back to article British fathers to be given six months' paid paternity leave

Fathers will be allowed to take six months' paid paternity leave instead of mothers under new government proposals. The law will not come into effect until maternity cover is extended to 12 months, which will happen in April 2009 at the earliest. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has opened a consultation on its plans …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

What next ?

So what next then, piad leave until the child is three, or five, or 11 or eighteen, or ...

Sorry, but I fail to see why being paid to not work is considered such a right ?

When can I claim my time off for not having children ? After all, if I don't have children then I don't get 6 or 12 months off work while being paid - and surely that's discrimination against non-parents ?

Those with a sense of humour bypass need not comment, and the above is said with a hint of jest - but it does seem a reasonable question to ask.

0
0
Jim

Good point, well made.

No need for a humour warning, this is a very fair point to make. When a child is brought in to this world is almost always a deliberate act on the part of the parents, either to conceive or to ignore contraception. Why the big prize? Afterall there was a choice NOT to encumber themselves.

I guess the reward is for bringing another consumer into the world, thus keeping the economy ticking over. Or maybe it's a prize for helping stop the country from being overrun by Jonny and Jane Foreigner...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Title

What an ignorant attitude the above two posters have (even if said in jest). No doubt you complain about the lack of decent parenting that the hooded kids mugging grannies in bus shelters are obviously exposed to but you begrudge parents the chance of raising their children and instilling some kind of moral decency in them as opposed to them being brought up by a nursery nurse who has twenty other kids to look after and can't devote full time care to one child.

Not many people in this country are in the priveliged state of being able to afford one partner not having to work so if you have, and will in the future, contribute to the economy through taxes and consumerism why shouldn't a small amount of help (and it is small - £400 p/m after six weeks) be forthcoming? It's the same argument for unemployment benefit (with the exception of those that abuse the system).

As for the "I don't have children" holier-than-thou attitude of so many, on a basic survival-of-the-species level, having kids is far more natural and beneficial to society than not having kids.

[/rant]

0
0

Huh?

Based on the above comments, at least I know I'm not the only one who sees something wrong here. As a non-married non-parent myself, I do feel discriminated against by this. I also feel discriminated against by the stupid SiteKey "security" questions, of which at least half are about your spouse or children, but that's another matter. Why should your employer have to pay you because, in Carlin's words, you forgot to put your diaphragm in? Imagine a small office of 10 employees where 5 decided to have children. That employer now has to pay 5 people to sit at home and not work. It won't take long for that employer to go bankrupt. And now they're trying to extend it to 12 months? Great, now the woman will NEVER have to work (except for the initial period before she has the first child), and she'll be set for life.

0
0

Yeah?!

And no one talks about the definition of "paid".

In the real world, the fathers tend to make almost double the pay compared to the mothers. Don't expect any other "pay" from the dear ol'e Gov't than the statutory sick pay = peanuts... Do they really believe the main income provider to suddenly afford jumping on the benefit payment train!! Who's going to pay their mortgage?

Besides, this have been a right in Scandinavia for many years and guess what - the fathers can't afford to stay home because they are the main bread winners! Surprised?

How I wished we had politicians that originates from the real world, not a labour party broiler farm!

0
0
Jim

To the anonymous poster...

Nothing I said was in jest, I truely do not understand why someone should be rewarded for 'doing what comes naturally' compared to someone who doesn't (for whatever reason they choose). If pregnancy was a disease which one caught through no fault of your own then I can see a compensatory payment as fair.

As for, ooo, a whole year of being with your child, what a load of cr@p. Children are incredibly impressionable for, on average, 7 years. Are you suggesting that maternity leave should be extended to this length to ensure that the child is properly instilled with morals?

And finally, during my lifetime, the global population has doubled. Just what benefit does 'another' child make to mankind? Apart from the 2 I already stated? I am not anti-children but am realistic enough to realise that if I become a father, either by choice or carelessness, then it is not the state's, ie the taxpayer's, job to pay for its care.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums