Should paternal leave be mandatory?

[VegetariansTasteLikeChicken]

Just wonder what you all think as it seems like the low take up of paternity leave seems to be enough to assume women are the only "risk" when hiring.

What if it was forced for 6 weeks? Would that be feasible?

If you read the thread it's based on a hypothetical situation where the father receives proper paternity benefits. Either the 90% women receive for 6 weeks or even upping for both to 100% to make sure they can afford it.

The "cause" is that more women have a chance at employment. Everyone wants that surely?

Apparently they are going to start doing this in Finland - although I don't know the full details. They believe that the only way to effect structural change is to force fathers to take parental leave too. I am inclined to agree, but also sympathise strongly with families who are going to find themselves financially worse off.

The "cause" is that more women have a chance at employment. Everyone wants that surely?

Well, you're assuming that all, or even most, women want this. What about the, quite significant, amount of women that want to have children & stay at home. I realise that they don't fit in with your plans for their husbands, but spare them a thought.

What is the benefit of the father "hypothetically" taking 6 weeks leave to spend at home with a new born if neither parent wishes it?

I employ people in Germany who are entitled to take paternity leave on full pay if they wish. Out of the 2 with babies in my team, both have decided to do this. I think it's great & am glad to support them in this.

I'd be equally glad, and would understand, if they decided it wasn't for them & would rather come into work.

I wouldn't want to be in a situation where they were forced to do it.

I don't agree with making it mandatory. Some men would just either be under their wives feet all day or treating it as a holiday. Am feeling a bit negative tonight. Sorry!

Interesting mindboggle! I'll google that..

Right captaingrinch...

vivianne no doubt some fuckers might use it a as holiday, hopefully it would also be an education for the rest of them though!

Yes it should be compulsory for the same amount of time as women and paid the same. I've always thought of it as a protective measure to stop employers from making women go back immediately after childbirth rather than some sort of imposition. It benefits everyone, women are less likely to be discriminated against in case they take time out for children, it puts value on men undertaking childcare and children benefit from greater involvement of both their parents.

I also think that men should be entitled to the same amount and pay of non-compulsory parental/maternity/paternity leave as women too. It might be expensive but the benefits to everyone in terms of the reduction in inequality are big enough to outweigh that.

But what if the mother is unemployed, and the father working? In DS case (teen parents) they were not living together when dgs was born, she had never been employed, and ds was on a zero hours, nmw contract. Working, he could contribute (more than) CSA. What Gvt allowance would you propose for them?

I'm definitely in favour of "use it or lose it" type provisions.

I do think if it was six weeks at 90% as with women, far more men would take the six weeks off. Often by the time of the birth, the woman has used up 2-4 weeks at her 90% pay and then if two weeks at SPP is taken, thereafter a couple is rapidly into the period where neither partner is close to a full income.

Forcing it doesn't seem right, but I do think that it needs to be normalised somehow. I work with alongside a German team and it seems to be the norm there, plenty of fathers are taking 2 or 3 months paternity leave. I'm not sure what their system is but it seems to work. Perhaps allowing each parent to take a certain amount might help, meaning that both parents had to take a bit each in order to get the full entitlement? ALthough it would be unfair on single parents I suppose.

DH has said he would love to take some paternity leave (beyond the normal 2 wks) but that his career just "couldn't take it". He has had a lot of stick at work for going down to 4 days already, so I can understand it but it makes me sad.

We have good maternity leave entitlement in the UK, which is great, but I feel the way it works here does a lot to reinforce gender stereotypes and is essentially pretty unfair.

I think a lot of people are squeamish about the idea of "forcing" fathers to do things, or "forcing" families to do certain things, and I get that. But then the question is: how do you force the employer not to penalise a father who takes paternity leave?

Choice is such a thorny issue in employment. For example it is standard in this country to receive, and sign, your "voluntary" opt out from the EU working time directive with your job contract. I doubt you would get the job if you did not sign this "voluntary" document. But on paper, you have simply chosen to waive your rights to benefit from this piece of EU legislation whose purpose was to protect workers. Is something similar happening with fathers not "choosing" to take paternity leave? What could be done to prevent their employers penalising them?

In an ideal world the state wouldnt have to mandate parental leave but right now we live in a society where women are routinely being forced to leave paid work, whether through discrimination, unaffordable/inflexible childcare, partners who dont see themselves as equal carers (and a society that encourages them to think that way). Something has to change.

Women, losing their financial independence, being forced to stay with abusive partners, facing poverty in old age with inadequate savings/pensions and children often suffering as a result, is a far bigger problem than parents being forced to spend a few weeks with their babies.

When I was a child I thought everything would be different by the time I came to have children. It sickens me that the fundamental misconceptions and prejudices are just the same. It sickens me that the media focuses on pitting SAHMs against working mums instead of focusing on the real problem.

Make it mandatory.
Make it paid.
Make it equal.

Sleepless, it's interesting that your DH is saying his career couldn't take it... It's a self fulfilling prophecy really - if few men take extended leave and few men go part time, those that do will continue to have their careers suffer - just as women who go part time often do.

I want to wave a wand and get through this bit to the bit where it is the norm for both sexes so neither is treated badly!

But then the question is: how do you force the employer not to penalise a father who takes paternity leave?

If it wasn't clear, this is the exact - and only - reason why I think it should be compulsory. It's not about forcing gender politics on individuals at a domestic level, it's about making it impossible for the current working construct (employers & organisations) to sidestep and ignore.

'Unfair' on single parents, yes, but that isn't the point. I never got any maternity leave/pay because I never got any children! It's impossible to make everything uniform in any sensible way, because lives aren't uniform (or fair). It is possible, however, to alter formal constructs through legislation. Voluntary isn't working. Let's swap that for mandatory.

If they do make it mandatory, how will that work? Surely if a prospective father elects not to tell work, or not to complete the paperwork it won't happen anyway?

I think the onus should be on making it illegal for employers to refuse Paternity leave, rather than forcing one & all to take it.

It seems fashionable at the moment to create a law for every little thing, rather than actually deal with the root causes. It's a sign of weakness, in that it's a far easier option than actually facing and discussing the issues and coming to a common, mutual agreement.

I'm a firm fan of "Educate" rather than "Legislate"

I don't think mandatory will solve anything. Which period of time will be you be telling these people to take off? Will it be the best period for them or the easiest one in regards to ticking off another box??

Chunderella: I probably didnt make clear that by saying Make it paid I meant it should be fully paid.

Sorry, what are the limitations? I assumed all companies now had to allow split parental leave, is that wrong?

Men are already claiming that taking 2 weeks paternity leave will affect their career. That can only happen if companies put them in that position. If ALL men had to take paternity leave there would be no risk of it hindering a career. (not talking about those who haven't taken it due to financial inability but the "high flyers" who are too important to leave for two weeks.

I like the idea in theory.

In practice for us it would've been awful. I spent the 2 weeks after ds was born when dh was at home panicking and not coping at all. Other than bf my dh was much better at everything and I felt awful. Once he went back to work I coped really well and now ds is 6 months and it's great. I think if dh had spent the first 6 weeks at home I could've ended up with Pnd. Ironically through too much support rather than too little. It took being on my own to realise I was fine and if that hadn't happened for 6 weeks I think my feelings of anxiety would have escalated.

Sorry it moved on whilst I was writing! I was responding to 6 week suggestion.