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

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.
 

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

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register