Life

Mat Leave for the Self-Employed

Without it, there's no level breeding field.

By Vanessa Richmond, 28 Oct 2009, TheTyee.ca

Working Mom

Shouldn't she have the choice?

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

Canada's maternity and paternity leaves make me proud. Friends south of the border gasp and shake their heads when I tell them about it. They also tend to one-up each other with stories about just how bad it is down there.

One friend worked at a company that allowed a six-week leave. She took another six weeks by going on "disability" leave, which remains on her national employment record. After that, she had to go back full-time, or resign.

Another friend was in management at her company, so had to play by the rules (no "disability" leave or banked sick or holiday days for her), to avoid setting a bad example for other female workers. She had to go back full-time two weeks after giving birth. Two weeks.

So backwards, right?

But, um, wait, that's actually what most of my Canadian, self-employed friends do. They go back to work somewhere between two and eight weeks. It's time to admit that while we have a good system for some, we have the bad and the ugly for others.

I know it's easy to gaze at the greener pastures my salaried friends seem to live in. I know it's a difficult job, but it's one that also seems worthwhile. And the reality is neither I nor most of my self-employed friends will get to experience that.

I know, as a male friend reminded me yesterday, that for those of us who choose this life, it is just that, our choice. And also that self-employed parents have advantages salaried ones would kill for, like a flexible schedule. One friend, back at work after her mat leave, has to appeal to an unsympathetic boss when the day care calls to say her kid is sick.

But I talked to one self-employed friend of mine, about to give birth. She has not only not told any of her clients she's due (fearing they'll think of her potentially "unreliable"), she has told them she is going away for two weeks on vacation, and will be back almost full-time after that. She has subcontracted the work that comes in during her "vacation," and will be checking in starting the day after she delivers.

For her, it's not just her certainty that if she leaves her clients for a year, she won't get them back. But the fact that to take a year off, she'd need big savings, something most people of childbearing age don't have.

Choice: the whole point of feminism

Many women say the time they spent with their young kids was essential. Amber Strocel, a blogger, told me that her mat leave year was critical for bonding and development, for the baby's health, and for hers. A salaried engineer, she returned to work when her daughter was a year old, at which point her daughter was OK without her for several hours at a time. But said before that, it would have been a different story.

If she was in charge, she'd bring in a program like Quebec's, in which self-employed women pay in, then are able to take a certain amount of paid time off, based on their contributions.

I'm certainly not saying women should stay home for a year. The savage mommy wars are still raging -- with righteous stay-at-home moms and equally righteous working moms each asserting the damage the other is doing to their children. The casualties of those are ordinary women who are crippled with guilt about whatever decision they make.

I take the apparently radical view that "choice" is the whole point of feminism. That whatever a mother knows is best for her and her kids is likely to lead to the best situation.

But self-employed women don't have same choice -- unless they are in a partnership (and 20.6 per cent of kids are currently raised by single mothers in Canada) and that partner's salary is enough to support both of them (also rare).

What this means, then, is that only women who have the choice to take some time off work to raise kids are full-time employees and wealthy people who don't need to work. Those in the female self-employed class, on the other hand, can't do it, or will endure great hardship if we do.

Don't get me wrong. I'm also not saying women should breed. Motherhood shouldn't be essential to being considered a full woman. And you could argue that a financial cushion for self-employed women could lead to more babies. And more babies, as David Foot argued, is the worst things we can do for the environment. That may be true. But why are we the ones forced to make that sacrifice?

So self-employed women who really want to be mothers, who aren't striving to be the Octo-mom, need a similar, even playing field as our salaried friends.

Not a marginal issue

There's the misconception that self-employed people are mostly male entrepreneurs, making serious bank, and writing off lunches and sports cars. In reality, almost half of the self-employed are women, according to Stats Can (a number that has risen sharply over the last decade), and the average pre-tax earnings of a self-employed worker are $19,770 compared to $37,000 for a salaried worker. Almost 15 per cent of workers are self-employed.

I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure we need small business to keep the economy strong and diversified. And I talked to a woman yesterday who said she left her very successful small business to take a lower-paid, salaried job because it offered maternity leave benefits. She might not have a kid, but she wants the option.

To the naughty stair?

Steven Harper's government is the most recent one to make self-employed parental leave a campaign promise (it already exists in Quebec). But the issue has been ignored, left to sit on the naughty stair ever since -- and everyone knows that just leads to tears.

This month, the MLA from Vancouver East, Libby Davies, asked a question in the House about the "very necessary" changes to EI, "particularly with maternity and paternity benefits for self-employed people."

The minister's answer was simply that the government is "committed to helping all workers." Thanks a lot. Looks like we'll be sitting on the naughty stair for a good while longer. [Tyee]

Tyee contributing editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media. She is also the former managing editor of The Tyee.

22 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Excellent article on an

    Excellent article on an issue that straddles one of the central paradoxes of our society.

    My only critique is the tangential genuflection to certain shibboleths to pre-empt criticism from the left. For example, why pre-empt criticism from the enviro-left by re-asserting the canard that children in-and-of-themselves are bad for the environment, while conversely not pre-empting criticism from the natalist right by not acknowledging that children are essential for sustaining the long-term economic prosperity upon which benefits like parental leave ultimately depend?

    That said, it's a crucial issue. I see co-workers struggling with it, and I'm sympathetic. If it's not parental leave, it's the childcare issues that follow. Some relief has arrived for parents of older children with the growing universalization of full-day kindergarten starting at 4 (universal day care thru the back door). But in all scenarios, young parents today are suffering.

    Conversely, there's another (selfish) part of me that is aware that I subsidize the reproductive choices of women (and hetero men) in the workplace in a variety of ways with little benefit to myself. Of course, non-breeders have other ways of building their households and securing their long-term familial support system, which receive neither subsidy nor indulgence in the workplace or from co-workers. But all selfishness aside, I agree that self-employed parents should be covered with reasonable parental leave arrangements.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Umm!

    Sorry, won't wash. That's the Harper method - make these decisions about personal 'choice' and not rights.

    That's why we have a pointless $100/month reach around per child from the Feds now - as opposed to a real system of universal affordable and accessible child care as exists in Quebec.

    Results there show:
    a) an increase in the childbirth rate;
    b) excellent results from an educational and labour point of view;
    c) a very high percentage of payback of the costs to the exchequer and a phenomenal increase in the participation of women with children in the workforce.

    As nightbloom points out, the provision of universal 4 year old kindergarten is just another example of why these kinds of universal programs are needed - not simply a financial reach around to a plethora of special interest groups.

    Self-employed women would gain as much from better full-time professional daycare as they will from additional maternity leave. That said, I don't have a problem with covering self-employed people in the UI system - as long as they pay the premiums - they they'd have the same programs everyone else does.

    Furthermore, remove the contribution ceiling for premiums and make wealthy Canadians pay he same share of these payroll tax costs as poor Canadians do and you'd have plenty of money available to cover all the bells and whistles.

    The problem, once again, is the broken tax system in this country (and by implication, the bought and paid for politicians who refuse to change it).

  • Katatak

    2 years ago

    Being neither self-employed

    Being neither self-employed nor planning on having kids, this issue is of little relevance to me other than as nightbloom points out: Some of my taxes will subsidize the reproductive choices of others. This fact is a good one to me, because when I'm old and infirm, it will be the children of others who will be taking care of me, and I want those children to have the best they can so they can better care for me.

    However, I graduated from a program that placed a great emphasis on freelancing. Mat/Pat leave is only one benefit that the self-employed loose out on. Others include pensions and extended health benefits. The instructor who taught/preached the freelancing way stressed that if you're not making enough to cover all your expenses, including paying taxes, covering medical expenses and putting money away in lieu of a pension or leave-taking benefits, then you're not charging enough. I'm curious: Is this realistic? Can self-employed people reasonably raise their rates enough to maintain a stash of cash to cover extended periods of leave? And if self-employed people start getting paid maternity leave from some government agency, does that open the door for them to get extended medical benefits or pensions as well? Where would the line be drawn?

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Just to clarify what I mean

    Just to clarify what I mean by "subsidizing" reproductive choice in the workplace, I wasn't just referring to financial subsidy via taxation. I'm referring to everything from the re-allocation of labour in the workplace during parental leaves, the recruitment of temporary labour (an exploitative industry unto itself), and the training burden which temporary labour necessitates, and all the resultant losses in productivity. Parental leave has a lot of hidden costs. I'm totally supportive of more widely available and more generous parental leave (because I accept that a prosperous society depends on children, especially healthy, cared-for and well-adjusted ones). But there are costs, and those costs are experienced by everyone, while the benefits help a select few based predominantly upon age, gender, and sexual orientation. That's the way the ball bounces, and I'm fine with that, but I think it's a reality worth taking stock of.

  • jwstewart

    2 years ago

    I agree and disagree.

    I think your focus on self-employed women having access to maternity leave is misguided. It should apply equally to both sexes of self-employed persons.

    I also think parental leave should be limited to 6 months per parent, 12 months in total. Having both parents for 6 months would be better for the children than having one for 12 months.

    How exactly are these childcare goals going to be acheived if you leave out half the population from participating, huh?

    After all, this is a child care issue, not a women's issue.

    GW - if the premium cap is to be eliminated, wouldn't it be neccessary and fair to eliminate the benefit cap too?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    jwstewart

    Nope. It's an insurance scheme - not an income replacement model - you can buy that privately if you think you need it and can afford it.

    Maximum taxable gross earnings for UI are, as I recall, about $56,400 per year...on which everyone pays a fixed percent - as do employers...(I believe it's 2.6% for employers and 1.87% for employees.

    As you can see, anyone who has gross earnings in excess of $56G per year is contributing a smaller and smaller proportion of his/her income to the program (and it's an even greater free ride for the employer) as annual remuneration rises.

    At 112G per year the employee has an effective tax of less than 1% of gross earnings and it drops off even farther from there.

    Unlike the progressive income tax - where tax burden is proportional to ability to pay - the wealthy get a free ride when it comes to payroll taxes.

    If the program were structured properly, it wouldn't have become a beggar thy neighbour exercise every time a woman or a man wants maternity leave - or needs to draw unemployment because he or she has lost a job.

    And I haven’t even mentioned the CPP, which suffers from exactly the same brutal arithmetic.

    I will say though, that a fairer funding scheme would permit a better schedule of payments – although I still wouldn’t want to remove the cap entirely….like I said, it’s an ‘insurance’ scheme – it just doesn’t operate very well.

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    sexual orientation

    "while the benefits help a select few based predominantly upon age, gender, and sexual orientation. "

    Plenty of gay people have children and plenty of heterosexuals do not.

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Predominantly

    Chris Keam: I said 'predominantly'. PREDOMINANTLY. Thanks for pointing out the obvious tho, bud.

  • Crunchy Carpets

    2 years ago

    benefits would open doors for people...

    to get off welfare say and be self reliant.
    How many parents to be etc balk at taking self employment chances when they can't get any sort of help with things like mat leave, benefits etc?

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    PREDOMINANTLY

    I was just pointing out that sexual orientation has no bearing on the benefits. Further, since enhanced benefits also benefit kids, and we were all kids at some point... everyone benefits.

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Who accesses the benefits

    Chris, those who access the benefits are predominantly heterosexual women. Even among heterosexual couples who are parents, women access the benefits at greater rates and for longer periods of time (understandably). That's the statistical reality (and one with which I have no qualms). I don't think these facts are in dispute. Since I'm already on the record as being supportive of universal parental leave, and have affirmed the beneficial effects on children, parents and society of adequate parental leave provisions, I'm not sure what else you want. But you seem to be equating availability with eligibility and uptake, and that's incorrect. Your statement "Plenty of gay people have children and plenty of heterosexuals do not" is a semantic gloss that doesn't represent just how skewed the numbers are. Breeding gays are a tiny fraction of the gay demographic, and an even tinier fraction relative to the general population of breeding heteros. The vast majority of gay people are simply ineligible (and will *never* be eligible) to access benefits which they subsidize in a variety of ways along with other non-breeders. As I said, I'm fine with that. But let's be up-front about that and tone down the "rights" talk on mat leave. In an ideal world it would be nice if ineligible taxpayers (including gays) could also have something that nourished their households and re-inforced their long-term familial support networks. I for one would love an extra sabbatical to finish my PhD or a pension top-up to see me thru my final years of lonely childless and grand-childless senility...

    Just some food for thought.

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    addressing rights

    "The vast majority of gay people are simply ineligible (and will *never* be eligible) to access benefits which they subsidize in a variety of ways along with other non-breeders. As I said, I'm fine with that. But let's be up-front about that and tone down the "rights" talk on mat leave."

    They are eligible, but not choosing to use that eligibility... just as I am eligible to utilize the Scrap-it car program, but choosing not to by not owning a car. My rights aren't limited. I'm making a choice to be ineligible. How are parental leaves different?

    (totally not suggesting people choose their sexual orientation btw, just that some are choosing not to have kids)

  • Dan1

    2 years ago

    Mat leave

    Much as I don't like talking like an older person; when my wife and I planed to have children (pre mat leave) we saved and lived in a cheap basement suite. We have 2 beautiful kid's (now adults) who had a stay at home mom for their first 3 years. Many new citisens seem to manage without a government hand out…. Why not you?

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    Why not you?

    If you're kids are now grown up is it safe to say you parented in a time when most families could get by on a single salary... and that that's not the case now?

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Kids are not used cars

    Chris Keam - Okay, ur right - because Scrap-it Car Program and parenting benefits are just so totally analogous to each other. Dunno how I missed that...

    Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you actually *know* any gay men who have paid (and I mean *paid*) for a surrogate mother to carry their child? Or who've been through the adoption process? Because I do. Not everyone can do it (and not everyone *should* do it). Parenthood for gay men ain't as easy and automatic as a 3-minute hetero shag in the back seat of a car, so spare me your ridiculous Scrap-It Car Program analogy.

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    Well, I'm sorry that it's

    Well, I'm sorry that it's (adoption or surrogacy) more difficult for gay men and I don't think that should be the case. But difficult still doesn't mean ineligible. As for the analogy, it was never my intention to equate the two things, but to address your contention that sexual orientation can affect eligibility for/access to parental leave.

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    The daycare industry

    What's their position on parental leave for self-employed people? They would have everything to lose from such a step, yet my cursory look at the CCCABC website seems to indicate they support the idea.

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Chris

    Chris Keam, you said: "But difficult still doesn't mean ineligible".

    It clearly does. As I said, "available" does not mean the same thing as "eligible". Look at the uptake. The numbers speak for themselves. It's a benefit that is predominantly accessed by heterosexual females. That's the reality. You may wish that uptake was more eqitable, and that's very nice of you, but there are realities which militate otherwise - realities rooted in both biology, economics, and demographics.

  • Chris Keam

    2 years ago

    How much

    Another question I would have about self-employed mat/pat leave would be the estimated cost.

    According to this article
    http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/499419
    the program would be 'largely self-financed' and it seems bizarre that a gov't would ignore wooing voters with their own money.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Equal Opportunity Starts early

    http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/pdf/BN_EarlyLearning06.pdf

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Opportunity Costs

    Is anyone aware of any research into the opportunity costs associated with *not* providing adequate parental leave - i.e. costs in early childhood learning outcomes, language and basic skills aquisition, health & wellbeing? It would be interesting to see it quantified, and also to see if the findings can be telescoped and correlated to quantifiable gaps among older school-aged children. CMEC has already identified childhood learning & development as one of their "four pillars of lifelong learning" (http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/187/CMEC-2020-DECLARATION.en.pdf), so having an evidence-based argument in favour of universal parental leave provisions would help get the issue on the political agenda, I imagine.

  • RickW

    2 years ago

    As Katatak Says:

    Quote:
    Being neither self-employed nor planning on having kids, this issue is of little relevance to me other than as nightbloom points out: Some of my taxes will subsidize the reproductive choices of others. This fact is a good one to me, because when I'm old and infirm, it will be the children of others who will be taking care of me, and I want those children to have the best they can so they can better care for me.

    All this does is confirm the adage that "it takes a village to raise a child" But likewise, it also takes a village to care for the elders.

    We, with our "civilization", no longer have villages (though through our actions we still believe in the concept). So the next best thing is universality. Contrary to the rantings of the right, this IS NOT the "dread" socialism. It is merely acknowledging that we are social creatures, incapable of existing in isolation, and that:

    "No man is an island, Entire of itself."
    - John Donne

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.