# Paternity Leave



## Frank (20 Nov 2006)

My brother and his wife are having there first child.

I was suprised to find that he is not entitled to even a day or 2 for when they come out of hospital.

Purely at the employers discretion. 

His employer is giving him 2 days unpaid.

Seems a little unfair to me


----------



## lefty (20 Nov 2006)

He could have applied for Force Majeur leave. I did this when my wife had last child. My employer grumbled a bit but eventually gave it- so I got paid.
I think everyone is entitled to up to 5 days in 3 yrs with FM.


----------



## Ms X (20 Nov 2006)

Force Majeure Leave arises where:

for urgent family reasons the immediate presence of the employee is indispensable
as a result of an injury to, or illness involving a close family member
The birth of a child may not meet the criteria above - the person may be entitled to a day in the event of the person having to rush partner to hospital. 

As it is only to be used in 'urgent'/emergency situations, it cannot be booked in advance. However some employers are more relaxed about it's application.

There is no legal entitlement to Paternity Leave in Ireland and therefore there is no obligation on the employer to provide this.


----------



## slave1 (21 Nov 2006)

getting force majeur for a birth was good going, no way would I get it in here


----------



## Frank (21 Nov 2006)

Something to get on to the baby kissing politicians about, when they come knocking looking for votes.

I would have thought a day or 2 would be a nice gesture.


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2006)

Frank said:


> I would have thought a day or 2 would be a nice gesture.



It would indeed - any employer who refuses reasonable leave for such an important event is pretty short-sighted IMO.


----------



## Guest122 (21 Nov 2006)

I thought you are entitled to up to ten days leave (unpaid) if requested for paternity leave.  I took five days holidays and five days unpaid when my children arrived.  I just saved five days annual leave for the occasion – it’s not as if it was a surprise – we knew about it for about nine months…

BB


----------



## Frank (21 Nov 2006)

My brother has saved leave, he had kinda noticed.

But silly me thought would be at least a token allowance of a day or 2 for a new father.


----------



## slave1 (22 Nov 2006)

the parent to be could opt for Parental Leave - unpaid


----------



## noc1 (30 Nov 2006)

there is a statutory entitlement to 70 days unpaid parental leave for every parent in ireland.  
all info on oasis website


----------



## gd2000 (1 Dec 2006)

I've always felt that there should be equal paternity leave to maternity leave (although there shouldn't be an obligation for parents to take it at the same time).

That would mean less gender discrimination against men in terms of leave; encourage men to be involved earlier; and stop discrimination against women by (mainly small) employers...


----------



## Dundhoone (7 Dec 2006)

I agree with you GD200.  Paid Leave at childbirth should be split 50/50 between father and mother.  Give the fathers a chance to get to know the kid and learn about nappies!

Perhaps this is one area of sexism that the feminists have convieniently ignored !


----------



## annR (7 Dec 2006)

Looks like men will have to fight for their rights just like women did!  Or do you want us to do it for you?


----------



## Howitzer (7 Dec 2006)

My own opinion is that there should be a years "parental" leave which can be split at the discretion of the parents.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2006)

Why should the employer give paid leave to anyone?
We top up all maternity payments to female employees and allow everyone to take days off if they require them. This is done because we can afford to it builds loyalty. But why should any business be forced to fund a social function like this? If the government decides that fathers should get paid paternity leave then it should be funded by the exchequer.


----------



## fobs (7 Dec 2006)

Even the mothers who have the child are not entitled to any paid leave from their employers so can't see why then the same companies would give it to the fathers!

Women are entitled to maternity benefit (paid by the state!) if they meet the correct number of prsi contributions etc...and not entitled to any paid leave by their employers.

I work for a very large company with huge profits and they do not top up maternity benefit so definately would not give out any paid leave other than statutory entitlements of holidays etc...


----------



## Howitzer (7 Dec 2006)

fobs said:


> Even the mothers who have the child are not entitled to any paid leave from their employers so can't see why then the same companies would give it to the fathers!
> 
> Women are entitled to maternity benefit (paid by the state!) if they meet the correct number of prsi contributions etc...and not entitled to any paid leave by their employers.
> 
> I work for a very large company with huge profits and they do not top up maternity benefit so definately would not give out any paid leave other than statutory entitlements of holidays etc...


 
Exactly. I think our system is just brutal in this regard but it doesn't appear to even be on the radar as far as any of the political parties are concerned so I guess it can't really be that muxh of an issue to people. People would much rather see their taxes being spent on Mortgage Interest Relief and the likes.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2006)

Howitzer said:


> Exactly. I think our system is just brutal in this regard but it doesn't appear to even be on the radar as far as any of the political parties are concerned so I guess it can't really be that muxh of an issue to people. People would much rather see their taxes being spent on Mortgage Interest Relief and the likes.



Are you proposing that companies should foot the bill or should it be state funded?


----------



## Howitzer (7 Dec 2006)

Purple said:


> Are you proposing that companies should foot the bill or should it be state funded?


 
Well fortunately for us every other civilised nation in the world (bar possibly the US, though I did say civilised) already has parental and paternal leave which far exceeds anything here so there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

Rather embarressing that the UK has so much better leave provisions than us given the fact that there always seems to protests there at how poor their rights are. 

Mu understanding of any of these schemes is that the govt pays a certain amount which the company is then obliged to pay the employee, and anything above that is at their discretion. At the end of the day the people who pay are us, the taxpayer but is that not the whole point of paying tax, to provide social services to every member of society, or are we advocating the privitisation of parenting now?


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2006)

So you think that the state should foot the bill. Is that correct?


----------



## Howitzer (7 Dec 2006)

Purple said:


> So you think that the state should foot the bill. Is that correct?


 
The state already foots the bill, but only for a feeble length of time for maternity leave and nothing atall for paternity leave. The amount that the state currently pays is in and around the same as what you would get on unemployment benefit as far as I know. 

This time last year there was a big moan about creche fees which parents are "forced" to pay since both have to work. The reaction was to give 1K p/a for each child, basically to shut them up. The basic issue was ignored. There should be proper parental leave, not the token amount currently provided.

We pay taxes for a reason, whether it's to provide decent roads, education, healthcare, old age care or care for new born children. The extent that we pay is determined by what we want to pay for. Like I said, no political party or interest group seem to see this as a major issue, so I guess it isn't.

So in summary, yes.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2006)

I agree with you then but do consider the impact that both maternity and paternity leave has on small businesses. Many companies with a few employees simply can’t cope with a key person buggering off for 24 weeks and so don’t hire women of childbearing age for those jobs. I’m not saying it’s right or that I agree with it but that’s the way it is. The same would apply to a lesser extent for men if the prospect of 2 weeks leave in the event of a child being born were there. 
If the government was really interested in levelling the playing field for parents (and mothers in particular) then they would not only pay full wages on maternity leave but would pay the employer to replace the employee who was off (as short term staff are more expensive and will need to be trained in).


----------



## Howitzer (7 Dec 2006)

Ssssshhh, softly softly catchie monkey. Little steps first. Didn't your mother ever tell you, ask for too much and you'll get nothing.


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2006)

Howitzer said:


> Ssssshhh, softly softly catchie monkey. Little steps first. Didn't your mother ever tell you, ask for too much and you'll get nothing.


What?


----------

