additional paternity leave - at last!

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

yes indeed. afaik these new rules don't entitle men to company mat pay - but i believe the rules are going to continue to change to bring us more in line with other european countries so this may change too. from what i can see the main difference is an employer will be asked to keep a man's job open for up to six months to allow them to take this leave. the payment is smp from the state.

Correct - believe me after spending a good while revising our paternity policy I'm well versed!

To reiterate, UW's point was that Women at his firm got 26 weeks full pay (very generous) as company enhanced maternity pay before going onto SMP for the next 13 weeks. He stated that the fact Men only get the equivilent to SMP rather than company enhanced pay for their additional Paternity leave would mean that take up would be low.

However, given that APL cannot start until 20 weeks after the birth (and most women go off on Mat leave several weeks before this) then a woman at his firm swapping with their partner so that they can go on APL is not likely to create a major financial issue.

That said I don't think take up will be initially that high. I do however, expect the revised Paternity rules to get more generous over time.

ninky_2

ultrawomble wrote: »

I actually think it is very divisive. Dual income couples get 26 weeks of paternity leave. Single income couples (working father) get 2 weeks of paternity leave.

an interesting point. but surely the single income family with sahm have made the choice for one parent to stay home. they could equally choose to work. i think the point of doing it this way is that overall it doesn't add any extra burden on public spending / absent workers. the man only gets the leave if the woman forgoes hers.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

A micro business with just a few employees can be destroyed if a key member (probably all of the employees) takes 6 months leave. You cannot recruit a decent replacement on a very short contract and probably cannot train anyone up just to let them go. I believe small companies should be exempt from this type of legislation.

sorry but that's just not fair. why should an employee only be allowed parental leave on the basis of the size of their employer? don't the children of people who work for small businesses need looking after? it would also severly limit the people willing to work for small business and ultimately i don't think would be very sustainable.

it may actually help some businesses - particularly those that tend to hire more women - as their workers will return to work sooner.

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Correct - believe me after spending a good while revising our paternity policy I'm well versed!

To reiterate, UW's point was that Women at his firm got 26 weeks full pay (very generous) as company enhanced maternity pay before going onto SMP for the next 13 weeks. He stated that the fact Men only get the equivilent to SMP rather than company enhanced pay for their additional Paternity leave would mean that take up would be low.

However, given that APL cannot start until 20 weeks after the birth (and most women go off on Mat leave several weeks before this) then a woman at his firm swapping with their partner so that they can go on APL is not likely to create a major financial issue.

That said I don't think take up will be initially that high. I do however, expect the revised Paternity rules to get more generous over time.

yes but whilst you can control what your company does you can't control what the employer of your employee's spouse does. so if your male employee's spouse is self-employed or works for a less generous employer(all quite likely) it may still make more sense for you employee to request the 6 months leave (and get the smp for weeks 20-39). it's really only the maternity policy of the female partner and her earning potential that will impact on whether it's worthwhile for a male employee to take this leave.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

sorry but that's just not fair. why should an employee only be allowed parental leave on the basis of the size of their employer? don't the children of people who work for small businesses need looking after? it would also severly limit the people willing to work for small business and ultimately i don't think would be very sustainable.

it may actually help some businesses - particularly those that tend to hire more women - as their workers will return to work sooner.

Not by their employer.

ultrawomble

ninky wrote: »

an interesting point. but surely the single income family with sahm have made the choice for one parent to stay home. they could equally choose to work. i think the point of doing it this way is that overall it doesn't add any extra burden on public spending / absent workers.

Whatever the choices a couple make, the father in a dual income family will get the current 2 weeks paternity leave plus an extra 26 weeks - and still maintain their job, whereas a working father in a single income couple will get the current 2 weeks and then could try and ask their employer for 26 weeks off in the hope that their job might still be there. In other words, the employment rights are better protected for the dual income over the single income.

ninky wrote: »

the man only gets the leave if the woman forgoes hers.

Not according to your link in the first post of this thread:

Additional paternity leave (APL) will allow an employee to take up to 26 weeks' leave to care for the child, on top of two weeks of ordinary paternity leave.

This can only be taken 20 or more weeks after the child's birth or placement for adoption, and once the mother has returned to work from statutory maternity or adoption leave or ended her entitlement

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

Not by their employer.

well in that case you should get rid of all parental leave full stop - even not allow people time off when their children are sick. interesting concept.

ninky_2

ultrawomble wrote: »

Whatever the choices a couple make, the father in a dual income family will get the current 2 weeks paternity leave plus an extra 26 weeks - and still maintain their job, whereas a working father in a single income couple will get the current 2 weeks and then could try and ask their employer for 26 weeks off in the hope that their job might still be there. In other words, the employment rights are better protected for the dual income over the single income.



Not according to your link in the first post of this thread:

the link is saying precisely that. the man can only get the leave if the woman returns to work and forgoes taking her additional maternity leave (therefore allowing him to take it instead). if the woman isn't working at all then she doesn't have any additional maternity leave to swap. or do you think sahms should be paid smp?

bugslet

As it happens amongst the 20+ employees I have, apart form myself, there is only one other woman - you don't get many lady truckers, so we are a very 'male' business.

I can't say I'm that fussed, I reckon most of my drivers would have preferred to stay working overall than be at home. And I know that bar one of them, they earn a higher wage than their wives/partners, so I think the financial motivation would be for them to keep working.

Having said that, it does cause us disruption when someone is off for a long time. We are a highly specialised business and I have yet to hire anyone with the specific job requirements we have, so training costs are inevitable. There certainly is a cost implication and anything that costs at the moment is something you seek to limit.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

well in that case you should get rid of all parental leave full stop - even not allow people time off when their children are sick. interesting concept.

And many are now getting around it by using agency staff instead of employees or giving zero hours contracts. I think more will start usining these methods as the legislation gets more onerous. Unintended consequenses. and it does tend to be the more lowly jobs that suffer.