Paternity leave/new job query

honeypop

Googlewhacker wrote: »

So discrimination against men is ok by you then?

Nope, didn't say that, and am pleased that the rules are changing to allow men more time off for paternity leave when they have a baby.

However I was saying the reason women are given the time off is that it is their bodies that need the recovery, not the mens, that is why you wouldn't find anyone telling women they couldn't have the time off - by law they have to be given at least 2 weeks off after the birth (4 if working in a factory).

honeypop

CynicalScotsman wrote: »

Exactly! Why on earth should woman get an additional - paid - six months off any time they choose to fall pregnant. It was their decision to have a kid, they should have the funds to cover any time off required.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's nine months women can claim statutory maternity pay for.

(You will be pleased to know we have entirely funded my previous and current stints of maternity leave from our own savings - the amounts received from the SMP went into savings for the baby).

Googlewhacker

honeypop wrote: »

Nope, didn't say that, and am pleased that the rules are changing to allow men more time off for paternity leave when they have a baby.

However I was saying the reason women are given the time off is that it is their bodies that need the recovery, not the mens, that is why you wouldn't find anyone telling women they couldn't have the time off - by law they have to be given at least 2 weeks off after the birth (4 if working in a factory).

I quite agree but the sooner they limit women to 6 months and allow men 6 months compulsory and not as an option the better

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I quite agree but the sooner they limit women to 6 months and allow men 6 months compulsory and not as an option the better

A year per parent would be better, to be distributed as they choose between them.

Would end an awful lot of discrimination against both genders.

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

A year per parent would be better, to be distributed as they choose between them.

Would end an awful lot of discrimination against both genders.

so two years total? That would be ridiculous, however a year between both parents split as it is now ain't to bad but I still think it should be 6 months compulsory maximum

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

so two years total? That would be ridiculous, however a year between both parents split as it is now ain't to bad but I still think it should be 6 months compulsory maximum

Why is two years ridiculous? It works in Scandinavia.

Why compulsory? As long as the time is made available and parents feel free to use it as they see fit, why deny them the option to use that time in the way that works best for them?

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Why is two years ridiculous? It works in Scandinavia.

Why compulsory? As long as the time is made available and parents feel free to use it as they see fit, why deny them the option to use that time in the way that works best for them?

Because its indirect discrimination against men at the moment, on the whole women earn less so forgo their wages whereas men are more likely to feel they can't. Make it compulsory and then there is no discrimination.

And 2 years for one person is silly and crippling to businesses

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Because its indirect discrimination against men at the moment, on the whole women earn less so forgo their wages whereas men are more likely to feel they can't. Make it compulsory and then there is no discrimination.

And 2 years for one person is silly and crippling to businesses

Women might start catching up to men in terms of earnings if men were equally likely and able to take big chunks of time off for parental leave.

The fact that women are generally seen as responsible for children and childcare and men aren't is one of the biggest factors holding them back.

(If you think the current employment and parental leave situation is only indirectly discriminating against men, you've got your gender blinkers on! Its not fair to anybody as it is, men, women or children.)

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Women might start catching up to men in terms of earnings if men were equally likely and able to take big chunks of time off for parental leave.

The fact that women are generally seen as responsible for children and childcare and men aren't is one of the biggest factors holding them back.

(If you think the current employment and parental leave situation is only indirectly discriminating against men, you've got your gender blinkers on! Its not fair to anybody as it is, men, women or children.)

Which is why making each parent have 6 months each is fair, lessens the discrimination gap between men and women and would make it that women were a whole lot less likely to be discriminated in terms of jobs etc

Win Win in my eyes

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Which is why making each parent have 6 months each is fair, lessens the discrimination gap between men and women and would make it that women were a whole lot less likely to be discriminated in terms of jobs etc

Win Win in my eyes

Maybe we should do it your way for a bit then switch to my way after all the inequalities have levelled out!