Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that people arguing against equal parental leave rights want discrimination against women?

77 replies

MinesAPintOfTea · 29/11/2013 13:09

This is all over the news today, and listening to the "balanced" debate on Jeremy Vine over lunch I was getting very annoyed. The argument against seemed to be that men should be going out to earn money and are useless with babies.

And worse the argument that it will be bad for small businesses. If those small businesses aren't already discriminating against women (even if they do so discretely) then it would have no impact on average against the group. In fact the flexibility element might even help them out more.

And breathe...

OP posts:
BoosterBondageSapphire · 29/11/2013 13:23

Completely agree, DH came home for lunch while I have been working at home today and he was getting very worked up at the insinuation that men didn't want to spend time with their children.

Flexible working for all parents/care givers is the best thing for the children not just women.

LackingEnergy · 29/11/2013 13:24

According to the BBC

Employers can dictate how you can split your maternity cover with your partner and if you take 6 months or less from your maternity leave you are entitled to your old job back.....

Not sure it would work if you planned to exclusively breast feed and opt for baby led weaning :-/

MurderOfGoths · 29/11/2013 13:25

YANBU at all!

Mim78 · 29/11/2013 13:29

YANBU

This will be a fantastic thing for women's equality because employer's won't be looking at male candidate's in interview and assuming that they won't be going on a long period of paternity leave. Because they will be able to!

That means that employers will be looking at women in the same light as men for the first time (unless they just assume that the men won't take leave, but then they might be in for a big surprise!).

slightlygoostained · 29/11/2013 13:33

YANBU OP.

LackingEnergy - I ebf until 6 months, DP was perfectly capable of waving a floret or three of broccoli in front of DS so no idea what BLW has to do with it.

Remember that you accrue leave on mat leave, so nothing to stop you going back at 6 months but then using up your leave. In fact that's just what a couple I know did, swapped at 6 months and used leave to overlap a bit.

Chattymummyhere · 29/11/2013 13:38

I had the unfortunate timing of arriving home to hear kh on the wright stuff this morning (cartoons finished while on school run) and if all bosses think like her no wonder its harder for women!! The attitude to women working and having babies was vile.

But my dh manager has the same attitude men work women look after the babies and women should be happy that dh comes home even if it is 10pm from work because man must work!

Original poster
MinesAPintOfTea · 29/11/2013 14:02

LackingEnergy The BBC article seems to say that an employer can veto more than two changes and going back for short periods then off again requires employer agreement. I can see how anything else would be an unreasonable burden to employers, otherwise parents could have a right to change over every week for a year. The rule about entitlement to return to the same job ending after 6 months is the current rule.

I see that it is problematic for EBF, but (as an extended BFer who BLW) very few babies are EBF to six months so whilst they should be accommodated by policy that doesn't mean that the policy can't be flexible for other parents, and this policy change doesn't remove the option to remain on maternity leave beyond 6 months. DH was certainly capable of BLW, he was actually keener on it than me.

OP posts:
LaFataTurchina · 29/11/2013 16:12

I think it sounds brilliant.

Even if you wanted to breastfeed for the whole year you could theoretically manage it.

EBF for 6 months then go back to work.
Then BF morning and evening and leave a bottle of expressed milk/or have a bottle of formula for after naps and the baby has solids for lunch and dinner and a sippy cup of water.

Easier said then done I know but theoretically possible.

DziezkoDisco · 29/11/2013 16:16

YANBU at all. Its not like they are sayng both parents will be off at the same time.

It will fcuk up all the companies that hire men because they think they wom't go off 'and have babies' hahahahahaha

janey68 · 29/11/2013 16:49

Shared parental leave is a bloody brilliant idea and its about making life better for everyone, because it acknowledges that both parents want to spend time with their children and also that becoming a parent doesn't mean one parents career automatically takes second place. And most importantly it acknowledges that children benefit from time with each parent.

As for the point made above about bf... Remember ML used to be much shorter altogether, just 12 weeks, yet many of us fed our babies bm exclusively well beyond that point, so shared leave doesn't need to affect that at all.

If a family still want the mother to take the entire leave then aren't prevented from this- so it doesn't change Anything for those quite happy with the status quo. It simply gives greater choice: win win.

Just wish it had been around years ago- DH and I would have shared leave like a shot.

MrsMcEnroe · 29/11/2013 17:00

YANBU.

Shared parental leave is a brilliant idea.

I'm saying this both as a mother and as the owner of a small business who employs a handful of part-time workers.

We had to put our babies in a nursery when they were both 4.5 months old (thankfully for 2-3 days per week, not 5) in order for me to go back to work (I didn't own my business back then). I would have literally bitten the hand off DH's boss if he'd been offered some parental leave. And DH would have liked it too!

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 29/11/2013 17:06

it seems sensible to me with a good balance between the employee and employer.

Andro · 29/11/2013 17:07

It's positive for families, but depending on how much notice employers are going to be entitled to with respect to changes I can see it being potentially very difficult in terms of project management/staff management (not to mention an administrative pain in the neck because of the inevitable paper trail in will generate - as all government changes seem to).

ThinkAboutItTomorrow · 29/11/2013 17:12

It's a great idea. Now we need to see men taking it up.

I predict very few men will do it. It needs a concerted campaign and / or financial incentive to drive it as well.

I sent it to DP today as we are TTC no2 and he's said all the right things about 'I'd love to be a SAHP' etc in the past. I think when the reality bites of telling his boss he is taking 6 months paternity leave and they have to keep his job open DP will laugh in my face at the very idea.

In fairness to DP whilst his employment contract is british his role should be US based and his boss is an american (where more than 8 weeks mat leave is considered a bit excessive). The boss is also a republican and an ex-Marine. To be honest I wouldn't like to try to broach it with him either!

fifi669 · 29/11/2013 17:12

It's a great idea, esp if the father is the lower paid and the mother the breadwinner.

garlictrivia · 29/11/2013 17:16

It will fuck up all the companies that hire men because they think they won't go off 'and have babies' hahahahahaha

YES! This exactly! Another strike for workplace equality - no wonder the patriarchy's got its boxers in a twist :)

garlictrivia · 29/11/2013 17:19

... I wonder how men will react to all those pretend-casual interview questions aimed at figuring out whether you'll 'go off and have babies'? Should be interesting Wink

When I started my career, there was no statutory mat leave and the interview question was legal. 40 years ... slow progress, innit?

LiegeAndLief · 29/11/2013 17:37

It is already the case that your employer only has to take you back in the same role if you go back at 6 months. If you take more than 6 months your employer is entitled to offer you a different role. Or at least those were the rules when I went on mat leave four years ago. I don't this has changed.

somethingwillturnup · 29/11/2013 17:38

Has anyone noticed that men will be able to take parental leave until they retire basically, whereas women will only be able to take it during their child-bearing years?

For example, 59 year old man taking paternity leave when 35 year old wife has child. What 59 year old woman would be able to take maternity leave? (Not many I'd bet).

Wonder how they would manage to word the 'do you have/are you planning to have/how old is your wife/all that bollocks' type questions now?

HearMyRoar · 29/11/2013 17:51

lacking I exclusively bf and blw. I went back to work when dd was 5.5 months and dp took 3 months off. It was no problem at all. In fact I just commented to dp that I thought this was probably the best parenting decision we have made for all of us.

fairylightsintheautumn · 29/11/2013 17:59

something but men can father a child up to retirement age, most women can't so that seems about right to me. "Child bearing age" just means when YOU have had a child, its not a legal definition of 45 or something. If a woman was very unusually able to have one in her 50s, she would be entitled to mat leave the same as anyone else.

somethingwillturnup · 29/11/2013 19:01

That's the point I was making fairylights. Should employers be worried now that men can take paternity leave at any time, whereas women don't have a lifetime of having children?

Wonder how many interviewers will be asking men how old their wives are and trying to work out in their heads if it's possible that they might want to take paternity leave some time in the future? Because you sometimes hear about the implications of taking a woman on with the 'risk' of her having go on maternity leave. Now employers will have to 'risk' men taking their entitlement of paternity leave. Leaves them nowhere to go and levels the playing field for everyone (regarding children/childcare at least).

somethingwillturnup · 29/11/2013 19:02

(I did think that other post sounded better in my head and looked at bit funny written down - sorry)

expatinscotland · 29/11/2013 19:05

I think 52 weeks is too long. I don't know anyone who can afford to take that kind of time off on SMP, anyhow. It's a non-issue for many of us. Couldn't care less.

louwn · 29/11/2013 19:07

Is this already 'in' to some degree? My boss and her husband have taken 6 months each (in the process of husband's leave at the moment). unless this is just individual employers agreeing?

Swipe left for the next trending thread