers who have been paying their taxes.

And I think all us CMs know that saving up isn't an option (or maybe I'm just not charging enough!)

Mouse
28-05-2012, 07:14 PM
Well for one thing, because I have paid tax for at least 10 years, and for another thing, that's the way tax works - it's like saying to someone who fell off their horse "why should you expect tax payers to pay for your operation when it was your choice to ride the horse". It's all swings and roundabouts with tax.

And I have never ever in my life claimed any benefits and have been lucky (touch wood) to not have cost the NHS too much. So I don't feel at all guilty for claiming my full maternity entitlement.

It's not like that at all. You have paid your tax & NI, you are entitled to full maternity benefit. My point is not that you shouldn't get any benefit, but that the current level of benefit is very generous and has become the expected norm.

As for my 'secret' to saving, when you have no benefits to fall back on, you work hard, make sacrifices, live within your means and go without. It seems a talent lacking by many today :rolleyes:

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 07:16 PM
BUT I don't necessarily think that mothers should be paid for all this time off. I saved to allow me to have more time off after my son was born. I don't expect anyone else to fund my choice to have a child. I know it's not always easy to save- my second baby is due in 6 weeks and we haven't been able to save much this time round for various reasons but we have tried.

But then where would you draw the line with using tax payers money and using your own savings - would you tell someone that if they wanted to have an operation to fix their broken leg they would have to save up to pay for it themselves?

I am also saving every spare penny I can for this baby, but there is no way I could save up enough to cover £500 a month for 9 months. We're really going to struggle as it is when I'm on maternity - even with what I've been saving.

buzzy bee
28-05-2012, 07:21 PM
It's not like that at all. You have paid your tax & NI, you are entitled to full maternity benefit. My point is not that you shouldn't get any benefit, but that the current level of benefit is very generous and has become the expected norm.

As for my 'secret' to saving, when you have no benefits to fall back on, you work hard, make sacrifices, live within your means and go without. It seems a talent lacking by many today :rolleyes:

I don't think £500 a month for 9 months is overly generous - we will stuggle to get by on it (as we did last time round).

I don't have any benefits, I work 11 hours a day, 5 days a week (not including paperwork) and I NEVER treat myself. Literally. My mum cuts my hair twice a year. We pay our bills and whatever is left (not much) we save. I know all about going without!

I just did my tax return and last year, from working 55 hour weeks I made just under £10k for the year. My husband makes £16k and our mortgage is £900 a month.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 07:21 PM
I have 7 children and yes i took paid maternity leave after my 6th child but is that not what we pay our stamps for !!!! i was pregnant again 4 month later and took another paid maternity leave.i have worked as a childminder for 13 yr and barely had a break and my husband is an engineer.we are not working the system we both pay taxes and NI and support ourselves and our family.DONT JUDGE US BECAUSE WE ARE A LARGE FAMILY.we are as much entitled to maternity pay for our family as anyone else who works and pays their contributions

Nobody is judging you because you have a large family. No one doubts that you and your dh pay tax.

All we are saying is that 12 months is a very long time to have off and very hard for employers especially small ones to cope and pay for this.

We are in hard times and we have the privilege in this country of paying one of the lowest tax rates in Europe in Italy you pay 51%.

As a country we do not have enough money going into the pot to keep paying out for all these benefits anymore and like the Pensions people are going to have to pay more themselves or go back to work earlier. My dd went to a cm at 6mths and I don't think it has done her any harm. My niece and nephew went into childcare at 6 weeks old and they are both intelligent well adjusted children.

I never breast fed dd I breast fed ds for 6 months and I can't tell if now they are 17 and 19 if it has honestly made any difference at all to their intelligence or their health over the years. I'm not bashing breast feeding so don't jump on me but it wouldn't be the end of the world to have to stop at six months if you had to go back to work.

In an ideal world we would be able to always do what we want, to but life isn't like that is it? Sometimes we do have to make tough choices.

alwaysright
28-05-2012, 07:39 PM
Yip money money and more money as always, Never mind how it affect our children who is the future.
Breastfeeding rates is already so low how low will it get if maternity is reduced?
Things aren't as simple and straight forward as it seems.
There is European countries that are doing amazingly well financially that give mums fully paid maternity for a year and some even 2 years and surprise surprise they are also the countries with the higher rates for breastfeeding.
Benefits are ridiculous and should be looked at, there is no problem with providing a bit of help and support specially if you are a person who has been working and just taking some time of to have children. I say the problem is people who have never worked and decide to have children so they don't have to work.
This is a very sensitive subject and there is no easy answer or solution. We all learn about how money, deprived children etc effect things and that they have less opportunities when they come from a poor family. So yes I agree maybe something like if you decided to have more than 2 children you should be able to support them yourself financially. Maybe let the rich pay more tax as the rich is getting richer, the poor is getting help and us, the middle class are working really hard and not getting any where. When I say rich I'm talking about people that can afford to pay thousands of pounds for silly things like a pen made of solid gold etc
But I think we also forget that a mother taking maternity leaves a position for someone to work and get experience (enough experience - 9 - 12 months) to then find a job. Also a mum going back part time and getting paid for only the part time ours again opens a position for someone else to work those part time ours.
And again the main focus is money and not what our babies need. I think my 3 year old daughter benefit from having me with her and my son is only 3 months and has really bad reflux and there is no way that I could get myself to leave him yet. Specially with him having to be fed so frequently with the reflux.
But I guess forcing mums to go back sooner and do full time ours will make childminders smile all the way as they will be full up specially as mums will rather leave their 3 month old with a childminder than a nursery.

i dont think any of us are commenting with the hope of gaining more business if mums have to go back to work earlier! i think people are commenting on the effects on the economy overall. i personally think that 6 months is long enough for maternity leave by this age a child can be almost weaned anyway so i think just the fact that mums would find it difficult to breastfeed is a poor arguement for the country to want to fund this huge expense. they may be the children of the future are you saying just because mums have less time off work the child will grow up and not acccomplish as much

alwaysright
28-05-2012, 07:54 PM
DH reckons it's not a serious plan - just the government's way of distracting parents' attention from the whole childminding thing, so they put their efforts into protesting against that and forget about us :(

But to the people who think maternity leave is too long, I might be wrong but I'm just guessing you feel that way because it doesn't affect you...

I am pregnant at the moment and have a 2.5 year old and the thought of having to leave either of my babies with a childminder at 4 months old makes me want to cry - I think it would have killed me.

So I wonder if you'd feel differently if it was directly affecting you.


yes i think you are very wrong here as you said yourself!! most of the ladies on here have children and we have all had to face leaving them to return to work because we HAD to not because we wanted to! do you think we all happily went back to work and left our babies at whatever age. my daughter was really ill and my son had just been hit by a car and had a full metal cage on his leg but i HAD to go back to work although i didnt want to! it may not be directly affecting me right now because i am not pregnant so that raises the question i wonder if you would feel differently if it wasnt directly affecting you....

snufflepuff
28-05-2012, 08:15 PM
But then where would you draw the line with using tax payers money and using your own savings - would you tell someone that if they wanted to have an operation to fix their broken leg they would have to save up to pay for it themselves?

It's different- for a start I very much doubt that the person chose to break their leg! I chose to have a baby.

I'm not saying that we should get nothing at all and should fund the whole lot ourselves- I agree with you on that, we would struggle too and I'm hugely grateful that I will get maternity allowance. I just think that you have to draw the line somewhere...

Annelize
28-05-2012, 08:28 PM
DH reckons it's not a serious plan - just the government's way of distracting parents' attention from the whole childminding thing, so they put their efforts into protesting against that and forget about us :(

But to the people who think maternity leave is too long, I might be wrong but I'm just guessing you feel that way because it doesn't affect you...

I am pregnant at the moment and have a 2.5 year old and the thought of having to leave either of my babies with a childminder at 4 months old makes me want to cry - I think it would have killed me.

So I wonder if you'd feel differently if it was directly affecting you.

So agree with you Buzzy bee they either aren't in the position or never had the opportunity that we now have.

Not everyone can save even if you don't spend much and cut WAY back specially not in the current economics. Its only about 50 years ago when mums were mostly stay at home mums.

I don't judge or say anyone care less because they left their little ones I just say why not give them more of YOU if you could? Specially as research shows they benefit more. Also as childminders we all know that the children get lots of care, attention and love from us but not to the same extend as they would from their mums. If they are crying and you are busy doing another nappy etc they have to wait a few minutes etc. Plus how sad does a mum look when their child call you mummy because they spend so much time with you?

And no most children that are breastfed aren't weaned by 6 months the recommendations are to START weaning at 6 months and breastmilk will still be the main food source the first few months and it is recommended that children benefit from being breastfed until they are 2 yrs old. I breastfed my first till she was 27 months old and planning to do at least the same with this one.

I also agree that maybe they should then look at people who get injured or sick due to going out on a drunken night out, why should we the tax payers pay for them on the NHS?

Things aren't that black and white. There is allot of other 'benefits' they should look at cutting first.

snufflepuff
28-05-2012, 08:43 PM
Things aren't that black and white. There is allot of other 'benefits' they should look at cutting first.

I agree with this

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 09:06 PM
I totally understand this, but me personally I can't imagine anything worse than leaving my baby at 6 months let alone 4 months (hence why I became a childminder)

I just think mothers should have the choice how long they get to spend with their baby - especially mothers who have been paying their taxes.

And I think all us CMs know that saving up isn't an option (or maybe I'm just not charging enough!)

My old Dad said women lost that choice when more than one salary was used to calculate a Mortgage. Food for thought.

No one is saying you shouldn't have as much time as you want just that there simply aren't enough taxes to pay for it for so long so you would have to do what my dh and I did and save hard. Lord knows when we were first married we weren't earning a lot and mortgage interest rates went up to 15% in the first year we were married as well. When I went back to work my childcare cost 67% of my wages there were no Tax Credits and very few Companies offered Vouchers mine wasn't one of them and people are complaining at 25% of their wages for childcare and they are only prob paying a max of 4 or 5% interest on their Mortgage:rolleyes:

They don't know how lucky they are and they would still be a getting a good deal if they were only paid 6 months Mat Leave.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 09:20 PM
Well for one thing, because I have paid tax for at least 10 years, and for another thing, that's the way tax works - it's like saying to someone who fell off their horse "why should you expect tax payers to pay for your operation when it was your choice to ride the horse". It's all swings and roundabouts with tax.

And I have never ever in my life claimed any benefits and have been lucky (touch wood) to not have cost the NHS too much. So I don't feel at all guilty for claiming my full maternity entitlement.

Buzzy Bee I had paid tax for 22 years when I had my dd and i only got 6 weeks Statutory Mat Pay.

Nobody has said you shouldn't get Mat Pay just for a shorter time.

It has nothing to do with how much you have paid in and how little you think you have used the system it is actually there as a kind of insurance and you never know when you or your family may need it. My dh was suddenly and unexpectedly admitted to hospital a few years ago needed emergency surgery and spent 3 days in Intensive Care, was in hospital for a week and had follow up care at home every day including weekends from the District Nurse. So to say you have not used the system much so you should have as much Mat Leave as you need doesn't really follow.

PixiePetal
28-05-2012, 09:23 PM
My old Dad said women lost that choice when more than one salary was used to calculate a Mortgage. Food for thought.

No one is saying you shouldn't have as much time as you want just that there simply aren't enough taxes to pay for it for so long so you would have to do what my dh and I did and save hard. Lord knows when we were first married we weren't earning a lot and mortgage interest rates went up to 15% in the first year we were married as well. When I went back to work my childcare cost 67% of my wages there were no Tax Credits and very few Companies offered Vouchers mine wasn't one of them and people are complaining at 25% of their wages for childcare and they are only prob paying a max of 4 or 5% interest on their Mortgage:rolleyes:

They don't know how lucky they are and they would still be a getting a good deal if they were only paid 6 months Mat Leave.

I think your dad must have known mine!

We married in bought our first house in 1993, 2 months before we married. I wanted children straight away - lord knows I had waited long enough, (knew a house must come first) I was 28 and known DH 9 years. As we knew I would not be working for a while, we bought a house on an estate using his wage only for the mortgage calculation - if we had used mine too we could have had a better house in a nicer part of town - it was a matter of choice/ importance and having a baby won over better house.

I was lucky as house prices were at an all time low and we had saved a deposit - I do realise this cannot be an option for some people now and feel very grateful of the situation.(especially as we bought just after those high interest rates!)

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 09:30 PM
So agree with you Buzzy bee they either aren't in the position or never had the opportunity that we now have.

Not everyone can save even if you don't spend much and cut WAY back specially not in the current economics. Its only about 50 years ago when mums were mostly stay at home mums.

I don't judge or say anyone care less because they left their little ones I just say why not give them more of YOU if you could? Specially as research shows they benefit more. Also as childminders we all know that the children get lots of care, attention and love from us but not to the same extend as they would from their mums. If they are crying and you are busy doing another nappy etc they have to wait a few minutes etc. Plus how sad does a mum look when their child call you mummy because they spend so much time with you?

And no most children that are breastfed aren't weaned by 6 months the recommendations are to START weaning at 6 months and breastmilk will still be the main food source the first few months and it is recommended that children benefit from being breastfed until they are 2 yrs old. I breastfed my first till she was 27 months old and planning to do at least the same with this one.

I also agree that maybe they should then look at people who get injured or sick due to going out on a drunken night out, why should we the tax payers pay for them on the NHS?

Things aren't that black and white. There is allot of other 'benefits' they should look at cutting first.

I don' think anyone has said that most breast fed children are weaned by 6 months.

Feeding and weaning is a whole other thread and is a slave to fashion and changes. My two were weaned at 3mths and were eating our mashed up food by six months. Even in my day in the middle ages different mums choose to breast fed for different times. I have not noticed any difference between them in health or intelligence because one was BF and the other was so who knows. Many hundreds of children are very successfully bottle fed.

I just commented that for me dd was not BF, not my choice, ds was and I chose to stop at 6mths because I was exhausted, not because I went back to work because I didn't start cm until he was 11mths.

I agree things aren't black and white.

rickysmiths
28-05-2012, 09:34 PM
I think your dad must have known mine!

We married in bought our first house in 1993, 2 months before we married. I wanted children straight away - lord knows I had waited long enough, (knew a house must come first) I was 28 and known DH 9 years. As we knew I would not be working for a while, we bought a house on an estate using his wage only for the mortgage calculation - if we had used mine too we could have had a better house in a nicer part of town - it was a matter of choice/ importance and having a baby won over better house.

I was lucky as house prices were at an all time low and we had saved a deposit - I do realise this cannot be an option for some people now and feel very grateful of the situation.(especially as we bought just after those high interest rates!)



We got married in 1989 and the interest rates went up at the beginning of 1990. We lived in the flat that I had bought in 1984 on a single salary and stayed there until 8 years ago so I could stay at home and have the children and not have to go back to my original job.

Hebs
29-05-2012, 05:46 AM
What I find sickeningly shocking is that a working mum who has paid taxes isn't deemed worthy of an extended length of time off PAID yet dole wallars (spl??) get all the time they want no questions asked.

If working parents are expected to go back to work after 6/9 months then way isn't it the same for those on benefits?? When they arnt expected to look for work til youngest turn 5!!!!!

snufflepuff
29-05-2012, 07:07 AM
What I find sickeningly shocking is that a working mum who has paid taxes isn't deemed worthy of an extended length of time off PAID yet dole wallars (spl??) get all the time they want no questions asked.

If working parents are expected to go back to work after 6/9 months then way isn't it the same for those on benefits?? When they arnt expected to look for work til youngest turn 5!!!!!

Couldn't agree with you more! It makes no sense!

rickysmiths
29-05-2012, 08:13 AM
What I find sickeningly shocking is that a working mum who has paid taxes isn't deemed worthy of an extended length of time off PAID yet dole wallars (spl??) get all the time they want no questions asked.

If working parents are expected to go back to work after 6/9 months then way isn't it the same for those on benefits?? When they arnt expected to look for work til youngest turn 5!!!!!

That is true but I think they are addressing all benefits so that this won't happen anymore.

They have to because we can't as a country afford to keep paying out all the time.

I think that all benefits should stop after the first child as well so it is profitable for anyone to keep having children to stay on benefits.

dette
29-05-2012, 01:45 PM
That is true but I think they are addressing all benefits so that this won't happen anymore.

They have to because we can't as a country afford to keep paying out all the time.

I think that all benefits should stop after the first child as well so it is profitable for anyone to keep having children to stay on benefits.

my first husband died in a car crash while coming to visit me in hospital just after giving birth.. leaving me with a 3yr old and a baby who was only days old.i was then dependant on benefits.would you enforce this one child only rule for everyone .that would have tipped me over the edge knowing that not only was i a widow and now a single parent but i could only afford to feed and dress one of them..not everyone chooses to live off benefits.
Im finding that there are alot of people on here who presume too much.would a widow be exempt or perhaps a womans whos husband has walked out on her and her children for another woman or a victim of domestic abuse who has had to leave for her own safety.
surviving on benefits it hard and not always through choice.how would someone know that they should stop at one child if they are working and happily married.we dont have crystal balls.please take a moment to think before you post something so ignorant

kindredspirits
29-05-2012, 02:41 PM
oh dette, that is so sad - :(
i can see both sides of the fence - i would rather have 3 months maternity leave at a good rate than 9m months of rubbish pay though. i couldn't afford to live on MA so started back at work when Arla was 2 weeks old. my sdd's baby is 8 months old and her mat pay has just run out so she's reurned to work but is giving up to live on benefits because she misses her baby too much. in the long run had she had longer off she might have stayed working and not wantef to claim benefits for the forseeable future!!

rickysmiths
29-05-2012, 02:56 PM
dette that is so sad.

No I was referring to those who go on and on having children as a way to stay on benefits and never work. Benefits for those in genuine need should always be there and in fact if you cut out the ones taking advantage there would be more for people in your kind of situation and quite rightly.

Hebs
29-05-2012, 06:03 PM
It's people like my ex friend who pops out a kid every 5 years so she doesn't have to work!!
Gets on my nerves

Tatjana
29-05-2012, 08:44 PM
I think those of you that are against the current 9 months maternity leave are being very harsh. Why shouldn't a mother be allowed to spend some time with her precious baby before returning to work? After all she is entitled to maternity leave because she has worked, paid taxes and isn't doing anything wrong.

You are looking at the wrong people to cut money. It's the ones who never work and just keep having children and they all live on benefits that should be targeted, they are living off the state and not teaching their children about going out to work or setting a good example.

There's a mum at school who said her hubby cut his full working week to just 2 days because then he didn't have to pay tax and they got loads of other benefits!!! They have been living like this for about 7 years. Now that is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Whether a baby settles better before 9 months is a ridiculous suggestion to cut maternity leave.:panic:

It's not all about money, what about the babies, don't they deserve to have some special time with their mums for the first months of their lives? It's bad enough leaving them in childcare all day and not seeing them, I could never go out to work and not see my children for that length of time, it would really affect me in a negative way.

Annelize
03-06-2012, 02:45 PM
I don' think anyone has said that most breast fed children are weaned by 6 months.

Feeding and weaning is a whole other thread and is a slave to fashion and changes. My two were weaned at 3mths and were eating our mashed up food by six months. Even in my day in the middle ages different mums choose to breast fed for different times. I have not noticed any difference between them in health or intelligence because one was BF and the other was so who knows. Many hundreds of children are very successfully bottle fed.

I just commented that for me dd was not BF, not my choice, ds was and I chose to stop at 6mths because I was exhausted, not because I went back to work because I didn't start cm until he was 11mths.

I agree things aren't black and white.

And who know they could have been even greater and more successful if breastfed. Its almost like saying I smoked all my life and didn't get cancer. You just don't know and research shows evidence that its very important to be breastfed for at least 6 months and very beneficial if breastfed for 2 years. But like you said discussion for another thread. I will however still stand that shortening the maternity would affect breastfeeding rates even more as surprise surprise but countries that have for example 100% paid maternity for 52 weeks (like Denmark) have higher rate of breastfeeding

Annelize
03-06-2012, 02:49 PM
I think those of you that are against the current 9 months maternity leave are being very harsh. Why shouldn't a mother be allowed to spend some time with her precious baby before returning to work? After all she is entitled to maternity leave because she has worked, paid taxes and isn't doing anything wrong.

You are looking at the wrong people to cut money. It's the ones who never work and just keep having children and they all live on benefits that should be targeted, they are living off the state and not teaching their children about going out to work or setting a good example.

There's a mum at school who said her hubby cut his full working week to just 2 days because then he didn't have to pay tax and they got loads of other benefits!!! They have been living like this for about 7 years. Now that is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Whether a baby settles better before 9 months is a ridiculous suggestion to cut maternity leave.:panic:

It's not all about money, what about the babies, don't they deserve to have some special time with their mums for the first months of their lives? It's bad enough leaving them in childcare all day and not seeing them, I could never go out to work and not see my children for that length of time, it would really affect me in a negative way.

You could not have said it any better! All so so true x

rickysmiths
03-06-2012, 07:03 PM
And who know they could have been even greater and more successful if breastfed. Its almost like saying I smoked all my life and didn't get cancer. You just don't know and research shows evidence that its very important to be breastfed for at least 6 months and very beneficial if breastfed for 2 years. But like you said discussion for another thread. I will however still stand that shortening the maternity would affect breastfeeding rates even more as surprise surprise but countries that have for example 100% paid maternity for 52 weeks (like Denmark) have higher rate of breastfeeding


Fine so you would be happy to pay 50% Tax to pay for all of this would you? I think most of the population would not be at all happy.

I realise that breast feeding is beneficial but it can continue when someone returns to work as well you know, you don't have to be a SAHM.

I don't think you can in anyway compare the lack of breast feeding to smoking. I take offense at that. What about all the mums, like me, who for various reasons couldn't breast feed and have no alternative but to formular feed our babies and as I said before babies thrive perfectly well on formular.

Annelize
14-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Fine so you would be happy to pay 50% Tax to pay for all of this would you? I think most of the population would not be at all happy.

I realise that breast feeding is beneficial but it can continue when someone returns to work as well you know, you don't have to be a SAHM.

I don't think you can in anyway compare the lack of breast feeding to smoking. I take offense at that. What about all the mums, like me, who for various reasons couldn't breast feed and have no alternative but to formular feed our babies and as I said before babies thrive perfectly well on formular.

You misunderstood the smoking thing - I didn't compare breastfeeding with smoking. I compared the saying - like for example I didn't wear a helmet when riding my bike and I'm fine or I never used sun cream and I'm fine etc etc. I fully understand there is a handful of reasons why a handful of people cant breastfeed and that is fine I'm just saying that SHORTENING the maternity would affect breastfeeding as not all people manage to express.
All I wanted to say was that things are not that black and white to say its good lets shorten it just like its not good to say lets make it longer and give 100% pay like Denmark.

jaswinder bedi
14-06-2012, 09:24 PM
We could talk and talk go on we have to get somewhere in the middle!!!


Having maternity leave for 6-9months is ok I think so. :jump for joy:

The Juggler
14-06-2012, 09:41 PM
Fine so you would be happy to pay 50% Tax to pay for all of this would you? I think most of the population would not be at all happy.

I realise that breast feeding is beneficial but it can continue when someone returns to work as well you know, you don't have to be a SAHM.

I don't think you can in anyway compare the lack of breast feeding to smoking. I take offense at that. What about all the mums, like me, who for various reasons couldn't breast feed and have no alternative but to formular feed our babies and as I said before babies thrive perfectly well on formular.

i couldn't' BF either of my two :( I totally advocate breastfeeding but makes me so sad sometimes when bottle feeding is given such a bad name with all the horrible downsides. So when you have no choice (and can only express about 5 mls a day) what are you supposed to do - feel bad that you are giving second best :(

jaswinder bedi
14-06-2012, 10:01 PM
I agree with you penny!

hectors house
15-06-2012, 07:18 AM
I worked for a very small business as a secretary and book keeper when I had my first child, I was entitled to 6 weeks maternity pay before birth and 11weeks after.

I worked until baby was born (she was 6 days late), was back at work hours to suit me when she was 2 weeks - with my dad looking after her or sometimes I took her to work with me and then she started with the childminder at 8 weeks - sent with expressed milk in bottles and terry nappies 5 afternoons a week.

With my third child (when I was childminding before), she was planned to be born near summer hols - as looked after teachers kids - I worked until my due date 14th July, so parents just had to find cover for one week and I started back in September with 3 under 5 and my two children to get to school!