Company refusing to pay Paternity Benefit

jjm2016 said:
As a father I think the bond between baby and mother after birth is special
Click to expand...
I agree but as a father I also think the bond between father and child is equally special.
I'd love if someone else would pay for me to stay at home with the kids all the time but that's not realistic or fair. We have to remember that we are competing in a global economy and that Europe will be on the periphery of that economy within a few decades. All this soft nanny state BS will destroy our children's future if we keep going the way we are. The Koreans and Chinese and Brazilians and Costa Ricans etc. will wipe the floor with us.
If you choose to have kids then don't expect other people to pay for them. And don't start that nonsense about them paying our pensions; there won't be a state pension for people who work by the time I retire as the present ponzi scheme is unsustainable. I have 4 kids and I'm against the state paying for creche places and universal children's allowance. A tax free allowance per child would be fairer and much cheaper for the State to administer but ultimately if you have kids then look after them yourself. The State is already educating them and providing health services. Do the rest yourself. It's not easy but that's no reason to expect others to do your job for you.
 

As Bonte pointer out maternity leave is unique to the mother and should not be mixed up with parental leave. Parental leave is time out to look after the next generation. The child's interest come first.-Parents should be released from work in return for suspension of wages/salary. -They should be paid an allowance, I have no problem paying a little extra in tax to allow parents to look after their children in the first year if they want to.

Yur welcom
 
Agreed Purple, the bond between father and child is equally special. Except for breastfeeding! That actually benefits the man as he doesn't have to get up on the middle of the night.

I don't mind who gets paid, either parent, but I think a woman needs a minimum of three months and a child six months to a year.
 
My understanding is that paternity leave is to benefit the family and not just a holiday for fathers. The father gets a chance to bond and help the mother in the first few weeks which can physically and emotionally difficult after giving birth. The point the original poster is making is that topping up maternity and not paternity is treating employees differently based on gender. I agree with this, whether you tackle your company on the matter is a judgement call. A lot of companies were giving paid paternity leave prior to this legislation. Spending time with children especially in the early years has a huge benefit to them which in turn will benefit society as a whole so i see it as a long term investment.
 
Where I work For the last 35 years Fathers/ were allowed to take there Holidays Once the baby was born.If the wanted to they could work up there holidays again over 12 months . 6 months before and 6 months after .If they did not want to take it that was OK .Don't know anyone who did not use it.Nobody ever had a problem with it.They also had first refusal to work annual shutdown If people were required to work.I suppose some posters will say this is not fair on people who do not have children.Now the can take there 2 week parental leave also .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Silva said:
Spending time with children especially in the early years has a huge benefit to them which in turn will benefit society as a whole so i see it as a long term investment.
Click to expand...
So why expect the employer to pay for it, why not society as a whole? The father is paying tax which is proportional to his income. Why not have the State pay him two weeks holiday pay, at whatever rate he usually gets, for the two weeks off?
 
Don't necessarily agree that an employer should bear the brunt especially a smaller business but it is important that investment in our future. The point is though regarding the top up and whether it is legally treating men and women the same in terms of their employment. In my view if you top up maternity you should have to top up paternity and that is due to the law whatever your view on the matter.
 
David Silva said:
In my view if you top up maternity you should have to top up paternity and that is due to the law whatever your view on the matter.
Click to expand...

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it is the law, rather than just your view, can you please cite a source?
 
This is from WRC website:
Leave/Benefit:
A relevant parent will be entitled to two continuous weeks' paid leave in respect of births from September 2016. Payment will be at the rate of €230 per week, subject to a person having the appropriate PRSI contributions. This is the same as the current rate of maternity benefit. Similar to maternity leave, employers can top up paternity benefit if they want. It should be noted that where employers make a top up to female employees, they should ensure they do not discriminate against male employees in relation to a top up of paternity benefit.

Have a look at any of the big legal firms advice on the matter they all recommend keeping maternity and paternity policies aligned to avoid being left open to discrimination claims.

I haven't heard of it being tested yet and whether someone will bring an employer to task over it is another story.
 
David Silva said:
It should be noted that where employers make a top up to female employees, they should ensure they do not discriminate against male employees in relation to a top up of paternity benefit.
Click to expand...
Kinda misses the point that female employees may also avail of paternity benefit, and once there is no discrimination between female and male employees in respect of top-ups of paternity benefit, there shouldn't be a problem.
 
Just looked at WRC website, the following cases appear which appear to contradict the quote from their website above but nevertheless this is the way they have been ruling.

WRC Cases/2017/September/ADJ-00005771

Cases/2017/July/ADJ-00006382
 
David Silva said:
Just looked at WRC website, the following cases appear which appear to contradict the quote from their website above but nevertheless this is the way they have been ruling.

WRC Cases/2017/September/ADJ-00005771

Cases/2017/July/ADJ-00006382
Click to expand...
Can you post a link (just copy and paste it into a post) as when I Googled for it I couldn't find it.
 
Last edited:
David Silva said:
The point is though regarding the top up and whether it is legally treating men and women the same in terms of their employment.
Click to expand...
Of course the law doesn't treat them the same; women get 6 months when they become a parent and men get 2 weeks when they become a parent.
 
John Sipos said:
In America they get 6 weeks, it's so short
Click to expand...
Until 1998 is was 14 weeks here, extended to 18 in 1998. It wasn't until 2007 that it was extended to the current 26 paid and 16 unpaid weeks. Therefore in the space of 10 years maternity leave tripled with the amount of it that is paid almost doubling.

The result is that in effect women are unemployable in key roles in small businesses.
 
The tax treatment still very much favours individualisation whilst this maternity benefit promotes the mother staying at home. It would be nice if the government could try and be consistent in what it is trying to promote here. Either take a stance that you want more women in the workplace (rather than at home raising children) and promote policies that encourage that (as you are currently promoting this policy for men), or take a stance that you want to support one parent (women or men) staying at home raising children and promote policies that encourage that (including reversing some of the individualisation tax treatment changes).
The current messages coming out are mixed. They seem to be promoting choice for employees but as Purple says, the downside of that is that small businesses will look at someone who could be off on maternity for 6 months every couple of years for the next few years and think they might have better alternative candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register