To feel really annoyed that my DP will not get S.P.P

[mandoo]

I have just found out that the fact my DP is self employed means that he will not get the 2 weeks statutory paternity pay like an employed man would. This did not affect us the first time around as he was employed.

This really disgusts me as he has paid his N.I and income tax since he left school. So Therefore why does he not get the same statutory rights as an employed man?

The government offers Maternity allowance for women who do not qualify for S.M.P but why not men?

I am hoping I give birth on a Friday at least then he can have 2 days at home with his new born!!!

Self employed people don't get holiday pay either, thems the breaks when you are self-employed you don't get paid for any time off at all, and are not legally entitled to paid time off.

YANBU, that is outrageous.

Mind you, I didn't get SPP when I was employed because I hadn't been employed long enough (although I had got the job before I knew DP was pregnant).

FabbyChic - self employed mothers get maternity allowance.

I know he doesn't get sick or holiday pay, I can live with that. I really feel this is different though.

Your right amaterurish so why do Dad's not get Paternity Allowance?

The Maternity Allowance is paid by the State, Paternity is paid by employers.

If your husband has worked for the same company for 13 weeks continuously he should be employed if he is a tradesman, and the company he works for is acting illegally.

However, not much you can do about it now.

Surely you were aware he would not get it and factored it i.e saved so he could take two weeks off.

It is just the same as holiday pay, anybody would surely do their homework and not assume.

I haven't assumed anything Fabby, However I really don't think I would be that unreasonable to assume the government in this country would would have paternity pay set up for self employed men who pay their Tax and N.I like every other employed man. And therefore, surely should get the same statutory rights as them?

That's unfair. I always assumed it worked the same as maternity pay.

YANBU. If recently/self-employed women can get a state benefit for the early days of parenthood, then so should men.

Sorry but most of Fabby's last post is not correct regarding employment law. No self-employed person becomes an employee after 13 weeks and the state pays both statutory paternity pay and maternity allowance.

As a rule anything statutory is paid by the state.

OP YANBU. It is unfair.

(although your husband is paying less NI than an employee/er would be contributing if I were to nitpick)

Thanks Katie don't mind a bit of nitpicking

Glad to hear everyone seems to agree this is unfair...other than Fabby

It is unfair but do not compare it with women recieving any form of maternity payment. Women are physically affected by pregnancy and childbirth so it is right that they have maternity benefits in place. If they did not, the state would probably pick up the bill further along the line in health care costs.

Argue the case on its merits. The UK was very slow in introducing maternity and paternity rights compared with some EU countries, we were behind on affordable childcare to. We still have some way to go yet. Perhaps right to your MP?

I agree mandoo. My DH also self employed, also no paternity pay. It sucks! Doesn't seem very "family friendly" to me David Cameron!

That's one of the factors that should be weighed against going self employed, surely? You will have looked into the ripple effects, financially and otherwise e.g. holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions?

Also comparisons between maternity pay and parternity pay is like comparing apples and oranges. Maternity pay is from the govt, paternity comes from the man's employer directly unless I'm mistaken and forgot how it works.

There is a medical requirement for women to stay off work in 99% of cases - yes, you may have some of these super women who can spring back into the office 3 hrs afterwards, but most physically need a recovery period. And that's what maternity leave is designed to protect - otherwise the only alternative would be for a woman to give birth and then go off sick.

Welcome to the world of self employment. My dh has only ever taken a week off when we had a baby as both were born in winter at his busiest time. He doesn't get sick pay either. It's one of these things which when we choose to be self employed we have to remember that there are no benefits.

OP - I feel your pain, DH was self employed when we had DD and he was literally off the day I had her and the day after. He then went back to working 13-14hr days straight away as he was not entitled to SPP and he couldn't take any unpaid holidays/ leave because of the time of year and the contractual commitments he had. Harsh as it was, we knew this was the case and just made the best of a bad situation.

I would say YANBU to be annoyed, but YABU if you think this is unfair - self employed people pay far less NI contributions than employed people and there isn't a medical need for SPP. Self employed people are also aware that they do not qualify for SSP, so why would SPP be any different? The qualifying criteria for SPP is also well documented on HMRC and Direct.gov site and I am surprised that quite a few people seem to be unaware of this. I actually feel more sorry for those that have changed employment when their partner was literally days pregnant, as they have made all the necessary NI contributions, but do not qualify because of the change of employment.

SMP, SPP and SMA are all paid for by the state (in the majority of cases).

If self-employed women get SMA, then self-employed men should get an equivalent. You still have to pay class 2(?) NICS I believe to qualify for SMA.

People talking about the medical need for maternity leave are missing the point. SMA is 9 months. Clearly this length of time off is not just to allow a woman to recover from childbirth. There is a public interest is allowing women a significant period of paid leave to look after, and bond with their child.

The same should be true of men. And two weeks SPP is a pretty miserly amount of time to spend with their new born children.

The relationship forum is full of posters moaning about their DH/DP failings as fathers.

What kind of a message does society send when self-employed fathers are told that they can't take any paid leave because they didn't give birth and so there is no medical "requirement".

If society wants men to take a full and active role in parenting (and it should) then we should start seeing some equality in state provision for paid parental leave.

The concept of increased maternity pay and leave is influenced by the UN convention on 'the rights of the child' and 'cutting child poverty' (as well as the EU). Women have campainged for this and previously suffered without this.

Perhaps men need to do the same to make a change. The difference probably is that while women don't get the choice about wether they are going to have to take time off work to have a baby, men do and not all men need or want that time off. SMA shouldn't come into the arguement for paternity leave.

Self employed people pay much less national insurance. Belief me he's probably saving each and every year more than the 2 weeks SPP. He might even be saving the amount each month depending on what he earns.

So you are being a bit unreasonable.

Yes that is true. I am self employed (currently claiming MA) and my class 2 NI contributions are £31.20 every quarter! I pay class 4 as well but only a small amount as my income isn't huge.
Plus I pay less tax as anything I use for my business I can offset against my income.
So I think YABU.
On the downside I get no holiday or sick pay. I get paid an hourly rate for my work but if I can't work for whatever reason (ill/away/no internet) then I get diddly squat. Which is difficult as often I can't make the time up (i.e. schedule it for another day).
Plus I will earn more than the MA when I go back to work so will probably end up going back much sooner than 39 weeks.

Kara - if you get MA then why shouldn't a man get an equalivalent paternity "allowance"?

DH doesn't qualify for paternity pay this time around, as he started at a company and there is a 2 week difference between when he had to start before EDD.
Once we worked out that he would not qualify for the pay, we have saved a bit of extra money to cover the money (which we were doing anyway, given difference between PP and usual THP.
Fortunately the company is okay with DH taking unpaid leave, so he'll be able to take the time off, just no pay.

I'm in the same position im 39 weeks pg and my DH has been self-employed since january so we can't afford for him to have more than a couple of days off :( it's not very fair but such is life. I've just accepted it now.

Amateurish, those issues have already been addressed. Think of the reasons why maternity leave and paternity leave are given. Then think of the 1 difference between when a lady has a child vs. when a man does:

When a woman becomes a mother, she pushes the baby out of her fanjo. Unless you didn't realise, men do no such thing

Sure, you may find companies wanting to sweeten a benefits package through extra pay to tempt from competitor organisations. You may also find companies trying to keep onto their own staff by giving this bit extra. Or they maybe want happier employees who will do more overtime if they are flexible in their benefits. Better work/life balance. Whatever.

The government will encourage this in order that more families bond, have more stability, greater responsibility for offspring by fathers (so less caring onus on women), as long as they balance that against the direct economic cost of sharing that allowance and going into paternity leave.

But there's a medical need in the majority of cases for women to recover from the birth. Isn't it the law in France that you cannot go back to paid employment 2 weeks after birthing? I have no idea if there's a similar law here.

But whether you agree that medical "need" to be 2 days, 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 months is by the by. The fact is that almost without exception a woman requires a recovery period after having a child. A man needs no such thing.

And this is reflected in the difference in renumeration between maternity/paternity pay and where it comes from (employer vs. government). It's a basic medical need vs. "things we do to keep people happy".

That's why companies often have the stat min for maternity leave. It's not needed to be longer, medically, it's just nice to offer your employees, for all the reasons previously given.

I do not agree that women only get maternity leave because of medical necessity in order to recover.

The length of maternity leave is important (not by the by). If it was only 2 weeks then you could have the argument that the leave was only for medical necessity. As it is 12 months then you must agree that there are other public policy reasons at play.

There are many benefits to allowing mothers to spend quality time at home raising their very young children. Those reasons apply equally to fathers.

SMP and SPP both paid for by the state (via the employer) so no difference there.

I would say that there is a pervading hypocricy in expecting men to play an equal part in parenting while at the same time denying them state benefits provided to women.