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.

Again, I do agree with the concept Anna, however pay rates are also a decision made by employers, but there was over a century of disquiet about women being paid less and considerable societal pressure (particularly during the war years, when there was no choice but to employ women in traditional' male' roles, but they were still paid around 50% less than the men doing the job previously). But it didn't change until Government legislated in 1970 with the Equal Pay act. If a Government can legislate that men and women must be paid equal pay for equal work, there is no reason why they can't legislate for equal parental benefits.

You are right that we do have a role to play, but I agree with Steve that it is a shared responsibility and the difficulty at the moment is that terrible as it is, many employers as a rule, would not see a father who wanted to have more involvement with their children as an attractive appointment regardless of their skills/experience etc.

Our individual influence on that is limited because the idea that women are the main carer is still so engrained in society. The changing employment market will alter things very slowly, but only by forcing the change with legislation or caselaw, will it become the 'norm' that both parents are equally entitled to any parental support provided their employers in the same way that it is now the norm that men and women are entitled to equal pay (even though we haven't quite got the hang of that yet!)

Again I have to disagree with you Teresa

The equal pay legislation was particularly ineffective - over forty years later women are still paid less than men. What has changed things to some extent is the fact that many more women go to university now than did forty years ago and employers need their valuable skills.

In terms of social attitudes it does seem to me that these are changing much more quickly than corporate cultures. Just today Timewise has produced a report revealing a staggering 89% of people want to work flexibly - but many have no access to it (timewise.co.uk/.../)
Why the disparity? Surely Corporate HR should be aware of this - it's not new - and lobbying their fellow senior managers to enable more access to flexible working.

I think we agree on the theory Anna, but I think we will have to disagree on the practicalities. I also wouldn't agree that the equal pay legislation has been particularly ineffective - there is still some disparity between the pay for men and women, however before the legislation came in, it was perfectly legal and accepted for organisations to advertise a job with very different pay rates for men and women. The current disparity would be a lot greater without the equal pay legislation.

I agree that more people want to work flexibly, but on a practical level, organisations will not consider equalising parental pay for men and women or offering more flexible working, without a clear business benefit for them doing it. We can point out that it helps to attract and retain high quality candidates and encourage change, but in my experience, lobbying managers at an organisational level, would simply damage HR's reputation and enforce the (wholly incorrect, but very common) view that we are soft and fluffy with no understanding of the business.

Unfortunately history shows that culture will only change if it a) wants to, or b) is forced to (e.g SportsDirect and currently Ryanair).

Hi Teresa, yes we disagree on practicalities but that's what this community is for - to allow us to debate.

I also suspect that we've had different experiences. For example, I was at PwC when they first introduced their initiatives to support fathers and knowing the culture as it was then I was surprised. I asked my HR colleague who'd got the initiative agreed how he'd done it and he replied "dripping tap method" - so sometimes lobbying on 'soft and fluffy' can work - particularly if the employer can see a positive effect on branding.

Hi Teresa, yes we disagree on practicalities but that's what this community is for - to allow us to debate.

I also suspect that we've had different experiences. For example, I was at PwC when they first introduced their initiatives to support fathers and knowing the culture as it was then I was surprised. I asked my HR colleague who'd got the initiative agreed how he'd done it and he replied "dripping tap method" - so sometimes lobbying on 'soft and fluffy' can work - particularly if the employer can see a positive effect on branding.