Should the father's employer contribute half of any maternity pay?

Oh sure. I just think what's more likely is that it would come out of the existing allowance. I suppose that doesn't matter as much if it's the unpaid period, but that makes it less likely that people will take it. If you offered me a Norwegian model I'd take it, but there doesn't seem to be any possibility of that.

I do see the latter risk, Boner, and I'd like it to be 12m for one parent but 13m total if other parent takes at least 1m. So additive not reductive.

Further to the discussion about why society should pay towards the raising of children, it's not just about paying for your retirement whisky. It's about there being someone there to care for you during it. You can save as much as you like, but if people don't have children there'll be nobody to wipe your arse for you. Nor will there be any doctors to look after you if you get old and infirm enough: by the time you're into your 80s, there won't be many medical staff left who aren't at least a generation younger than you. Your pension pot will be no good if there aren't enough people available for you to pay to look after you when you get old enough. And the reality is that, especially with ludicrous housing prices, increasing numbers of people are going to need some financial assistance. Perhaps people who don't want to accept that they'll benefit from other people having children should be able to opt out of paying for them, on the understanding that they agree to be put down at a suitable age.

WRT the OP, it's an interesting idea but I don't see how we could wangle it. Too many practical obstacles. My worry always with allocating more leave to men and similar types of policy is that it would come out of the gains women have made, rather than being extra, iyswim. So for example people mention a use it or lose it period of ML for the dad. Fine, but the paid period is only 9 months already and a significant minority of us do need all of that. Especially if we aren't able to work late into pregnancy.

My company has a fantastic shared parental leave policy which works as AHell has suggested with both parents being allowed to take parental leave simultaneously.
The best thing is that, in my area at least, there's been a real uptake of not just parental leave amongst men but also a shift to flexible working on their return to allow them to spend time with their kids.
This is almost entirely because our boss started the trend by taking 6 weeks leave and vocally encouraging new fathers to do the same - I don't think anyone else could have been the first to break the barrier without pretty significant career impacts otherwise.
Encouragingly, this boss has since moved to a different area but men are still taking paternity leave. I'm hoping that the current success continues because it really makes for a much better work environment now that people don't feel the need to pretend they're not parents at work.

Read my information above, which was from the gov.uk site. Once it's confirmed that maternity leave is going to finish with time to spare for parental leave, either parent can start to take their parental leave.

Lass, if a woman ends maternity leave and goes onto parental leave, then her husband can take parental leave at the same time, AFAIK. Do correct me if I am wrong, though.

As far as I'm aware you are wrong. One of my male employees has twice taken 4 months parental leave. It was certainly made clear to him he needed to provide us with confirmation his wife had gone back to work before he went off.

I'm pretty certain that if we had not been 100% in the right we would not have asked for that (and he would have argued about it if we were wrong)

Aye, I have no idea if you are citing a specific survey there, you may well be!

Here: actually, parental leave and maternity leave can be simultaneous if woman has given binding indication to end maternity leave early. Sparechange, this could be useful for men in your company, I didn't know that this was possible...

For Shared Parental Leave (SPL) to start, the mother or adopter must do one of the following:

end their maternity or adoption leave by returning to work
give you ‘binding notice’ (a decision that can’t normally be changed) of the date when they’ll end their maternity or adoption leave
end maternity pay or Maternity Allowance (if they’re not entitled to maternity leave, eg they’re an agency worker or self-employed)
A mother must take a minimum of 2 weeks’ maternity leave following the birth (4 if she works in a factory). The adoptive parent getting Statutory Adoption Pay must take at least 2 weeks’ adoption leave following the placement.

The mother must give you notice (at least 8 weeks) to end her maternity pay, or tell Jobcentre Plus to end her Maternity Allowance. Adopters must give you notice to end adoption pay.

SPL can start for the partner while the mother or adopter is still on maternity or adoption leave if she’s given binding notice to end her leave (or pay if she’s not entitled to leave). This is different to Additional Paternity Pay and Leave.

*Example
A mother and her partner are both eligible for SPL.

The mother goes on maternity leave 10 weeks before her baby is born. She decides that she’ll take 16 weeks of maternity leave and gives you notice.

Since the mother has given binding notice, her partner can start SPL as soon as the baby has been born (as long as they’ve given at least 8 weeks’ notice).*

NB in the situation of both taking parental leave at the same time, the total entitlement is still 12 months and the clock runs down at twice the rate, of course.

Lass, if a woman ends maternity leave and goes onto parental leave, then her husband can take parental leave at the same time, AFAIK. Do correct me if I am wrong, though.

Not proposing any enhanced pay, just the statutory, so the father's employer is in the same position whether his male employee has a SAHW or not. Of course, few families could afford the WOHD to take leave at ShPP rates if no other salary, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be legally allowed.

I would like reimbursed SPP to be 90% of pay for six weeks also, or at the very least for two weeks, to ensure at least some leave is taken

I would like to see this happen too. Preferably at the end of the mothers maternity leave so the father can really help her get back to work and get used to taking some responsibility for childcare

Here in Sweden parental leave is paid by the state not the employer

What do mean by this ? In UK the statutory rates are paid by employers but employers can recover most of it from the state.

Some employers by way of contract pay much more. Is the state paying the much higher proportion which some employers voluntary pay in the UK pay?

It's paid direct to the claimant. We log on to the FK website (DWP equivalent), register the days we plan to claim for and they pay it direct into our banks. You have to give your employer 28 days notice. The state pay 480 days at 80% of salary and most employers top it up to 100%.

I just think that the financial consequences need to fall evenly on the employers of both parents, not just the woman's

Then it is up to couples to sort out their parental leave which is already available. You keep saying it should fall on both but not giving any explanation of what that means or how it would work

I'm responsible for my employees, nor any one else's.

I'm not meaning to whataboutthemenz here, but since working parents can opt to take shared parental leave simultaneously, why can't a man do so with his SAHW? Good for both of them and the baby

They don't take it simultaneously. If one parent takes it the other has to be at work. I'm sure both parents getting 6 months pay to be at home with baby is great for them but they are not the only parties to be considered. Some of you do seem to think employers have a bottomless money pit.

AHell,
When the new parental leave rules came in, the lovely head of HR decided to standardise the package. I don't think there is any condition on the mother's paid leave but legally, only one parent can be off at any one time.
We are a big US financial company which might make us unlikely candidates but is significant for a few reasons
A) HQ has no concept of paid leave, let alone having a year off. So the head of HR for Europe has free rein to draft what is appropriate for Europe, and the US didn't question it
But b) the men are nearly all high powered banker types, who are workaholics and very emotionally and financially invested in their work so I think less likely to take time off. Probably because they both love their work and have more than salary to lose by being out of the office - if a big deal happened while they were away, they wouldn't get that share of bonus pot.
I genuinely couldn't tell you if any of them have recently become fathers, which might answer why no one has taken it.

I'm watching closely. I suspect it will start with someone taking a month or so, and momentum building up from there, rather than someone starting with multi-month leave

Spare, do they do that regardless of how many weeks the mother has taken?

That's a fantastic offer and I'm shocked more haven't taken it up, even if in last 16 weeks of the year. Have many had the opportunity (eg working partner) to do so? Is it a function of timing (the policy has been in place a year or so meaning anyone giving birth just after implemetion would only now be arc the end of their year)

My company now pays the same for maternity and parental leave.

I'm not aware of any men having taken them up on the offer yet (16 weeks full pay) though, so it hasn't done anything to make men as 'inconvenient' as women in the eye of the employer, which is the crux of the issue.

I'm not meaning to whataboutthemenz here, but since working parents can opt to take shared parental leave simultaneously, why can't a man do so with his SAHW? Good for both of them and the baby.

"I just think that the financial consequences need to fall evenly on the employers of both parents, not just the woman's."

Unfortunately, as I said above, the business disruption falls mainly on the business of the person taking the leave, which may well be more costly in lost productivity than any pay.

So initiatives to even up the leave are important.

It's bollocks, for example, that men (AFAIK) have no right to shared parental leave if the mother didn't take maternity leave, meaning men with SAHWs are a better bet for the employer than men with working partners (well, we knew that anyway from the perspective of late night working etc but still).

And the Internet would be littered with comments about what a drain men who can't keep it in their pants are on the economy and asking why on earth employers should have to pay for a man's choice to have sex.

When shared parental leave was announced my employer cut maternity pay by 33%. Justification being that as they mostly employ men they would have to recoup the costs ignoring the fact that the uptake is very low and also that they cut maternity pay a full year before the new rules came into effect.
My point is, if they were to do something like this they would use it as an excuse to further cut maternity pay. It always comes down to the bottom line.

Supply of bananas and condoms to demonstrate requisite skills?!