2009 Omlet cube and run for sale

[patsylabrador]

What do you think? I would have hated it, at one point I had four children under 4yrs old, and needed to be left on my own to sort out my own systems. I think men work from a different mindset and I was quite glad for him to be at work. He took over when he could, well, slept while they played around him - he did work very hard!

I didn't go back to work so I imagine that how you view this would be very different if you did.

[whoopsie]

I'm not sure it's a compulsory thing. I thought the original idea was that couple could choose who took leave and when - and they wouldn't both be on leave together. I think the original plan was that they could take 6 months each rather than the mother have a year, but I may be wrong, and it may never happen!

[patsylabrador]

That makes more sense. I guess it could be a more useful tool for parents in those situations. Jumping to conclusions again. I didn't think many men would want that amount of paternity leave, it will be interesting to see.

[Old Speckled Hen]

My step son in law had just four weeks. Little grand daughter was difficult to feed so we suggested adding a bottle, (they stayed with us over Christmas and little one cried a lot). He said mum and baby weren't trying hard enough MEN I could have whacked him I think my poor DIL missed him but was glad he went back to work. Baby has a bottle as well as boob now and is thriving

[majorbloodnock]

I'm not sure it's a compulsory thing. I thought the original idea was that couple could choose who took leave and when - and they wouldn't both be on leave together. I think the original plan was that they could take 6 months each rather than the mother have a year, but I may be wrong, and it may never happen!

 

I believe that's right. So far as I understand it, up to one year of parental leave is up for grabs following the birth of a child, up to 6 months of which can be covered by the father, so long as both parents aren't off at the same time.

 

Personally, I think it's a good thing, since it has the flexibility to suit almost all situations. Some fathers are very hands-on, and the family as a whole will benefit immensely from the closer father/child relationship. Some fathers are better suited to a role of supporting from the background and so won't take up the offer. Both are perfectly valid ways of bringing up a family, of course, but the important thing is that the choice is available.

 

The only real problem I can see is when a new mother becomes comfortable enough in her new role as to want to spend the full year with babe, but the father wants an extended period looking after babe too. At that point, it's a conflict between parents, but if they can't resolve that difference they probably had no business starting a family in the first place.

[Rhapsody]

I applaud the sentiment but I think economically it would/will be a disaster for the country, especially for small firms that already labour under the same legislative weight as the big boys.

[majorbloodnock]

But why, Rhapsody? For every man taking an extended period of leave, there'd be a woman returning to work. If both parents were assumed to take their proportion of the parental leave, the only real effect I can see would be that employers would have to lose their (unofficial, of course) prejudice against employing women of childbearing age on the grounds that "we'll train them up only for them to leave and start a family". Surely that's all to the better.

[The Dogmother]

A nice sentiment, but as Rhapsody has said, the smaller companies wouldn't be able to afford it.

 

I didn't have the choice and had to return to work at just 8 weeks, but I don't think it'd have helped having a 'bothersome' ex around

[majorbloodnock]

OK, it could be I'm being dense here, but I still don't understand what extra cost is involved if working and at-home parents swap situations so long as the overall parental leave period doesn't extend.

 

I can understand that the mother and father are quite likely to work at different companies, so the birth of one child would affect two businesses instead of one, but the effect would be shared equally rather than lumped on one business. Sure, in some cases a business will lose out, but in others it'll gain. Swings and roundabouts.

[chickencam]

I think the main problem is if anyone from a small firm be they male or female took 6 months out it leaves the firm in a very difficult situation regarding recruitment etc. You always have the doubt about whether or not they will come back and how to cover their workload in the mean time. Especially at the moment most small firms are down to their absolute minimum staffing levels to cope, so extended leave for any reason can be very problematic.

[Chucky Mama]

I had MIL and OH at home for 2 days with my first. Wanted to kill them both 6 months would have had a very messy ending

[Griffin]

I would've loved for Mr Griffin to have been able to take more time off! He's a Godsend around the house, is absolutely brilliant with the kids and is a excellent cook, more time at home would've been bliss. He's been so good at looking after me after I've had a baby and I've always cried buckets when he's had to go back to work.

[Yorkshire Pudding]

I would also have loved more time - with DS1 the paternity leave was only a week, by DS2 it had increased to a fortnight, but OH had saved some holiday and then it was Christmas, so in all we had 5 lovely weeks all together. It was so sad when he had to go back to work.

 

I had to return for financial reasons when my babies were 4 months and 5 months. Maternity leave then was 6 months, not the year it is now, but like many others I couldn't have taken the full year off, we'd have starved! If there had been more time available we would definitely have both taken some.

[Willow]

OH was working at a start-up without a paternity policy when I had YS and they quickly put in place a policy that allowed an extra 3 days off. I felt a bit guilty but after 2 days I sent him back to work - he was driving me crazy and I just wanted peace to work out my own routines

[TheGirlsMum]

When our first daughter was born daughter and I stayed in hospital for the first week while he worked, second and third he worked shifts and then he went to sea for 3 months.........

[Saronne]

OK, it could be I'm being dense here, but I still don't understand what extra cost is involved if working and at-home parents swap situations so long as the overall parental leave period doesn't extend.

 

I can understand that the mother and father are quite likely to work at different companies, so the birth of one child would affect two businesses instead of one, but the effect would be shared equally rather than lumped on one business. Sure, in some cases a business will lose out, but in others it'll gain. Swings and roundabouts.

 

 

I don't think you're being dense at all. Sounds plausible and sensible. I'm with you on this one, majorbloodnock.

 

 

Saronne x

[Old Speckled Hen]

So some businesses will gain and some lose. But this isn't a fifty fifty situation here. The loss for the one business is an absolute 100%. This is really important for small businesses employing few but highly trained staff.

[laurmurf]

it is a choice, not a requirement for men to take paternity leave. It will be shared between parents so as one parent goes, another returns.

 

And the real winners in the end are the babies and families who get to spend more time together.

[Saronne]

Well said, laurmurf

 

 

Saronne x

[sadietoo]

Sorry...I'm about to be un-pc. Currently employment law seems to be biased towards employees rights which may be very laudable..but only if you get a job . I can only see a policy like this leading to more discrimination against certain employees for key posts, even though it won't be admitted. As others have said small firms cannot easily cover the absence of an employee for six months let alone a year

 

As far as actually having fathers at home for six months.... my oh could not reliably pick the children up from a party ( having arrived home without them on more than one occasion!) I would have found it very stressful to be back at work with him in charge...and I'm sure my employer would have got very fed up with me being on the phone all the time..just checking baby and father were still in sight of each other