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?

Naughtymummy- not sure if you were replying to me there! No- I definitely don't think it should be down to couples to split leave just as it suits them - you could potentially end up with couples wanting alternate weeks etc which clearly Would screw things up for any employer.

Obviously there would need to be rules about taking time in a block, and how much notice the parent would need to give etc. But i agree with the principle that the leave should be available to both parents and the decision should be left with them. I don't like the state dictating that XXX number of weeks can only be taken by the mother and not the father. I am all for choice- not restricting it

Financially, I was in pretty much the same position as you OP when DS was born (earning 3.5x ex-DH's salary, ex keen to stay at home with baby). In all likelihood I will always earn more than any future partner. I don't believe it's that uncommon and will probably become more common in the future. The current law is rubbish for higher earning mothers and blatantly discriminatory. I share your frustration.

But my point is that you don't know how long you might need till after the birth.So the first

maybe I am being sexist, assuming only a woman can care for a newborn?

Yes, you are. If the parents want to privately agree between themselves that dad look after their baby, they should be free to do so (or vice versa as now of course too). I fail to see that this is a matter that the state should be legislating for.

Naughtymummy- if a woman is sick or incapacitated after the birth then absence would need to come under sick leave. A normal straightforward delivery does not render a woman incapable for weeks. It's like pregnancy- some women have complications and need time off- but we don't insist all women give up work in the first trimester just in case they can't work.

Yes you would need to give a reasonable amount of notice to the employer regarding who is taking the leave and when, it can't all be decided depending on how you feel after the birth.

I guess it's simpler in the OPs case as she is self-employed, so her DH could just book his leave and still take it even if she ends up taking a bit more time off than expected (assuming they can afford that financially).

Porca you accuse me of accusing you of being wrongly judgemental but your subsequent comments have done just that.

Apparently I am the type of person who would farm out carrying my own baby to someone else and have my laptop out 10 mins after giving birth while someone shoves a bottle in her mouth because I have no regard for the 'sacred period'. Tell me you don't believe that and I will take back my comment about being judged.

I totally respect your opinion and would defend any woman's right to take as long a maternity period as she would like. After all the law is already on your side

All I'm asking for is that the law also respects mine.

What i am suggesting Doesn't infringe anyone else's rights and i definitely don't buy the argument that it would put pressure on women to return to work earlier.

I was self-employed when I had my first baby and although I had been winding the business up I still had a few bits to do and was in fact preparing and shipping out 50 recycling bins when she was less than two weeks old!
The type of work you do obviously makes a big difference. My dh was also self-employed, so no leave at all unless he had a day with no work and no pay.

The reason people work for little more than childcare costs is to maintain their position, employability, payscale progression, pension etc, so take a long-term view not a short-term one. It's very brave to say you will go ack to full-time work after two weeks - you may feel different when it comes to it, physically and emotionally. I would have thought some sort of gradual return would be easier to manage, with your dh taking usng annual leave in bits and pieces to be there for the baby.

I agree there should be more flexibility but I do think the system is set up more to protect employees (women) and it is always tougher if you are self-employed.

callmemrs- I think some employers would rather have someone there week-on week-off than a block of several weeks off...totally depends on the type of business/service and the circumstances. e.g. where I work in the NHS if someone took 4 weeks off their caseloads would have to be re-allocated, rather than just rearranging appointments for a week-on, week-off situation.

So Ms fickle please tell us what you do intend.

Maybe Lieins- I guess the detail would need to be worked out. I was just making the point that I don't think it should be totally up to the parents to call the shots about leave- there need to be systems to protect the employer. If it were the sort of job where it suited the employer to have someone in alternate weeks, then I guess it could work... Though the chances of both partners working in that sort of job and being able to dovetail home and work seems a bit remote. The key issue is about equality in terms of the father having as much right to the time off as the mother. The detail about how much notice the employer would need would then follow on from that

mrsfickle

I took back and apologised my comments, as I said I was reacting (badly) to what you said

of course I dont think you are like that, altough reading this thread it could look that way!

the law is not going to change in the next 15 weeks! So , as I am sure you are, make plans now for business cover at least for the initial recovery period

and it might need you need to hire a nanny until your DP can take paternity leave, it will work itself out - these things always do

Just dont make too many committments too soon, as you dont know how it will be

Its not the BF per se, you might literally be surviving on 3 hours broken sleep

and I do agree that 20 weeks is a bit much....

good luck

" I would staunchly defend my right to choose what is right for myself and my family and if going back to work is right for me then that is what I will do. I don't need a piece of legislation to tell me I need to sit at home for six weeks if I feel able to get up and carry on.

The judgement that comes from other women when a woman chooses to do something different to her is incredible to me especially when my choices do not affect hers at all."

OP - Nobody says you don't have that right. The law doesn't say you have no right either. Choose to do whatever you like, given your set of circumstances. People may judge you for that, but does that matter to you?
By the way if you find other people making judgements on your life/parenting/work choices incredible you'd best stay off mumsnet as it is usually only in anonymous forums that people actually say what they really think and pass judgement when in real life they wouldn't like to be seen as judgemental.

Personally I simply disagree that there needs to be a change to the law which is what your OP is asking for an opinion on.

The person you want to speak to is actually your accountant who will no doubt work out a way for you to legitimately claim MA while paying your DH for the work you are doing.

I can see no logical reason against such a law though, and lots of reasons to favour it.
If someone can provide a single reason for not a) maintaining the woman's rights to ML and b) extending the right so it can be used by the other parent instead if they wish then I am prepared to listen.

I do think the legislation is outdated and will change tbh. We've already seen maternity and paternity rights develop- this will be a natural extension

I can see the point about potentially increasing pressure on women (if the law were to change) but I don't think it would happen all that often, because I don't think many employers will be that aware of a woman's partner's employment situation. I can think of an example where changes in employment law lead to changes in social 'norms' and what then becomes a 'reasonable expectation' of an employee, in Sunday trading. Do employees feel pressured into working on Sundays when they would rather not, I wonder? There is a debate at the moment re: the Olympics and the relaxation of Sunday trading laws, and of course there are mixed views on this.
There could be subtle pressure on women to return earlier but I think overall there would be a benefit to a lot of families to have more flexibility in sharing leave.

OP - as a self employed person, do you only get the 90% of total pay for a shorter period? Would it be possible to officially take 6 weeks leave, getting paid for it, while accepting that it IS your own business so you do need to be working and servicing your clients. That would in affect however carry you as a family for those weeks and help you to get the work done you need to do and/or give you and your DH some vuffer before his pay kicks in at 20 weeikks? Seems a long shot but..

As for the overall question, I am 100% in agreement with you that laws should treat men and women the same. If we agree, tht it's best for the baby to have a parent full time in the first few weeks, it shouldn't matter which one it is.

having said that, I suspect there is an element of trying to prevent abuse ... ie situations where women are forced (in reality or via emotional manipulation) to go back to work earlier than they're ready. But I prefer to legislate for a world which assumes most people are relatively sensible and won't be screwing others over.

IME bad employers are bad employers regardless of any statutory entitlements so I don't buy into the potential problem about putting pressure on women.

I have also not known of any men in RL who have had problems taking paternity leave and being made to take annual leave instead and I meet a lot of new parents.

I can see no downsides to making leave after birth more flexible. At least none that do not already exist. The more choice, the less potential to discriminate which is a good thing. In a more flexible scenario the only person to negotiate with would be your partner - as it is now but without the arbitrary 20 week after birth rule.

blingloving - I agree with equal rights, but not treating a mother and a father as "the same" they are not. Biology builds men and women differently which is why it does matter who takes the leave.

The law will not change before I give birth that is for sure but it is always good to campaign on issues you feel strongly about and try to change things for others in the future.

If this was a nonsensical debate that put mother's rights at risk the law would not be different in many other countries. I respect everyone's opinions and thank you for sharing them, after all that is what I invited. However, no-one has given me a response that would convince me to change my mind on the matter.

My husband will speak to his employer about what can be done but I think that we already know what the outcome will be. I won't 'out' his company here but if you knew where he worked you wouldn't be surprised at their unlikeliness to show understanding on this issue.

I will plan to return to work once I feel physically (and emotionally able) whilst being flexible enough to realise that sometimes life does not go as we plan it.

I am very fortunate in that I do work for myself and I do a desk job so the impact on me will be far less than it may be on others. I am also able to give myself a little bit of flexibility in my hours and place of work so that is one of the reasons I am perhaps less worried than others may be.

I think one big thing in all this is self awareness. Whilst childbirth is never something you can fully prepare for, we do know ourselves and our capabilities/limitations better than others. Where there is a will there is very usually a way....

Mrs Fickle newborns.do sleep an awful lot you may find you can do a bit of work and look after dc in the early weeks.

Saving dh's leave for when the babe is more alert (usually around 6 weeks)

msfickle, i too am self emp and now have 3dc - i never really had any mat leave - (couldn't have afforded not to be working or to miss out on work)

i found with 1st DC i was able to go back to work fairly quickly (worked from home a lot). 1st DC was "easy" baby and stayed with me whilst i worked.

for the days i needed to work with other people, DH stepped in (like me he is self employed......)

was able to do this until DC about 18 weeks and then needed childcare.

not sure if any of this helps

OP - I completely agree with you - the law is sexist but there are very few people who would be able to speak up about it without being seen as bashing women... I.e. no employer is going to do it, no man is going to do it, no woman who is entitled to leave is going to do it, and even self-employed women aren't going to speak up because most of them are too bloody busy trying to work and get cover and keep their business running!

I'd have been happy to go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth - as it happened I gave myself 4 weeks, but I know plenty of self-employed mummies who were back to work within days, and one who was back the next morning doing payroll!!! It's not that these women don't love their children, or value work more, or wouldn't want to take time off - it's because they can't.

A small change in the law and a relaxation of the keeping-in-touch 10 days rule for self-employed people would solve most of the inequality and encourage more women into business for themselves.

I totally agree with you, OP, on every count.

I didn't know about the 20 week restriction on women's choices about their maternity leave, but I'm not pleased to hear it.

It's moot for me this time, because we can't afford for DH to take any time off work. But I still care that other women are being adversely affected by the inequality built into this law.

KateMiddleton
"I have also not known of any men in RL who have had problems taking paternity leave and being made to take annual leave instead and I meet a lot of new parents."

DH was and will be "made" to take annual leave rather than paternity leave, because we can't afford to miss out on his salary for 2 weeks when he can just as easily be paid for time off.

I think that is often the reason men don't take PL.

The idea that it is the role of the state to legislate for the "differences between men and women" and restrict my options as a citizen on the basis of those perceived differences appals me.

Nobody loses anything by giving women (and their partners) more options about how to organise their families.

If employers are putting pressure on women (or men) to come back to work, then deal with that by sanctioning employers, not restricting other families.