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?

I wasn't working before I had DS (so had zero maternity leave entitlement). DH took two weeks of annual leave, one week of 'maternity support allowance' (offered by his employer to anyone - so could have been a mum/sister/etc as well as the father - supporting a someone who has just given birth or adopted a child, one week at 100%) and one week of PL, we couldn't afford a second week.

Still, after a good month at home, he was sad to have to go back so soon. It wasn't really about childcare - I was going to be at home after all, it was about him getting to know our new baby and how to take care of him together. With future pregnancies it would also be handy for him to look after DS/other older siblings whilst I'm going through that hard, establishing breastfeeding period.

I don't think current suggestions for how to change parental leave would effect us, because they seem to require the woman to be entitled to mat leave but not claiming it. I don't think women should lose their right to take all of their leave and have to share it with men. I wouldn't like to think that some women would not be able to take the maternity leave they'd like to because of men suddenly valuing family time.

So I think fathers should gain their own entitlement to leave, by extending paternity leave and making it more generous - but not at the expense of mat leave. Though they should be able to take it either concurrently with mat leave or could maximise their childcare cover by taking it when their partner is working. I assume this would be a use it or lose it option, but doesn't penalise women who don't want to give up their mat leave.

I realise this would be the expensive option, because for each child you'd begin to double the mat entitlement, but it could start off slowly by extending paternity leave to a month, with at least 2 weeks full pay. With the idea that over time the number of weeks, and the number of weeks at full pay would increase.

His entitlement to leave would not be dependant on what his partner was entitled to, taking or not taking.

So this is a bit stream of consciousness, I haven't totally thought this through. I do remember seeing a news item talking about how men in a Scandinavian country had a culture of using their parental leave/share of maternity leave to go off on long hunting trips. So I guess the culture is hard to change. But I don't think advances in paternity leave should come at the expense of mat leave.

I think it would be great if there were six weeks at 90% pay, two at birth and four at any time within a year of birth - then they could be concurrent or consecutive.

I realise it would be expensive as more men, especially full time men, are in the workforce at the time of the birth of second and subsequent children than women.

On the mandatory thing... I think we should concentrate on helping partners who would like to take more paternity leave afford to do so, rather than strong arming those who don't want to take it. Hopefully as the numbers of men taking paternity leave increases as the barriers to them doing so are brought down the culture would change to it being expected that it is normal for both parents to take at least some time out of the work place.

How bad is it for women looking to take 6-12 months out of work, if men believe they will, or actually will, damage their careers by taking 2-6 weeks of paternity leave? :(

Is making it mandatory the only way that you can change those workaholic, huge amounts of overtime, no sick days even if you are propped up at your desk semi-conscious, no family friendly hours, hiring women who might have children etc business cultures? Don't they realise that people burn out if they work like that, that having a good work/life balance enhances productivity, retention etc ? It all sounds very much like its from the other side of the Atlantic.

not hiring women*

Spirited, the use it or lose it is something like the couple gets 12 months if only the mother takes it but 14 months combined if both take it - it's not necessarily a reduction in entitlement.

Snatch That's what I was trying to say but more concise, I agree. :)

Ah okay, I didn't realise that about it being an increase in entitlement if shared. Was worried about women losing theirs!

I would like to see a mandatory 6 / 8 week period of paternity leave, at almsot full pay. No going back until the mother and baby have had their 6 week check.

Personally I think that more support and time together in the early days would help women who wanted to return to work, be able to return that bit sooner. More chance of a better recovery from birth, less sleep deprivation, more chance of bf going well. And employers might start to realise that both men and women are parents, dads can take time off and women may have shorter maternity leaves (although none of this skipping back to work after 2 weeks nonsense).

What about absent fathers? Would they get a compulsory 6 week holiday? (Recalling a recent thread.)

Yes. And compulsory.

A woman rarely has 2 babies in a year, physically it is almost impossible (a set of twins plus a single would just about do it) a man could be off several times in one year, and potentially every year from age 20 to 60.

Make PL compulsory and suddenly women are a better prospect than men, regardless of their intention to have children or not.

And of course twins doesn't give double maternity leave anyway.

The world isnt ready for it. I want my dh to stay at home and care for our baby whilst I do a masters but its seen as too hard that way round, but if it was dh doing a masters and the wife at home thats fine. I dont think for most people that will ever change, and yes its sexist.

Until more men do it, it will be seen as unusual. It's a circle. You should go ahead with your plan if it works fur your family.

For women who are employees it is 2 weeks which is compulsory, not 6 so I don't see why men should be in a different position. Also if you are self employed as I am you can be working the next day after birth if you choose (and indeed I was happy to so a little bit of work and take calls then).

I think the changes to allow men to take some of the leave are a good thing and women who often earn more than men these days may well be pushing to have their husbands take a good proportion of that leave and that that is sufficient for now.

More and more men are taking more leave. My daughter's ex boss had her first child - very senior woman and took 3 months off and then her husband took 6 months off as their company allowed that after the 3 months when he wife was back at full time work. It worked well for them.

There are going to be issues based on the job that people do, when DD came along XH took paternity leave and two weeks leave but we could not afford him not being at work because his job had regular overtime that was the difference between surviving and having a few luxuries. Should we have been forced not to have those luxuries as no company would factor in the loss of overtime.

Mandatory paternity leave would penalise families especially those from poorer backgrounds where overtime is a necessity to help pay the bills. Wish when people think through these great ideas they would look at how it would hit all of the social spectrum not just those families that expect to have two careers.

Sausage, I would want it to be at 90% of pay same as for women. My understanding with the 90% is that it's based on an 8 week period starting around week 17 - so if ivertime is done in that eight week period, it would count towards the pay on which the 90% was assessed.

So that then asks the question as an employer with a person due to go on mandatory leave would you in the time leading up to that offer that person overtime? If you as a company know that your paying 90% would you continue to offer overtime in the run up to the birth? And going by my XH he cut down on his over time in the run up to spend more time with me. I really can't see that companies won't save themselves money if they can. Or I guess you don't inform the company until the last minute.

The 90% pay for six weeks is SMP ie it is reimbursed by the government.

Yes I think there are good arguments for a period of compulsory paternity leave.

But ... I think to be most effective, it would really need to be taken at a time when the mother has gone back to work.

There are two main problems caused by the current maternity/paternity leave imbalance. First, the attitude of employers. Second, the fact that after maternity leave ends, the woman is automatically the "main parent" due to her greater parenting experience, and this continues even if both parents are back in full time work.

To address the second problem, we need a period where the father is forced to be in sole charge of their child.

No, I have no idea how this works practically