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?

Northerngirl what relaxation of the rules for KIT days for self-employed people? Those claiming maternity allowance can work up to 10 KIT days without losing MA the same allowance of KIT days as for employed people. What am I missing?

So how do women manage to bf and work without giving a bottle?

KatieMiddleton Ah but employed people have a better deal all round - they usually have:

• paid time off for antenatal appointments (nope, I lost money every single time I had an appointment)
• they have someone else organise their cover for when they are off (it's almost impossible to replace a small business owner since they do so many jobs and work such long hours, many unpaid)
• they have the right to return to the same job they left (nope - if I'd told my clients I expected them to fend for themselves whilst I took maternity leave, I'd not have a business, never mind a job)
• they aren't usually irreplaceable (in other words there aren't decisions to be made which only they can make)
• most employees would use their KIT days as full days (most business owners would only be needed for say one phone call or half an hour to sign cheques/pay people, but any time worked counts as a full day for KIT)

I'd suggest that it's limited to 10 days for self-employed people but that these can be split into half/quarter days.

AND - if they are taking maternity leave from an employer and happen to be self-employed as well, there's no limit on them working as self-employed as long as they aren't claiming maternity allowance. So clearly you ARE allowed to work whilst on maternity leave, but just not if you're self-employed!!!

Yes I understand the differences in rights but I think on the KIT days it's swings and roundabouts tbh. As self-employed you can manage your workload and there's no right to KIT days but as self-employed it's your call. Also nobody is likely to check if you did 10 full days or 20 half days. Unless you did something to attract the attentions of HMRC like paying yourself a ludicrous amount for your KIT days and they investigated.

I missed your post before AThingInYourLife and I dispute your point. Your dh wasn't made to take annual leave - he could have taken paternity leave but it would have been at the same rate as the non-enhanced SMP rate or the weekly MA rate. If he'd been self-employed he would have had nothing. As it happens (and i've mentioned above) I think the disparities in rights for fathers is unfair. I think the rights for self-employed fathers are even worse... because there aren't any.

KatieMiddleton They very much DO check up on how many actual days you work, it's the same team who investigate benefit fraud. You have to submit a list of days you worked to them once you return to work, and if it's over or if they find a discrepancy (say for example they phoned you at work on a non-KIT day and got hold of you or could prove that you went into the office on one of the non-KIT days) then you have to repay it all.

On the money front, as self-employed technically I could take as much cash out the business as drawings as I wanted, without it affecting my maternity allowance. So it has nothing to do with how much money you earn. But in reality, as self-employed person, I'm also paying for someone to cover my role (and thus paying them) so there isn't any cash for me to withdraw!

I'll bear that in mind when dc2 makes an appearance later in the year :) Luckily my work is fairly easily managed but I have turned down a couple of clients because I couldn't maintain the workload for my two existing clients and them for the first few weeks after baby is born. But that's the deal I suppose with choosing self-employment and I have gained in other ways.

'so how do women manage to bf and work without giving a bottle?'

• well, when I returned to work with a 12 week old I did an early morning bf, and then did all the evening and night feeds. For feeds while dd was at her childminder, I expressed and she took those from a bottle, though from what I remember she progressed to a beaker for bm before too long. Most of my mum friends who returned to work did similar. I guess if you run your own business you might find it easier to flex your own time and have the carer bring the child to you for feeds. Of course, women are entitled to breastfeeding or expressing breaks anyway, so some women might choose to have childcare close to work to enable that. My dcs were bf for over a year each - in fact the first, who was the youngest when I returned to work, was bf for longest. It's worrying if some mums don't realise it's quite possible to continue bf while working. Tbh it never occurred to me to even question it- I am very pro bf.

Could you just for the 20 weeks stay home with baby and let the Dad work?

Less money but you'll miss snuggles with a tiny baby if your at work, I know it's not popular to say it but 20 weeks out of 40 odd years of working is nothing, 20 weeks getting to enjoy your baby is everything, babies really do benefit from mummy time, not to put down dads at all but if the mum bonding with the baby fails, no amount of dad time can hold a family together.

I think that's awful to imply the op might not bond with her child!
She will still get loads of time for 'snuggles'- she just wants dad to get that too! And parenting isn't all about the early weeks or months anyway- it lasts for years. Each stage is equally precious and lovely. I think the op is only trying to do what is right for her family in her situation - good on her! Women can do without other mums trying to undermine them.

Oh OK, I just thought there was some hormonal thing that went on for mums just after they had a baby that was supposed to help them link/bond with the baby ? Admittedly by books on baby bonding are hand-me downs so at least 20 years old - so I'm probably well out-of-date. Just thought it was worth suggesting to OP that spending lots of early days with baby would help them both, bonding might not be the right word.

Oh there's certainly lots of hormonal stuff going on pre and post birth! But there is nothing to suggest that a mother needs to be with her baby 24/7 for 20 weeks. It might suit some women but certainly not all- and as long as they, their partner and their baby are happy then that's all that matters

It's that 'assumption' again that if you leave the house to go out and work then you won't bond with your baby. It's quite ridiculous to be honest.

It's a totally practical solution. I earn more money. I have clients to attend to that in this case won't wait. I cannot afford either for the short term or for the long to take 5 months off and the point is really that I shouldn't need to when my husband is perfectly capable of providing that role.

It's not any more complicated than that really!

"I missed your post before AThingInYourLife and I dispute your point. Your dh wasn't made to take annual leave - he could have taken paternity leave but it would have been at the same rate as the non-enhanced SMP rate or the weekly MA rate."

Um, that was my point.

I was agreeing with you.

Most men who can't take paternity leave, can't take it for financial reasons, not because their employer stops them.

I think it's also important to recognise that choices are often limited by circumstance and finances more than what individual employers will allow.

For example in the situation described by the OP, the family can't afford for the mother to be forced into taking 20 weeks leave - she needs (and wants) to go back to work, but if she does her DH will have to wait 18 weeks before he can take any paternity leave, which costs them money and their baby bonding time with a parent.

It's very, very unfair.

Ah gotcha. My initial point about it was in response to Molly who seemed to imply it's very difficult for employed fathers to exercise their right to paternity leave at all. At least that's how I read it.

As an aside (and not very relevant point but possibly interesting) when I had DS, dh and I worked for the same company but had different contracts because I had been TUPE'd. He got 2 weeks full pay for his paternity leave. If i had been on the same contractual terms as dh, during my maternity leave (at that time) i would have got SMP only. Which is technically less for those same weeks as only 90% of pay. These days I'd get 13 weeks full pay, then SMP but dh only gets 2 weeks for OPL then his APL is statutory with no enhancement like the women. He's pondering challenging this because it's potentially sexist but we can't afford for him to rock the boat. We need his income although I would love for him to do 13 weeks on full pay while I go back full time. I feel I've done my bit having 2 pregnancies, births and the necessary time out of the workplace.

The sooner it's all the same for everyone the better.

The sooner they change it, the sooner people might see the role of a Father as equally important as the Mother.

I am in a job I enjoy, and I get paid more than my partner, who is in a shit job that he hates. I raised my first child (diff relationship, now 5yrs)... I am quite happy and secure with the idea of him being the 'stay at homer'. I am actually pretty sure he will do a better job tbh! He is also happy with this idea. However, he only gets 2 weeks paternity in current job. I will be getting MA, and then we will be on benefits for the first 3 months. Neither of us want him to work, because it provides very little financial help, but most importantly, he would miss out on an important part, and be thrown in the deep end when I return to work and 'leave him to it'.

How nice it would be if he could claim MA while I was working... but no, because he has a willy, that just isn't allowed :P
I can deal with this, but doesn't mean I shall sit back and enjoy it.
Admittedly, I have found the reactions to telling people the most irritating bit. As if I am cold and heartless... and that he couldn't possibly cope. My employer even tried to suggest he come and work in the company I am in, so I wouldn't have to work so hard in the early stages.
OP, I can't imagine what you have had to put up with if you are going back after 2 weeks... although I suppose at least you don't have condescending bosses lol

Thanks Katykuns - it's good to hear someone with a similar experience

It does seem to me that the law is nonsensical in this respect and I think you are right that until this changes and more men decide to take on this role, they will always be seen as the less important parent.

Well it seems that this particular issue was on the govt's agenda. In April 2015 the law will change to allow Mothers & Fathers to share leave (which will now be called parental leave) from 6 weeks after the birth on pretty much the same pay & terms.

See the Governments 'Consultation on modern workplaces'.

www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/modern-workplaces

It's still six weeks and not two which would be preferable and god knows why it takes so many years to put a new law into action but better late than never I suppose.