Afternoon:
10°c
When I had my two children I took no time off at all. I work for myself and so am responsible for the company's finances.
And somehow there has never been quite enough money in the "company" to pay for time off. Nor was it possible to get by on statutory maternity pay as one salary would not pay the mortgage.
I was working from home, which always makes things much easier.
But it taught me an important lesson: if you never stop working completely, you never have to endure the torture of the big return to work after a long absence.
Which is the one massive hurdle which I have seen push many mothers out of work - and often out of London - completely.
One friend in a senior management job told me how she cried on the Tube all the way into work and all the way home for several weeks before she got used to her four-day week.
She had a nine-month maternity leave, during which time she had one phone call with the office. Was such a long break really such a good idea?
Sometimes it takes a powerful person to say out loud what everyone else is thinking. This week it was Nichola Pease, one of the wealthiest women in the City.
She said that extending maternity leave to 12 months has made employers see women as "a nightmare".
She was talking to the Commons Treasury Select Committee as part of its inquiry into the role and treatment of women in the City. Her words struck a chord.
You see Pease, 48, and a mother of two, knows what she is talking about. One half of the couple dubbed the "Posh and Becks of the City" - with husband Crispin Odey she is estimated to be worth £204 million - she has worked in the City since the 1980s and is the deputy chairman of JO Hambro Capital Management.
"We have got to be realistic and make sure the protection around women doesn't end up backfiring," she says. "That is actually one of my greatest worries."
Is she right? Well, yes and no. Few big employers lose out financially if a woman decides to take her full entitlement - it's rare to find a company that will pay out for the whole year.
But your company is obliged to hold your job open - which many employers don't like. Neither do they appreciate the uncertainty of when/if an employee will return. Small companies claim the financial burden is unworkable.
What Pease is arguing is that a sort of unconscious "maternal profiling" has effectively taken hold. By exercising their generous maternity rights, women may be undermining the gains they've made in the workplace - and leave themselves open to outright discrimination.
There is an easy solution: rename maternity leave as parental leave. Let both parents share nine or 12 months off between them.
Stop making baby leave about gender. It works in Scandinavian countries, where equal parental leave is already law.
Some women miss work and want it to be a part of their lives as soon after childbirth as possible. (Maybe their work fulfils and inspires them. Imagine!) Other women simply can't manage this long a break on reduced pay or no pay.
If the burden was shared across the workforce by men and women, it would be easier on parents and employers would have no grounds to discriminate against one gender or another.
In London the issue of how much time to take is a particular problem. High mortgages mean extended maternity leave is a luxury few families can afford. And long hours exacerbate the problem when mothers return to work.
The way the law stands, we are in an "all-or-nothing" situation where one minute you're at home with your baby for months on end.
The next you're in the office for up to 50 hours a week - before you start the long commute home. More companies need to offer halfway solutions: bring women back to work after a reasonable period of time and let them build up to their regular workload gradually.
It doesn't help that we've got used to treating the post-baby period as a time when women are expected to retreat completely from the outside world and cease to function as adults.
This makes sense when a baby is newborn, but after a few weeks or months (it will differ for every woman) it's just insulting. If women want to be full-time mothers, that's their decision and I respect them for it.
But there are other women who want and need to work and are more than capable of doing so. By setting a national standard of 12 months' maternity leave, it turns that year off into a norm.
I'd like to see a balance between establishing rights for parents and not hampering women's progress in the workplace.
The only way to do this is to stop concentrating on extending concessions to women and look at the other half of the family equation: men. Why give women a year and men two weeks?
The Government announced shared leave last month but it's not actually happening yet and there's certainly no chance of it coming in before the next election.
Why hasn't anyone pushed for this obvious solution sooner?
After all, if responsibility for childcare was seen as an equal burden, women would have more opportunity to work if they wanted to and men could have a closer relationship with their children. Who doesn't want that?
Is 12 months' maternity leave too long?
Liz Jones - journalist
“I used to be the boss of about 35 women of childbearing age.Having children is a lifestyle choice, and your employers and colleagues should not be expected to pick up the tab without even being allowed to moan about it, especially during a recession. If you want a year off, you should take it as an unpaid sabbatical. The world cannot accommodate any more humans.”
Stephanie Flanders - BBC economics editor
“Money — and peer-pressure — are much more important than the law in determining how much maternity leave a woman takes. Outside the civil service, few employers provide decent maternity pay beyond four to five months, so many women will go back fairly soon, simply for financial reasons. The debate about women choosing one thing or another' forgets that many women don't have much choice. Employers know that, too.”
Lorraine Candy - editor-in-chief, Elle magazine
“I employ a lot of women here — in fact four are on maternity leave now. I'd rather give the right people the right amount of leave than force them to take less. Most people don't take a year, actually. It's inevitable that women have children and we should give them a chance to do that properly.”
Bella Freud - fashion designer
“Spending time with your child in the first two years of its life is the best thing you can do. It sets them up for life and is a huge investment in their health. Tony Blair's government had a very bullying attitude to this. A full year is the most crucial thing and we should push for it. The year is an important choice for families, men and women alike.”
How maternity leave packages compare
Statutory maternity pay
Six weeks at 90 per cent of your average weekly earnings, up to £123.06 for the next 33 weeks and unpaid thereafter up to 52 weeks.
Jaguar Land Rover
One year on full pay for all permanent employees.
Accenture
Thirty-nine weeks at full pay, then statutory.
Beaverbrooks the jewellers
Ninety per cent of pay for weeks one to six, 50 per cent of pay for weeks seven to 26 and statutory thereafter. A return-to-work bonus of one month's salary is paid after three months back at work.
Deloitte
Full pay from weeks one to six, 33 per cent of pay for weeks seven to 26 and statutory thereafter.
BBC
Full basic salary for first 18 weeks and statutory thereafter.
Reader views (8)
Martina - you have, as you said, made a lifestyle choice, so have I. I am a mother of 2 AND have a career as a teacher. If your company allows mothers to leave early etc then put in a formal complaint! I work the same hours as all my colleagues, I do the late night meetings etc - I don't expect to be treated any differently. Your beef is with your employer not these mothers - if your employer didn't allow it then the mothers wouldn't take advantage!
As for leave - I'd love to share it with my husband - he misses out on so much and it seems very unfair in an age of equality that less emphasis is put on the father's role in the early months of a child's life.
And finally Liz Jones - I pay alot of tax/national insurance - why should I have to have maternity leave unpaid?!I deserve my maternity pay more than the banks that have recently been handed my taxes for running themselves into the ground!
- Kelly Roscoe, Haslingden, UK, 18/10/2009 23:39
Report abuse
I think the maternity leave is about the child and not about the employer - a 1 year old is still too young to be looked after in a nursery all day!
The length of maternity leave in Hungary is 24 weeks (fully paid by the employer). After the expiry of this period there are different types of maternity benefits until the child turns 3 years old – oh yes mums stay home with their child for 2 – 3 years and they can not be fired throughout this period.
- Nina, London, 16/10/2009 15:41
Report abuse
I agree that this should be a shared responsibility between both parents. Unless their is a medical miracle, women are going to be the ones that give birth - believe me I'd be more than happy to let a man do it. Regarding maternity leave, I wouldn't and couldn't take 12 months off and the main reason for this is financial. My company only pays out the statutory minimum and therefore I cannot afford to be off for more than 6 months. I already know that my company does not encourage part time work so to me that means that I have a choice - a child or a job! It seems to me that companies are happy to let educated, experienced women leave industry than provide a workable option. Let's not forget they pro rata down your pay, benefits etc when you work part time, so you're not getting the same as before!
- Mrs X, London, 16/10/2009 13:08
Report abuse
40 years ago my mother lost her job when she told her employer she was expecting me. We have now gone from that very sad state of affairs to the polar opposite - as usual common sense having escaped from the back door - with women taking large amount of time off, often paid, only to resign when they are due to return.
I consider myself a feminist, which seems to have become a dirty word, yet I believe this is a two way street: it's not just about your rights but about your duties. If women want to be treated fairly then they have to behave fairly towards their employers too....
- Electra M, London, 16/10/2009 12:45
Report abuse
I think the Government should review the maternity legislation in the light of the data on what women actually do in the context of having children and the practical impact this has on employers and their other employees.
For example, a good proportion of women return to work on a full or part time basis having had their first child.
However a very much smaller proportion do so after their second one.
Why should employers have to hold a job open for the same length of time in both cases?
In general, why should employers be given such short notice of the decision by mothers as to whether or not they are going to return to work? And why should the notice period be the same for second time mothers?
Why should the legislation be the same for small enterprises as it is for corporate giants? SMEs find it very hard to manage maternity leave per se, and even harder because of the uncertainty right up to end of their leave as to whether a mother is going to return to work or not.
Changing the rules to reflect reality and to be fairer to employers, and indeed other non-child-bearing employees, would do a great deal to mitigate what is currently an unreasonable policy.
- Patrick, London, 16/10/2009 12:06
Report abuse
I completely agree with Nicola Pease's comments. I don't have children myself - and that has been a choice and a decision made by me and my partner. However over the years, many of my colleagues in the city have had babies and taken full maternity leave. However returning to work for them has been a bigger challenge - and many have been allowed to work part-time, flexi-time and/or working from home. That's fine for them, but the 'childless' people in the department are the ones who have to work late and aren't allowed the same priviliges, because we 'don't need them' as one boss once told me. On the days that they are in the office they have to leave dead-on 5pm to make it to the nursery in time to collect the child. When you are working on a big project or a deal, this just isn't always feasible and someone else (such as a myself or a male coleague) has to pick up the slack when they rush off with a humble 'sorry' - to return 2 days later when the hard work has been done. I'm not saying people are not entitled to their rights or to have children - however I think it is completely unrealistic to expect to work in the same job at the same salary, if your new life circumstances have changed and can't support it. In many cases it's a case of having their cake and eating it - they want the career, high salary and benefits - but want to be a hands-on parent at the same time. And in my book, the two don't mix - in a busy job with a 60 minutes commute each way!
- Martina, London, 16/10/2009 11:38
Report abuse
I would love my husband to swap with me, but then that affects two CVs, rather than one. At the moment the papers are full of feral children, examples of bad parenting everywhere. We're told that we should breastfeed exclusively for the first 6 mths and then continue for up to 12 mths. My child is less than a year and I am trying to work out how to find a job so we can afford the rent. Trouble is when childcare is so expensive, we'd be left with £20 a month more, but neither of us would see our child - delegating the parenting to a stranger....is that right?
- Annie, london, 16/10/2009 10:01
Report abuse
Nicola Pease' s comments serve to turn the clock back after significant progress has been made in flexible working which allows both men and women to balance other commitments. The legislation has made progress but the real battle is overcoming the stigma with flexible working and labelling it as a female right.
Employers cannot see themselves in isolation to the society in which they operate. The matter is not about rights for women but rights for the child and family. Any society requires there to be carers (for children or elderly)
Current legislation provides a structure for the new generation to be nurtured and well adjusted - we have all seen where lack of parenting can go horribly wrong. Those that can afford good childcare as no doubt Nicola Pease can, will find it much easier to get the right work/life balance, than others. In the Far East where there is no such legislation, childcare is relatively affordable and there is an extended family structure. One size does not fit all, hence the need in the UK for legislation enabling women to choose.
Secondly the current structure enables the UK to harness the best of its talent and to ensure that its industry and business have a balanced talent pool. If the withdrawal of flexible working leads to a more all male environment, employers will be scoring an own goal. There may be some immediate gains by withdrawing maternity leave and flexible work arrangements, but these will be at the expense of a versatile talent pool.
- Superna, London, UK, 16/10/2009 09:50
Report abuse
