entirely my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Printable View
entirely my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I'm not sure how it was in Dan's household and I don't like to speculate on such personal matters but the idea that men don't look after children and therefore shouldn't have paternity leave rights is utterly ridiculous
Well in my household, the woman gave birth to the babies (naturally, you couldn't have it any other way) and thus she had the time off. My dad on the other hand didn't have the babies and didn't have to carry them for what is it? 9 months? so therefore he didn't get the time off.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Fairly sensible I think, woman has the babies and thus has the time off - the man doesn't and thus isnt entitled to the time off.
Maternity leave isn't to let the mother "recover" which doesn't take a whole year, and it isn't some kind of reward for squeezing a baby out, it's time off work to look after the kid once it's been ejected. If for some reason the dad's more willing or able to do that (be it for health, psychological, employment or any other issues) then why should families have to suffer?
I believe they have to balance it between them? I didn't read the whole article but I would like more time if I were a father to spend with my new-born, although I wouldn't care paid or not.
I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, it's a bit OTT I mean..10 months? Seriously..? But on the other hand my father got 2 DAYS with me, before he had to go back. I think a month would be sufficient tbh.
&& This shows the problem with socialism - IT DOESNT WORK.
It's a bit odd, you don't desperately have to have two parents off to look after one child, the world has survived with the father going to work and coming home to the child to look after it with the mother. There seems to be this assumption that daddy never sees junior, so somehow daddy has been forced to work way too many hours if that is the case, and should probably seek legal advice. Of course, the father can see the child, but it seems odd that he should be paid to when the reward for seeing your child is self-explanatory :P
read and comprehend the article. the father will not get 10 months - the mother and father would have the option of sharing their allowances together (if i remember correctly men get 10 days off) and women get 39weeks - not all of this at full pay of course - in fact a lot less than full pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservative
and @Gomme, what if the mother earns more than the father? Why is it fair that they have to lose money?
Let's let businesses pay for workers who aren't actually working at a time when the country NEEDS all it's workers working like they've never worked before!
Terrible idea yet again from the political elite, why our country is bonkers is beyond me.
In most cases you would be paid for time off work. If she isn't she can request it or take it to a tribunal to get paid time off work if she is denied. Plus preparing for a baby is usually helpful, so it's common sense to get saving anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx