Underdog

ILW

marybelle01 wrote: »

Of course women don't have careers to further, never get better paid than men, don't contribute financially to their children's education, and provide utterly no positive role models to their children.

Jeez, have some of the posters here actually managed to carve doors for the cave yet?

I would suspect that whilst OP is going on about rights and wanting to take years off to bond with his daughter, someone else will be taking his job off him.
That is unless he is public sector.

sho_me_da_money

paddedjohn wrote: »

OP, i can see where you are coming from but i can also see where you are getting your wires crossed. If companys had to start giving this enhanced pay to fathers aswell as mums then it would double the bill overnight, just imagine the scenario of a couple working for the same company, mum has 20 weeks off paid and then they have to give 26 weeks to the father. Its never going to happen and nor should it.
Let your wife stay at home with the kid, theyre better at it.

If they worked in the same company then the company should define that only one of the parents is eligible for 26 weeks at full pay.

However, in this case, if you're the mother employee, you are allowed a full 6 month top-up but if you're the father, you are only allowed 6 weeks (with the remaining 20 being paid at stat mat).

I think there is a case for equal rights here given the new maternity/paternity legislation. Why is one sex getting preferential treatment over the other? - what is the companies answer to this question? That is the bread and butter here.

Sure it is their package, their perk but I can defo see that it is more favorable towards a woman. Why that is, I have no idea. Until you find out, there isnt much to go on.

And no - the woman pushed a kid out is not a valid reason. It must be legally sound without discriminating you.

Still though - 32 weeks at full pay is pretty slick.

paddedjohn

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

If they worked in the same company then the company should define that only one of the parents is eligible for 26 weeks at full pay.

However, in this case, if you're the mother employee, you are allowed a full 6 month top-up but if you're the father, you are only allowed 6 weeks (with the remaining 20 being paid at stat mat).

I think there is a case for equal rights here given the new maternity/paternity legislation. Why is one sex getting preferential treatment over the other? - what is the companies answer to this question? That is the bread and butter here.

Sure it is their package, their perk but I can defo see that it is more favorable towards a woman. Why that is, I have no idea. Until you find out, there isnt much to go on.

And no - the woman pushed a kid out is not a valid reason. It must be legally sound without discriminating you.

Still though - 32 weeks at full pay is pretty slick.

Its 26 weeks, 20 for the Mum and 6 for the Dad. There is no way that the country as a whole could afford to give the same perk to men so by giving the 'parents' 26 weeks between them is fair. If any government tried to forse equality through on this then more and more employers would just withdraw the perk altogether.

Savvy_Sue

Miabsdad wrote: »

I am only trying to ensure that the company i work for plays by the rules and offers equality and fairness to all employees as money is tight and everyone could do with the extra pay.

but ...

ktothema wrote: »

Sadly I can see someone trying this, and the net result being company's who are very generous in their enhanced pay which helps an awful lot of families changing their maternity pay policy to the detriment of a lot of families.

this seems the most likely outcome to me!

CFC

lazer wrote: »

The mother is back at work - so the father is the primary care giver.

As i understand - your wife took 20 weeks maternity (SMP) and now you are taking paternity leave for the next 26 weeks?

Your company pays full pay for the first 26 weeks of Maternity/Paternity leave, but because the paternity leave can only start from week 20, therefore the maximum full pay available for paternity leave is 6 weeks according to the company rules.

I am not sure if you have a case here or not because the company is a way treating people equally, in that its the first 26 weeks maternity/paternity that are full pay, however government legislation prevents patarnity leave from starting until week 20.

On the other hand, becasue of the company policy mothers can get 26 weeks full pay and fathers can only get 6, therefore this policy could be seen as discrimatory towards fathers?

Let me know how you get on, i'm genuinely interested in how this works out

It's not discriminatory as it is based on legislation covering from what date the father can take leave.
A mother cannot defer her maternity leave until 6 months after the child is born, a father cannot start earlier than the government has legislated for.
I quite understand why you want the extra money OP but you are not going to get it.

Which is a good thing anyway as otherwise doubtless the enhancement of pay would be withdrawn across the board.

gingerdad

As I see it as long as your employer is offering you the same additional rights from 20 weeks for either pat or mat leave you don't have a leg to stand on. What are the terms for your wife if she'd stayed off work? Guessing stat pay. So you aren't trying to help people just money grab.

You could work for my company where all anyone gets is stat pay.

Unless the bank offer different terms from 20wks for mums and dads I don't think you have a case

FBaby

you want your cake and eat it! You say it is discrimination but the law also protects mothers by making it illegal for companies to request they got back to work just after birth. If you want to campaign for fathers to have the same rights maybe you need to also fight for the right for mothers to be able to go back to work the day after giving birth. This way the father can take paternity leave immediately with the same entitlement than maternity leave. a bit tough on the mum but if it can mean more money. . .

ktothema

CFC wrote: »

It's not discriminatory as it is based on legislation covering from what date the father can take leave.
A mother cannot defer her maternity leave until 6 months after the child is born, a father cannot start earlier than the government has legislated for.
I quite understand why you want the extra money OP but you are not going to get it.

Which is a good thing anyway as otherwise doubtless the enhancement of pay would be withdrawn across the board.

Exactly. In law, a mum has to take maternity leave the day her child is born. She has no ability to defer. Those first six months are legally defined as Ordinary Maternity Leave. This will never be open to fathers. Why? Because men can't have children. At least yet. Maybe when medical science pulls that off men will be able to.

Additional paternity is essentially a swap for additional maternity. They are the only comparators. If I were a company now, I'd be laying it out in those terms so no one can try and make a claim. The fact additional paternity can be taken from 20 weeks is to cover the fact that a lot of mums start maternity within a 4-6 week period before baby's birth.

Though government could also bring it in that you prove when mum took maternity leave and refuse dad the right to take additional paternity until the ordinary leave period is up. Makes it clearer but punishes those who want to return to work sooner.

ktothema

Also, whilst I think of it.

E.g.1 A father start complaining about this is given the same rights as a mum starting from the day he takes leave. Mum also works at a generous company. So mum gets 6 months full pay, then dad gets 6 months full pay. Family sees no drop in money.

But

E.g.2 Mum2 goes on maternity leave and she too has a generous package. But mum2 has no partner. Mum2 gets 6 month full pay, 3 months stat and no pay for 3 months. Family2 suffers a massive financial loss or mum2 may have to return earlier so as not to financially impact her family.

So fathers are no longer "discriminated" against but single parent families are. Is that any better?

Thats why legally it's the period of additional maternity (last 6 months of leave) is swapped for additional paternity, and the same rights applied. That way multi or single parent families are treated the same.

teajug

ktothema wrote: »

Also, whilst I think of it.

E.g.1 A father start complaining about this is given the same rights as a mum starting from the day he takes leave. Mum also works at a generous company. So mum gets 6 months full pay, then dad gets 6 months full pay. Family sees no drop in money.

But

E.g.2 Mum2 goes on maternity leave and she too has a generous package. But mum2 has no partner. Mum2 gets 6 month full pay, 3 months stat and no pay for 3 months. Family2 suffers a massive financial loss or mum2 may have to return earlier so as not to financially impact her family.

So fathers are no longer "discriminated" against but single parent families are. Is that any better?

Thats why legally it's the period of additional maternity (last 6 months of leave) is swapped for additional paternity, and the same rights applied. That way multi or single parent families are treated the same.

I am sorry, but I feel I have to say this, having a child is a lifestyle choice nowadays and people should not have children unless they are able to provide for them.

Disable employee are discriminated all the time and becoming disabled is NOT a life style choice, therefore they should get more concessions that people that choose to have children.