Paternity leave - how did your employer react?

Gordon_Hose

onlyroz wrote: »

The days of the dutiful wife staying at home with the baby while the alpha-male goes out to work are rightfully coming to an end.

A very patronising statement. To both men and women.

Most women WANT to stay at home with their newborn baby's. I know my OH wanted to stay at home the full 9 months when our son was born. She relished every single minute she had with him before she went back to work. I'd have gladly shared the maternity leave with her, but she was adamant she wanted to stay home.

onlyroz

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

A very patronising statement. To both men and women.

Most women WANT to stay at home with their newborn baby's. I know my OH wanted to stay at home the full 9 months when our son was born. She relished every single minute she had with him before she went back to work. I'd have gladly shared the maternity leave with her, but she was adamant she wanted to stay home.

Fine, if that's what you want - a couple should be able to decide between themselves how to best share the leave, and the new legislation goes some way towards allowing them to do this.

If you decide that for your family it is better for mum to stay at home then great - but until recently it was impossible to do anything differently. I earn more than my husband and it would have made more sense for him to take the bulk of the parental leave when our daughter was born - but the law at the time forbade this, and as a result we had to take a severe financial it whilst I was on leave, and we had to put our daughter into nursery earlier than we might otherwise have done so.

Gordon_Hose

Don't assume we all get "alpha-male" on our partners and force them to stay home.

tea_lover

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Don't assume we all get "alpha-male" on our partners and force them to stay home.

I read it more as previous employment law was forcing men into an "alpha male" role, regardless of whether they wanted it or not.

The latest changes mean families have more flexibility, which is something a lot of men have wanted too, not just women.

onlyroz

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Don't assume we all get "alpha-male" on our partners and force them to stay home.

Where did I say that you did? As tea-lover says, until recently the law might have forced you unwillingly into this role.

Lovelyjoolz

onlyroz wrote: »

... Joolz - what if you employ a man whose wife earns more than him? Then it would make sense for dad to take some of the leave regardless of what pittance you pay him.

Yes it would make sense for them, and I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, which won't happen in the foreseeable future because most of their families are complete now, thankfully!

onlyroz wrote: »

... can't you claim this back from the government?

No, of course I can't. That's not how SSP / SMP / SPP works!

onlyroz wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things six months is not so long - in my industry (software) it would mean missing two release cycles - and with the 10 keep in touch days I can keep up to date with any ongoing projects or changes in procedure.

I'm very glad that your industry wouldn't struggle without you. But each of my staff run individual projects. If they are not there, no one else can cover for them, not for 6 months, because the projects are too big: lasting up to a decade. I would have to take on a whole new employee to cover and even that wouldn't work, because you can't throw a newbie in to manage the project mid-term. It just wouldn't work.

hawk30

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

No, of course I can't. That's not how SSP / SMP / SPP works!

But you can claim SMP, etc, back from the Government (depending on your size). Obviously it doesn't cover the costs associated with recruiting and training the a temporary member of staff, but it's wrong to say you can't claim anything.

mrs_sparrow

hawk30 wrote: »

But you can claim SMP, etc, back from the Government (depending on your size). Obviously it doesn't cover the costs associated with recruiting and training the a temporary member of staff, but it's wrong to say you can't claim anything.

Which is the bare minimum, and as joolz said, the men cannot survive on that when they are bringing home 6 figure salaries unless their wives are earning more than them. And if they are - they usually end up emplying nannies. Some men just are not paternal, nothing will ever change that, they like the role of being the Alpha Male whether the feminists like it or not.

Refreshing that she is so honest about it to be fair, there are PLENTY of companies out there that do not employ women of child bearing age - and that is not going to be 50% of the working population as once you get to a certain age you cannot have kids anyway. Some industries it is certainly worse than others.

And there are plenty of men who do not want to be home with a baby and are happy for their wives to do it, and that have had enough after 2 weeks holiday.

hawk30

mrs_sparrow wrote: »

Which is the bare minimum, and as joolz said, the men cannot survive on that when they are bringing home 6 figure salaries unless their wives are earning more than them. And if they are - they usually end up emplying nannies. Some men just are not paternal, nothing will ever change that, they like the role of being the Alpha Male whether the feminists like it or not.

Refreshing that she is so honest about it to be fair, there are PLENTY of companies out there that do not employ women of child bearing age - and that is not going to be 50% of the working population as once you get to a certain age you cannot have kids anyway. Some industries it is certainly worse than others.

And there are plenty of men who do not want to be home with a baby and are happy for their wives to do it, and that have had enough after 2 weeks holiday.

My post wasn't about the rights and wrongs of discriminating against people because they want to take paternity/maternity/adoption leave, etc., (which is wrong btw) but the statement by joolz that you cannot claim SMP etc back. Yes, there are restrictions, but a blanket 'no, you can't claim anything' is wrong (which is how I've read his/her post).

mrs_sparrow

I was trying to say that I could see what joolz was getting at and knew what she meant. She was asked why she could not pay them their 6 figure salaries while they had 6 months off if the company was earning so much money while they have extended paternal leave (a statement that can only come from someone who has NO idea of how a business such as hers works IMO). Yes, you she can claim back £135 from the Government, but the men who work for jools, this is a bar or restaurant bill - they need their 3k a week to pay the bills, it sounds a lot to all of us but their mortgages are probably 3k a month and there is no way they could afford to be off work and take home £135 a week - if they wanted to. Which they do not so it's a moot point.

And these men probably do live in the dark ages as far as others are concerned but that is their business quite frankly, I cannot understand why anyone would give smokers, drinkers or druggies the time of day but some do - so hey ho. Their choice.

I worked in a pretty cut throat business in the city a few moons back and women would literally pop babies out and be back to work a few days later leaving the babies with someone else, those women also had husbands earning big money and they had someone else to look after the kids for them and had au pairs and nannies. They live in city mansions and they NEED that money to maintain the lifestyle that kind of money brings. You do not earn that money from working 9-5 but the hours are much longer and they probably see their families for a few hours at the weekend and that is all - if they are not off playing golf of course.

I know that it is hard for some of you to believe but some people just prefer earning money, I never understood while some of the women had kids as they clearly had no interest in them and were often working 15 to 18 hour days so never saw their kids at all anyway. To me and you it was pointless but they must have had a reason to have kids they had no interest in.

It was only a generation ago that women were getting dressed up for their husbands when they came home from work and the kids were shuffled off to another room so dad could have some peace after his long day - paternity leave was a few days of holiday off then back to work. Well those men are still working and they still have the same attitudes, no about of complaining about them being sexist pigs or giving them paid paternity leave is going to change that, if it was my company I would want the best people to do the job, if they were working on projects lasting 5 years then yes, I think I would work the same way as joolz - however, this is why she runs a multi million pound business and you are not. C'est la vie. If the best person for the job is a man then so be it.

And yes, I am a woman too.