Paternity Leave
Discussion
Do most employers only offer the statutory amount?
The amount I'm going to lose for just two weeks off is pretty gut-wrenching. The wee bugger better be worth it!
Meanwhile wifey works for the council, earns more than me, and yet they're practically throwing money at her! Combined with her very generous annual leave allowance (and being allowed to carry days over and earn more while on maternity leave) she can take about 12 months off with hardly any loss!
I guess it's easy to be generous when they're spending my tax money!
(although obviously we're very grateful she's able to do that... just wish I could have more than 2 bloody weeks!)
The amount I'm going to lose for just two weeks off is pretty gut-wrenching. The wee bugger better be worth it!
Meanwhile wifey works for the council, earns more than me, and yet they're practically throwing money at her! Combined with her very generous annual leave allowance (and being allowed to carry days over and earn more while on maternity leave) she can take about 12 months off with hardly any loss!
I guess it's easy to be generous when they're spending my tax money!
(although obviously we're very grateful she's able to do that... just wish I could have more than 2 bloody weeks!)
You've had plenty of notice of the new arrival so should have saved it up for this time. That's what I took instead of paternity leave.Definition of sexism.
Would you expect women to use Annual leave as they also have plenty of notice?
I did listen to an interesting program on R4 about a teacher who successfully got the same terms as his female colleagues. Think they folded before it went to court but the chap was quite confident if it did go to court, he would have won.
Would you expect women to use Annual leave as they also have plenty of notice?
I did listen to an interesting program on R4 about a teacher who successfully got the same terms as his female colleagues. Think they folded before it went to court but the chap was quite confident if it did go to court, he would have won.
Women should definitely get more time off, that makes sense. And to be fair the statutory maternity leave isn't generous unless you're a very low earner (then I think it pretty much covers your salary for 9 months).
Yes I've been saving my annual leave, but again I only get the minimum and can't carry it over. The council gives my wife twice as much and she can carry it all over for maternity leave!
Statutory paternity leave (practically unpaid) plus annual leave... 1 month off in total at significant expense and no more days off with my new child for the rest of the year. Meh.
Yes I've been saving my annual leave, but again I only get the minimum and can't carry it over. The council gives my wife twice as much and she can carry it all over for maternity leave!
Statutory paternity leave (practically unpaid) plus annual leave... 1 month off in total at significant expense and no more days off with my new child for the rest of the year. Meh.
SGirl said:
It's not really sexism, though. Women may well need more time off for medical reasons.
Yes, it is.If you need in excess of 9 months I imagine you would be on long term sick.
I'm not suggesting women get any less, simply that just because a parent is male, they should not be prevented from having time with their child.
If 2 women have a baby, yes, it is possible, I wonder if the employer would turn around to them and say, hmm well you're the butch one so you lose out.
It's quite ridiculous.
Rick101 said:
Yes, it is.
If you need in excess of 9 months I imagine you would be on long term sick.
I'm not suggesting women get any less, simply that just because a parent is male, they should not be prevented from having time with their child.
If 2 women have a baby, yes, it is possible, I wonder if the employer would turn around to them and say, hmm well you're the butch one so you lose out.
It's quite ridiculous.
That's not the case though. There's a mandatory 2 weeks of both maternity and paternity leave, after that both parents can split the remaining entitlement to statutory Shared Parental Leave and statutory Shared Parental Pay. Total of 54 week leave and 41 weeks pay to split however you want when you want.If you need in excess of 9 months I imagine you would be on long term sick.
I'm not suggesting women get any less, simply that just because a parent is male, they should not be prevented from having time with their child.
If 2 women have a baby, yes, it is possible, I wonder if the employer would turn around to them and say, hmm well you're the butch one so you lose out.
It's quite ridiculous.
Of course there are practical considerations, such as whether the employer pays above statutory and whether you can afford the time off. And also whether the female parent will allow you to exercise your right to time off 'at her expense'. But the equality is there.
I had 4 months off when we had ours and I'm already planning the loft conversion if I can sort another one out for next summer....
paulrockliffe said:
But the equality is there.
Often though the employer will pay the woman more. When my wife had our first she was given 6 weeks full pay, and then another long period of time which I can't remember how long of reduced pay - but way above statutory.I didn't work in the same place but I doubt the men got the same level of pay
Rick101 said:
Yes, it is.
I'm not suggesting women get any less, simply that just because a parent is male, they should not be prevented from having time with their child.
They aren't being prevented, they just aren't getting paid because they are not in work at the time, seems reasonable to me.I'm not suggesting women get any less, simply that just because a parent is male, they should not be prevented from having time with their child.
DocJock said:
Try being self-employed...
This. Steve H said:
They aren't being prevented, they just aren't getting paid because they are not in work at the time, seems reasonable to me.
I agree with you, it is reasonable in theory. No work, no pay - fine. It's also how you get employees to resent you. Your employer is telling you "we don't want you to spend a single minute with your new child, if we could we wouldn't even let you take one day off... but the government doesn't allow us to do that, so we have to let you do the bare minimum".DocJock said:
Try being self-employed...
This. And I have been self employed. I am aware of both the advantages and difficulties of being self employed (I barely took a day off in 5 years, and when I did I felt too guilty and had to get back to work). But one of the advantages is flexibility. I worked from home, I could work in the evenings/weekends if I wanted to and could have been with my family during the day if I wanted to. It's different to being a 1-hour drive away from home from 08:00 to 18:30. It doesn't matter how much I'm needed - I physically can't be there.
I don't work in McDonalds. My job has low turnover. I think investing a week or two into your staff during an event which will happen at most a couple of times during their entire career - that's really not much. A lot cheaper than recruiting someone new when they inevitably find a more family-friendly job closer to home!
Thanks for that insightful comment.
How do you define companies offering enhanced leave pay based on gender?
If a man takes the shared parental leave he gets statutory pay (£139.58pw)
If a woman takes the shared parental leave she gets full pay (509.61pw based on UK average)
Of course this won't apply everywhere, but seems to currently be the norm. Shame that challenge didn't go to court as it would have highlighted the bias.
I think if I ever ended up in that situation I'd declare myself trans which seems to be popular at the minute and claim the upper payment.
How do you define companies offering enhanced leave pay based on gender?
If a man takes the shared parental leave he gets statutory pay (£139.58pw)
If a woman takes the shared parental leave she gets full pay (509.61pw based on UK average)
Of course this won't apply everywhere, but seems to currently be the norm. Shame that challenge didn't go to court as it would have highlighted the bias.
I think if I ever ended up in that situation I'd declare myself trans which seems to be popular at the minute and claim the upper payment.
R E S T E C P said:
Steve H said:
They aren't being prevented, they just aren't getting paid because they are not in work at the time, seems reasonable to me.
I agree with you, it is reasonable in theory. No work, no pay - fine. It's also how you get employees to resent you. Your employer is telling you "we don't want you to spend a single minute with your new child, if we could we wouldn't even let you take one day off... but the government doesn't allow us to do that, so we have to let you do the bare minimum".DocJock said:
Try being self-employed...
This. And I have been self employed. I am aware of both the advantages and difficulties of being self employed (I barely took a day off in 5 years, and when I did I felt too guilty and had to get back to work). But one of the advantages is flexibility. I worked from home, I could work in the evenings/weekends if I wanted to and could have been with my family during the day if I wanted to. It's different to being a 1-hour drive away from home from 08:00 to 18:30. It doesn't matter how much I'm needed - I physically can't be there.
I don't work in McDonalds. My job has low turnover. I think investing a week or two into your staff during an event which will happen at most a couple of times during their entire career - that's really not much. A lot cheaper than recruiting someone new when they inevitably find a more family-friendly job closer to home!
All the extra obligations that employers now have is one of the main reasons I no longer bother having employees.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff