Comments on: Why it’s right to increase maternity pay

By: John77

John77 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:38:00 +0000

Sarah AB – may I refer you to the House of Commons Library? http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-01429.pdf
The earnings-related cap on maternity pay only applies to the self-employed, who are capped at £123 per week. I have no idea how the new EU proposals would affect this discrimination against the self-employed – probably just make it worse as maternity pay for employees would increase from 90% for 6 weeks to 100% for 18 weeks while the self-employed and unemployed are left on basic rate (unless basic rate is more than 90% of their earnings in which case they get less).
re: Paternal leave – are you aware than one in six of economically-active (i.e working but I don’t want to be misconstrued as meaning “Working-class”) men are self-employed? If you mandate them to stop working for three months or more, then their business may be wiped out when they TRY to restart. I once took an overseas posting for three months under a contract from DFID which seemed the Right Thing To Do and when I returned most of my UK clients had given up on me and found someone else, less qualified but more available. Let’s face it: if you are thinking of hiring someone to do a job for you do you prefer someone who will be available when you want him or three months later? Especially if he is repairing roofs or a plumber!
The present system is (according to the EU Parliament not the Daily Mail) to protect the health of women after giving birth and while breastfeeding. I trust that you will accept that these do not apply to men. It is NOT social engineering – it is a recognition and alleviation of the financial consequences of physical facts. Perhaps Sick Pay and the Disability Living Allowance are Social Engineering, but I can recognise their benefits and am fully prepared to pay my share of the costs through my taxes. I do not recognise any benefit from destroying the livelihood of the self-employed.

By: Sarah AB

Sarah AB — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:21:38 +0000

@Tim – I did add say only if we could afford more should extra leave be adjusted this way.
@pajar – but the present system whereby it is tied to the woman is also a form of social engineering. My preference would be for something more flexible.
@John (19) – isn’t there a cap on maternity pay – i.e. yes you will get more if you are well paid but only up to a certain point?

By: This is not a whisper | fertilefeminism.com

This is not a whisper | fertilefeminism.com — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:09:26 +0000

[...] part-time work, we are getting nowhere. Giving dads a bit more paternity leave or giving mums a bit more money for their leave, while a nice gesture, is pointless in the end. It’s an adhesive, [...]

By: John77

John77 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:46:57 +0000

@ Nick
Are you saying that ‘maternity pay’ means that middle-class women *should* get paid more than working class women for having a child? I doubt that you will find many people in this country who agree with you on that.
Of course you may define the term any way you like since ‘maternity pay’ does not appear in the OED, but what this thread is discussing is a claim by Andrew Wimbush that the EU proposal on maternity pay is “right” and the objections made by the government and business groups are “Myths”. nef claims to be opposed to income inequality so his support seems to be at odds with their principles.
I hope that more people would think that if we are to spend more on ‘maternity pay’ in the interests of improving the child’s life prospects then a better place to start would be to increase ‘Maternity Allowance’ up to the flat rate £123.06 that applies to Statutory Maternity Pay after the first few weeks.
If your first sentence was a rhetorical question, then there are some arguments – which I do not support – such as “I’ve paid for this out of my taxes (National Insurance)” [this fall down as there is an upper limit on NI contributions which does not apply to the EU proposal on maternity pay] or “on average, the children of middle-class parents pay more tax over their lifetimes than the children of working-class parents” [so, if you improve the lives of working-class children to match those of middle-class children then the impact on future tax yield should be massive]

By: Maternity, Growth and Value Conflicts « Bad Conscience

Maternity, Growth and Value Conflicts « Bad Conscience — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:05:45 +0000

[...] Philosophy, Politics, Society at 8:00 am by Paul Sagar On Saturday Liberal Conspiracy ran a post about the benefits of increasing maternity pay. Given that the author was nef-affiliated, it could [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:46:19 +0000

So… why should middle class women get paid MORE than working class women when they have a child?

Isn’t that what specifically ‘maternity’ pay means, rather than something simpler, like a wealth transfer to those on lower incomes in general?

By: John77

John77 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:07:32 +0000

Yurrzem! and everyone else
The EU proposals do not benefit the less well-off – they increase the amount of maternity pay for the highly-paid, but the side-effect of increased unemployment will have a disproportionate impact on the less well off.
Screaming that because they propose paying money to women it must be progressive and helping the poor adds nothing to the debate. Those who gain the most will a handful of bankers, city lawyers and pop stars who are earning vast sums while still young enough to have children – had this been in force ten years ago Cherie Blair’s maternity pay would have been more than £10,000 per week. If it comes in now a female bond trader could get £1m in the 18 weeks. Does anyone need that? Is that helping the less well-off? The lowest-paid will see no or negligible increase while the highest-paid will receive thousands.
Some people’s comments seem to assume that the EU had proposed an increase in flat-rate payment throughout the whole period of maternity leave or lengthening the length of the period of maternity pay because Mr Wimbush is basing his argument on the alleged benefits of increasing maternity leave. That is not the case.
It does not follow that the EU (or anyone else) is helping the poor just because someone claims they are.
@ 15 No, because big business don’t go in for tax evasion (illegal), they go in for legal tax avoidance advised by their tax lawyers and frequently encouraged by governments.

By: Yurrzem!

Yurrzem! — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:12:24 +0000

@17

Social engineering goes on anyway. We are bombarded with propaganda about how there are no alternatives to our capitalist system, so-called wars on drugs and terrorism, many things we don’t even notice.

Glibly dismissing efforts to improve the lives of the less well off because it looks like social engineering is a non-argumant.

By: pagar

pagar — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:23:52 +0000

Sarah @14

I like the pattern (adopted I think by some of these Nordic countries) whereby at least some of the paid parental leave has to be taken by the father.

Apart from the economic argument above, your proposal is motivated by the desire to change the behaviour of others so that their lives will accord more closely with your own credo.

That is social engineering and it is always pernicious.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:30:59 +0000

“There’s lots of anecdotal evidence that small businesses are unwilling to take on women of childbearing age (and the more generous maternity pay gets the worse this problem will get too). But if either men *or* women might taken a long stretch of time off this wouldn’t be a gender issue any more. ”

It would just become a labour issue in general. It is possible to substitute capital for labour. If labour becomes more expensive, then such substitution will occur.

That would then drive wages down in general……so your solution to the way in which maternity leave reduces female incomes is to say that everyone’s income should fall?

By: Yurrzem!

Yurrzem! — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:07:27 +0000

@ John 77, pagar

I think we’re on crossed purposes here. I think increased maternity and paternity are a good idea but I agree largely with your points regarding who should pay.

Shall we talk about tax evasion by big businesses now?

By: Sarah AB

Sarah AB — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:07:14 +0000

I like the pattern (adopted I think by some of these Nordic countries) whereby at least some of the paid parental leave has to be taken by the father. If the UK can afford to be more generous then I think it should be more generous to parents of both sexes. This would be good for both men and women.

There’s lots of anecdotal evidence that small businesses are unwilling to take on women of childbearing age (and the more generous maternity pay gets the worse this problem will get too). But if either men *or* women might taken a long stretch of time off this wouldn’t be a gender issue any more.

Also – it would allow men more chance to play a role in bringing up their family. I can see that there may be a ‘macho’ factor in play whereby men feel discouraged from taking paternity leave or whatever – but if it were the case that men *either* took paid leave *or* his family as a whole lost its entitlement to some of the paid leave it was entitled to (because some of the parental paid leave was non transferable) than the culture would probably change.

By: John77

John77 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:43:44 +0000

@Left Outside
Source: Actuarial textbooks based on information supplied by the Government Actuary
We had to know such things to understand how to calculate appropriate rates of National Insurance Contributions (this was before GB turned them into a disguised form of income tax for workers but not rentiers)
Why? Good question but sickness rates for married women > sickness rate for spinsters > sickness rates for men
Vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that mothers report sick if one of their children is sick and the need to look after him/her (and that many employers not only tolerate but encourage this), This explains the excess of married women’s sick leave over single women’s and the aggregate (but not the latter) over men.
There is pressure on married men to turn up to work even if “one degree under” as they need to earn money to support the family, which correlates with the far greater degree of overtime working by men compared to women. Among young single men there may be a macho culture about never admitting illness or they may just have a lower frequency of illness. I think it is a combination of the two.

By: Richard W

Richard W — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:37:30 +0000

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that there are social welfare benefits that flow from more generous maternity leave. However, if the benefits accrue to all society then you should argue that all society should bear the cost of the provision. In the long-run an economy can only become more prosperous by raising productivity. Everything else is just shuffling resources around so they are distributed to different people. Only rising productivity can lead to a net gain in prosperity. If better maternity leave provision raised productivity, then there is an argument for employers bearing that cost. However, the article does not make that argument.

Although one could argue that women ought to be subsidised by having children as they produce the next generation of workers so employers should bear the cost. However, this discriminates against older firms and new firms are free riding on the older firms who have borne the cost of producing the new generation of workers. Moreover, women are producing the next generation of taxpayers and it is that point that proves if anyone should be subsidising maternity leave it should be the state and not employers.

By: Left Outside

Left Outside — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:15:03 +0000

…sick pay (women take more sick leave than men)…

Got a source for that? I’d be quite interesting in seeing if that is true, and if it is true why.

By: John77

John77 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:55:59 +0000

@ pagar
You did not misunderstand.
Most new mothers (even now) are part of a household that includes a working man.
[Of course these households comprise a relatively small minority of working people and I am concerned that transferring significant sums to this small minority will actually worsen the lives of more working people, and by more, than the number of beneficiaries or the extent of the benefit. Yurrzem! and Mr Windbush are completely unconcerned]

By: pagar

pagar — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:49:51 +0000

Every time someone suggests a move that might improve the lives of working people these same sorts of argument are raised against them.

Oh sorry.

I misundersood the point of the original post.

I had thought it was about increasing maternity pay. The pay women are entitled to when they have children and are NOT able to work.

By: John77

John77 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:26:49 +0000

@Yurrzem!
I work – perhaps more than Andy Wimbush as I have learnt more economics as a side-effect of my work (and two lessons a week for one school year) than he seems to have done as his principal occupation. I want to improve the lives of working people – at my first school boys came in ragged and patched shorts – but I do not believe that putting men out of work will improve their lives or that of their children.
Of course I want to make society better: that is why I am making intelligent suggestions instead of stupid ones. nef says that increasing maternity pay for 18 weeks would transform lives through “a happier healthier childhood”

By: John77

John77 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:44:15 +0000

Tim J is almost certainly right but UK data shows that a majority of public sector employees are female (and increasingly so in the last decade) and the high cost of female pensions, sick pay (women take more sick leave than men) and maternity leave, let alone the requirement to ignore effort, ability, skill and experience when male and female pay rates, discourage private sector employers in the UK as well as Scandinavia.
Any employer who tries to pay a woman less than a man for work of equal value is stupid as well as wrong and will eventually lose out to a competitor who pays fairly. However this discussion is about paying women who are not working.
Why should the employer of the mother – and not that of the father – be required to subsidise the child? Why should either, come to that?

By: Yurrzem!

Yurrzem! — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:31:12 +0000

Every time someone suggests a move that might improve the lives of working people these same sorts of argument are raised against them.

While I tend to agree that comparisons with Scandinavian countries are simplistic I do not disagree with the aims of the proposed changes.

Its all about what kind of society we want to live in. More of the same or trying to make it better?

By: Tim J

Tim J — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:52:52 +0000

Countries with better paid parental leave actually have a greater percentage of women participating in the labour market. In 2003, the rate was 69.2 per cent in the UK, compared with 72.1 per cent in Finland and 76.9 per cent in Sweden, and the participation of single mothers in Scandinavia is particularly impressive relative to the UK.

I seem to remember reading that the high Scandinavian female participation in the workplace is massively skewed towards public sector employment. In the private sector there is evidence that the very generous maternity provisions do indeed discourage employers.

By: John77

John77 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:02:08 +0000

If Mr Windbush believed in his argument he would not need to fudge the figures. ONS’ last published figures are for 2008 when the percentage of British women 16-59 who were “economically inactive” (which includes the majority in the 16-21 age-group because they were in full-time education) was 25%, barely above the figure he gives for Sweden and lower than that for Finland.
In a discussion about raising the level of benefit for the first 18 weeks out of 52 weeks of paid maternity leave Andy Wimbush claims, without supporting his claim with either evidence or argument, that Britain would “save £486 billion over 20 years”. I thought that he had not noticed that under current regulations the £2 billion cost to business would provide a £1.2 billion benefit to HMRC and only £0.8 billion to the mothers, but a possible explanation is that he has multiplied the £1.2bn by twenty twice instead of once. Is there a better explanation? How many mothers are currently driven back to work a few days after giving birth by the difference between their wages and maternity pay rates (well, apart from Nicola Horlick?). Why else should there be consequences that generate costs of £24bn a year (which is about one-and-a-half times median *household* income times the number of babies born)?
“Over 140,000 companies experienced Significant and Critical financial problems in Q4 2009″ despite the the HMRC “time to pay” scheme that is deferring many insolvencies until H2 2010 according to the leading quoted insolvency practitioner.
Adding £2 billion to employer’s costs to pay people who are not working for them (yes, looking after a baby is hard work but it doesn’t help the ex-employer) will tip more companies over the edge into insolvency putting thousands (or tens of thousands, depending on your time scale) out of work (including the domino effect as almost invariably it is always the suppliers who are worst hit by insolvencies while banks, HMRC, employees and landlords take priority) to help a few dozen (or hundreds) who are well above the bread-line under current rules.
I shall not bother to repeat earlier comments (most of which are valid)

By: pagar

pagar — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:04:45 +0000

It is somewhat disingenuous to compare all the UK stats with those from the Nordic countries- because Norway, Sweden and Finland have few historic and cultural synergies with the UK.

Scandinavian state socialism is entirely different to ours in that it did not developed from catharsis between greedy employers and down trodden workers as here but is, in fact, rooted in high church Lutheranism and capitalist paternalism. Much of that capitalism, by the way, is now propped up by oil rich Norwegian hedge funds without which it would be uncompetitive.

The Nordic countries are effectively controlled by a relatively small elite of successful businessmen who tend to have their summer houses situated around the best lakes.

The argument above shows that their childcare provisions and maternity benefits are better funded than ours. That may look like the road to Utopia to some and in many ways it is. But many people thought Stepford, Connecticut looked like a nice place too.

And just look at the price of their beer.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:50 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Why it’s right to increase maternity pay http://bit.ly/blCckj...

By: Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:21:12 +0000

I appreciate the sentiment here, however (as Tim points out) the costs would be put on to the businesses which is why businesses are speaking up against this. I doubt businesses would care so much if it was coming out of the public purse.

I’m also interested in the link you’re trying to make between the outcomes of children’s lives, their unemployment in the future, and social problems caused by their upbringing, with a lack of male maternity leave and relatively low maternity pay? Have you got anything that backs this link up other than (co)incidental facts, I’d be interested in reading it.

I’m personally of the belief more should be done on maternity, it’s a tough time of a parent’s life and they should be supported to do the best by their child during that time, but we can’t ignore the potential negative feedback on equality if we leave this all to businesses to carry.