Maternity Pay

tsstss7

count_rostov wrote: »

Hi,

Sorry to hijack this thread but there's something I'm not quite clear about. In point 3) do you have to have worked the 26 weeks with the same employer?I've lost my job and am working out a flexible notice period for either another 6 or 10 weeks, depending on how quickly I find something else. Because of this flexible notice period I expect to go straight into another job, so I will have worked and paid tax/NI continously for five years or so. Whilst we're not trying to conceive we're also not really trying to prevent it. If I get a new job & pregnant at the same time but my due date is say 20 weeks after I start work, will I be able to claim Maternity Pay rather than SMP? Or should I get myself down to Boots pronto for a bumper pack of condoms?

buy the condoms, you must be employed by company due to pay smp from 2weeks prior to conception to qualify -otherwise you areonly due mat allowance

foreversomeday

tsstss7 wrote: »

buy the condoms, you must be employed by company due to pay smp from 2weeks prior to conception to qualify -otherwise you areonly due mat allowance

SMP is the same amount as MA. It is just that in the first 6 weeks of SMP, you get 90% of your wages instead of the £117. This is presumably to cover the lower income of the father who is entitled to 2 weeks Paternity Leave, paid at £117, when the baby is born. (If he has been with the same employer for 1 year.)

count_rostov

Right, I'll trot off to the chemists. Actually, maybe I'll get some free ones from the doctors - far more MSE!

surreysaver

foreversomeday wrote: »

SMP is the same amount as MA. It is just that in the first 6 weeks of SMP, you get 90% of your wages instead of the £117. This is presumably to cover the lower income of the father who is entitled to 2 weeks Paternity Leave, paid at £117, when the baby is born. (If he has been with the same employer for 1 year.)

It's to cover the mother's wages - not the father's! She can go back to work two weeks after the birth if she wants. He doesn't have to take any time off - in any case, it is only the mother that can take an extended period off - the Government believes childcare to be the mother's responsibilty.

tigtag02

surreysaver wrote: »

Although a woman can decide to start her Maternity Leave up to 11 weeks before the baby is due (or if baby is born before that, then obviously the day it is born), an employer can only force a woman to start her Maternity Leave up to 6 weeks before the due date if pregnancy-related sick leave is causing a problem.

Its 4 weeks not 6.

nifi26

surreysaver wrote: »

. He doesn't have to take any time off - in any case, it is only the mother that can take an extended period off - the Government believes childcare to be the mother's responsibilty.

Some companies/organisations allow the father to take the full 39 week period instead of the mother.

foreversomeday

surreysaver wrote: »

It's to cover the mother's wages - not the father's! She can go back to work two weeks after the birth if she wants. He doesn't have to take any time off - in any case, it is only the mother that can take an extended period off - the Government believes childcare to be the mother's responsibilty.

That does make sense, but I was suggesting that the 2 weeks paternity leave, if it is taken, paid at £117 would be difficult if the mother was also at £117. Obviously this depends on the income before the baby is born, but it is still a consideration.

I think the idea that men can take the remaining 39 weeks if the woman decides to go back to work is fantastic - whoever suggested that needs a pat on the back!

surreysaver

tigtag02 wrote: »

Its 4 weeks not 6.

I stand corrected. I knew it was less than the 11 weeks - that was my point!

surreysaver

nifi26 wrote: »

Some companies/organisations allow the father to take the full 39 week period instead of the mother.

Really? I wasn't aware that any did! My point is the law states that only women are entitled to an extended period off. Men are not entitled to it. Which companies are these, if I might ask? I know my company doesn't - it ran off to its solicitors with its tail between its legs when I asked! And the HR director refused to answer questions about it when confronted.

surreysaver

foreversomeday wrote: »

I think the idea that men can take the remaining 39 weeks if the woman decides to go back to work is fantastic - whoever suggested that needs a pat on the back!

It was suggested years ago, is common practice in Europe. But Gordon Clown and Tony bLIAR kept putting it off. These days, plenty of women earn more than their partner, and it would make so much more sense if they went back to work earlier and the father took Maternity Leave instead. And the gender pay gap, not that I'm saying there isn't discrimination about, I believe will be seriously eroded once this entitlement comes in, as the reason women earn less than men is through an enforced choice. They are practically forced to take lower paid jobs simply becuase childcare defaults to the female gender due to unequal Maternity leave legislation in this country.

And that silly b!tch of a Women's Minister, instead of telling employers to favour women over men or vice versa to balance the female/male mix in companies, why doesn't she just force the Government to be equal in the legislation it passes (or simply to adhere to legislation it has passed in the past)?