Inequality in paternity leave

[Msfickle]

I'm 25 weeks pregnant and planning on going straight back to work after my baby is born. I run my own business and earn four times the salary of my husband. It makes perfect sense for him to therefore give up work.

I have just looked into the new paternity legislation and it seems that he is only eligible to apply once the child is 20 weeks old. So basically in order to go on paternity leave he has to give up his job altogether?

Seems to me that this is downright inequality and just another way of insisting that mothers take at least five months maternity leave which whilst great for some is just not practical for others.

I plan to write to Iain Duncan Smith but wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this?

I hadn't realised that about 20 weeks. I think we should have the system they have in I think Sweden (and apparently Canada) whereby either parent can take the leave. It makes much more sense.

I'm also the higher earner (although not by such a margin) and we were planning to take 6 months each, so it looks like we will be ok under the 20 week rule. (That is if I ever manage to get pregnant!)

Not aware about the 20 weeks rule til now. That said one of my colleagues has just started paternity leave - and yes baby was approx 5 months - plan is he's taking 6 months of which the first month is a family holiday (they're all visiting family Down Under) then he will be with the baby for 5 months while his wife returns to work, then baby will go to nursery and he will return to work as well.

His wife did breastfeed the first 5 months (not sure what they're planning beyond that) but am watching with interest as he's the first Dad I know taking extended PL. Has been met with some bemusement by my other male colleagues but lots of fathers there so overall they've been supportive. That transitional month will be important as til now his wife has been the main caregiver so will be a learning curve for all.

Yep, in Sweden each parent gets the same number of days parental leave entitlement. They can also transfer days to eachother, although not the total number of days, there is a minimum that they have to either use themselves or lose.

Part of this is because there is no childcare available for children under 12 months. When the system was criticised for being discriminatory towards women, they opened up the parental leave rules to both genders. The concept that a child of 12 months and younger should be cared for by one of his/her parents is very strongly ingrained. Whether you agree with this or not, it isn't a system that allows for a lot of choice and individual circumstances.

I am 16 weeks pg and my husband plans to give up work after I go back after about 5 months. I'd like to go back earlier but there is no point since DH can only have 26 weeks; if I don't take the first 20 weeks then we just lose it altogether. I was under the mistaken impression until earlier today that we could just share a year between us so long as I had the first 16 weeks (got this from the Direct.gov website) but I think I was looking at the new situation from April 2015 instead of the current setup. It doesn't make THAT much difference to us, and is probably fairer on my team at work as well, but I agree OP this is not equality and needs to change.

Doesn't help that my housework skills (and inclinations) are so limited that DH does everything round the house and is far more natural as a SAHP and homemarker than me!

"I do believe that the point about bf is getting to the truth of the matter. This is what the govt believes we should be doing and this is why the law is as it is.

I disagree. I think the law was made to protect mothers and ensure that whatever happens they can have the first few months with their baby, and get paid, simple

I think your situation is a rare one, and therefore you might have to suck it up , unfortunately for you I concede

BTW my DP is a SAHD for my 2, and I think its lovely for kids to be with their Dad..... so hope it all works out

OP i am in a similar situation to you & my DP works in early years/primary education.

it is doubly annoying that as HT (him) & small business owner (me) we have to deal with ML for others but its of no benefit to us.

i dont think it is the state's business to interfere in a couples decision but here we are.

I think your situation is a rare one, and therefore you might have to suck it up

I agree, but I also think it is likely to remain a rare one whilst no option exists to allow a father to take a prolonged period of absence from his job whilst retaining his employment, or 'maternity leave' as we insist on calling it in the UK. The OP's DH is basically in the situation women were in a gazillion years ago when they had to give up work when they had a baby.

I will say my (male) Swedish friends who've taken their mandatory share of the parental leave have tended to do it with rather a bad grace - but they've all done it!

Thank you tribpot. Sorry but I think 'your situation is a rare one so you might have to suck it up' is a pretty horrendous thing to say.

Why should I suck it up if I feel that it's unequal? Changing the law so that it's equal wouldn't mean that women couldn't take the first 5 months if they so choose - it would just mean that we have the CHOICE to decide which parent should take that time.

OP, whilst I do feel it is unfair for Dads to be prevented from using their share of leave until after 20 weeks, I would advise caution at making it certain that you will feel able to return to work after two weeks (if that is in fact when you were planning).

I have a relatively easy labour but felt like I had been hit by a train afterwards and even though DD was a good sleeper and I never felt particularly sleep deprived, I was certainly tired, in a physical and emotional way after pregnancy and birth. At the time I felt 'ok' some days, but now looking back at photos I think I look horrific and realise how exhasting it was. I don't think I felt physically fit to return to work full time until DD was at least 8 weeks.

As you run your own business, is it possible for your DC to go in with you in the early days? Theres a poster on here, Nickelbaby (or something similar) who owns a bookstore and takes her DC in with her. That way, your DH could come in on his lunch hour or if you do shifts, could share the care while he still works, maybe putting in holidays for some of the 20 weeks prior to being able to take his leave?

Well, I think we're lucky in this country to have the choices that we do; off the top of my head:

1. women bf, so that is why it is expected that they take mat leave, not fathers take pat leave
2. up to the last generation, women would have given up work when they got pg so the situation of a women staying on at work after giving birth and the father taking pat leave would not have arisen
3. count yourself lucky you're not self employed as you get bugger all money for taking time off if you are - or for taking time off for maternity appointments etc., and very little MA compared to SMP
4. I don't know how small and medium sized companies afford for people to take time off when they have children - does the govt pay them to pay their staff SMP??

I have to say that I'm actually fairly taken aback by the outdated responses on here from women

I am self employed - that's the point. I run my own business and therefore won't get any mat pay - hence the need to carry on working.

The only point I have ever made here is that pat and may should be equal. Nothing more, nothing less.

In offering that the mother doesn't lose any of her rights at all. She can still take first 5 months or a whole year of age pleases.

I am well aware that in this country we have infinitely more entitlement than in many other. The focus however should always be to improve - both our own rights and those of other less fortunate nations.

I am also aware that I don't know how I will physically and that's always the unknown. I feel however that in making the choice that as have we've faced nothing but judgement (however subtle) from people who just think its in some way strange.

We have bills to pay and it is my salary who pays them. I also have clients to tend to and those cannot and need not wait.

As I have said from the start - my single point here is that I cannot see who it would harm if fathers were allowed to take the first 20 weeks.

Pied to answer your questions points (and I make no judgement but for the sake of accuracy):

1. A minority of women breastfeed after the first 6 weeks.
2. It is 2012. We have had equality legislation in various forms for the last 40 years. Just because it used to be worse doesn't mean the current situation couldn't be better and this has been reflected by the continuous addition of new statutes in the last four decades (ok there is a small judgement in there )
3. The op is self-employed. There is only an enhancement to SMP compared to MA for the first 6 weeks. MA is not taxed unlike SMP. How much an individual earns makes a difference to which option is more or less favourable.
4. All employers can claim back 92% of the cost of SMP and businesses that pay less than £45,000 a year in Class 1 National Insurance Contributions can claim 103% back.

X-posted.

Apologies for the oodles of auto corrections in my last post. Bloomin not so smart, smart phones!

..and madamechin it would be a lovely idea to take my child to work but alas it's not that type of business.

OP - obviously I don't know what your DH earns but the way I see it say the OP's DH earns 12k a year, but childcare is going to cost the family 13k, surely it makes sense for DH to give up work and care for the child, rather than stay in work and shell out 1k more money than what he earns? It's not logical!

There should be 12 months paid parental leave after having a baby which you can divvy up however you see fit. So both of you take 6 months off together, 1 takes 6 months off, then the other takes 6 months off, or 1 parent takes 12 months off.

Can you take 2 weeks maternity leave and 28 days holiday, then DH take 2 weeks paternity leave, followed by his 28 days holiday? That would cover 15/16 weeks out of the 20.

While we are on this, I also think the amount given in SMP is a disgrace. I really feel it should be minimum wage, 40 hours a week. If the government thinks we should be at home BFing our babies for 6 months then we should be paid the statutory minimum they deem appropriate to earn.

Grrrr

scratch that about you taking 28 days holiday - obviously there is no holiday pay when you own your own business sorry!

It would still cover 9/10 weeks though.

When your self employed there's not really any such thing as holiday as such unfortunately. The business is fairly new so I drive the income that comes into it.

My husband will obviously take some holiday along with the two weeks PAT leave but then there's nothing left to take.

SMP is not much but if my husband could claim it for not being at work it would be something at least.

It is a little a frustrating when you're a higher rate tax payer to feel that you're constantly putting in but when you need something out it's not there for you.

Still I suppose the hospital care is at least free

Quite agree Madamechin!

Msfickle, is there any way you could hire your DH for a period of time? Could he do a 'work from home' position whilest caring for your DC?

In NZ you can split the leave between the parents, however you chose to - my DS is 6 months old, and will be back at work in a month and my DH will then take paternity leave to round out the year. It's not that uncommon here, and DH is looking forward to it. You can also choose how the split between parents is managed, and I have one friend who went back to work at 4 weeks and her DH did the rest.

BUT it is all unpaid after 14 weeks- our SMP is shocking compared to the UK (the equivalent of about 200 pounds a week after tax, regardless of what you earn) , and only lasts 14 weeks. I wonder if that makes it easier to legislate for men and women to be able to take parental leave as they want, because it's a flat rate for everyone (paid out by govt), it's easier?

Not making excuses as I think you should be able to have your DH off work after two weeks if you want with his job protected. In NZ the change toward men taking parental leave has been slow, it's much more common now than it was, as more men do it they give other men the idea that it's OK and a good idea. Most men still don't take the leave though.

Sadly though the issue in NZ does highlight income inequality more than anything, most couples i know still have the woman taking the leave as the man earns enough more so it's a no brainer financially.

Why not just hire a nanny / maternity nurse for 4-5 months until your husband can take paternity leave, MsFickle? I'm sure you'd prefer to have your husband care for the baby than a stranger but at least a nanny would provide one-on-one care and it is only for a few months.

The restrictions on paternity leave seem kind of pointless. In my view, all child-related leave should be available to men and women equally e.g. as in Germany where you can take up to three years leave (mostly unpaid) and many couples share this as 3 years is too long for one person to be out of the workplace.

I would actually go one step further and say that all employees should be entitled to take up to one year of carers' leave to either take care of elderly relatives, disabled relatives or simply have a baby. That would apply to all employees equally and finally put the nail in the coffin of all the Alan Sugar-style nonsense about women of childbearing age being poison for the workplace.

I get 12 months maternity leave and my husband owns his own businesses so his paternity leave is his own schedule. Some people only employ women who don't have kids or plan to not have any kids so they don't have to pay them for not being there to work or to take time off if their kids are ill. I have used 8 months of my maternity leave up and only have a few left. I don't like the idea of leaving my baby though when she is only 12 months old!