Cut maternity leave and give new paid leave to dads -- what do you guyst think?

[Page62]

link here

i would really welcome this

the proposal is more generous than one year to be divided up as chosen. it's 6 months for the mother plus a further year - provided that the father takes 4 months. if the father didn;t take anything the mother could take 8 months of the extra year. giving her a toal of 14 months.

and it's also only a proposal. from the Equality and Human Rights Commission not from government.

hatwoman well if it mean woman can take 14 months and men 4.
that would be fab.
it would haave my vote.

doubt it will go throught though, do you?

I think it's started a debate...which is something. but I think it will be a long time before any changes, and they probably won't look like this. the chief exec of the EHRC was quoted recently as saying that certain aspects of the equal pay bill should be "postponed" because of the recession. so, although this latest line on mat/parental leave is good, she's not exactly our greatest champion. (can you imagine her saying something similar about racial discrimination...oh let's delay the details...it's too expensive and we're in a recession it would be unthinkable ) but she's leaving anyway.

f'ing hell, how did she get that job then.
what a joke

I think parental leave should be 2 years - first year to be taken by mum, final year between parents.

Nursery seems to be the biggest place for childcare in the UK; yet is wholly inappropriate for under 2s. Nanny care, providing a secure link for toddlers, is too expensive for most parents.

It's a sad society we live in that child welfare is so low in government priorities. But, given we are governed by a bunch of narcissistic personalities and personlaity disorders; can't see anything changing in the next 50 years

I think thses proposals are brilliant. I have a greater earning potential than DH and this system would have worked very well for us, it would have meant that DS would have started childcare at 17 months, rather than 11. We have considered DH staying at home many times, in fact he is taking 6 months unpaid leave to be a SAHD from september so I can concentrate on my career, I think more generous provision (6 months at 90%) combined the more flexibility is an excellent idea. Do n't supose it will happen though

It is true that in Sweden the opportunity has not been taken up to the extent hoped for. But it has still been taken up an awful lot. All the young Swedish fathers I know have had at least some paternity leave, and they do seem far more involved with the care of their young children, and more confident, than most blokes I know here.

Dh is unusually clued up about his, but then he did take unpaid leave when dd was little, so I could work part-time (expressing breast milk).

If parental leave is generous enough, the father can take his when the baby is no longer wholly dependent on breastfeeding: a 10-month old baby won't need the same amount of breastfeeding as a newborn.

I wasn't suggesting that pumping was breastfeeding, but most women I know who have returned to work before a year and continued breastfeeding have used a mix of breastfeeding in the morning and evening with expressing in the day.

Completely agree with BonsoirAnna's views. Very well said.

Anna - you have still not answered my post from Mon 30-Mar-09 16:47:04 ?
Not moaning - am just interested in your view

HidingmyMNname - I think that almost full pay should be maintained for much longer than at present during a mother's post-partum/breastfeeding leave.

Cory, sorry I didn't really post very fully. The fact that men haven't taken up paternity leave as much as hoped in Sweden is not an argument for not offering it. However, I do feel that it is very definitely an argument against restricting female leave to pay for extra paternity leave, since it is clear that even in a more equal society such as Sweden, (where most people feel more secure in their employment) some men can't or won't take the offer up.

I suspect in UK, chopping off some mat. leaven and giving it to the partner would mean that for some/many families it would just result in an overall reduction in parental leave.

Thanks Anna - I would have loved that too...

I also agree with mrsgboring - in fact, I think that the proposal to cut "maternity leave" and increase "paternity leave" might just be a covert way of reducing the overall cost to society of "parental leave" for new babies. Grrrrrrrr.

I don't know much about Sweden but I have heard from family members living in Norway that paternal leave is routinely used by men to do additional professional training!

I think if both parents work they should both get 1 years leave at a better sodding rate then you get now.. IMO 200 quid a week would be a bit better.

Sweden has got it pretty much wrapped

Woman can take 14 months and men 4?

Fab. I'd vote for it too. Much better than what we've got now. I can't believe i would have to claim IS for the last few weeks of my AML.. so i can take a year off, 90% of full wage for six weeks, 117 quid for 39 weeks, and all the rigmarole about HB and CT benefits, then all the rigmarole of claiming IS even though i would still be legally employed, for the final 11 weeks.
Bit stupid. It would also be nice to know where you stand from day one so instead of form filling you could concentrate fully on the baby.

BonsoirAnna, the place I worked had paternity leave as an employee benefit years before it came in as statutory (you also got 10 days to move house at one stage, it was that kind of place ). The standard use for it was apparently to fit a new kitchen/bathroom.

That said, it's not an exclusively male preserve to do some kind of non-baby activity during leave - remember Cherie's little "maternity leave project" writing a book whilst off with baby Leo? I have done short OU courses, though not until I was on a full career break rather than OML and AML.

You can't dictate how people spend the time, and I don't feel that it's wrong for people to undertake other projects as well as look after a baby. I still favour providing more generous paternity leave without prejudicing existing maternity entitlements.

"You can't dictate how people spend the time."

I just cannot agree with this. Parental leave is not a state-funded holiday.

No, it's not a state funded holiday, but you don't work 24/7, or indeed all weeks of the year. How would you suggest dictating how people use the time? I can't see how it could be practically done.

Well, in many countries there are pretty strict rules about not allowing employees anywhere near their place of work during maternity leave, for this very reason. What is wrong with checking that parents undertaking paid parental leave are not actively engaged in work or training?

Certainly you could ban them from work and ban work from sponsoring any kind of training programme, which happens at the moment - if you return to work from mat leave or pat leave it ceases and you can't get it back later.

I think I would be more ambivalent about banning from training altogether. It is neither practical nor desirable. I mean, where does that end? You can't borrow books from the library except for childcare related tomes? You can't do an OU course while the baby sleeps?

You could also of course ensure there are no tax breaks which allow you to keep your qualifying baby in childcare while you get on with other things, but I don't think you could ever prevent people from using the time to remodel their houses or whatever. That's just a risk you take by allowing any kind of leave (I know one woman who was tiling her kitchen with a 48 hour old baby in a bouncy chair in the next room, for example.)

My work had two weeks fully paid paternity leave, and most of the men I knew took that plus holiday (usually working part time for the next couple of weeks at least). None of them spent the time on DIY projects - surely that's the sort of thing you do before not after having your baby (home improvement and babies not being a match made in heaven). I don't see any good reason for banning women going in to work when they are on maternity leave, should they so choose, or from doing training courses either. There is no absolute requirement for all mothers to spend 100% of their time looking after their child is there? Where would that leave ladies who lunch or shop then - these are not 100% baby orientated activities either - should they be banned too?

It's a great idea, increasing flexibility for parents and allowing fathers up to eight months off.

What is the point in banning people from training? I intend to finish my masters degree during the second half of my maternity leave with the full support of my employer . Why would they want returning employees to be out of touch?

As for it being a 'state funded holiday' SMP is only twice what I normally pay in NI! Oh I feel so guilty.

Riven - money is the BIG elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

In my view this initiative like all previous Equality and Maternity Leave initiatives will fail over money. That is why EHRC is saying we should postpone parts of the current Bill because of the recession.

Employers do not want to pay an employee who is not working. Govt does not want to pay mothers/fathers any more than the most basic level of maternity pay. Employees cannot afford to take the time off on basic maternity pay because they cannot afford to live. The net result is that nothing changes.

Without dealing with the financial question the whole issue is rhetoric.

What do I think as an investor in businesses and as a Dad?

My view is that Govt has to pay the cost but employers should be obligated under Health & Safety Law to force women to take 1 month off before the birth. All fathers and mothers should be forced to take 1 month off after the birth. It should not be left to employees to choose or to have to try and enforce their rights through the civil courts. This should be enforced by Govt inspectors like Health & Safety law.

The Govt should pay 1 month at full pay for a woman before birth and 1 month for both man and woman after the birth. Then statutory maternity Pay should be at minimum wage level after that for up to 7 months.

Why involve Health & Safety? Well, I do think a man/woman coming back to work exhausted in the first month after the birth (or a woman 1 month before birth) is a waste of time for employer and employee and can be dangerous in certain kinds of driving and machine operator jobs. For a woman, the Health & Safety issues are obvious if the pregnancy/birth has been difficult and even if not the exhaustion of breast feeding and so on in the months after are without question. By using Health & Safety Law we can also bring in a much much tougher enforcement regime that makes Directors personally liable so the compliance would be near 100%.

Bit of a radical solution maybe but the getting tough on the enforcement issue but relieving the employer of the cost is a 'carrot and stick' approach that must be worth a try because what we have does not work for anybody.