Maternity pay ... need help

Comms69

lulu_92 wrote: »

I was focusing on these two points, and there was also a massive element of sarcasm in my post, apologies if that wasn't clear (I'm used to reddit!)

"Secondly why should the employer, or the state, help anyone who makes the very personal decision to have a child. (that's aside from the benefits which get paid, which is a separate debate)."
Having a child is a personal thing, of course, but seeing as a lot of people have children it isn't exactly a new problem for an employer. Regardless of it being personal choice there is some amount of procreation needed to carry on the human race. Seeing as we cannot place a limit on how many children are born every year, or specify who exactly can reproduce, we can't dismiss this fact even though the population is far from dying out at the moment.im choosing my words carefully, given a subject brought to my attention; the term ‘this isn’t a new problem’ is debatable. We cannot limit who has children, and I don’t propose we do. I’m simply asking at what stage do personal choices become societal

However, most people can't sacrifice 100% of their salary to have children. is that someones’s Fault? With wages not rising in line with inflation whilst some wages may not rise with inflation; again is that someone fault?, and the cost of things like rent being astronomical that is highly debatable; locally it’s possible to rent a 2 bed home for less than 20% of the National Avg, a lot of people can afford the cost of a child on a reduced wage, but to remove one income completely can cause more problems. yes it can. But why is that my fault?
(We were lucky that when I was on mat leave we were on an interest only mortgage so only paid £200pm for six months to free up some money) - genuinely glad for you

What amount of time off would you suggest is adequate? the current amount seems very generousI had just over 10 months off, using my annual leave accrued to add to the end of my mat leave. do you think accruing AL is justified in such circumstances? I don't think that is unreasonable, but it would be nice to be able to have a year off on SMP. likewise it would be nice to win the lottery, but I don’t expect society to pay for that The employer gets the money off the government anyway, because the govt gets money magically? they're just the middle man in the transaction. From a leave perspective, yeah it is annoying when someone joins a company and goes off on leave within a year personally that person would not return to a job, if I felt they had deliberately abused a company benefit. Den then I would question the decision that person made, but it happens, whether enhanced or statutory maternity packages exist or not. Unless you police when a woman can carry a child and how often, that isn't going to change you seem to accept the right to have children, but reject the right of the electorate ( and I may not bein a majority position ) to choose how that money is spenr

"Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?"
This is something I actually agree with, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the OP who has saved £10k and has been with her partner for many years. - agreedSMP is an absolute pittance so of course you will try to get the most out of it as you can disagreed; ofcourse isn’t an option I’m afraid. We cannot build society upon human frailty. The 90% pay for the first six weeks certainly helped us out. And circumstances do change. We saved £5k, then my husband lost his job a month before I gave birth.that sucks He got another job very quickly, but this meant he was not entitled to any paternity pay or shared parental leave, so he used a week's holiday, as that's all he had accrued. no go to shoulf ever base law upon extreme cases I'll also add that we had twins, and you don't get any more SMP for that, even though you have 2x the essentials to purchase. whilst I sympathise, it’s very rare to have twins; and I object to laws passing on extremes

You can be as prepared as you can be, making sure you aren't being a burden, then life throws you a massive curveball.


I'm just reading this thread and getting a very anti-child vibe ihave 3; so it’s not anti child, rather anti irresponsible parenting. The OP seems to be going about this very responsibly and she's getting a lot of unnecessary flack for it. There are some good points, but I don't think she's being unreasonable in what she is asking.


P.S. I'm not a leftie

P.P.S excuse the wall of text!

I don’t judge people’s political beliefs based upon a handful of posts. I agree and disagree strongly with the govt. if I didn’t, I’d be scared

bashi

Can Maternity Allowance be taken away in the 12 months? (wife not getting statutory as started work after conceiving)

sheramber

bashi wrote: »

Can Maternity Allowance be taken away in the 12 months? (wife not getting statutory as started work after conceiving)

Maternity Allowance is paid for 39 weeks only.

Eligibility here

https://www.gov.uk/maternity-allowance/eligibility

riotlady

andydownes123 wrote:

Your second point - unfortunately you are completely wrong about my views being outdated. The research is in. Women score way higher than men on agreeableness, which is why women are great at child care and tend to take jobs in the care sector (teaching etc.). Men score way higher than women on aggression and tend to do well in competitive jobs and do well in STEM vocations. I'm not assuming women are more caring than men, they are, it's been proven.

Women score higher on agreeableness because they are socialised from a young age to be agreeable, not because it’s an innate difference between women and men. Likewise boys are encouraged towards STEM subjects more than girls, so naturally you will find more men working in those areas. We’re doing a disservice to both genders by not encouraging them to expand their skills both ways.

System

riotlady wrote: »

Women score higher on agreeableness because they are socialised from a young age to be agreeable, not because it’s an innate difference between women and men. Likewise boys are encouraged towards STEM subjects more than girls, so naturally you will find more men working in those areas. We’re doing a disservice to both genders by not encouraging them to expand their skills both ways.

You're wrong. There are huge innate differences at work here. This is not something that can be socialised. This is hundreds and thousands of years evolution - you can't just say that in the space of a single childhood you can parent a child into being more agreeable or less. Conditioning/upbringing is a part however, it's mostly a result of physiological differences and evolution (think testosterone for a start).



Boys tend to go for STEM subjects because they are programmed to work with their hands and have less agreeableness which makes them more sucessful in highly competitive fields. Girls tend to go into care subjects because they are programmed to be more emotional and enjoy that kind of work.



You only have to look at the evidence in Scandinavia to see that encouragement to access careers in subjects that are against the grain of gender, results in an even higher degree of separation.

Comms69

riotlady wrote: »

Women score higher on agreeableness because they are socialised from a young age to be agreeable, not because it’s an innate difference between women and men. Likewise boys are encouraged towards STEM subjects more than girls, so naturally you will find more men working in those areas. We’re doing a disservice to both genders by not encouraging them to expand their skills both ways.

Sorry but that is incorrect.


I'm not sure why having innate differences is so controversial, but what Andy posted about is evidenced throughout the world.


If you look at Scandinavia, which has the most 'equal' laws and policies; Women are still choosing medicine and education over the STEM fields.


Just to be clear, no-one is saying that people should be prevented from pursuing their dreams. This is a general overview of choices people make.