The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has today reiterated its view that the government should assess the impact of the measures already taken to promote work-life balance before it makes any further substantial changes to the legal framework.
It also spells out its views on the complex factors surrounding maternity, paternity and adoption leave and makes it clear that treating parents as a distinct group within the workforce is a short term and unhelpful approach to worklife balance. The CIPDís views come during the TUC Congress, where employee rights are taking centre stage, with a focus on working hours.
The CIPD fully supports the new legal right to request flexible working. It argues that this right should be extended to all workers, and urges the Government to consider this option when it reviews the legislation three years after its April 2003 introduction. But commenting on proposals by the Treasury and DTI to further extend statutory protections for parents, Mike Emmott the Instituteís Head of Employee Relations said: ìI suspect employers might see any proposal to allow fathers time off to attend antenatal care as ëgesture politicsíî.
The Institute also makes clear that it will be important to establish how far the simplification of maternity arrangements announced in May 2002 has made it easier for both employers and employees to understand and operate them. Recent CIPD research shows that over a quarter of women downgrade their career aspirations when having children.
Mike Emmott said: ìRecent legislative changes increasing the total entitlement to maternity leave for most mothers to 12 months will help to ensure that more will continue in their existing jobs, with benefits both to them and their employer.
ìBut the Government needs to be monitoring issues about non-return and the incidence of sickness absence following maternity leave since these are issues which can cause concern to employers.ì
The Institute has also welcomed the new provisions for paternity leave introduced in April. An important issue for any review will be how far the two-week statutory entitlement has operated satisfactorily or whether there is pressure for more flexible arrangements.
Says Emmott: ìFrom the employersí standpoint, requiring statutory paternity pay to be linked to a single two-week period helps to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. It is however too soon to consider extending the period of paid paternity leave at this stage. Nor do we see any case for introducing unpaid paternity leave given the existing provision for parental leave.î
Mike Emmott said: ìMost employees will have issues about worklife balance. If the Government wishes to look again at the issue of unpaid leave, this should be addressed in its broader context rather than as a series of apparently unrelated employee rights.
ìThere is anecdotal evidence that employees are more interested than before in secondment and other forms of leave at relatively early stages in their careers, and it is of course likely that people will need to work longer before ëretiringí.ì
ìAny attempt to ìfine tuneî leave arrangements can only prompt unhelpful comparisons such as with mothers who have difficult births or sick children. If the Government wishes to offer additional help to parents and adoptive parents who are faced with particular problems, it should in the first instance consider what targeted help might be made available from for example social services rather than assuming that employers might be required to take the strain. ì
The CIPD would also welcome mothers being able to claim support with childcare costs for their new child whilst still on paid maternity leave, so as to settle the child into childcare before returning to work.
CIPD cautions against more worklife balance legislation
and calls for much more integrated approach
