Equality numpties strike again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

---

you aren't paid 100% or even close to it if you are taking maternity leave.

If the maternity leave is shared between the mother and father then that's alright. I imagine the 'tradition' will stay the same in general so the mother would have the bulk of it and the father would have the minority but now at least parents are allowed the choice of doing the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

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.

---

What is it with people not actually reading threads before posting in them? The time is shared between the two with 10 months given as the maximum for new fathers - if that option is taken then the mother has only 2 months off or something around that timespan. This is not ADDING 10 months of paternity leave to the current maternity leave allowance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

---

What about cases when it's more beneficial - to the child or the family as a whole - for the father to be the one at home with the child? Not all mothers are as capable as one might assume, and again this isn't an additional allowance it's merely giving the option of splitting the time off between the parents as necessary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nationalism

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.

---

You're right because of course women do not have jobs

This is brilliant. More single males will be hired. I'm all for this.

This thread is ridiculous. Really. Basic common sense is not being explored for example:

What if the female has a better paid job? Therefore it makes more sense for her to return to work sooner than the male. Some women are career women who happen to have children.

Also, why shouldn't the father be allowed just as much time? Babies develop emotionally from the get-go and in the first few months they form attatchments to their caregivers. Having both parents off at the same time for a little bit longer just means that both parents will have the opportunity to form attachments.

I don't see the problem with this, as previously stated, it's 12 months between them. It's just men get longer if they choose.