# Should (100% topup) paid Maternity Leave in the Public Service be abolished.



## TheBlock

It appears that Gardai, Nurses and Teachers etc are entitled to 26 weeks full paid maternity leave. 

Surley this should be scrapped and public service workers should be treated the same as most private sector workers and have maternity leave limited to the DSFA payment. 

I cannot quantify the savings that this would lead to but I'm sure they are substantial enough given the times we are in.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*

How about removing all these benefits from all workers. Level the playing field as it were.


----------



## csirl

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*

Its not true to say that most private sector workers have mat leave limited to DSFA. This may be true for small companies and self employed, but 26 weeks full paid leave is the norm in most large private sector companies.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*

Its a lot less common these days. Often its limited to managment grades only. 

However its a massive quality of life issue for families and for working woman. Its a bigger issue than just saving money. Its still just a perk. Ditto paternity leave/pay. 

How about other countries?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



jaybird said:


> Yes, lets go backwards! Nurses, gardai, teachers and the like are the people who actually serve the country...surely they if anyone deserve things such as paid maternity leave?


That a load of rubbish. Paid maternity leave is a great idea so *if we can afford it *then everyone should get it.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



csirl said:


> This may be true for small companies and self employed, but 26 weeks full paid leave is the norm in most large private sector companies.


Yes, if the companies can afford it they pay it. If they can't they don't. At the moment the state, as an employer, can't. It would be great if it could... but it can't.


----------



## gipimann

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



TheBlock said:


> It appears that Gardai, Nurses and Teachers etc are entitled to 26 weeks full paid maternity leave. Surley this should be scrapped and public service workers should be treated the same as most private sector workers and have maternity leave limited to the DSFA payment. I cannot quantify the savings that this would lead to but I'm sure they are substantial enough given the times we are in.


 
Public sector workers (both civil and public service) who were recruited before 1995 don't qualify for Maternity Benefit from SW as they don't pay the appropriate PRSI contributions.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



gipimann said:


> Public sector workers (both civil and public service) who were recruited before 1995 don't qualify for Maternity Benefit from SW as they don't pay the appropriate PRSI contributions.



That's easy to fix.


----------



## liaconn

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*

Believe me, most public servants that I know who were recruited pre 95 would much rather be paying full prsi and getting all the benefits than paying part prsi and getting absolutely nothing for it.


----------



## orka

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



gipimann said:


> Public sector workers (both civil and public service) who were recruited before 1995 don't qualify for Maternity Benefit from SW as they don't pay the appropriate PRSI contributions.


Do they still get full pay while on maternity leave?


----------



## Towger

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



Purple said:


> Yes, if the companies can afford it they pay it. If they can't they don't. At the moment the state, as an employer, can't. It would be great if it could... but it can't.



Don't tell me there is yet another little purpler on the way!


----------



## ajapale

I know that not all women in the public sector enjoy 100% top up paid maternity leave. I knew an hourly paid stores issuer who was not paid this 100% top up.

Also I know of women in the private sector who were paid 100% top up and kept their company car and company provided broad band etc for the duration of their maternity. The company involved could not afford not to as the woman would resign and join a competitor if she did not get it!


----------



## roball

No way should the public sector enjoy 100% paid maternity leave, they need to get real we're all loosing our jobs in the private sector, sick of listening to public sector moaning about have to pay towards their pensions etc.  Hello be glad you have a job and stop moaning and threatening to strike.


----------



## roball

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



jaybird said:


> Yes, lets go backwards! Nurses, gardai, teachers and the like are the people who actually serve the country...surely they if anyone deserve things such as paid maternity leave?



I assume by the above you work in the public service, "nurses, gardai, teachers serve their country" what do they want a medal for serving their country, they get well paid for doing a job.


----------



## deadlyduck

Are there figures available for the amount of money paid to women employed in the public sector who are on maternity leave and their numbers? It  would be essential to have an idea of the amount we're talking about when prioritising areas for savings.
As a matter of principle, I'd expect that if areas where instances of waste/duplication/gross financial profligacy/fraud are demonstrably evident that those areas will be targeted for savings before a payment such as top-up maternity was cut. Depending on where you sit on the left-right spectrum, you may feel that the top-up falls under these categories- it's a subjective choice, to an extent- personally, I don't feel it should be a priority for cutting (BTW, I'm male, in case anyone thinks that's relevant).
A more pertinent question might be whether the baseline value of the maternity payment is too high/ just right/ too low.


----------



## circle

2% of the HSE are currently on maternity leave. When you consider that it lasts 6 months, that means that about 4% take it in a year (possibly a bit less as they may be including unpaid leave also).:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



Towger said:


> Don't tell me there is yet another little purpler on the way!


Yes, number four will be here in a few weeks but how did you deduce that from my post???


----------



## Purple

Jaybird, they'd still get the same maternity payments that the state pays to other women. Taking circle's figures it means that around 5'600 women take it each year in the HSE alone. I accept that not all of them are getting full top-up payments but there is still a significant cost to the state. As a country we need to cut public expenditure by over one third. These are exceptional times.


----------



## TheBlock

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



jaybird said:


> You assume wrong. No, no medals, just basic provisions such as paid maternity, which has proven benefits to children and society, as well as the individual employees.
> With so much waste, so much profiteering, double and triple pensions to ministers, bizarre overpayments...there are a million and one places to cut spending from the public purse before you take away a hard won thing such as paid maternity, a symbol of progression in society and a lot more than a "perk".


 
Why doesn't everyone get this top up then seen as they the tax paying public are paying for it for public servants?


----------



## micheller

Well employers are not necessarily interested in benefits to society, whereas the state a) has to be interested in society and b) has no shareholders baying for blood. 

Anyway, I'd look at paying full maternity as best practice. I know they are exceptional times, but really- plenty of political fat to be trimmed before issues like this.


----------



## AlbacoreA

*Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.*



TheBlock said:


> Why doesn't everyone get this top up then seen as they the tax paying public are paying for it for public servants?


 
Because they've chosen to work somewhere that doesn't have it.


----------



## Woodsman

No one has mentioned the teachers who plan their pregnancies to coincide with the start of the school year. They then effectively work for less than a quarter of a year and still get full pay plus all the perks that go with the job. How was that French Government minister able to be back at her desk five days after giving birth yet our Gardai, Nurses,teachers and others in the public sector need six months? Six months paid leave is, I am sure, a wonderful thing but as most people stated, we CANNOT AFFORD IT.


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> We can afford it, there are plenty of other places to make cuts. Planning pregnancy with miltary precision? Not in real life I'm afraid, doesn't often work like that.
> The french minster is hardly a role model for women, and she got fired anyway, so I don't see your point. And you think 6 months leave to have a baby is too long? Perhaps they should push them out at the side of the road and get straight back to work? Or alternatively stay at home and not dare to work either. These damn women eh, having babies and then wanting to you know, feed them and stuff? The horror....
> 
> I despair, I really do.


Women and babies did fine when it was three months. I know women who have never taken more than 6 weeks.


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Why are you advocating for a race to the bottom?


Sorry, but that's just meaningless trade union speak. I am advocating that we live within our means and that reducing paid maternity leave to what it was a few years ago should be part of that.


----------



## roball

From my experience I've never met anyone who left the public sector for a job in the private sector but I've lots and lots of friend who tried and some who succeeded in getting into the public sector.  

I would love to work for the public sector, pensions, sick pay full maternity pay etc it's ridiculous especially in these times.

Everyone in full time employment should work at least 40 hours a week and no-one should get full pay for doing nothing i.e. full sick pay, full maternity benenfit.


----------



## AlbacoreA

roball said:


> From my experience I've never met anyone who left the public sector for a job in the private sector but I've lots and lots of friend who tried and some who succeeded in getting into the public sector.


 
Maybe you should meet more people then. I've know a good few who done both. How is this relevent to Maternity Pay?



roball said:


> I would love to work for the public sector, pensions, sick pay full maternity pay etc it's ridiculous especially in these times.
> 
> Everyone in full time employment should work at least 40 hours a week and no-one should get full pay for doing nothing i.e. full sick pay, full maternity benenfit.


 
The better Companies/Jobs in the private sector have similar terms. Why not get a job in either. Its usually done to attract better, more qualified staff. 

We're bailing out bankers, and developers for billions. No problem with that.  But lets target new born babies, the sick. Nice.


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> You are advocating that we take something that has proven benefits to society and dial it back to what it was, before we could do better. That is a race to the bottom.


 No, now we cannot do better because we are broke. What bottom are we racing toward?



jaybird said:


> Meaningless trade union speak? You tell that to the nurse who has to go back to work when her baby is 3 months old, giving up breastfeeding (losing more proven benefits), putting her baby into long hours of childcare (earlier childcare placement directly linked to lower quality care and poorer outcomes on child acheivement).


 The good news is that nurses work very short hours so that's not going to be an issue. 



jaybird said:


> This kind of argument makes me sick. You always want to take good things from those who need them and deserve them, instead of taking frome where it is justified. Its not always just about the bottom line.


 I am for removing children’s allowance from the well off, medical cards from rich old people, tax breaks for landlords, removing the employers PRSI ceiling and increasing the top rate of income tax, getting rid of tax breaks where it cannot be shown that there is a very clear benefit to the country and possibly reducing the tax break on pension contributions to the lower rate etc. 
That said the notion that people on a low income have somehow been disadvantaged over the last ten years is utter nonsense. We have the highest after tax minimum wage in the EU and have had massive increases and expansions in welfare over that time. The people who have been left behind by the Celtic Tiger are middle income earners in the private sector.    

Now, back on topic; we can’t  afford it, there’s other things that are more important so we can’t have it.
If parents want to look after their child full time at home  for the first six months, or 12 months or forever they should plan accordingly with minimal support from the state.  
That has nothing to do with a desire to take “good things” from “those that deserve them” (whatever that means). It’s more to do with a desire to keep out state from going bankrupt.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> The better Companies/Jobs in the private sector have similar terms. Why not get a job in either. Its usually done to attract better, more qualified staff.


 I think you’ll find that it’s done by companies that can afford it. At the moment the state cannot.



AlbacoreA said:


> We're bailing out bankers, and developers for billions. No problem with that.  But lets target new born babies, the sick. Nice.


Are you just being emotive or do you really not know why we are bailing out the banks?


----------



## AlbacoreA

We didn't have to save all the banks. The amount being thrown away on that are vast compared to the amounts spend on these other things that we "can't afford". Only the very well off will be able to stay at home with their babies. Even those that remain at work, on low/middle income will just be paying the creche/baby minder what they earn. So they might as well go on the dole. At least they'll be with the baby, rather than a stranger. Once on the dole, would you get them off it?


----------



## orka

jaybird said:


> You are advocating that we take something that has proven benefits to society


I can understand there are big benefits to individuals but what are the proven benefits to society? 


jaybird said:


> ..dial it back to what it was, before we could do better.


Before we THOUGHT we could do better.... If we hadn't lost the run of ourselves with the 'woohoo, aren't we rich' bubble, maternity leave would never have been increased to the extent it has been. Rolling back to the status quo before we mistakenly thought we were a rich country is a sensible thing to do. As I mentioned in a different thread, I know of at least two large employers who are changing their maternity leave provision because they can no longer afford to pay as much and for as long. The state as an employer needs to do the same. We are borrowing €400M per week to keep ourselves in the style to which we have become accustomed - our spending simply has to be cut anywhere it can be cut - we don't have the luxury of choosing which cuts suit us and which don't.


----------



## AlbacoreA

How much are we paying per week to have our interest rates increased?


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> So they might as well go on the dole. At least they'll be with the baby, rather than a stranger.


I don't think you can get the dole if you give up work to stay at home with your baby.


----------



## AlbacoreA

orka said:


> I don't think you can get the dole if you give up work to stay at home with your baby.


 
A company will be happy to let them go. End of problem.


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> How much are we paying per week to have our interest rates increased?


Not sure - I don't think it's actively costing us anything at the moment - and I'm not even sure I understand the question as my interest rates haven't gone up.  I think this is going off topic but you're preaching to the converted here anyway - I'm as annoyed about bank bailouts as anyone but ranting and raving about it won't change what is largely a fait accomplis at this stage - bar some unprecedented bravery from the Greens.  Unfortunately we are where we are and we have to save massive amounts of money on our public spending, end of story.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Fair nuff. Its only a matter of time though. Can you quantify these "massive savings" from not paying maternity pay per week.


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> A company will be happy to let them go. End of problem.


It's not leaving the company that's the problem - it's the applying and being approved for the dole that's the problem.  For a single parent your master plan might work but in the more common situation of a dual-income household, it's unlikely that a stay-at-home spouse will get the dole.


----------



## AlbacoreA

They get something, family income supplement or what ever its called. Maybe they won't get married either.


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> Can you quantify these "massive savings" from not paying maternity pay per week.


The massive savings are what we need in total - not what can be achieved through not paying top up maternity pay.  But the massive savings will be achieved incrementally through smaller savings made in many areas - such as maternity pay - it will all add up (well, it won't but we can try ...).  I would love to have access to the numbers to answer this and many other questions but my back of the envelope stab at your specific question:  a previous post in this thread showed 2,305 HSE staff on maternity leave at the moment.  Taking an average salary of €50K (open to correction here but this seems to be bandied about as a public service 'average' when talking about pensions), that's €1,000 of which €280 is the statutory maternity pay which everyone is entitled to.  So, the employer (the state) has to top up €720 per week for 2,305 people which is €1.7M per week or €86M per year - just from the HSE - there's also teachers, gardai, civil service etc.  Not to be sniffed at in these difficult times.



AlbacoreA said:


> Maybe they won't get married either.


Marriage shouldn't matter - unless they plan to put in a fraudulent claim which will hopefully be rooted out and punished.


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> They get something, family income supplement or what ever its called.


And no way does everyone get something - there are many single income families who get nothing but child benefit from the state...


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Only the very well off will be able to stay at home with their babies.



You may find that they are very rich because they don’t stay at home with their babies.


----------



## AlbacoreA

orka said:


> ...So, the employer (the state) has to top up  €1.7M per week ...


 
Thats before strikes reduced that still further. As your looking for €400M per week. I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.


 It's not, this is just a discussion.
If it's €1.7 million in the HSE then it's over €3.0 million in the entire public sector. Given that we will not save €00 million a week but should look to save at least half of that then this one measure will yield over 1% of total savings. That's a very substantial amount in the overall context.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> You may find that they are very rich because they don’t stay at home with their babies.


 
Seems to work a treat.


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Seems to work a treat.



Eh?


----------



## liaconn

Woodsman said:


> No one has mentioned the teachers who plan their pregnancies to coincide with the start of the school year.


 
Is this something you know for a fact?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> It's not, this is just a discussion.
> If it's €1.7 million in the HSE then it's over €3.0 million in the entire public sector. Given that we will not save €00 million a week but should look to save at least half of that then this one measure will yield over 1% of total savings. That's a very substantial amount in the overall context.


 
Compared to the €850 million on 5% SW cuts?


----------



## Purple

AlbacoreA said:


> Compared to the €850 million on 5% SW cuts?



It's €3 million a week. That's €150 million a year so yes, it's quite a lot.


----------



## Kine

AlbacoreA said:


> We didn't have to save all the banks.


 
The fates of all Irish Banks are intertwined. If one went, I would be amazed if they all wouldn't tumble like a house of cards. Just look at what Lehman going bust did? Irish banks had to be saved as they are the life source of money for companies in this country. Most international banks are either pulling out or scaling back their operations here (or at the very least, not lending due to higher rates of return in their own markets).


----------



## roball

AlbacoreA said:


> Maybe you should meet more people then. I've know a good few who done both. How is this relevent to Maternity Pay?



I know plenty of people thanks!



AlbacoreA said:


> The better Companies/Jobs in the private sector have similar terms. Why not get a job in either. Its usually done to attract better, more qualified staff.



Unfortunately these "better Companies/Jobs" are leaving Ireland due to uncompetitiveness.



AlbacoreA said:


> We're bailing out bankers, and developers for billions. No problem with that.  But lets target new born babies, the sick. Nice.



No lets target all areas where money's being wasted on perks we can no longer afford.


----------



## Shawady

Maternity benefit was only 18 weeks prior to 2006 and now stands at 26 weeks. 
The sensible thing to me would be to reduce the term of paid leave back to 22 weeks, which was what it was as recently as 2007. (A 15% reduction).


----------



## TheBlock

Shawady said:


> Maternity benefit was only 18 weeks prior to 2006 and now stands at 26 weeks.
> The sensible thing to me would be to reduce the term of paid leave back to 22 weeks, which was what it was as recently as 2007. (A 15% reduction).


 
I don't really have a problem with the maternity benefit of €280 for 26 weeks. It's that additional top up that Public sector workers get to take then up to full pay that I was highlighting. This top up is not avaialable to everyone and seeing as the public sector is paid for by the taxpayer why should thay have benifits that not all taxpayers have.


----------



## Shawady

TheBlock said:


> I don't really have a problem with the maternity benefit of €280 for 26 weeks. It's that additional top up that Public sector workers get to take then up to full pay that I was highlighting. This top up is not avaialable to everyone and seeing as the public sector is paid for by the taxpayer why should thay have benifits that not all taxpayers have.


 
Fair enough, but given the 44% increase in the term of maternity beneift entitlement would have unlikley to have happened if there was not a proprty boom, do you think the government should cut back a bit on this benefit now that revenue is down?


----------



## Purple

We’re not going to get out of this mess by just cutting public sector costs and taking perks away from public sector employees that private sector employees think they don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with fairness per se, it’s about facing the harsh economic reality. In that light reducing maternity top-up for public sector employees would save money but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.


----------



## Shawady

Purple said:


> We’re not going to get out of this mess by just cutting public sector costs and taking perks away from public sector employees that private sector employees think they don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with fairness per se, it’s about facing the harsh economic reality. In that light reducing maternity top-up for public sector employees would save money but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.


 
Thats the point I was making. The massive increase in taxes from the property boom enabled to the government to increase spending in many areas, not just public pay.
If the government had taken a decision to cut every item of spending by 10-15%, followed up by targeted savings in areas like PS numbers, means testing child benefit, tax relief for investors etc, they would be well on the way to closing the gap.


----------



## TheBlock

Purple said:


> but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.


 
But is this the Remit of An Bord Snip?


----------



## Kine

TheBlock said:


> But is this the Remit of An Bord Snip?


 
nope, but it is the remit of the government


----------



## south_dub

Well, I am speaking as a recent daddy where my wife does *not* get full paid up maternity leave that we should not touch this benefit for public or private sector workers who are lucky enough to have it.

I can see how it would be very beneficial for babies and mothers to get 6 months paid leave and therefore, great for society. 

6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.


----------



## Purple

south_dub said:


> 6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.


 "Elsewhere" is not as deep in the  mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't. 
BTW, how does it pay for itself in the long run?
Even if it does we need the money now.


----------



## south_dub

Purple said:


> "Elsewhere" is not as deep in the mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't.
> BTW, how does it pay for itself in the long run?
> Even if it does we need the money now.


 
Yeah but I think you will find that most experts in these matters insist 6 months is required leave - I mean, it makes sense to me: sending a 3 month old baby into a creche is unthinkable to me as a recent daddy. 6 months is the minimum age.

It pays for itself in terms of more content babies, less social problems and expenses etc in young adults (men) etc... a bit wishy washy but I bet there is a study out there proving it.

Look, babies are the future, these kind of cuts should be worst case scenario.


----------



## Purple

south_dub said:


> Yeah but I think you will find that most experts in these matters insist 6 months is required leave - I mean, it makes sense to me: sending a 3 month old baby into a creche is unthinkable to me as a recent daddy. 6 months is the minimum age.
> 
> It pays for itself in terms of more content babies, less social problems and expenses etc in young adults (men) etc... a bit wishy washy but I bet there is a study out there proving it.
> 
> Look, babies are the future, these kind of cuts should be worst case scenario.


I have three kids, number fuor will be here in a few weeks (all going well), so I do know what's involved. I see no good reason why 6 months is needed. It would be great if the first 12 months was paid for. Then again it would be great if we could all just stay at home and someone else paid for everything but we can't.


----------



## AlbacoreA

The other side of this is paternity leave. Many other countries give it. Often the mother takes longer than usual to recover. All sorts of complications can happen. Mother might be kept in hospital for a couple of weeks, and be unable to manage for a month or more when shes gets home. What is the father meant to do. Especially if there are other young kids at home. Often things don't work out as planned and young babies can often be sick themselves. 

Theres a whole range of things that can be cut before maternity pay. IMO.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Purple said:


> I have three kids, number fuor will be here in a few weeks (all going well), so I do know what's involved. I see no good reason why 6 months is needed. It would be great if the first 12 months was paid for. Then again it would be great if we could all just stay at home and someone else paid for everything but we can't.


 
Just because I can manage doesn't mean I assume everyone and their kids are in the same situation, healthwise, or financially.


----------



## Shawady

south_dub said:


> Well, I am speaking as a recent daddy where my wife does *not* get full paid up maternity leave that we should not touch this benefit for public or private sector workers who are lucky enough to have it.
> 
> I can see how it would be very beneficial for babies and mothers to get 6 months paid leave and therefore, great for society.
> 
> 6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.


 
I've 2 young kids myself and we only got the state benefit and I understand what you are saying about putting a child into the creche too young, but I think there is 8 or 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave that can be taken also.
My concern is that the more items that become untouchable for cuts, the less likely the government will make progress on closing the deficit.


----------



## AlbacoreA

My problem is they'll chase the most needy in society before they chase the old boy network, or anything that lines their own pockets.


----------



## orka

south_dub said:


> Yeah but I think you will find that most experts in these matters insist 6 months is required leave - I mean, it makes sense to me: sending a 3 month old baby into a creche is unthinkable to me as a recent daddy. 6 months is the minimum age.
> 
> It pays for itself in terms of more content babies, less social problems and expenses etc in young adults (men) etc... a bit wishy washy but I bet there is a study out there proving it.
> 
> Look, babies are the future, these kind of cuts should be worst case scenario.


No-one is saying that mothers should be forced back to work after 3 months - just that the country can't afford to top-up public service pay to the 100% level.  This is a perk that is being scaled back in companies that can no longer afford it (and many never offered it) so with the country in as dire a state as it is, similar tough decisions are forced on it -cuts have to be made anywhere they can be.  My sister-in-law will be getting much worse maternity pay and leave for her baby due this year than for number 1 a few years ago - but she's going to manage to take almost as much time by using holidays, parental leave and unpaid leave - and budgeting - because it is important to her.  She understands that her employer is not in as good a position now as then - but I don't think her employer is in anywhere near as bad a position as our country...


----------



## orka

AlbacoreA said:


> My problem is they'll chase the most needy in society before they chase the old boy network, or anything that lines their own pockets.


Do you have any specific suggestions for where they could chase the old boy network or anything that lines their own pockets?  This seems to be the general moan anytime any difficult spending cuts are suggested - 'get those who deserve it' etc. with no concrete suggestions (which, believe me, would be welcomed by many posters here).  But, once more with feeling - we are in dire straits, nothing is untouchable, everywhere we can make cuts we should.  It's not either this cut or that cut - it's X and Y and Z and A and B and C and ..... - EVERYTHING has to be cut - and we still won't manage to balance our books for years....


----------



## Purple

orka said:


> Do you have any specific suggestions for where they could chase the old boy network or anything that lines their own pockets?  This seems to be the general moan anytime any difficult spending cuts are suggested - 'get those who deserve it' etc. with no concrete suggestions (which, believe me, would be welcomed by many posters here).  But, once more with feeling - we are in dire straits, nothing is untouchable, everywhere we can make cuts we should.  It's not either this cut or that cut - it's X and Y and Z and A and B and C and ..... - EVERYTHING has to be cut - and we still won't manage to balance our books for years....



Well said.


----------



## csirl

Purple said:


> "Elsewhere" is not as deep in the mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't.
> BTW, how does it pay for itself in the long run?
> Even if it does we need the money now.


 
What about the UK - they're deeper in debt than us and they are still paying it


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> What about the UK - they're deeper in debt than us and they are still paying it



I don't accept that the UK are in as bad a state as us.


----------



## csirl

The vast majority of large employers, both private and public, pay 6 months full pay for maternity leave. Its the norm nowdays. And it appears to be the same in every EU country. 

If people want it changed, then it should be changed across the board and apply to all workers.


----------



## csirl

Purple said:


> I don't accept that the UK are in as bad a state as us.


 
Either do they - that's why our problems will be insignificant compared with there's if they dont address them soon.


----------



## orka

csirl said:


> The vast majority of large employers, both private and public, pay 6 months full pay for maternity leave. Its the norm nowdays. And it appears to be the same in every EU country.
> 
> If people want it changed, then it should be changed across the board and apply to all workers.


Why should something change for all employees just because it needs to change for state employees?  If an employer can afford to pay full maternity then they can choose to do so.  Forcing all employers to stop paying will just increase private companies profits - why on earth would you suggest something like this?  There's a touch of the dog in the manger about it - 'my employer can't afford it, therefore no-one can have it' - weird...


----------



## TheBlock

csirl said:


> The vast majority of large employers, both private and public, pay 6 months full pay for maternity leave. Its the norm nowdays. And it appears to be the same in every EU country.
> 
> If people want it changed, then it should be changed across the board and apply to all workers.


 
Why? I don't pay tax to cover full maternity pay for somone employed in the private sector. If an employer wants to offer this as a perk they are free to do so. I also don't think that this perk is available to the vast majority of large employers and almost no one in SME's gets it.


----------



## circle

The easiest way to make a quick cut here would be for the top up to bring people up to 100% net rather than 100% gross salary, eliminating the scenario where people get paid more on maternity leave as they can then claim back the tax on the maternity benefit portion. 

Personally, I think that the best approach with Public Service Maternity Leave (and also with defined benefit pensions - sin scéal eile) would be to set a 'reasonable' cap on the amount of salary that is used as a basis for the payment. Even setting a generous cap, way above the average industrial wage, say €50,000 would avoid driving women out of work while limiting our exposure, as taxpayers, to the cost.

In an ideal world of course, the option to split the, fully paid, leave between both parents and also to apportion the costs of the leave between both employers would exist!


----------



## roball

csirl said:


> The vast majority of large employers, both private and public, pay 6 months full pay for maternity leave. Its the norm nowdays. And it appears to be the same in every EU country.



It might be the norm in the public sector but it's not the norm nowadays in the private sector and these large employers are pulling out of Ireland. 

Every area needs to be addressed, we all need to pull together and help get this country out of recession.  Look at everything, children's allowance, state pensions, taxes, public wage bill, public spending, absolutely everything.  

We all need to take a patriotic approach, this is our country and at the rate we're spending we're just leaving huge debt for future generations.


----------



## csirl

> It might be the norm in the public sector but it's not the norm nowadays in the private sector and these large employers are pulling out of Ireland


 
I disagree - every private sector employer I've worker for has had 100% pay for maternity leave - both multinationals and local. May not be the case in small businesses, but is the norm in any with 50-100+ employees. To be honest, over the past 10 years or so, companies have found it impossible to recruit women unless they had 100% maternity leave. 

Anyone got reliable stats rather than hearsay or pub talk on the % of people who get paid maternity leave?


----------



## MrsD

Just had to take issue with a few remarks made here. I'm a public sector worker by the way.
I cannot for one second see why any woman, public or private sector should be expected to take reduced wages, what I see as a pay cut, in order to have a baby.It is the maddest idea I've ever heard of. I have huge sympathy for families in this position at a time of huge expense.
The expense of having a baby is huge, not to mind facing into child care costs. The physical and emotional toll of having a baby is huge. Why should you be scraping pennies while doing so? It is enough that women will miss out on experience and opportunities while out on leave, it's unavoidable. 
I also take issue with the suggestion that maternity leave should be scaled back. Just as some progress had been made.
I realise the cost issue obviously but any couple who has a family are in a very expensive stage of their lives and should be supported.


----------



## liaconn

I think the point being made though is that, while ideally women should be able to stay at home with their new baby for at least six months on full pay, _practically _this may no longer be possible without having to cut back on other essential funding or services. So it may be worth considering compromising by cutting back on paid maternity leave, not as an ideal but as a necessity given the state our economy is in at the moment.

I'm not saying that's my view as I'm a bit ambiguous at the moment about it and can see both sides of the argument.But I just don't think you can state categorically that, because this is an expensive stage of a person's life, it must take priority over other considerations.


----------



## Purple

MrsD said:


> Just had to take issue with a few remarks made here. I'm a public sector worker by the way.
> I cannot for one second see why any woman, public or private sector should be expected to take reduced wages, what I see as a pay cut, in order to have a baby.It is the maddest idea I've ever heard of. I have huge sympathy for families in this position at a time of huge expense.
> The expense of having a baby is huge, not to mind facing into child care costs. The physical and emotional toll of having a baby is huge. Why should you be scraping pennies while doing so? It is enough that women will miss out on experience and opportunities while out on leave, it's unavoidable.
> I also take issue with the suggestion that maternity leave should be scaled back. Just as some progress had been made.
> I realise the cost issue obviously but any couple who has a family are in a very expensive stage of their lives and should be supported.



Even if everyone accepts that a woman should not be out of pocket when she has a baby, because it is socially desirable due to the benefit to the state, why should this cost be borne by their employer?
If it is socially desirable then the cost should be borne by the state through the social welfare system and should apply to all working women. I do agree that this is socially desirable but in the current circumstances I do not accept that it is a priority.


----------



## MrsD

yes of course i see the points you are making here. I suppose if govt policy was to be family supportive, and everyone got the same topup it's be easier for everyone to take.If it was the non negotiable norm I mean. The state employs public sector workers who are getting this topup and is paying for them. Why shouldn't private sector employers, many of them are huge munti nationals taking their profits abroad. The topup would most likely be spent in the state anyway, people might get less baby formula and nappies brought down form the North then maybe!

Obviously the finances of SME particularly don't allow for it and the national finances etc. Something must be cut but I'd hate if it was here.
I only realised very recently that public sector workers didn't get the topup like I will. I'm appalled. I only realised also that I wouldn't have to pay as much tax also. Seems very unfair, unbelievable actually.


----------



## sandrat

I am a public sector worker who have availed of this paid maternity leave. Without it we would not have been able to afford to have a child. If the government cuts it we probably won't have any more children. With the aging population we should be encouraging people to have more children to pay for us when we are old and for anglo too!

With regards to comments that 5 days or 6 weeks are fine, EU law dictates that women must get at least 14 weeks maternity leave. The 6 month thing came in to bring us more in line with the uk where mothers get 39 weeks paid leave and some of that (i think first 6 weeks) is 90% of normal pay.

6 months leave also gives mothers a chance to breastfeed their baby for the recommended 6 months. 

Changing this aspect of public sector pay is a step in the wrong direction. I would happily give up some of the silly allowances (e.g. I get paid €11 extra for working on a saturday and will soon be working every saturday) before something like this should go. While we are at it why don't we make women quit as soon as they get married so that there will be no maternity leave problem at all.


----------

