Paternity leave - what do you think?

DevilsAdvocate1

ab1982 wrote: »

I think Paternity takes the p**s. I certainly cant afford two weeks on wages of £140 with a newborn baby and mother to support, cant see that many people could afford it unless independently wealthy or have a big savings pot.

If it we're £240 would make it more likely to be able to have a week or so but still its such a financially difficult time that we need every penny.

I think you're really lucky to get this. Its not so long ago that the mum got 90% of salary for 6 weeks followed by £50 per week for a maximum of 12 weeks and dad got nothing.

My eldest is 17 and my husband used the remainder of his holiday allowance as there was no paternity at all.

I got 90% of my salary for 6 weeks for by up to 12 weeks at just under £50. This stopped when the baby was 12 weeks old, so to get the max money, you would have to stop work 6 weeks before your due date.

Mrs_Soup

Some companies pay enhanced pay to Dad's. My husband got the two weeks at full pay when our youngest was born.

shiny76

shiny76 wrote: »

How does the maternity/paternity rights match up with sexual equality?

Would be great for some inidividuals if companies offered the same extended rights to fathers as they do to mothers. However, I imagine if this was challenged then most companies would probably reduce mothers entitlement rather than extend the fathers.

Well it turns out I already worked for an enlightened employer. We are expecting our 2nd baby next year and looks like (waiting confirmation) I can have 6 weeks full pay and then 16 weeks half pay (plus statutory pay) as Shared Parental Leave.

adamsmyth

Having taken 2 weeks off Paternity leave 3 months ago, I'm stll playing catch up from the loss of earnings (it's great there is a stat payment, but it's about a quarter of what I would earn being at work for 5 days anyway).


Having 4 weeks off sounds great, but not sure the average dad would be able to afford such a thing. I certainly wouldn't be able to have a month off at a lower salary and still keep up with all the household bills.


I like the idea of it, but in practice, is it the right thing to be offering? Is it not going to put more pressure on families that will be struggling anyway as a) having a newborn is not a cheap exercise and b) potentially your partners earnings are going to be decreased/decreasing shortly too.

Guest101

adamsmyth wrote: »

Having taken 2 weeks off Paternity leave 3 months ago, I'm stll playing catch up from the loss of earnings (it's great there is a stat payment, but it's about a quarter of what I would earn being at work for 5 days anyway).


Having 4 weeks off sounds great, but not sure the average dad would be able to afford such a thing. I certainly wouldn't be able to have a month off at a lower salary and still keep up with all the household bills.


I like the idea of it, but in practice, is it the right thing to be offering? Is it not going to put more pressure on families that will be struggling anyway as a) having a newborn is not a cheap exercise and b) potentially your partners earnings are going to be decreased/decreasing shortly too.

Not like people have up to, or over, 9 months to prepare

chan42

I have recently taken paternity leave but mine started when the wife was being induced and so I had just over a week of leave which was not spent in the hospital/getting use to having a child in the house. Seems a little unfair to me. Anyone else think this? But then I can not see a way round it as it would probably mean taking unpaid leave or normal leave (if you had enough) till the child was born. Is it not meant to start from when child is born?

LannieDuck

Definitely well overdue, but has a long way yet to go. I'd like to see maternity and paternity pay and leave equalised as far as possible.

In some couples, the mother is the higher earner and it would make more sense for the father to be the primary child-carer. In some cases the man wants to stay home with the kids and the mum wants to carry on working. It would be nice if couples could decide what arrangement works for them.

Unfortunately until mat/pat rights are more equal, the pressure for the woman to stay at home (rather than the man) will continue, and women's equality in the workplace will suffer because of it.

ViolaLass

chan42 wrote: »

I have recently taken paternity leave but mine started when the wife was being induced and so I had just over a week of leave which was not spent in the hospital/getting use to having a child in the house. Seems a little unfair to me. Anyone else think this? But then I can not see a way round it as it would probably mean taking unpaid leave or normal leave (if you had enough) till the child was born. Is it not meant to start from when child is born?

Are you saying your wife gave birth a whole week after being induced? Didn't you want to be with her for that?

chan42

ViolaLass wrote: »

Are you saying your wife gave birth a whole week after being induced? Didn't you want to be with her for that?

Not quite but she was in hospital for nearly the full week. Thought paternity was meant to start from the birth of child but then this is hard to police I guess for the company? That is all I was getting at really. Just thought it was from birth and therefore nearly two weeks at home (depending on circumstances after birth) settling in etc rather than trips to and from hospital to see the new family member and not getting to spend almost all the time with them.

euronorris

chan42 wrote: »

Not quite but she was in hospital for nearly the full week. Thought paternity was meant to start from the birth of child but then this is hard to police I guess for the company? That is all I was getting at really. Just thought it was from birth and therefore nearly two weeks at home (depending on circumstances after birth) settling in etc rather than trips to and from hospital to see the new family member and not getting to spend almost all the time with them.

This is not much different than if the Mum took maternity leave before her due date, which she can do.


If she's signed off sick, then her maternity leave would not kick in until the baby is born. But, if she decided that she was struggling with tiredness etc and therefore chose to take maternity leave earlier than anticipated, then that is when it kicks in.


I know it seems rather unfair to you, but you were not sick and you had the option not to take the paternity leave until the child was born. I understand completely why you wanted to be there once the induction started, but it was your choice.