Maternity leave

[djohn]

My Son is in the Armed forces [Para] his wife is in the RAF and they have just had their first child. D-in-L gets 6 months full pay, 3 months half pay and a further 3 months with no pay if she requires the extra time. My son was given 3 weeks paternity leave on full pay so not too bad and helps make up for other drawbacks that the careers bring. Son is back in Afghanistan shortly.

 

[RDM]

Quite a few companies see the benefits of having more women on the work force as worthwhile compared to the costs of maternity pay. This can be seen especially with those companies that offer enhanced benefits. My wife for example was able to take 9 months on maternity on full pay (technically 6 months on full pay and 3 months on the pay she would be returning to on reduced hours). This cost must be seen as worthwhile or else they wouldn't do it.

 

[jas72]

Excuse my ignorance...do you know how much businesses get back? That site just says "the majority" of the payments.



A good point that didn't occur to me. Long periods out of work should absolutely have a bearing on promotion and what not.

The sexist posts in this thread really surprise me.

It's not like it's the woman's fault that in the relationship it's only her that can get pregnant. We don't live in the 1900s now guys in a lot of cases the women can be the breadwinners and I find it shocking that people are stating on this forum that they should be penalised for having children with regards to promotion and pay.

I suppose the posters here are also of the opinion that women shouldn't work in the first place and men should be the bread winners. Well all I can say is good luck in finding such levels of pay where you can afford to be a one income family. For most ordinary folk that scenario is out of the question.

 

[BenhB]

D-in-L gets 6 months full pay, 3 months half pay and a further 3 months with no pay if she requires the extra time.

My Wife, being a nurse gets very similar. When she goes back to work, she is also entitled to her full amount of annual leave (35 days). If she was to get pregnant almost straight away, she would get another full maternity entitlement.

I'm entitled to 2 weeks statutory pay.

I believe in Norway or Sweden parents are entitled to something like 18 months between them.

 

[Diesel]

As a would be father (at some distant point in the future) I'm not sure I would want extensive paternity leave. If I have to go to work it is a good reason not to stay at home and tend to a smelly, noisy baby.

 

[RDM]

As a would be father (at some distant point in the future) I'm not sure I would want extensive paternity leave. If I have to go to work it is a good reason not to stay at home and tend to a smelly, noisy baby.

When my daughter was born I took 2 weeks off work and was lucky enough to get 2 weeks on full paid paternity. It was excellent, enabled us to cope a lot better and by the end of the month we had got our daughter into a pretty good routine.

Even now I take 1 day a week off to look after my daughter, best decision I ever made, the financial loss is more than made up by the quality of life increase.

 

[andyp]

On one hand you could argue they shouldn't be paid if they aren't inputting anything into the business for such a long duration.

Maybe you could say that if being a greedy capitalist is your game.

It's not all about the money.

 

[SB118]

As a would be father (at some distant point in the future) I'm not sure I would want extensive paternity leave. If I have to go to work it is a good reason not to stay at home and tend to a smelly, noisy baby.

I'm not sure you've got quite the right mindset to be a parent yet

 

[BenhB]

If they aren't being paid by the company they work for. then surely they would have to claim benefits. Then you get the vicious circle of unemployment, taxpayers spending more money, ad nauseum.

 

[sniffy]

Thanks for the input lads, some interesting points. Although I don't entirely agree with it, it seems to be the lesser of two evils. Giving the option of maternity leave instead of making benefits attractive is absolutely the right way to go.

This cost must be seen as worthwhile or else they wouldn't do it.

I can't argue with that. The companies who do offer extra benefits have more experience with how business operates than I do

Sorry if I did cause offence to anyone.

Maybe you could say that if being a greedy capitalist is your game.

I probably am.

 

[andyp]

I probably am.

At least you're honest