Latest People Management Cover a disgrace

Another HR bashing headline from People Management just popped into my inbox
www2.cipd.co.uk/.../fewer-than-9-000-new-parents-took-shared-parental-leave-last-year.aspx

This time, apparently the reason people aren't taking Shared Parental Leave is because HR aren't explaining it to them.

I'm sure it is our fault entirely and the fact that many organisations offer some form of Occupational Maternity Pay, whereas Shared Parental Pay is only at statutory rate has nothing to do with it at all!

In all the cases I have experienced, people have a very good understanding of Shared Parental Leave, but it simply doesn't make sense for them to end their maternity leave early because they would lose out financially compared to staying on maternity leave and continuing to receive Occupational Maternity Pay. However, the article makes absolutely no reference to this at all.

It is a flawed system and until a Tribunal rules that if an organisation offers occupational maternity pay, it must also offer shared parental pay at the same rate, take up will remain low. The difficulty you will get then though is that some organisations will simply remove their occupational maternity pay (although hopefully the increasingly competitive recruitment market will make that less likely)

Most professional magazines support their profession. I'm not actually asking that, but please stop blaming us for things that aren't our fault - or at least give us the option of lower membership fees that doesn't include receiving People Management.

I have to disagree with you Teresa. Surely it is the fault of HR that there's a disparity between occupational maternity pay and the rate fathers get? Isn't it up to HR to recommend new policies which support fathers at work in the same way as we've historically supported mothers? Especially given the number of reports that younger fathers want to be more involved in parenting.

To my mind pointing out where something is not working or could be improved is not bashing but challenging existing practice - something we should all be doing as the people experts.

I was writing my post at the same time as you were, Anna :)

I agree with you completely that only removing the disparity between occupational maternity pay and the rate father gets, is the only way that the take up with increase Anna. I also agree that as a profession, overall, we do have a part to play in challenging this.

However, I do feel that if we tried to do this on an individual basis (e.g. individuals suggesting changes in organisational policy), we are only likely to damage our reputation - very few organisations would be swayed by an 'its the right thing to do' argument. Ultimately, the issue is societal norms and historically, the only way to change that is with Government legislation (Equal Pay act, etc).

I think that is why I am so cross about the article - it implies that if only HR departments would tell people about SPL, it would all be fine. There is apparently no need for organisations to remove the disparity, or for Governments to implement legislation that actually makes things fairer. It actually takes the pressure off organisational and the Government to play their part - their response will be that it is just HR not telling people about it.

I would hope that as a professional body, the CIPD does have people working with Governments and Industry (I understand that we do have someone leading on policy to influence the Government, but I've not been able to identify who leads Industry engagement on People matters, which to my mind is a crucial role) as this is the only way we can drive the change as a profession.

But we undermine ourselves with articles such as this (and thank you Steve - I will leave a comment once I've worked out how to do it! :) )

But Teresa

You talk about occupational maternity pay - that's a decision made by employers not government. There's also only so much that any government will do to legislate.

Is it not part of the HR role to monitor changes in social attitudes and reflect these in employment practices? As younger fathers seek more involvement with their children it's the employers that support this - with improved paternity pay, a father's network and better flexible working for example - that will attract and retain the best employees.

A collective responsibility, I would guess. Govt / Parliament legislate... employers translate, implement, adopt and adapt nimbly and elegantly as social attitudes change (as you say, Anna); others question, challenge, lobby, enforce where necessary, etc.

A collective responsibility, I would guess. Govt / Parliament legislate... employers translate, implement, adopt and adapt nimbly and elegantly as social attitudes change (as you say, Anna); others question, challenge, lobby, enforce where necessary, etc.