Shared parental leave - doesn't go nearly far enough

There is no legal entitlement to paid parental leave here in the States. Four or five states do offer paid maternity leave, and some individual organizations and companies do, but otherwise it's all unpaid.

Mothers and fathers are entitled to 12 weeks unpaid, both for births and adoptions.

DH wasn't able to take advantage of this however, as he hadn't worked at his firm for 12 months, so he got one day off after Elisabeth (DD3) was born.

However, fortunately for us, DH's firm are quite family-friendly (for a US firm anyway) and now he's been in employment for a year, they've offered him the opportunity to take four weeks unpaid leave. They didn't have to do it, but I know they're already keen for DH to commit permanently to the position after his initial two year secondment from the London office, so we know that's why they've done it. (No need to tell them just yet, that we already know we'll be staying)! That leave started this week.

We're just fortunate that we're in a position where DH can take four weeks unpaid.

Paid parental leave is something we took for granted when we still lived in the UK!

Jassy - Company policies are somewhat irrelevant here - the law changed in 2012 (I think) so that parental leave may be shared after the first 6 weeks.

I shared leave with DH after DD's arrival. Since I returned to work I have seen my role reduced and my commitment questioned, and comments made about how the project suffered without a project leader. When my DH returned after a similar period of leave, he was given a pay rise and a promotion as they had realised how important he was to the company's function...

I don't think the law is the primary problem any more - it's people's attitudes.

I think you should count yourselves lucky that either of you get enhanced leave. Obviously it would be unfair if you had the same employer and different conditions, but I am assuming that isn't the case?

Maybe in certain sectors yonic, for me it was expected I would take maternity leave, and if anything they assumed I wouldn't come back. I think the assumption is still for many women that they will take leave and if anything they just won't go back. I think companies think men will go back because they don't "need" to take time off and it's "what men do" so taking more time off "than necessary" is just taking the piss especially while women can already be home with the baby. I really do believe until it is legally expected social pressure will keep most men from taking time off.

Dh was told he could wait till after the new baby (months away) at a new job because they thought the might take 2 weeks off. He wouldn't have even qualified for PL at that point. He basically had to promise he would take more than a max of a couple days off (as holiday) to get the job.

Most company policies will still be on the old rules though won't they? So fathers can only take leave after the baby is 20 weeks old until next April - most employer policies don't cover that much, and very few beyond 26 weeks of leave (ie not baby being 26 weeks old).

It will be interesting to see what happens when companies update their policies, and when they are challenged after next April.

TBF, it's "frowned upon" for women to take leave too; it's only by it being taken that it's become normalised, IYSWIM.

I think the main problem is that companies (especially ones with a macho mostly male culture) will make it clear that it will be "frowned" upon if men take leave. I genuinely think it should be mandatory for a small time at least for both parents, it's the only way men will take leave and the only way we'll have equality in hiring.

Im not sure this is something that government can influence tbh. Most women are on SMP only. Enhanced maternity pay isn't as common outside the public sector.

For example, I took the first 6 months off when ds2 was born. I get NHS enhanced mat pay for 6 months. After 6 months, I returned to work and dh took 6 months off - 3 on SMP and 3 unpaid.

He was in exactly the same position as women in his workplace who get SMP only.

Hopefully employers will start offering enhanced paternity pay for the same reasons as they currently offer enhanced maternity pay. Women are often the higher earners in a partnership and sharing leave can often help maximise family income as well as normalise shared parenting. Hopefully as more men share leave it will become more common and gradually change the perceived "norms" re: parenting roles.

It's two weeks on c£120 per week, isn't it?

Agree it would be Better if it was two weeks at 90%

There needsto be provision for both parents to take time off at the same time. Especially in those first few weeks. This may mean losing time at the end of the leave period. At present men can request 2 weeks on no pay. My dh was lucky enough to get full pay for two weeks but that was it. Not nearly long enough.

I'm not sure it's as unequal in general as you think it seems.

The majority of women probably don't have very long on enhanced maternity pay. For example, despite working for a good firm I only had 6 weeks at full pay and then dropped straight down to statutory pay for the next seven and a half months of paid maternity leave.

So there's a strong argument there that if most women are getting only the 6-8 weeks of enhanced/full pay, even with families who plan to split the leave then the woman is most likely to take those first 6-8 weeks off (few weeks before birth, physical recovery, establishing feeding etc).

So by the time the husband comes to take his time off, the vast majority of families would already be in a position where the wife would be on SMP anyway - ergo the husband should be on SMP too.

You also have to compare the different maternity packets of the two employers. The husband shouldn't get more money from his employer just because the wife would get more money from her employer, if that makes sense.

I'm not sure I quite agree that if, say, the woman was entitled to 2 months enhanced pay and then 7 months SMP, if her husband took over from her when the baby was 6 months old, he shouldn't then get his firm's 2 months enhanced pay as well. To me it's more that it should be viewed as a family unit: a few weeks/months at the beginning on enhanced pay, followed by a period on SMP, regardless of which parent is taking the time off.

So - If the mother's employer will offer enhanced maternity pay, but the father will be entitled to the statutory amount only, then it doesn't take a genius to realise that very many couples will be forced into a situation where the mother is the only one who can afford to take the time off. That's actually not got very much at all to do with women's employers v men's employers, that's just the different maternity policies of two different employers.

A parent of either sex should be entitled to the same maternity package. That's a good move forward. But it shouldn't create a position where a couple are able to essentially wangle more money because they take what is viewed as 2 separate periods of maternity leave, including 2 separate periods of enhanced pay, as this discriminates against people who aren't in a relationship.

I completely agree there is still an inequality there, particularly in terms of how many men's employers will view requests for extended paternity leave in terms of them as a good employer. But I think this is a good first step.

I think I am being thick here.

So of both parents have a twelve week enhanced pay period, presumably the mother will get it initially and the father will get it if she goes back before 12 weeks, which is allowed?

As Yonic says, it really has to be an issue that fathers are pro-active about and negotiate with their employers, if they really want parental equality.

Hope as time goes on men might start to ask about enhanced paternity pay when they ask about other benefits...

Ah, I see. So only if they offered more than, say, 3 months with enhanced pay would it be likely for men to ever get it.

Most employers who offer enhanced pay only offer it for the early period of leave anyway. The mother would need to take the first chunk off to actually give birth to the baby and have a few weeks to recover. Teaching for example gives 12 weeks half pay. Assuming going on leave at 36 weeks, that is only 8 weeks after the birth. After that it is statutory pay. Unless you want women to return to work straight from the hospital I think it is only fair that they can take the first part of the leave.

Don't employers have to offer enhanced pay to both if at all?

I agree. I think the spirit of the legislation was right but without more pay for fathers, very few people will actually use the new right. I'm sure I've read that the government's admitted as much. I think they said only a teeny percentage (maybe 5% IIRC) of fathers would use the leave.