Paternity Leave???

matjay

Hi

I have been looking at applying for Paternity Leave as my wife is due this week? I have looked at the financial side of it and it just isn't logical to take if your employer does not make up the difference!

I was thinking of applying and taking the time in hours as the 230 a week would break down as.

Any thoughts on if this would be OK to do or am I asking for trouble??

Big Bag of Chips

What is your company's policy on it? I don't know a whole lot about paternity leave, but I'm not sure if it can be taken in blocks of hours rather than days/weeks. I know you can't take maternity leave in hours, for example.

Your best bet is to speak to your HR dept. Do you know that your company doesn't make up the difference?

Hoboo

matjay wrote: »

Hi

I have been looking at applying for Paternity Leave as my wife is due this week? I have looked at the financial side of it and it just isn't logical to take if your employer does not make up the difference!

I was thinking of applying and taking the time in hours as the 230 a week would break down as.

Any thoughts on if this would be OK to do or am I asking for trouble??

Must be taken in 2 week block. Payment of €460 comes from social welfare, not your employer, so you'd be breaking SW rules. Getting paid the full allowance when you're not taking the full two weeks.

Down to your employer, if you asked me I'd say no. SW and revenue are more linked than ever.

Ask if they'll make up the difference? Check your contract, might be covered if new since August.

Need to give 4 weeks notice for leave btw, but can be taken anytime in first 28 weeks.

catrionanic

Do you have to take the two weeks consecutively? Like could you take a week, go back for another few weeks, and then take the second week?

That's what we were hoping to do.

infogiver

catrionanic wrote: »

Do you have to take the two weeks consecutively? Like could you take a week, go back for another few weeks, and then take the second week?

That's what we were hoping to do.

No you can't

catrionanic

infogiver wrote: »

No you can't

Crap. I was due yesterday and this had been our plan.

Do you have a link to revenue or whatever to clarify this?

heroics

catrionanic wrote: »

Crap. I was due yesterday and this had been our plan.

Do you have a link to revenue or whatever to clarify this?

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Paternity-Benefit-FAQ.aspx#11

Big Bag of Chips

Employers are usually flexible in that you book the leave for around a date, but they know you might not take the exact dates. I don't mean to be funny, but this is 2 weeks off that you wouldn't have had previously or if you had your baby before paternity leave came in. So you make do with taking the block of two weeks after the baby arrives (maybe even after you get home from hospital) or you don't take it all if it doesn't suit you, work doesn't make up the wages, can't afford it, or whatever. You could use annual leave days instead.

As far as I know it's not compulsory.

Edit: just rereading your post catriona, do you mean you were due yesterday, the baby didn't arrive, but your husband is already started paternity leave?

Collyb101

PATERNITY LEAVE IS A LOAD OF CRAP
I recently took Paternity leave for two weeks. I availed of the two weeks social welfare money thinking this would go little way to retrieving the two weeks pay I would loose from my time off. I WAS WRONG
Well unknown to me at the time, my tax credits have been amended to retrieve those payments from me. I rang the revenue and they said that is normal. There are no special circumstances here, I have been in employment for many years without a break.
So my Fiance takes Maternity leave and even avails of tax breaks in this 6/7 months period but I (Men) get two weeks off and if they take this €460 the revenue will recover this via reducing tax credits until the end of that financial year.
Does this bother any other fathers??????????????????

heroics

I think you have this misunderstood. Your paternity leave is taxable at the same rate as your normal pay. They don't take extra tax to recover the full cost of your leave. This is the same as for maternity leave btw

Collyb101 wrote: »

PATERNITY LEAVE IS A LOAD OF CRAP
I recently took Paternity leave for two weeks. I availed of the two weeks social welfare money thinking this would go little way to retrieving the two weeks pay I would loose from my time off. I WAS WRONG
Well unknown to me at the time, my tax credits have been amended to retrieve those payments from me. I rang the revenue and they said that is normal. There are no special circumstances here, I have been in employment for many years without a break.
So my Fiance takes Maternity leave and even avails of tax breaks in this 6/7 months period but I (Men) get two weeks off and if they take this €460 the revenue will recover this via reducing tax credits until the end of that financial year.
Does this bother any other fathers??????????????????

seamus

heroics wrote: »

I think you have this misunderstood. Your paternity leave is taxable at the same rate as your normal pay. They don't take extra tax to recover the full cost of your leave. This is the same as for maternity leave btw

Correct.

However, what Revenue do...uh...do is reissue your tax credits so that you're taxed on a month-by-month basis rather than an accumulating basis.

The aim here is to avoid someone receiving a massive tax refund during their paternity leave and then having to pay it all back again when they return to work. However if someone is earning a relatively low wage or is paid on an hours-worked basis, then the week 1/month 1 setup can cause them to be taxed more highly than if they were on the normal cumulative basis.

What Collyb101 should do is get back onto Revenue and tell them to reissue your tax credits certificate on a cumulative basis. Your pay will go haywire for a few weeks but will settle down again.

What I think is funny is that the creation of paternity leave has also created this sudden realisation that €230 a week is absolute pittance in real terms. And for the last decade, women have had to live on this for the 6 months while they're off work.

The government will really have to re-examine the situation and look at a half-and-half scheme with employers where the government provides €500 a week and the employers are obliged to top it off in exchange for no employers' PRSI or something. Otherwise paternity leave is going to go massively underused.

Collyb101

heroics wrote: »

I think you have this misunderstood. Your paternity leave is taxable at the same rate as your normal pay. They don't take extra tax to recover the full cost of your leave. This is the same as for maternity leave btw

I know i'm not 100% getting this but:
-My amended tax credits mean I am €40 less off a month for the remainder of the year (since March). If this was just tax on the actual Social Welfare Payment (of €460), that is €400 tax on a €460 payment.
-Obviously my pay for the year would be slightly different as I would have to subtract two weeks total from my annual salary but again I thought that would have been evident on that payment period (possibly not though).

- Personally I dont think the €460 should be taxable anyway!

shesty

I don't mean to be rude but this is what women have to put up with it.I have taken two maternity leaves in the last 3 years, including unpaid leave, and I couldn't even begin to describe to you what it has done to my pay and tax.....I think they have issued me four tax certs to date this year, and I claimed back money on my P21.

And maternity pay is taxable too.

I am in agreement with the essence of what you're saying but to be frank, until it hits more men in the pocket, it's unlikely anyone is going to do anything about it.It hasn't bothered them for years on the maternity side anyway.

pwurple

Yes, but it bothered me a shedload more when it was maternity leave tbh.

It is a load of crap. Welcome to our world.

fits

I'd love to even be getting 230 euro. Did the decent thing and emigrated to work rather than be a burden on the state and am entitled to nothing. My husband took paternity leave. We were glad of it with twins.

Neyite

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, but it bothered me a shedload more when it was maternity leave tbh.

It is a load of crap. Welcome to our world.

And it's assumed we are sitting around on our arses peeling grapes and watching Jeremy Kyle for the 26 weeks too. :P

I'm all for paternity benefits and leave and would love a system similar to Sweden where maternity leave can be shared by mum and dad as best suits their circumstances.

pwurple

Neyite wrote: »

And it's assumed we are sitting around on our arses peeling grapes and watching Jeremy Kyle for the 26 weeks too. :P

I'm all for paternity benefits and leave and would love a system similar to Sweden where maternity leave can be shared by mum and dad as best suits their circumstances.

God yes. It crippled us when we couldn't do that. I cannot figure out what difference it makes to the govt to restrict which spouse goes to work. The more we earn the more tax we pay, right?

I am working in a traditionally male industry, and my husband in a traditionally female one. Sweet F.A. for me in terms of maternity benefit, but his company did full pay and all sorts of flexi time going back etc, if only he was a woman. I was like... hey maybe we will investigate doing the first three months, and we swap and you take the rest while the baby is supersmall.

He phoned the social welfare to ask about swapping it over. There is only one situation where he could claim it and I could go back to work.

Here is the exact scenario: I'd have to be dead.

Arg. Anyway, eventually, we found a creche that could take the baby from 5 months, so that totally sucked, but what choice did we have. Stop paying the mortgage?

Even better was for my other daughter, when 2 months from my due date they slashed maternity benefit, made it taxable, and cut child benefit as well. Arseholes on the radio then, "well don't have a baby if you can't afford it". Cheers, I'll just abort this 7 month pregnancy shall I?

I love the way every single childcare incentive then since has also missed us. ECCE second year! Oh, We don't qualify. Affordable childcare, too old by a hair, and also, cos we work, don't qualify for the means tested one after that.

On and on it goes.

radharc

What happens if you just take 2 weeks annual leave, can you claim the Paternity Benefit on top?

shesty

I doubt it.If its anything like mat benefit, you have to get your company and possibly a doctor (have to for mat leave, unsure about pat leave) to sign the form to apply for paternity benefit.So unless your company were willing to lie for you, then I don't think you would be able to.

tickingclock

radharc wrote: »

What happens if you just take 2 weeks annual leave, can you claim the Paternity Benefit on top?

No way is this an option. It is all done on an officially just like maternity leave.

seamus

radharc wrote: »

What happens if you just take 2 weeks annual leave, can you claim the Paternity Benefit on top?

Nope. In order to apply for paternity benefit, your employer has to certify that they are giving you paternity leave.

If they were to be found letting you take annual leave instead, they would be in deep trouble.

radharc

seamus wrote: »

Nope. In order to apply for paternity benefit, your employer has to certify that they are giving you paternity leave.

If they were to be found letting you take annual leave instead, they would be in deep trouble.

Fair enough although it doesn't make any sense. You could receive 2 weeks paid paternity leave and there wouldn't be a problem but 2 weeks paid annual leave is a no no?

Big Bag of Chips

You can take paid annual leave instead of/as well as paternity leave if you like. But it'd be annual leave, not paternity leave. Same way a mother can take annual leave as well as maternity leave.

Paternity leave is a separate thing altogether and it doesn't affect your annual leave entitlement or pay.

shesty

Both our kids were born before paternity leave was introduced.My husband took time out of his annual leave for both.You can take annual leave, nothing stopping you.But you can also take paternity leave which means you don't need to use up your annual leave.Trade off being that you could be down money if your employer doesn't top up the social welfare payment so you get full pay.
It's simply an option to encourage more dads to take time off when their child is bron, that's all.That said, most men I know have taken a couple of weeks of annual leave, but I know not everyone is in a position to do that.
And of course the argument then arises of 230eur week not being enough to make it worth a man's while to take that time, but see my point above re:it hasn't bothered too many people up to now that its all that mothers were being paid.

seamus

radharc wrote: »

Fair enough although it doesn't make any sense. You could receive 2 weeks paid paternity leave and there wouldn't be a problem but 2 weeks paid annual leave is a no no?

There are two aspects here;

The first is that as others mention, paternity leave entitlements are on top of annual leave. So even after you've taken the 2 paternity weeks, you still have 4 weeks annual leave left to take.

The second is its statutory nature. An employer is free to choose when you take annual leave. If you request it on a certain date, they can refuse it.
They cannot refuse paternity leave. So long as you've given a minimum 4 weeks notice, your employer cannot refuse your paternity leave.

You are free to take two weeks paid annual leave if you wish, you just can't take it and claim paternity benefit at the same time. It's the same as claiming illness benefit while on holidays.

heroics

shesty wrote: »

And of course the argument then arises of 230eur week not being enough to make it worth a man's while to take that time, but see my point above re:it hasn't bothered too many people up to now that its all that mothers were being paid.

I think the problem is if both parents salary is dropping to 230 for the 2 weeks not that it is not worth the mans while to take it. We were lucky that both our employers top up our wages but if they didn't we could take the hit of one earner getting 230 pw but not both of us.

pwurple

heroics wrote: »

I think the problem is if both parents salary is dropping to 230 for the 2 weeks not that it is not worth the mans while to take it. We were lucky that both our employers top up our wages but if they didn't we could take the hit of one earner getting 230 pw but not both of us.

Or the problem arises if the woman is employed and the man is not.
Or either of them are self employed.
Or the woman is paid more than the man, is the main earner....

It's a complete friggen joke. Just make it simply transferrable and stop assuming every goddamned family is a cookie cutter version of Mammy in the kitchen and Daddy in an office. What difference can it possibly make except more tax intake and simpler less frustrating lives for the rest of us.

I swear to god, it completely wrecks my head. They do this whole "Women in maths and engineering" push in school, and when us girls think, yeah, I like maths, let's do it. We go ahead and break our balls trudging up the hill to the boys school in the rain to do higher maths and eng and the subjects our schools don't cover, cos ya know... we're girls. And then break our hearts in college being one of 40 guys in an engineering class getting our degrees while being constantly patronized by everyone in sight. And then sweat our way through industry, proving ourselves to be as good, or in most cases having to be BETTER than any of our peers.... and eventually, eventually, eventually when we are now in a senior engineering position and are the breadwinners for our families. Yeah, NOW is the moment the government phunts us back to the kitchen sink, and not even permit our spouse to care for their own children.

What the actual fck is up with that policy.

heroics

heroics wrote: »

I think the problem is if both parents salary is dropping to 230 for the 2 weeks not that it is not worth the mans while to take it. We were lucky that both our employers top up our wages but if they didn't we could take the hit of one earner getting 230 pw but not both of us.

In fairness, parents know that a child is arriving so can save to make up the shortfall.

Let's say man X makes 530 a week after tax. That's 300 a week shortfall times 2 weeks = €600.

I'd say most parents know from week 10 (just for calculations) that baby is arriving.

600/30 = €20 a week to save to make up shortfall.

The money excuse doesn't cut it in the vast vast majority of cases.

Neyite

RoboKlopp wrote: »

The money excuse doesn't cut it in the vast vast majority of cases.

It does if you are barely making ends meet on two small salaries and don't have any extra spends left over. Lots of couples were juggling bills because they didn't have enough income to pay them as they arrived. So a drop to statutory maternity pay means they had to scrimp and save even more.

The paternity benefit might have been just beyond their very limits.

pwurple

RoboKlopp wrote: »

In fairness, parents know that a child is arriving so can save to make up the shortfall.

Let's say man X makes 530 a week after tax. That's 300 a week shortfall times 2 weeks = €600.

I'd say most parents know from week 10 (just for calculations) that baby is arriving.

600/30 = €20 a week to save to make up shortfall.

The money excuse doesn't cut it in the vast vast majority of cases.

*KLAXON* Sums fail. The 230 is taxed at the higher rate too buddy. Try again.

And excuse me now, it most CERTAINLY cuts it.

Assuming, yes assuming you are in the enviable position of not being part of the squeezed middle, and you can save something in the first place without being harassed by a bank or a landlord, assuming that is the case.

Maternity and paternity benefit is changed in almost every budget. It's a constantly moving target. Will it be taxed, not taxed, nobody knows! How very exciting.

Babies take 40 weeks to gestate, and even if everything goes swimmingly during that time, and you don't end up having to take 6 months off for pelvic separation, or puking so hard you lose the lining of your esophagus, or blood pressure so low, or so high you pass out when you stand up... assuming all that common stuff doesn't happen and you don't end up on sickness benefit for most of it.... even then, it's not completely out of the sphere of reason that SOMETHING changes during that time. Work changes, it's taken over by another company, your office moves 40km off in another direction, a big client decides not to pay you, one of our parent's needs a carer or a nursing home, your car keels over, your dog needs 1000 of surgery, all 7 of your brothers decide to get married that year in different exotic locations. Life happens.


Also, I don't know if you know any biology, but pregnancy isn't quite as simple as just rocking up swinging around wildly without a condom on, and bingo you're up the duff that day. It can be accidental, unplanned, or the opposite, planned for years and never happen at all, or take 20,000 euro worth of IVF treatment before it happens.


Sure, some people can have a swimmingly simple time of it, but a hell of a lot of people in the real world are getting tossed about in a financial storm.

So yeah, it cuts it.

xalot

Slightly off topic but I was wondering about this, my husband works in a company that top up maternity pay (to full pay) but not paternity pay at all. Surely this is discrimination?

He was the first person to take leave once the paternity leave option came out so maybe they were finding their feet, but it's a massive organisation, I would have thought they were leaving themselves open for a discrimination suit?

Just curious if anyone else had come across a similar situation?

seamus

xalot wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I was wondering about this, my husband works in a company that top up maternity pay (to full pay) but not paternity pay at all. Surely this is discrimination?

He was the first person to take leave once the paternity leave option came out so maybe they were finding their feet, but it's a massive organisation, I would have thought they were leaving themselves open for a discrimination suit?

Just curious if anyone else had come across a similar situation?

Yes, it's discrimination.

It's not been tested in court, but the accepted wisdom is that the conditions applied by a company for maternity and paternity leave must be the same. Like you say, many companies kind of got caught on the hop with it, so may have applied it poorly.

I think it would be worth your husband querying this with the head of HR in the company in a non-accusatory way. S/he may not even be aware of the discrepancy.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

*KLAXON* Sums fail. The 230 is taxed at the higher rate too buddy. Try again.

And excuse me now, it most CERTAINLY cuts it.

Assuming, yes assuming you are in the enviable position of not being part of the squeezed middle, and you can save something in the first place without being harassed by a bank or a landlord, assuming that is the case.

Maternity and paternity benefit is changed in almost every budget. It's a constantly moving target. Will it be taxed, not taxed, nobody knows! How very exciting.

Babies take 40 weeks to gestate, and even if everything goes swimmingly during that time, and you don't end up having to take 6 months off for pelvic separation, or puking so hard you lose the lining of your esophagus, or blood pressure so low, or so high you pass out when you stand up... assuming all that common stuff doesn't happen and you don't end up on sickness benefit for most of it.... even then, it's not completely out of the sphere of reason that SOMETHING changes during that time. Work changes, it's taken over by another company, your office moves 40km off in another direction, a big client decides not to pay you, one of our parent's needs a carer or a nursing home, your car keels over, your dog needs 1000 of surgery, all 7 of your brothers decide to get married that year in different exotic locations. Life happens.


Also, I don't know if you know any biology, but pregnancy isn't quite as simple as just rocking up swinging around wildly without a condom on, and bingo you're up the duff that day. It can be accidental, unplanned, or the opposite, planned for years and never happen at all, or take 20,000 euro worth of IVF treatment before it happens.


Sure, some people can have a swimmingly simple time of it, but a hell of a lot of people in the real world are getting tossed about in a financial storm.

So yeah, it cuts it.

Did you even read my post

The money excuse doesn't cut it in the vast vast majority of cases.

My post was general about peternity leave. My point was not a huge amount of money needs to be saved to make up the difference between regular wager minus paternity leave cash.

Landlords, bank harressments, money problems, medical problems. No **** this happens, I think we all know the problems life throws up. Everyone goes through ****ty times, and get on with it. Humans are resiliant.

Also, I don't know if you know any biology,

:rolleyes:

judeboy101

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it's discrimination.

It's not been tested in court, but the accepted wisdom is that the conditions applied by a company for maternity and paternity leave must be the same. Like you say, many companies kind of got caught on the hop with it, so may have applied it poorly.

I think it would be worth your husband querying this with the head of HR in the company in a non-accusatory way. S/he may not even be aware of the discrepancy.

Totally against the rules, depends how the fella wants to swing it with company. Personally id contact HR with query, then not push it but keep it in my back pocket for future ammo against company, if they are willing to screw someone over once they'll try again.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it's discrimination.

It's not been tested in court, but the accepted wisdom is that the conditions applied by a company for maternity and paternity leave must be the same. Like you say, many companies kind of got caught on the hop with it, so may have applied it poorly.

I think it would be worth your husband querying this with the head of HR in the company in a non-accusatory way. S/he may not even be aware of the discrepancy.

Great point

Westwood

Someone in my job mentioned an additional 3 days leave on top of the 2 weeks, anyone have more info on this? Thibk it was originally 3 days leave?

Westwood

Westwood wrote: »

Someone in my job mentioned an additional 3 days leave on yop of the 2 weeks, anyone have more info on this?

That might be just a company policy where you work? Our place is 2 days

pwurple

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Did you even read my post

My post was general about peternity leave. My point was not a huge amount of money needs to be saved to make up the difference between regular wager minus paternity leave cash.

Landlords, bank harressments, money problems, medical problems. No **** this happens, I think we all know the problems life throws up. Everyone goes through ****ty times, and get on with it. Humans are resiliant.

:rolleyes:

Yes, "Peternity" leave is two weeks. So... depending on what you earn.... 2 or 3k out of pocket maybe? Obviously that's not a lot of money to you, but it's a few months of creche payments or rent payments that plenty of people don't have.

Especially when your wife is also looking at a hole of 20-50k in her earnings, and you have the expense of a new baby, with creche fees loomimg shortly.

Who can absorb that easily?

Yeah yeah, we are all terribly resilient , but all the grit and determination and rolling up sleeves doesn't make thousands of euro reappear when you have a new person to maintain.

shesty

I understand exactly what the problem is...for many fathers it's not worth taking the leave because they can't afford the wage hit so it'd easier to just take annual leave.But the reason behind that is because it's 'only' 230 a weekk, which is what mothers have been paid on leave for years, and the point I'm trying to make is that it hasn't bothered too many people in the country what mat leave pay is because it simply hasn't affected the male half of the country that much.But now that it does (or might) have an impact on them, it suddenly gets questioned.The point is....apparently it's only when it hits a man's pocket that it suddenly becomes an issue.

As for topping up paternity pay...my company do actually, but they don't have to.I'd imagine that will get tested in the courts eventually because it is discrimination.Mind you, any company with half an insight should move to put in a policy of topping up paternity pay even just to avoid a potential lawsuit.

Pwurple do I know you?!!!I didn't go through quite the hardship you did ( ;-) ) but I am also an engineer. I am working in a very male dominated workplace but I'm lucky, they are very good to their staff when it comes to flexibility and leave.

I just think in general, many companies treat pregnancy and child rearing as a sort of inconvenience, rather than accepting that human beings reproduce, and putting measures in place to work with parents.Aside from anything else, it's a good way to hold on to your staff longterm.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

I see there is going to be an extra two weeks paternity leave for parents of children born from 1st November. We are expecting our third child (due 18th October) however would this mean we miss out?? I've heard talk they backdate it to 1st Jan.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-to-extend-maternity-paternity-leave-by-two-weeks-1.4042032%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjeluPd-IrlAhU-UhUIHdSvBy0QiJQBMAB6BAgIEAQ&usg=AOvVaw1qxClLRXAfhFOfs25XOXCC&ampcf=1

AulWan

pwurple wrote: »

God yes. It crippled us when we couldn't do that. I cannot figure out what difference it makes to the govt to restrict which spouse goes to work.

The simple answer is that it makes sure the mother gets adequate time to recover physically from 9 months of pregnancy followed by birth.

Paternity leave is welcome, but a man has nothing physical to recover from.

Uriel.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote: »

I see there is going to be an extra two weeks paternity leave for parents of children born from 1st November. We are expecting our third child (due 18th October) however would this mean we miss out?? I've heard talk they backdate it to 1st Jan.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-to-extend-maternity-paternity-leave-by-two-weeks-1.4042032%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjeluPd-IrlAhU-UhUIHdSvBy0QiJQBMAB6BAgIEAQ&usg=AOvVaw1qxClLRXAfhFOfs25XOXCC&ampcf=1

It literally says in the article who it applies to. No backdating.

Expectation is that the law will be passed and will apply to children born or adopted from 1st November.

You can view the full bill here.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2019/75/

See section 5(6) for confirmation of the date from which the entitlement applies.

seamus

AulWan wrote: »

The simple answer is that it makes sure the mother gets adequate time to recover physically from 9 months of pregnancy followed by birth.

Paternity leave is welcome, but a man has nothing physical to recover from.

Sure. But even a c-section has a recovery period of 4-6 weeks, maximum.

It's incredibly rare, like fractions of a percent, of women who would need the full six months to recover from their pregnancy & childbirth.

Arguably staying at home to mind the child is harder than going to work, so new mothers aren't exactly getting to rest up and take it easy

The primary purpose of paternity and maternity leave is provide hands-on care to the child in the first crucial months. Maternal recovery is somewhat incidental.

The system in Sweden offers 12 weeks for both parents, with a further year (paid) available as a pool for either or both to use. This makes a whole lot of sense since it cannot be assumed that the mother wants to be the one staying at home or that the family can afford to have the mother stay at home.

jlm29

AulWan wrote: »

The simple answer is that it makes sure the mother gets adequate time to recover physically from 9 months of pregnancy followed by birth.

Paternity leave is welcome, but a man has nothing physical to recover from.

No, the simple answer is that it’s old fashioned and a bit backward, and how society thinks it should be. I know lots of people who have had babies, l only know of one who needed more than a few weeks to recover from a birth.

AulWan

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But even a c-section has a recovery period of 4-6 weeks, maximum.

It's incredibly rare, like fractions of a percent, of women who would need the full six months to recover from their pregnancy & childbirth.

The Master of the Coombe told me himself that it takes a woman 9 months to gestate a baby, and 9 months to fully recover from pregnancy.

I think I'll take his word for it.

I have no issue with paternity Leave, but not if it comes at the expense of the mother's recovery time. Fathers are entitled to Parental leave, maybe more should be encouraged to take this up.

iamwhoiam

jlm29 wrote: »

No, the simple answer is that it’s old fashioned and a bit backward, and how society thinks it should be. I know lots of people who have had babies, l only know of one who needed more than a few weeks to recover from a birth.

Post C section recovery is much longer than a few weeks . Its considered major abdominal surgery

PhoenixParker

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Post C section recovery is much longer than a few weeks . Its considered major abdominal surgery

It may be, but if someone has major abdominal surgery they don’t get signed off sick for 6-9months.

Maternity/paternity/parental leave in this country is long overdue for a major overhaul.

AulWan

Neyite wrote: »

It does if you are barely making ends meet on two small salaries and don't have any extra spends left over. Lots of couples were juggling bills because they didn't have enough income to pay them as they arrived. So a drop to statutory maternity pay means they had to scrimp and save even more.

The paternity benefit might have been just beyond their very limits.

If you can't afford 20 quid a week, then you can't afford a/nother child.

AulWan

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote: »

I see there is going to be an extra two weeks paternity leave for parents of children born from 1st November. We are expecting our third child (due 18th October) however would this mean we miss out?? I've heard talk they backdate it to 1st Jan.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-to-extend-maternity-paternity-leave-by-two-weeks-1.4042032%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwjeluPd-IrlAhU-UhUIHdSvBy0QiJQBMAB6BAgIEAQ&usg=AOvVaw1qxClLRXAfhFOfs25XOXCC&ampcf=1

Any chance you'll go over?

AulWan

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Maternity/paternity/parental leave in this country is long overdue for a major overhaul.

Less and less private sector companies now pay maternity top ups, as it is. Those that do usually have a claw back clause that if the mother does not return to work for a set period, the top up has to be repaid.

The only result I can see from father's looking for paternity benefit to be topped up, is more companies no longer offering maternity top ups (to new employees) to avoid being accused of discrimination.

Public sector may be different.

jlm29

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Post C section recovery is much longer than a few weeks . Its considered major abdominal surgery

As someone else mentioned, for no other surgery would you get six months paid leave. It obviously depends on many factors, including the type of labour and delivery someone has, as well as the type of job they do.
I think it could be assumed that someone could use their judgement and know themselves when they’re fit to go back to work. They could even get their GP to sign them off as fit to work if needs be.

I’m not saying that maternity leave should be reduced, but as pwurple rightly pointed out, in many cases it might benefit a couple for financial or other reasons, if some of it could be used by the parent who didn’t give birth, and it’s obviously the couple who are in the best position to decide that, not a government policy.