St Stephen's Day Or Boxing Day, What Do...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Paid paternity leave for fathers
I'm a young married, not yet with kids but wonder what everyone thinks about the government's newest proposal to extend paid paternity leave to fathers so that they can take up to 3 months off?
i think its good that they are encouraging fathers to take more responsibility for parenting but what about people who don't have kids - because they can't or won't? Is this unfair to them? and what if businesses start limiting benefits or change hiring practices to accomodate this change? is this the beginning of "father discrimination" - ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by metagirl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Realise my above post doesn't answer the question posted.
-People who don't have kids - keep working! You'll be earning money that you can spend solely on yourself! When paternity/maternity leave is taken it's at rubbish pay levels, all the money you are given is spent on subsistence and nappies and you don't get a day off/weekends/holidays.
- 'Parents get mat/pat leave'. It is not unfair to non-parents, as the next generation needs to be produced in order to keep us will-be-oldies in our dotage when we need nursing homes paying for with taxes that the baby generation will earn.
- Businesses cannot start changing hiring practices, as they will then be discriminating against both women of childbearing age and fathers of child bearing age, which would leave them with not much choice (please don't sue me anyone!).
If you can take 3 months off and are not missed, then perhaps you should move on. As a small business with 35 employess, it makes a vast difference. I really think this decision is a mistake.
All the rules are for big companies, they take the control over making decisions like this. They won't miss people...
But to be honest, decent employees, who we are lucky enough to have won't take advantage...They want to work here.
Fair enough woofgang - thanks for disagreeing with my ideas, and not treating me like a kid! :-) To others - if you didn't patronise me, then I would not have responded as I did. Younger people might have different views, but it took you a long time to acknowledge that we might be entitled to them.
I disagree with you, however, because I don't see WHO has the right to stop people having children. I don't agree with compulsary sterilisation (which is not what you have suggested, I know!). Now, I just think that some less well educated, less well off people will continue to have children that they can't afford. It's then the state's duty (I feel) to ensure that those children are fed and watered and clothed etc so that the child is healthy and happy as it grows up. So I see that one could call for means-tested child benefit etc, but this will always leave some people on the border line, who are then unable to have babies because they are just above the threshold but can't really afford them without the benefits.
The problem I have is simply that the social welfare system is swings and roundabouts. I have never (touch wood) had an operation in my life, but I don't begrudge people that. My family have never claimed the dole, but I don't begrudge others who genuinely need it, the option of having support while they look for work. You can never use EVERYTHING the government offers, but you will use some things that others never will - so it all just about balances out over the population.
I don't feel we should stop supporting the people who are producing the people who will support us in our old age, just because 'a bit of hard work never hurt anyone' or because 'it wasn't like that in my day'. This is actually now MY day, and the day of a lot of other young people too, and we deserve a say too.
Very Interesting reading I must admit. Personally I disagree with a 3 month Paternity leave, there is choice to have offspring and that choice must come with its responsibilities. I see nothing wrong with the annual holidays being taken for the father to look after his child/ren, our employees are entitled to 4 weeks annual leave and can utilise this time. Not taking away from the " its hard work raising children " comments, as I am sure it is, but it is a choice. Also you can combine a career and parenthood, there are excellent creche facilities available also, it needn't be looked upon as a negative.
Why shouldn't dads have time allowed to spend with their baby's? There's no medical reason why a woman needs 6 mths mat leave, but this is given unquestioned. The legislation will actually increase Mat leave to 9 mths, but will allow the father to take 3 mths of this whilst the woman goes back to work after 6. All employers, whether it's Mat or Paternity leave being arranged will have to make arrangement for the additional 3 months.
The �106 is the basic pay provided by the government. This is no different to the amount paid to women if she is not entitled to mat pay by her employer, so while the men moan about it being a pittence, it's the amount a lot of women are given for the whole 6 mths of their Mat leave.
Any long term leave shouldn't be unfair to anyone who chooses not to/cannot have children. It's the employers responsibility to provide cover in these times. I hope any employer who discriminates staff by making them work harder to cover for Mat/Pat leave or those taking the leave themselves find themselves having action taken against them. Small employers may be bemoaning this new legislation, but these employers have to provide mat leave, so are they actually saying they don't employ women for this reason or won't do in the future because of these extra 3 months? Or are men valued more highly than women and the thought of a man being lost to the company for 3 months has far more impact than a woman for 6?. Why is it acceptable for a woman and not for men (other than the birth and recovery) to be 'given' substantial time off? I'm nearly 4 mths pregnant and would happily give up some of my 6 mths mat leave to enable my husband time with our baby when it arrives. I'm not an uncaring career woman, but I'd love my husband to enjoy the rewards of parenthood as I hope I'll get.
Well I suppose Nanny Blair knows whats best.I presume he has a raft of highly trained professional people waiting in the wings to stand in for the chaps who are off changing nappies and so on.And..poor Joe Soap who works for the small company who cannot take on a replacement or find a replacement for the absentee will get loaded with extra work.
Like most government policy these days all very well in theory but hard to put into practice.
Like most government policy these days all very well in theory but hard to put into practice.
Shaneystar - you are very harsh to the working people who want/have children today.
Regardless of who is in charge, many people would love to not have to go back to work and live on one income, and therefore not have the need for such maternity/paternity laws, but the economics 'controlled' by whatever government has made that pretty much impossible for any but the very rich. Mind you, years ago, being a married woman I would have HAD to have given up work by now, but then I'm sure my mortgage wouldn't have cost us what it did. Times change, and that's not the fault of today's young parents, so we have to make do the best we can. I don't want it all, but I have ensured that I have worked hard enough in the past to provide for my future child now (but at the same time being slated for being an older 'selfish' mother for staying in work as long as I have). I can't win, unless I win the lottery.
You mentioned about your husband taking his two weeks annual leave and then having to pay for child benefit in his taxes. Don't all working people pay for that in their taxes.. better to have paid some taxes/NI than to never pay taxes but still take all - housing, benefits etc mulitply like rabbits (which increases your income - no employer pays you more for the more you multiply - unlike the benefit's system) ALL on the state? And if you worked did you get married woman's (mans?) tax allowance? No longer applicable to today's married taxpayers.
Don't get me wrong, I actually do think the government should be considering far more important things than giving more time off but I just can't understand the negativity to increase fairness to father's.
Also, if people feel that they are being made to work beyond their pay grade while someone is off on parental leave of some sort, then they should talk to their boss, and if this fails, then to their union. I'm sure it sucks being made to do the work of someone who is at home caring for their newborn child, and perhaps you should tell them that to their faces. I hope that people's bosses and or unions are as accommodating as they should and can be.
Oh and people perhaps also ought to understand that not EVERY policy is personally thought up by Blair. I know you all think he's a wonderful man who is single-handedly running the country, and I'm sorry to shatter your illusions but I should tell you that other people think up these policies too. :-)
no its not the height of the work (beyond grading) but the breadth (increased cases or longer waiting lists) And yes, we do have to think when recruiting that if we have 3 young married people in a team of five and we know that they are trying for families, then we would be mad to recruit to the two vacancies with further staff who are likely to take parental leave in the same year.
I know what the equal opportunities policy says, I know what the law says, but that just doesn't help when explaining to patients and their doctors the reason why someone hasn't had the rehab that they should have
It's absolutely fair enough that you get a balance within the team, I understand that. I just hoped you might see that whilst a bit of extra work for you now sucks, as a 23 year old woman, being viewed with suspicion as maternity leave waiting to happen, and thus finding it harder to get a job even now, also sucks a lot. I've actually been tempted to claim to be infertile in the past, but then I realised that would be tempting fate.
I tihnk on this issue there are winners and losers, and that will always be the case, whatever the policy.
Quite so.I think have been unfairly treated in this thread.
I have no problem with pat leave.
Nice to see fathers taking an important role in their childs upbringing.But only those on high incomes and with savings behind them will be able to do it.What the government aim to give the prospective father is no more than subsistence level.
I have no problem with women that want a career and children.
Good luck to them.But at the end of the day it's the child who matters.It's all very well having this time off work to bond with your child.Some young couples nowadays have no choice but to go back to work.If they are career minded they WANT to go back to work.Why bother with all this if your career is more important than your child.You spend all this time bonding and then when the child is at it's most interesting stage off you go back to work and the child is put in a creche for eight hours a day .This seems to me to be defeating the object .I am sorry if I have offended anybody with my remarks.Perhaps I am old fashioned. I think that a mother should be there for a childs formative years.This is why I think the government should make it easier for mothers to stay at home and look after their children.Allow them to work from home ..more flexible hours etc.Pay grandparents to help rather than strangers etc.
I have no problem with pat leave.
Nice to see fathers taking an important role in their childs upbringing.But only those on high incomes and with savings behind them will be able to do it.What the government aim to give the prospective father is no more than subsistence level.
I have no problem with women that want a career and children.
Good luck to them.But at the end of the day it's the child who matters.It's all very well having this time off work to bond with your child.Some young couples nowadays have no choice but to go back to work.If they are career minded they WANT to go back to work.Why bother with all this if your career is more important than your child.You spend all this time bonding and then when the child is at it's most interesting stage off you go back to work and the child is put in a creche for eight hours a day .This seems to me to be defeating the object .I am sorry if I have offended anybody with my remarks.Perhaps I am old fashioned. I think that a mother should be there for a childs formative years.This is why I think the government should make it easier for mothers to stay at home and look after their children.Allow them to work from home ..more flexible hours etc.Pay grandparents to help rather than strangers etc.
This paternity pay is only available if the mother has returned to work who is going to check this?, how do you check if the mother is self-employed or works from home?. Yes due to financial constraints the mother will normally have to return to work during this period but not always.
As previous posts have said there will be some situations where an employer has to consider the implications if too many staff are on maternity/paternity leave together, especially if the workforce is small and skilled.
It has been implied that the �103 per week is not enough, how much do these fathers have left after paying nursery/creche fees?.
Before paternity pay was thought of babies and fathers still formed strong bonds, personnally I would rather see this money being spent on facilities for children ie youth clubs, sports facilities which could be used for children with parent sessions and children only sessions, this would help take the kids of the streets and would also encourage parents to play with/participate with their children.
