Proposals for employer to pay for paternity leave

neris

Heard on the radio this morning that the national womens councils are trying to get the government to implement full paternity leave for mothers and have the employer pay full salary for the time off. seems that the government and employee groups think that businesses are fair game for screwing money out of.

smeharg

Paternity leave is for fathers.

I just googled this and to put it into context it's in light of an EU report that says women earn an average 17% less than men.

The national women's council believes that introducing statutory paternity leave will level the playing field resulting in men taking a more equal role in childcare, taking more time off work, and consequently narrow the gender gap in salaries.

I don't think that would necessarily be the result. It would take a much bigger cultural shift than that. It could result in discrimination between between those who have children and those that don't.

But to answer your question: maternity leave is a huge burden on small businesses. Regardless of the arguments for and against paternity leave perhaps the timing is not right.

To be clear though, an employer doesn't have to offer paid maternity leave, but must give the time off and keep the position open etc.

neris

I agree that in its current state maternity leave is a burden on small business and as a compnay that has a majority of female employees it can be difficult to work out times and dates but we can live with that. What I cant understand though and what annoys me more is that we as employers would be expected to pay someone to stay at home and look after their children and to put it bluntly id really call it paying someone to have a jolly.

In the last year we already had the idea out of Labour that we should pay the first 4 weeks of sick leave and now this. So what we,d really be doing is giving out free money and I dont know about any one here but no ones ever walked into my office and said "there you go, theres a few free quid for you for nothing"

Pixie Chief

All of you posting have a point but I would like to offer a different perspective on the issue (even if I am going to be slammed for it!) An employee (obviously ideally) is not just someone to whom you hand out money to every week. The right employee is an asset to your company that has value way beyond money. You cannot run a decent, profitable business that after all makes YOU money without them. They have a right to a life other than work and again obviously that will include family and relationships whether they are male or female. As it has been previously said, you are not required to pay maternity leave, merely to keep their position open. There is an argument to be made for appreciating the role they have, still do and will play in the generation of money for you and have a different attitude to it so that not only will they be missed by the company during maternity leave but will miss work too. The attitude of employers to maternity leave (and not just money here!) will dictate much of the employees decisions regarding work after the baby is born. If you have a great employee who makes a difference to your company then money is irrelevant - you need to appreciate them!

smeharg

You make a fair point Pixie. There must be a harmony between profit and people in any successful business - each supports the other.

However, it could be argued that the more value an employee adds to a business the higher the risks posed to that business when that employee takes maternity leave.

The prolonged absence of a key employee, plus her/his replacement by an unknown factor, could damage customer relations and business reputation.

The increased costs of paid maternity leave, paying a temporary replacement and potential loss of business, could be enough to tip a small business over the edge.

If that were the case money certainly would be everything.

Nuttzz

this could cause discrimination against women of child bearing age.

If I had 2 equally qualified female candidates one aged 30 and one aged 45 and this proposal was in place its more likely the 45 year old would get the job.

The Apprentice

Or in my case, starting my own business in the coming 6 months does anyone think im realistically going to employ ANY women if this even comes in ??

Get real, Pixie some of the Most Sensical points up there - fair play. Its going to create more discrimination that the world has ever seen and i for one would not like to be a part of that if i could. Ideally women just as much talent and skill to a job as men at the current moment i think its fine. The OPTION is there to pay someone, it should NOT be mandatory.
The national womens council should really be campaigning for real womens rights, if anything its going to give on one hand that shall recieve less on the other therefore you are gaining nothing long term..

Atomicjuicer

This is exactly what we need - these days neither parent is at home and society is in disrepair with out of control kids.

Paternity leave should have nothing to do with employing women - its for fathers. If you're a man with a kid you should be entitled to time off work (paid or unpaid is another issue) to see your kid.

This will make men and women equal in an employer's eyes as regardless of gender time off for kids could come up.

Look at the state of the US if you think working 80 hours a week with about 1 days holiday per year and no sick leave is what the economy needs.