Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • keighley.johanne
    • By keighley.johanne 12th Dec 18, 11:12 AM
    • 16Posts
    • 29Thanks
    keighley.johanne
    Maternity pay ... need help
    • #1
    • 12th Dec 18, 11:12 AM
    Maternity pay ... need help 12th Dec 18 at 11:12 AM
    Hi,

    I was planning on TTC in the new year. I employed for a year so I knew I would have been covered for maternity.

    I was made redundant on 22nd Nov and walked into a new job on 23rd Nov.

    I am struggling to get my head around when I can actually start trying.
    I have to work for the company for 26weks prior to the 15th week before giving birth? It so confusing now.

    Any and all help would be greatly appreciated
Page 4
    • andydownes123
    • By andydownes123 14th Dec 18, 12:01 PM
    • 452 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    andydownes123
    Not wanting to be discriminated against is not "having your cake and eating it". Also your views about gender are very outdated. Assuming women are programmed to be more caring than men. We are all individuals and you do men a disservice.

    You also seem to assume every pregnant woman is being financially supported by a man so it's okay to not pay her well. What about those who are single, were abandoned or their partner earns less or is disabled? There are probably many other scenarios that don't fit your assumptions of the happy traditional couple with the male provider and the little woman happy to stay at home. It's because of people like you the law was changed to to make pregnancy a protected characteristic.
    Originally posted by Kynthia

    On your first point - discrimination is awful I agree. My reference to 'having your cake and eating it' is to women who think that having a child should not affect anything. The simple truth is it does and it will. Childcare is a long and time-consuming business - how can you expect the same career as someone who doesn't have a child? While your focus is on your child, anyone (man or women) who does not have the same commitments will go higher and progress faster. You can't have everything and those that do shortchange someone/thing somewhere.


    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.


    Your point on scenarios is valid, however it kind of fits in with my point of why women can't have the same 'prospects' as those without children, men included. I use prospects loosly but remember...equality of oppotunity is key...we all have the same opportunity to have a career, however if we sideline this for another pursuit (in this case children), we should expect that oppotuntity to then decline. Child rearers don't have the resources to keep up with non-child rearers, nor the time. Simple maths really.


    What a lot of women want is equality of outcome. Regardless of the decision to change focus from a career to child, you want the same outcome as someone who doesn't. That's not right, nor will it ever work.
    Last edited by andydownes123; 14-12-2018 at 12:04 PM.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 14th Dec 18, 12:07 PM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    On your first point - discrimination is awful I agree. My reference to 'having your cake and eating it' is to women who think that having a child should not affect anything. The simple truth is it does and it will. Childcare is a long and time-consuming business - how can you expect the same career as someone who doesn't have a child? While your focus is on your child, anyone (man or women) who does not have the same commitments will go higher and progress faster. You can't have everything and those that do shortchange someone/thing somewhere.


    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.


    Your point on scenarios is valid, however it kind of fits in with my point of why women can't have the same 'prospects' as those without children, men included. I use prospects loosly but remember...equality of oppotunity is key...we all have the same opportunity to have a career, however if we sideline this for another pursuit (in this case children), we should expect that oppotuntity to then decline. Child rearers don't have the resources to keep up with non-child rearers, nor the time. Simple maths really.


    What a lot of women want is equality of outcome. Regardless of the decision to change focus from a career to child, you want the same outcome as someone who doesn't. That's not right, nor will it ever work.
    Originally posted by andydownes123


    I'm still on rule 1 must get through that book soon
    • MissHG
    • By MissHG 8th Jan 19, 2:16 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    MissHG
    Statutory mat pay is paid from the government. As is maternity allowance.
    So given sheís worked and managed to buy a house and save £10k while doing so indicates that sheís probably not even going to make a dent in the money sheís paid into the government whilst on maternity.
    Good luck with everything OP. Hope everything works out nicely
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Jan 19, 2:28 PM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    Statutory mat pay is paid from the government. As is maternity allowance.
    So given sheís worked and managed to buy a house and save £10k while doing so indicates that sheís probably not even going to make a dent in the money sheís paid into the government whilst on maternity.
    Good luck with everything OP. Hope everything works out nicely
    Originally posted by MissHG


    So sorry I must've missed the bit when taxes are considered a savings account one can dip into...
    • MissHG
    • By MissHG 8th Jan 19, 2:57 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    MissHG
    I’m just saying the pitchforks aren’t necessaryily needed here.
    Not enough is done to help mothers who work or intend to get back into work.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Jan 19, 3:30 PM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    Iím just saying the pitchforks arenít necessaryily needed here.
    Not enough is done to help mothers who work or intend to get back into work.
    Originally posted by MissHG


    Hold on, that's quite a statement.


    Firstly Mothers get protected maternity leave to care for the new-born, with pay. (and still accumulating annual leave).
    They are protected from redundancy during this period too.


    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).


    Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?


    - an no those statements aren't pitchforks, they aren't sexist, they aren't anything offensive. They're questions that get ignored because they're difficult to answer.
    • lulu 92
    • By lulu 92 8th Jan 19, 3:47 PM
    • 2,532 Posts
    • 7,787 Thanks
    lulu 92
    Hold on, that's quite a statement.


    Firstly Mothers get protected maternity leave to care for the new-born, with pay. (and still accumulating annual leave).
    They are protected from redundancy during this period too.


    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).


    Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?


    - an no those statements aren't pitchforks, they aren't sexist, they aren't anything offensive. They're questions that get ignored because they're difficult to answer.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?

    /sarcasm
    Last edited by lulu 92; 08-01-2019 at 7:50 PM. Reason: The MSE Sarcasm Detector is obviously broken
    Our Rainbow Twins born 17th April 2016
    02.06.2015
    29.12.2018



    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Jan 19, 3:57 PM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?
    Originally posted by lulu 92


    Hold on, you're not actually answering my question.


    So i'll do the courtesy of answering yours, and perhaps you'll do the same?


    1. Obviously people should have babies; that wasn't my point at all. But should others be compelled into supporting those personal choices; and if so, what other choices should we support? The poster suggested more should be done - such as what? More money, from where? More time off, more cost to the business; and the economy?


    2. No 'allow' about it, but certainly I think people should have children when they are in a financial position (amongst other criteria such as committed relationship, good maturity level etc.). Again i'll go back to the point these are personal choices; you aren't compelled to have children (and I have 3!).


    3. Nothing about enforced sterilisation or any other permanent form of birth control; that would be completely inhumane. I do find it interesting that you would just to an extreme (and illegal example)
    • andydownes123
    • By andydownes123 8th Jan 19, 4:46 PM
    • 452 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    andydownes123
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again?
    Originally posted by lulu 92

    This is the classic leftist argument reply. Comms69 didn't say anything of the sort, you're putting words in their mouth.
    • LilElvis
    • By LilElvis 8th Jan 19, 5:05 PM
    • 4,029 Posts
    • 10,850 Thanks
    LilElvis
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?
    Originally posted by lulu 92
    You obviously read a different post to the one I did. Comms stated the facts - that a pregnant woman/ mother has numerous employment rights and benefits at a substantial cost to both the employer and the State. Certainly nothing contentious to warrant your hysterical overreaction.
    • lulu 92
    • By lulu 92 8th Jan 19, 7:49 PM
    • 2,532 Posts
    • 7,787 Thanks
    lulu 92
    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.

    However, most people can't sacrifice 100% of their salary to have children. With wages not rising in line with inflation, and the cost of things like rent being astronomical, 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.
    (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)

    What amount of time off would you suggest is adequate? I had just over 10 months off, using my annual leave accrued to add to the end of my mat leave. I don't think that is unreasonable, but it would be nice to be able to have a year off on SMP. The employer gets the money off the government anyway, 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, 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

    "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. SMP is an absolute pittance so of course you will try to get the most out of it as you can. 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. 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. 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.

    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. 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!
    Our Rainbow Twins born 17th April 2016
    02.06.2015
    29.12.2018



    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 9th Jan 19, 12:59 AM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    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 Ďthis isnít a new problemí is debatable. We cannot limit who has children, and I donít propose we do. Iím 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 someonesís 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 itís 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 donít 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 isnít an option Iím 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, itís 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 itís 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!
    Originally posted by lulu 92
    I donít judge peopleís political beliefs based upon a handful of posts. I agree and disagree strongly with the govt. if I didnít, Iíd be scared
    • bashi
    • By bashi 10th Jan 19, 3:59 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    bashi
    Can Maternity Allowance be taken away in the 12 months? (wife not getting statutory as started work after conceiving)
    • sheramber
    • By sheramber 10th Jan 19, 11:55 AM
    • 5,681 Posts
    • 4,328 Thanks
    sheramber
    Can Maternity Allowance be taken away in the 12 months? (wife not getting statutory as started work after conceiving)
    Originally posted by bashi
    Maternity Allowance is paid for 39 weeks only.

    Eligibility here

    https://www.gov.uk/maternity-allowance/eligibility
    • riotlady
    • By riotlady 11th Jan 19, 7:42 PM
    • 108 Posts
    • 283 Thanks
    riotlady
    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.
    by andydownes123
    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.
    Make £2018 in 2018 challenge-
    £626/£2018
    • andydownes123
    • By andydownes123 14th Jan 19, 9:51 AM
    • 452 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    andydownes123
    Women score higher on agreeableness because they are socialised from a young age to be agreeable, not because itís 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. Weíre doing a disservice to both genders by not encouraging them to expand their skills both ways.
    Originally posted by riotlady

    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
    • By Comms69 14th Jan 19, 9:55 AM
    • 6,491 Posts
    • 6,906 Thanks
    Comms69
    Women score higher on agreeableness because they are socialised from a young age to be agreeable, not because itís 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. Weíre doing a disservice to both genders by not encouraging them to expand their skills both ways.
    Originally posted by riotlady


    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

263Posts Today

2,439Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LaraLewington: Inappropriate kisses, uncharacteristic formality, or simple nonsense. I'm stumped, how do you sign off work e-mails? Eve?

  • RT @BBCPolitics: "This is what annoys people. You're not answering!" Sparks (and papers) fly as @MartinSLewis challenges minister Chris Sk?

  • RT @Mattallwright: Spot on. I also hate train toilet seats that try and make me laugh. It's the same joke every journey. https://t.co/b1Tj4?

  • Follow Martin