Paternity leave

I see it from both sides. Not being a parent, nor currently expecting a child, makes me thing “hmm 2 weeks before the due date is kind of a long time to get worried about missing a birth isn’t it?” - but I don’t know how much those dates shift.

My daughter arrived 10 days early, so I can understand why someone would be cautious about being away from home in the last few weeks before the due date.
 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3BIh2XU2T...4/W7kW0iGMjsw/s1600/GestationalAgeAtBirth.jpg

The median is week 40 giving the due-date, but 2 to 3 weeks earlier still has up to 5% chance. After week42 in the US they tend to induce birth, but I believe in Europe they let things go longer under careful supervision. Really you got a 6 week window where the birth is in a normal; (95%) range.

Guess what, growing a baby isn't an exact process that can be predicted to a day.


Moreover, the last weeks of a pregnancy can be extremely uncomfortable for the mother, and she will need lots of physical and emotional support.
 
I can only re-iterate that the OP is entirely to blame. He let 2 employees go on vacation when there was a job planned and when he found out about an employee expecting he did nothing to rectify the situation at the time. As a manager,m you absolutely have the right to cancel an employees holiday to cover important events. As a human being, you have no moral right to make an expecting father abandon his wife when she needs him he most, regardless of the laws and business practices.


Managing staff to sort out real-life issues is actually why being a boss is hard, and you will have to make critical decision to cancel people holidays, make people work over-time, or loose business because you failed to cover the situation. At the ned of the day a lost customer is simply money. There are many more important issues in life.
 
Anything after 37 weeks is considered 'term'. So his wife has been at term since 19th September. I stupidly agreed to go on a stag do 1 week before my wife was due. Obviously ended up not going when she gave birth 2 weeks early.
 
I find this thread beyond belief ...op ..
theres not much he can do for the first 4-5 days anyway

Loooooooool… You absolute fool! Regardless of time spent in hospital or not, you can't seriously tell me you found yourself wondering what to fill your time with in the first 4-5 days of parenthood?!

I really can't think of anything else worthwhile to say in response to that outrageous comment.
 
can be but that's far from the norm. At the other end of the spectrum my wife spent 52 hours in labour with our first.

Certainly, but women can also die during childbirth. Imagine she is part of the 2-3 hour labour, and then she dies during childbirth while the employee is still driving down the motorway trying to get from his work event to the hospital.

No man should have to be forced to take that risk after the woman is at full term.
 
Anything after 37 weeks is considered 'term'. So his wife has been at term since 19th September. I stupidly agreed to go on a stag do 1 week before my wife was due. Obviously ended up not going when she gave birth 2 weeks early.

Talk about being under the thumb...
 
Certainly, but women can also die during childbirth. Imagine she is part of the 2-3 hour labour, and then she dies during childbirth while the employee is still driving down the motorway trying to get from his work event to the hospital.

No man should have to be forced to take that risk after the woman is at full term.

Well jesus that would be devastating but come on, you don't plan for your wife possibly dying in labour do you?


Anyway, if i was the OPs employee, i'd be planning to do the job until such time as i knew i couldn't and if i was the OP i'd have that business partner on standby. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
Loooooooool… You absolute fool! Regardless of time spent in hospital or not, you can't seriously tell me you found yourself wondering what to fill your time with in the first 4-5 days of parenthood?!

I really can't think of anything else worthwhile to say in response to that outrageous comment.
hmm.. fool .. I was working m8 min wage back then 50-60 hr weeks ..after just buying a 2up 2 down ..the bedroom was done ..the rest of the house was coming along
plz tell me what you were doing .. we had no help it was all down to us ..
 
As a manager you absolutely have the right to cancel an employees holiday to cover important events.

Really? If I've had a holiday request authorised and I go and book flights and hotel as I was planning to go away while on holiday, will the company reimburse me if they cancel my holiday time off? I doubt it. So they will know what the answer will be to that one.
 
What job is this where 2000 people can be killed instantly with one slip of the finger?
Slip of finger? Not quite.
But if we don't have a response team on site quick enough, we're in serious trouble!

Basically, we look after water infrastructure in London, which includes the stuff winding through and all around Network Rail and the Underground. There are certain locations where a structural failure would result in most of the Tube being flooded very rapidly. This amount of water gushing out would also destabilise a lot of their tunnels and things, which usually have things like buildings and roads on top, as well.

TFL have staff working round the clock, and they estimated that such a failure would kill at least 2,000 of their people at any given time. Obviously the numbers would be far higher during rush hour, with all the passengers too, but that's where the 2k comes from.

Strangely, it's not the people killed that'd land us in so much trouble, but the bill for damage to TFL/NR assets. We're talking billions, which would bankrupt us many times over. So rather than risk the wrath of their legal department, we have a team who can deal with it, plus anther team, plus a back-up for each team, plus a back-up team to cover the two back-ups!!

That has piqued my curiousity - what work is it in which a staffing failure would kill a guaranteed minimum of 2,000 people?
Ha ha, I see what you did there...!
As long as we have a quarter of the staff available, I'm sure everything will be amazing.
 
Really? If I've had a holiday request authorised and I go and book flights and hotel as I was planning to go away while on holiday, will the company reimburse me if they cancel my holiday time off? I doubt it. So they will know what the answer will be to that one.

Your employee can tell you to work if they give you the same notice time as the period you were going to take off, yes.
 
Your employee can tell you to work if they give you the same notice time as the period you were going to take off, yes.

I'm on about authorised holidays where my employer has agreed that I can have the time off. Not me asking my employer for time off next week or 4 weeks time and me being told no that it's not possible. That is not the same as being told to cancel a holiday, that is just having a holiday request declined.
 
Really? If I've had a holiday request authorised and I go and book flights and hotel as I was planning to go away while on holiday, will the company reimburse me if they cancel my holiday time off? I doubt it. So they will know what the answer will be to that one.


Of course the company can. Whether or not that is a good idea or not depends on the requirement, compensation, alternative options. I've had a holiday booked 4 months in advance canceled a week before due to the requirements of work. In my case my boss reimbursed the flight money and rebooked me in for a similar holiday a few weeks later in a much better hotel with a couple of K spending money.


IN the OP's case, it is quite clear that the 2 people on holiday should have their leave cancelled.


The UK in particular has very minimal employee rights. the company can dictate how and when you spend your annual leave, and can make changes to the dates they told you.
 
Back
Top Bottom