Simon Howard takes issue with politically correct views of the changes to working parents’ rights
It might not surprise you that, along with nearly every other man, I have a keen interest in all matters reproductive - indeed as a male member (perhaps not the best choice of words in this context) of the species who is happily the father of two beautiful teenage daughters, I can even claim some personal experience in the reproductive department.
So the starting point to this column is that reproduction is a Good Thing, and it therefore follows that everything which can be done to encourage it should be done. And, quite naturally, that includes making it easier for parenting activities to fit in with jobs and careers.
So far so good, but perhaps it’s time to ask if the changes to maternity and paternity rights that this government has introduced are really having the desired effect and, indeed, whether they are fair on other employees.
The first significant change has been an increase in the minimum statutory maternity pay that an employer must shell out. Of course, in principle there is nothing wrong in this - it fits entirely with the stance of encouraging reproduction as it helps cushion the decline in earnings. Hence it is set at 90% for the first six weeks, falling to £102.80 for the following 20. But the costs for an employer add up: for an employee on £20,000 that amounts to £4,000 plus National Insurance - or, expressed more contentiously, the equivalent of a 20% bonus that pregnant colleagues earn and non-pregnant ones don’t.
It could be argued that this addition to the wage bill drives up employment costs but in reality employers will try to keep those costs within budget, so the effect is that there is less for everyone else once the increased costs of maternity pay have been met.
The second change is about the right to maternity leave and the duty of the employer to leave a position open, or as the guide says: “All employees on maternity leave are entitled to return to the same job with terms and conditions as if they had not been away.” That’s all well and good, but the employer has a vacant job and has only three choices - hire in a temp (expensive), hire a new employee (risky) or get everyone else to work a little harder (unfair).
A side issue here is the introduction of paid paternity leave. The effects are much the same, with either the employer picking up the tab for a temp or everyone else putting in a little bit extra to cover for their absent colleague.
The third big change is about the right to work flexibly. Whereas previously employers were able to treat all returning mothers as individuals and come to individual arrangements, it is now beholden on employers that if they offer one working arrangement to one mother, they must offer it to all - hardly that flexible in itself because all parents with kids under six may request flexible working.
But as with maternity and paternity leave, flexible working will often result in the non-parents paying the price. If the parent takes a part-time role, full-time staff must take more responsibility, mostly.
Worse still can be the effects on shift-workers as parents demand shifts that fit in with their family life, leaving the non-parents picking up a disproportionate share of the shifts with unsocial hours.
Indeed in practice the changes in the legislation amount to a one-way street, favouring only the parents. Sure, let’s improve maternity pay but as an employer I want some incentive for the employee to return - particularly as I have to hold her job open for her. I don’t want her to pocket the maternity pay and then resign or deliberate about coming back.
One instance that illustrates the point well is that in the day job we recently had a mother pocket her maternity pay and then resign before returning to join a competitor. I couldn’t help feeling that we had, in effect, paid her a pregnancy bonus. She had (within the rules) used the system to her own ends whereas I would have rather used the money to reward her (single and child-less) colleagues.
In practice, employers pay out more and get the right to very little in return. However, parents get a much better deal but it is at the expense of employers and the expense of their colleagues.
n Simon Howard is a founder of Work Communications and writes the Jobfile column for the Sunday Times.
It might not surprise you that, along with nearly every other man, I have a keen interest in all matters reproductive - indeed as a male member (perhaps not the best choice of words in this context) of the species who is happily the father of two beautiful teenage daughters, I can even claim some personal experience in the reproductive department.
So the starting point to this column is that reproduction is a Good Thing, and it therefore follows that everything which can be done to encourage it should be done. And, quite naturally, that includes making it easier for parenting activities to fit in with jobs and careers.
So far so good, but perhaps it’s time to ask if the changes to maternity and paternity rights that this government has introduced are really having the desired effect and, indeed, whether they are fair on other employees.
The first significant change has been an increase in the minimum statutory maternity pay that an employer must shell out. Of course, in principle there is nothing wrong in this - it fits entirely with the stance of encouraging reproduction as it helps cushion the decline in earnings. Hence it is set at 90% for the first six weeks, falling to £102.80 for the following 20. But the costs for an employer add up: for an employee on £20,000 that amounts to £4,000 plus National Insurance - or, expressed more contentiously, the equivalent of a 20% bonus that pregnant colleagues earn and non-pregnant ones don’t.
It could be argued that this addition to the wage bill drives up employment costs but in reality employers will try to keep those costs within budget, so the effect is that there is less for everyone else once the increased costs of maternity pay have been met.
The second change is about the right to maternity leave and the duty of the employer to leave a position open, or as the guide says: “All employees on maternity leave are entitled to return to the same job with terms and conditions as if they had not been away.” That’s all well and good, but the employer has a vacant job and has only three choices - hire in a temp (expensive), hire a new employee (risky) or get everyone else to work a little harder (unfair).
A side issue here is the introduction of paid paternity leave. The effects are much the same, with either the employer picking up the tab for a temp or everyone else putting in a little bit extra to cover for their absent colleague.
The third big change is about the right to work flexibly. Whereas previously employers were able to treat all returning mothers as individuals and come to individual arrangements, it is now beholden on employers that if they offer one working arrangement to one mother, they must offer it to all - hardly that flexible in itself because all parents with kids under six may request flexible working.
But as with maternity and paternity leave, flexible working will often result in the non-parents paying the price. If the parent takes a part-time role, full-time staff must take more responsibility, mostly.
Worse still can be the effects on shift-workers as parents demand shifts that fit in with their family life, leaving the non-parents picking up a disproportionate share of the shifts with unsocial hours.
Indeed in practice the changes in the legislation amount to a one-way street, favouring only the parents. Sure, let’s improve maternity pay but as an employer I want some incentive for the employee to return - particularly as I have to hold her job open for her. I don’t want her to pocket the maternity pay and then resign or deliberate about coming back.
One instance that illustrates the point well is that in the day job we recently had a mother pocket her maternity pay and then resign before returning to join a competitor. I couldn’t help feeling that we had, in effect, paid her a pregnancy bonus. She had (within the rules) used the system to her own ends whereas I would have rather used the money to reward her (single and child-less) colleagues.
In practice, employers pay out more and get the right to very little in return. However, parents get a much better deal but it is at the expense of employers and the expense of their colleagues.
No comments yet