Labour would double paternity leave, and raise it to £260 a week - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Labour has announced plans for a "Father's Month" which will double paid paternity leave from two to four weeks. They've also pledged to raise paternity pay by more than £100 per week to at least £260 a week - equivalent to the minimum wage.

Do tell us what you think - are these changes to be welcomed? How, if at all, would they have affected your family's experience in the first few weeks with a newborn?

The more I think about it- just up stat mat to 6 weeks at 90% pay followed by 4 weeks at £300 would probably help many more families have time off with their newborn- 2 parents together is nice but having ability to have 1 parent for 10 weeks must be a helpful move?

Crap idea.

DH wouldn't take more than 2 weeks, not because of money but because of a working culture that expects him to be at work as much as humanly possible regardless of children.

A "use it or lose it" paternity leave period after the mother goes back to work would be a much better step towards fathers getting properly involved.

"So mat/pat leave available for x amount of time at £x per week, regardless of male or female and x weeks when both parents can claim simultaneously. Would that really be so hard to cost out for any of the parties?"

I thought that was more or less what the coalition had already passed and is due to come into effect soon (or have I really misunderstood?)

(The main limitation being that for physical recuperation, the rules specifying a woman must not return to work within 2 weeks of parturition (most jobs) or 4 weeks (certain industrial roles) will still apply).

I think it's a good thing. DH took time off with both of ours and that time was incredibly important for our family, especially as one of them was in NICU for a week.

So yes I am in support of this.

good idea. pity the money can't be at full pay but having a dad around would certainly make recovery easier for women who have had sections or traumatic births.

Having read more posts ( & ignoring the fact it's probably not affordable for the country so way down the list of spending priorities), I'd go with use it or lose it over a year.

From a personal pov dh was v useful at home post dc3/4 , he dealt with the older ones, cooked , cleaned whilst I recovered from my c-section and started walking after being in a wheelchair for the end of pregnancy.

When dc3 is born in June we will need around 6 weeks to cover birth and looking after our 6 and 4 year old with me post c-section.

How do I know this? Past experience of 2 c-sections has told me that I need this for physical and, importantly, mental recovery. I am not one of those women who bounce back after birth. 6 weeks would be the absolute ideal. DH does erratic shift work and is sometimes away for up to 27 hours at a time.

Could we do it in 4? Well, of course we could. 4 weeks would be amazing, especially given the last 2 times where DH had literally days with us before having to go back to work. 4 weeks might see me at least back on my feet and have some semblance of a routine. Maybe I'd be able to drive, do some outside stuff with the older 2.

2 weeks is not enough. 2 weeks is DH working right up until the due date and then possibly losing a week of it due to me being in hospital (last time I was in 7 days).

This time we are using whatever we have to get as much time as we can - it is so vitally important. I had sever PND last time, brought on by feeling physically and mentally unable to cope with two small children at home on my own.

4 weeks would be amazing, but come on, it's not going to happen. And if it does, when? 2 years time? And what will the stipulations be? More often than not you have to be working a certain amount of hours/employer has to say they support it/you have to have been in the job a certain amount of time/you have to earn a certain amount.

The WHOLE maternity system has to be looked at. What about support for new parents, sure starts, health visitors who actually have the resources to support you, drop in centres where you can go for support? Giving dads more time would help some people infinitely - and others not at all. What about the single mums or those who work part-time due to cuts etc?

Gimmick. Sadly, just a gimmick.

For any new parent who works in a competitive job in the private sector this will make absolute zero difference at all - oh except the sweet knowledge that Labour are still making happy hand-outs with borrowed money.

I really don't understand the negativity and cynicism towards this idea.

A number of people seem to be saying that the culture of most male dominated work places is one that looks down on any time off for any reason, and views men taking time off to spend with their newborn child as not compatible with the needs of the business.

How on earth are we going to change this macho, family unfriendly culture if not through small incremental steps like this? It is generally accepted now that men will get 2 weeks off yet that legislation only came in in 2003! So before that some men just went straight back to work? If this gets through then maybe in another decade, 4 weeks will be seen as the norm and employers will start paying more on top of the statutory amount. And so on... until the "male working culture" starts to accept men looking after their own children as more of the norm rather than the exception.

I quit my job to stay at home with my wife and newborn son because I didn't want to have to negotiate with that male workplace culture. I know I am lucky to be able to afford to do this, but I think the more that men start to spend more time with their families, the better for everyone in society.

I think it's a good policy. I think encouraging the view that looking after your family is valid and worthwhile and that work isn't the be-all and end-all of existence.

And I'm bewildered by women having children with men they can't bear to be around. How on earth would the father 'get under your feet'? When dh was off he loved spending time with the babies, he changed nappies and made meals, looked after the toddler and took him out on my second maternity leave, brought me drinks etc whilst I was breastfeeding, looked after the baby whilst I took a long bath or a nap. He was sad to go back after a fortnight and I would have loved a full month. It's very odd not to want to spend time with your own brand new family!

I totally agree with you Jelly !

I am so glad that I'm not the only one who thinks this is very sexist. It reminds me of my first ever job, when my boss told me that it was only fair that male employees were paid more, because they had commitments and families to support.

If we've got money to give away, doubling the maternity pay for single mothers would be more appropriate. But we don't have money to give away, do we?

I don't see that paying four weeks of paternity leave at a higher rate than nine months of maternity leave is particularly sexist. Women still get a far greater entitlement overall.

What is sexist is the assumptions on this thread that a man at home would be more hindrance than help, that unless there is DIY to get on with, he'd better get back to his important job bringing in money whilst the woman gets on with looking after the children and the home unencumbered by his domestic ineptitude. Whilst paternity leave is low-paid and short, it won't be seen as valuable for fathers to take time off work to look after their own babies and support their partners to recover from childbirth and take equal parenting responsibilities. Upthread, someone said as a barrister he couldn't take time off work anyway, begging the question of what female barristers do when they have a baby? The view that paternity leave is unnecessary, that men are indispensable from the workplace and incompetent at home - those are the sexist attitudes in my opinion.

sorry haven't read all the comments and am aware my view will probably be unpopular but rights and responsibilities are inextricably interlinked imo and i cannot understand a climate in which we're increasing rights whilst cancelling existing csa arrangements and charging (predominantly) women and children to apply for and get any financial support from (predominantly) fathers.

paternal rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand surely? why be reducing one whilst increasing the other?

I really want to see short and flexible FE courses that will help carers (from all walks of live) to bridge the gap of their career break and give them retraining opportunities to return into FT or PT employment or education. As for many stay at home parents or long term carers the problem is not just meeting the costs for alternative arrangement but returning to employment at the end of their carering responsibility. I believe it is at least something that will benefit more families long term if the or any government really don't have any solutions for the high childcare or carering costs.

Jelly I totally agree with you, sadly that's what mumsnet is like a lot of the time.

this is a middle class vote winner pre election basically.

look we're the equality party.

yet where is the 'we'll definitely turn back decisions to charge for the csa and no way will we tax child support, we'll make sure parents are made to pay for the children they produce and not just walk away and leave the resident parent to foot the bill, work and stigma and society to pay the shortfall with no contribution from the absent parent, we'll turn back the changes made by this government that discriminate against lone parents and other carers that have been deliberately targeted' etc'

just more vote tokenism.

But isn't making paternity leave more accessible and extending it encouraging fathers to take more responsibility for their children and engage more fully with parenting? I assume that's the purpose of it anyway. Doing this wouldn't preclude enforcing maintenance payments, I think it fits into an ethos which says that fathers should be taking equal responsibility for their children.

really? when you haven't even got a baseline of saying fathers should at least he legally liable for paying towards their children's survival? when we don't even have a state that backs that up legally and enforces it? seems cart before horse to me. did women get maternity leave in a plea to encourage them not to abandon their kids? did we have to first offer them things like maternity leave and pay before we made it illegal to not bother clothing or feeding them?

Erm any father who needs two weeks extra paternity in order to become a more responsible father isn't exactly going to win any father of the year awards.

My dh is a very responsible father and there's nothing wrong with his relationship with his children. Apparently it's a miracle since he didn't get any 'paternity leave' at all, being self-employed and all. .

I don't think men need paternity leave to bond with their children or be good fathers. I just meant that extending paternity leave isn't at odds with preventing feckless fathers from not taking responsibility. And judging by this thread there are clearly some prevalent attitudes that men will be 'in the way' when their babies are newborns and can't contribute anything useful. I would hope that these measures might make it more possible for men to take a decent paternity leave and for those attitudes of men being useless domestically to become less accepted. But mostly, I just think it's a great opportunity. Your children's first weeks are precious, irreplaceable, once in a lifetime experiences and I think it's great if both parents get to experience that. As someone else pointed out, we all have 40+ years to work. Our children's babyhood is fleeting and it's reasonable for fathers and mothers to both want to enjoy that time.

So take some holiday to go with what you do have,we can't afford to fund two parents off work.

HEre here.

if we can't afford to enforce parents paying a measly sum towards the upkeep of children they have abandoned and are so hard up we need to force women on low incomes to pay to seek to get that money and pay a cut of that money in tax every single month just for having a direct debit set up then i fail to see how it is we're able to afford to please a few married couples who'd like to have a bit more paternity leave for the sake of a few votes.

this is what concerns me. that people don't look at the big political picture and the mass contradictions and see these ploys for what they are and what they say about the contempt parties truly have for voters and their intelligence and integrity levels.

the canceling of csa contracts women have fought to get up and running in the first place, or the fighting to not pay charges for needing a third party to arrange collection of monies from a violent ex (they conceded that part but it does nothing for those whose non resident parents simply refuse all contact or point blank refuse to pay yet the woman and child must be punished with charges for that now), has made absolutely clear what parliament and it's ministers and mps think of paternal responsibility and the states place in enforcing it or encouraging it's neglect is. to then churn out this little vote winner is really quite queasy making.

it is saying very clearly that fatherhood is all rights and no obligations. that if you 'choose' to actually act like a parent you'll get a pat on the back and a sticker and some paternity pay but if you don't bother you can move along without penalty and the parent who remains will be the one to carry the stigma and financial burden and where that burden can't be met the benefits system will step in, reluctantly and will shame her along the way, but you will face no consequences don't worry.

is that REALLY the message we want to send out about fatherhood?