I think everyone should have the right to a sabbatical

[Poppadumpony]

Just thinking sadly about how I want to go travelling for 3 months but will never be able to do it while employed. My employer can’t give me a sabbatical because my work is essential and they wouldn’t get anybody to cover me while I’m away. It’s a niche role and I can’t imagine anyone would accept a contact to do it full time for just 3 months or even just a year (It’s in quite a remote place, nobody would want to relocate for a temporary post).

I was thinking about maternity leave and that if I had a baby, I’d have the right to 9 months off and my employer would just have to suck it up and muddle through.

I am single, however, and probably unable to have children. People have children to fulfill a yearning and lead a more fulfilling life. I would love to travel for an extended time and it would certainly give me a more fulfilling life, yet I know it would not be allowed. It seems unfair.

I think everyone should have the right to a sabbatical, which employers can’t refuse. Maybe once every 10 years or similar.

It’s not unreasonable is it?

Can't you take a career break? Several of my colleagues have done this. You can have unpaid for up to a year. (NHS)

An Australlian friend of mine did this, as it is part of their law.
It allows you to do something completely different for a few months, which is then recognised as bringing benefit back to the employer.

I do think that unpaid leave is something which we should support within reason.

But in practice their request is far more likely to be granted if they have children.

In my workplace, flexible working is allowed if you have a reason which means you need to be elsewhere at certain times. An extremely long commute can count as a reason, as can childcare or care of elderly relative,. But there has got to be a reason other than "I feel like it".

Hmm, I agree a sabbatical is a nice idea, though not sure how it would work practically for businesses etc. Don't think you can compare with maternity leave though, they're not the same at all. Maternity leave is for recovery physically/mentally from pregnancy/birth, often the primary carer will get very very little sleep for months, and whilst it may involve coffee breaks etc, this is with a newborn in tow, certainly not how I enjoyed my personal time pre baby! Its also contributing to society in that we've decided that babies do better if they are looked after by their primary Carers at a very young age, so the leave is for the benefit of the next generation as well.

Perhaps those who are so jealous of maternity leave could book themselves elective surgery-something altruistic like kidney donation? And 'enjoy' the break they get to recover?

It seems a bit entitled to me and not always practical. What I think is better to focus on is making sure that all holidays are taken, there is no checking on emails etc whilst on holiday, and that people have some choice about when they can have it (not one person never work near Christmas whilst others do, for example).

Would your 'right to a sabbatical' apply to teachers too?? I can just imagine the odium that that would create on MN!

@mrsBtheparker my teacher friend manages to travel for six weeks each summer so not sure they need it!

Although I have DC when they were born I only took a very short time off, just long enough to recover, then I was back at work (within 6 weeks each time). It was not that unusual at the time, so when I needed to have a major op later in life I chose to take a break from working, however despite 7 years at senior management level there were not prepared to grant me a 6 month leave of absence. They would have allowed me the time off (not all paid) for the op and the recovery when I was medically unfit to work but not for the additional preparation time (my job was at the time particularly stressful and quite a toxic environment and I just didn't want to finish work and go straight into hospital for major surgery) nor for the rest and preparation to return after that I wanted. So I resigned, when I was ready to return to work they told me I was no longer needed, fortunately this was at a time when the jobs market was buoyant so I was able to find a job easily. I am now back working for the original company in a different division after being headhunted. SInce I was refused my sabbatical I have seen a colleague be granted one.

However I don't think that they should be allowed by law, just that firms should be more flexible with their outlook to employee well being and reward.

Most people don't have a sabbatical, because they can't afford it.

I should push them for one. You never know they may find someone to do your job while your away. But be careful the new person might do it better than you so when you come back they may put you in a different role and keep your replacement.

I actually think this would be a good idea, especially for women.

Many small businesses in particular are reluctant to employ women of child bearing age - we know that - however, if it was just as likely that anyone they took on, male or female, young or old, might decide to take a sabbatical then it might reduce discrimination against women in the work place.

I would like a sabbatical, because I've already covered extra work given to me because other team members have had; maternity leave, retirement, long term sickness, secondment to other departments, time off for dependants, holidays, training

How is an employer supposed to also provide time off for sabbatical ?

Sabbatical once a year for each team member ?
Or one team member per year ?

Totally agree, OP.

I worked somewhere that offered sabbaticals after five years. There were lots of people who'd been there for years and years.

In the five years I was there, only one person took up the offer (a childfree woman).

I think people are being rather ridiculous in their responses. Most of maternity leave is not used for the birth/recovery but for spending time with children afterwards. And in any case your point was not that it is the same, but that employers do manage to give time off for maternity leave, which suggests it is not impossible. I think that employers should be encouraged to give extended unpaid leaver to longer term employees and it would have benefits all round. Whether it should be mandated is another matter. Perhaps, like flexible working, the onus should be on the employer to make a case that it is really not possible given the employment context. For many roles it would be perfectly possible. I'm an academic I we get paid sabbaticals. Not to have a holiday, but to do research while the teaching/admin part of our role is covered temporarily. Also, I used to work for a management consultancy and those of us who were employed as consultants straight from university were not allowed to be promoted straight to the next rung at that time. We were required to go away and do a "proper job" or an MBA and then return. The company felt that otherwise we would work for a few years and then want to leave. This way we would ultimately stay for longer.

I think a sabbatical is very much more than going off to find yourself. Sometimes it's about learning and opening ones mind to other things, refreshing your approach and reflecting on your life. We're not robot s and if a firm wants to keep valued employees then it should be open to negotiation. Obviously something done once and not repeatedly. You're a long time dead and you should work to live rather than live to work.
And to be quite honest most employers don't give a flying fuck about people. That's why you're a human resource rather than personnel nowadays.

@mrsBtheparker my teacher friend manages to travel for six weeks each summer so not sure they need it!

Bit early in the year for old chestnuts but it's MN so hey-ho.

@mrsBtheparker i I know some teachers work hard but I also used to work in schools and know many don’t. but even those that do get an extended period off each year to travel if they wish. My friend has no kids which obviously helps.

All those pointing out maternity leave can be shared with the father. It can be, but often the mother won’t let that happen!

We see time and time again on here about mother’s being superior to fathers in the first year, about how a baby needs it’s mother most, and i can recall several threads where a father wanted shared leave and the mother has come on here to ask if she is being unreasonable to say no?!

And as for the maternity leave is just for recovery- why are there so many threads of “I’m not ready to leave baby” or “9 months just feels too little to go to nursery”. Or “I wanted to longer at home with DC”.

If it was the painful and miserable experience some of you unfortunately had, for all women, those threads with either not exist or say “I can’t go back to work yet, 10 months in and I still can’t sit down without crying”.

Sure, there are women in that horrendous position, and I’m very very sorry for them. Maternity care is so poor in some places: but it’s naive (faux) to pretend mat leave is like that for everyone.

I agree with you that a major block to men taking shared parental leave is women's reluctance to do this; I've posted about this a lot, as someone who did shared parental leave and found that I got a lot of judgement and hostility about it from other women.

I also agree that maternity leave isn't just for recovery, but I also don't think it's just a nice jolly for women comparable to a sabbatical either - as the posts you reference show, maternity leave is for the baby, and was put in place due to the benefits of them being with a parent for as much of the first year as possible. Those posts say 'too little for nursery' etc not 'I don't want to go back because I want more time off work'. And it's possible to not enjoy maternity leave but still to feel conflicted about leaving a young baby; I really didn't like being on maternity leave at all but I still felt very sad about leaving DS at 6 months (made much easier by the fact he would then be with his dad).

Takemetothebar I think those of us who had partners who were already pulling their full weight in the household, who bonded with the baby as quickly as we did, who didn't need someone else to encourage them to look after their own baby, who were right in there and as quick and willing to learn by doing- those of us felt far less reluctant to leave the baby than others. Dh was changing ds' nappies and bathing him before I did. He was the one who worked out a way of soothing dd to sleep when nothing else worked. Of course I felt confident he wouldn't slack off on the job or spend parental leave watching the telly and ignoring the baby.

Breastfeeding is a thing, and tiny babies need feeding very frequently. In countries where take-up on parental leave by fathers is more common, mothers usually take the first months for this reason. Those early months are also often the most intense- and of course they happen while the mother is still recovering.

And yes, I was still in pain after 10 months, I do mention this from time to time on MN. Not at all uncommon with combined tear and episiotomy. In fact, I can still feel twinges 23 years later.

And as for the maternity leave is just for recovery- why are there so many threads of “I’m not ready to leave baby” or “9 months just feels too little to go to nursery”. Or “I wanted to longer at home with DC”.

And some women are back at work within weeks of giving birth, so not all women need that recovery time though I fully accept that many/most do.

YANBU, as someone who will never have children I'll never get the chance to have an extended time off due to business needs.

@Hardbackwriter

I agree with you that a major block to men taking shared parental leave is women's reluctance to do this; I've posted about this a lot, as someone who did shared parental leave and found that I got a lot of judgement and hostility about it from other women.

I also agree that maternity leave isn't just for recovery, but I also don't think it's just a nice jolly for women comparable to a sabbatical either - as the posts you reference show, maternity leave is for the baby, and was put in place due to the benefits of them being with a parent for as much of the first year as possible. Those posts say 'too little for nursery' etc not 'I don't want to go back because I want more time off work'. And it's possible to not enjoy maternity leave but still to feel conflicted about leaving a young baby; I really didn't like being on maternity leave at all but I still felt very sad about leaving DS at 6 months (made much easier by the fact he would then be with his dad).

My theory on this is that however much more difficult it is for me to go back, it will be much harder in the long run to be treated as the default parent because my husband just wouldn't have as much hands on practice as me at parenting.

If he has a sustained go at sorting stuff out for himself and attending the baby settings etc etc, it will give us a far better foundation for the long term than if he didn't get that opportunity.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with WFH though - lots of my male friends have enjoyed being around more during maternity leave even though WFH. However, I have, shall we say, doubts about my husband's ability to separate me as a worker vs me as a mum if I were WFH and he were on paternity leave...