maternity and paternity leave....

Former Member

this article just states what i stated ages ago, that allowing a year of a maternity leave and only 2 weeks of paternity leave only reinforces views that women should be sole childbearers when other countries provide legally supported leave which the parents can use as they want, obviously the mother should have a few weeks after labour to recover etc but the rest should be up to the parents surely

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4327438.ece

Former Member

i definitely think that it should be up to the parents which one goes back to work

Former Member

So in Wheresmyplacebo's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against bonding with new-born babies, indeed, I've become an uncle recently myself - but one whole year for this purpose? The bloke will just end up bored!

This is one of few cases where this country's laws have got it right.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

So in ShyBoy's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against bonding with new-born babies, indeed, I've become an uncle recently myself - but one whole year for this purpose? The bloke will just end up bored!

This is one of few cases where this country's laws have got it right.

And of course you know how every single father in the country will feel? :rolleyes: What you mean is you would be bored. I'd imagine tha the majority of couples would still have the mother as the primary carer, but not all.
Colleague at work quit about 6 months ago to be a house husband whilst he wife went back to work. He's perfectly happy, and it made a lot more sense as she earnt about twice as much as he did.

Skive

stargalaxy wrote: »

So in ShyBoy's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against bonding with new-born babies, indeed, I've become an uncle recently myself - but one whole year for this purpose? The bloke will just end up bored!

What a load of waffle.

There should be the option.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time.

Its up to the parents to decide who goes back to work. Some parents are happy staying at home some are happy working. My mum had 18 months off work after she had me as she had a newborn and a toddler and wanted some quality time with her kids. I've also seen my dad be unemployed for long periods more then once as a kid and being a house husband while my mum worked full-time.

Two weeks paternty leave really isnt enough. More time in the first year that they can take when they want (Like the Swedish system) seems much fairer.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

So in ShyBoy's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against bonding with new-born babies, indeed, I've become an uncle recently myself - but one whole year for this purpose? The bloke will just end up bored!

This is one of few cases where this country's laws have got it right.

did you read what i wrote? the mother can take 6 months at same time as father's 6 months
or the dad can take a month and the mother 11 months and vice versa, different courses for different horses
or take none at all of course and the other 12 months if they want to

Former Member

I think here in Iceland the rules are 3 months for the mother, 3 months for the father and 3 months that the parents can split in whatever way they like.

Right now two if not three guys at my workplace are on paternity leave and I think it's definitely helped make things more equal. Besides, I haven't heard any of the guys I know that have gone on paternity leave complain!

It's also great to give the parents the option to choose what suits their lifestyles and needs. Dads are important as well!

SG: Why would fathers be more bored than the mothers? The work isn't any less if the father is taking care of the kid than the mother.

Former Member

Jaloux wrote: »

SG: Why would fathers be more bored than the mothers? The work isn't any less if the father is taking care of the kid than the mother.

Depends entirely on how "involved" that particular father wants to be, I suspect.

Former Member

.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote: »

Equal maternity/paternity rights would certainly end the discrimination faced by women as potential employees.

That's one of the reasons it was legalised here in Iceland. I don't know of anyone, male or female, who is opposed to it now that there's some experience with it.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote: »

Equal maternity/paternity rights would certainly end the discrimination faced by women as potential employees.

I agree. I was reading the BBC "Have Your Say" about it yesterday and at the time I read it the general consensus was that women of child bearing age are overlooked as a potential employee as they might go and have a baby.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

So in Wheresmyplacebo's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view. I see little reason for the father to be at home for that length of time. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against bonding with new-born babies, indeed, I've become an uncle recently myself - but one whole year for this purpose? The bloke will just end up bored!

This is one of few cases where this country's laws have got it right.

Theyd be raising the baby. No more boring than the mother doing it

Former Member

Equal maternity/paternity rights would certainly end the discrimination faced by women as potential employees.

:yes:

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

So in Wheresmyplacebo's world, fathers would be allowed to stay home for up to one year after the birth of a child. What a strange view.

Why is that strange? Personally, I would have nothing against it. If the father wants to stay at home and look after his child for a year, then I think he should. 2 weeks isn't long enough, I think.

The bloke will just end up bored!

Why? Not all men who become fathers are uninterested in having kids.

Former Member

Melian wrote: »

Why is that strange? Personally, I would have nothing against it. If the father wants to stay at home and look after his child for a year, then I think he should. 2 weeks isn\'t long enough, I think.

I agree as long as you do not ask me to pay for it.

Former Member

God of Schmuck wrote: »

I agree as long as you do not ask me to pay for it.

Former Member

God of Schmuck wrote: »

I agree as long as you do not ask me to pay for it.

And that's the crux of the matter. Who's going to have to pay for all this nonsense? At a time of economic difficulty, it would be plain wrong to impose yet more costs and bureaucracy onto business. In particular, small and medium-sized businesses would find this a nightmare - aside from the extra cost, it means juggling staff rotas and pushing more work onto those who haven't got kids. Why should they have to suffer because someone else has had a baby?

Indrid Cold

stargalaxy wrote: »

And that's the crux of the matter. Who's going to have to pay for all this nonsense? At a time of economic difficulty, it would be plain wrong to impose yet more costs and bureaucracy onto business. In particular, small and medium-sized businesses would find this a nightmare - aside from the extra cost, it means juggling staff rotas and pushing more work onto those who haven't got kids. Why should they have to suffer because someone else has had a baby?

I assume this already happens for women. What would be the difference?

Former Member

i think the idea is that parents can choose between them who takes the leave. Not both do it. It isnt going to cost any extra

Former Member

And again what others have said before is that there is a set amount of maternity/paternity leave but it's up to the parents how they would like to split it, so it's not costing business anymore money but just dividing it up between more of them. Therefore if anything it'd make easier to bear rather than more expensive.

Former Member

Indrid Cold wrote: »

I assume this already happens for women. What would be the difference?

It would make things even worse for businesses and the economy. They took a situation that is bad as it is, they thought how can we make things better? And they decided they'd just compound the problem by doing the same thing to the male workforce. Clever lot.

Indrid Cold

Runnymede wrote: »

It would make things even worse for businesses and the economy. They took a situation that is bad as it is, they thought how can we make things better? And they decided they'd just compound the problem by doing the same thing to the male workforce. Clever lot.

Truly clever, because (like others said) employers would have one less reason to prefer hiring men.

Former Member

Indrid Cold wrote: »

Truly clever, because (like others said) employers would have one less reason to prefer hiring men.

A reason which they themselves gave employers. One less reason to prefer hiring men, sure, by making matters worse than you've already made them for employers.

Former Member

so it narrows the gender divide
Are you saying thats a bad thing?

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

so it narrows the gender divide
Are you saying thats a bad thing?

Nope.

I'm saying that this particular 'gender divide' problem is one they admit creating themselves. And while this would remove one side of the problem they've created (one less reason for employers to higher men rather than women), they wouldn't be removing the other problem which caused the divide (making business harder for employers), they would be multiplying it.

Former Member

If parents were allowed to divide the time then that would be better for business, as both parents could return to work part time sooner. Mum takes three days a week off, dad takes two days a week off, and everyone's happy.

The leave rules in this country are bizarre in a lot of ways, though. I think it's disgusting that adoptive parents get nine months off too, there's no need for it to be that long given there isn't the physical exertion required in adopting someone. Their time off could be lowered to "pay" for it without harming anyone, IMHO.

Former Member

God of Schmuck wrote: »

I agree as long as you do not ask me to pay for it.

I thought the man (who is the father) paid for it through work.

And that's the crux of the matter. Who's going to have to pay for all this nonsense? At a time of economic difficulty, it would be plain wrong to impose yet more costs and bureaucracy onto business. In particular, small and medium-sized businesses would find this a nightmare - aside from the extra cost, it means juggling staff rotas and pushing more work onto those who haven't got kids. Why should they have to suffer because someone else has had a baby?

What about the baby? Or is it ok that they suffer?:rolleyes:

Former Member

Melian wrote: »

What about the baby? Or is it ok that they suffer?:rolleyes:

Evidently the baby would not suffer because there is someone who is concerned about that happening. Such as yourself.

Former Member

It's alright, parents pay for statutory maternity pay through their tax. You have to have worked for quite a long time to get SMP. Of course, you'd know that if you weren't a cretin.

Former Member

I can see absolutely no reason why the leave shouldnt be divided between the parents.