additional paternity leave - at last!

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

financial hit to whom? not all men earn more than their partners.

Very true (myself included)

However, most still do. That's just the way it is....though legislation such as this may alter that balance in the longer term.

ninky_2

LilacPixie wrote: »

Very interesting.. too late for us as final baby already here but if it had been possible then my husband would of requested that. He origionally was a stay at home dad to baby number 1 and would jump at the chance to do it again.

if we were to have a child we would definitely do this also. i'm self employed so only entitled to smp plus i earn over 3 times as much as OH. if he was guaranteed his job back after a 6 months smp leave of absence this would make sense.

not planning any but hypothetically speaking.

ultrawomble

ninky wrote: »

financial hit to whom? not all men earn more than their partners.

Indeed not. But, where I work (where entitled) women will get 26 weeks full pay + SMP/MA for a further 13 weeks. Compare that to the £129/week max available to a man for his paternity leave.

P.S. My partner has not gone back to work (was made redundant before giving birth) so that paternity leave would (1) not be available to me, and (2) be financially crippling.

Pete111

ultrawomble wrote: »

Indeed not. But, where I work (where entitled) women will get 26 weeks full pay + SMP/MA for a further 13 weeks. Compare that to the £129/week max available to a man for his paternity leave.

True but, APL is only from the 20th week after the child is born. Given most women start their Mat leave a few weeks prior to birth there may only be a couple of weeks pay difference in it

Malcolm.

ninky wrote: »

i for one am delighted about the additional paternity leave rules. a big step in the right direction and hopefully this will reduce discrimination against women of childbearing age. i wonder if it will actually favour older women (i.e. past childbearing) being employed since this is now the only group an employer can be sure will not claim months of statutory parental leave.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12949382

New paternity leave rules have come into effect meaning that parents will be legally entitled to share time off work during their baby's first year.
The move means parents could take six months off work each.
The government hopes to extend the measures with a fully flexible system of shared parental leave in 2015.

We agree on something (doesn't often happen).
A decrease in the inequality of rights across gender is a good thing.

ILW

I just wish the legislature would let business people get on with trying to make a go of their ventures without making what can be a difficult job even harder. One of the reasons some countries are now steaming ahead and others (such as our own) are hamstringed in trying to compete.

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

True but, APL is only from the 20th week after the child is born. Given most women start their Mat leave a few weeks prior to birth there may only be a couple of weeks pay difference in it

no smp is due until the baby reaches 39 weeks. they can then take totally unpaid leave to total up to 6 months.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/8426314/Fathers-win-new-paternity-rights.html

But fathers won't be able to step in from day one. They will only be able to take this additional leave once their baby reaches four months (20 weeks). If at this point the mother choose to go back to work the father can collect the statutory maternity pay to which she would have been entitled. This is paid at £128.73 a week and is payable until the child reaches 39 weeks. At this point any additional leave is unpaid, whether it is the father or mother taking this time off.
Men granted this leave will be allowed a maximum of 26 weeks – during which their employer has to keep their position open.

ultrawomble

So, do we think that a father of a child with a stay-at-home mum has reduced paternity leave rights?

Malcolm.

ILW wrote: »

I just wish the legislature would let business people get on with trying to make a go of their ventures without making what can be a difficult job even harder. One of the reasons some countries are now steaming ahead and others (such as our own) are hamstringed in trying to compete.

The new rules don't seem particularly onerous to me ILW.

Gender equality is a good thing no?

ILW

Malcolm. wrote: »

The new rules don't seem particularly onerous to me ILW.

Gender equality is a good thing no?

Not if it sends businesses to the wall.

Having to keep a position open for 6 months could destroy many small enterprises.