Talk:Parental leave/Archives/2012

Time format

This article uses days, weeks and months in the same table. The same time format should be used so comparision is easier. 84.250.87.21 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Old comments

I have added a table with parenting rights derived from the http://europa.eu.int/eures/index.jsp webpage. Although that page is written to be easy to read, I have not always been sure exactly what the rights were - so please correct me if I am wrong. Also please add the rights for your country. Hjb26

I'm working on adding paternity leave information from the International Labour Organization site at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/condtrav/family/reconcilwf/specialleave.htm. As a UN-related group, its figures are reliable, and the page is copyrighted 2006 so is probably reasonable up to date. Llachglin 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The ILO has information for paternity leave for the following countries that conflicts with the existing information:

New Zealand: 2 weeks unpaid paternity leave
France: 2 paid weeks paternity leave
Italy: 2 weeks paid (but doesn't mention the 80% paid additional weeks)
Norway: 2 weeks unpaid paternity leave + four weeks paid parental leave reserved for the father
Sweden: 10 days paid paternity leave + 2 months paid parental leave reserved for the father

I'm leaving the non-ILO information for these 5 countries for now, but I thought the discrepancies should be recorded so somebody can double check later. Note that for all the paternity leave that is paid, it's unclear what portion of normal income is paid for each country according to the ILO.

Where the ILO information does not conflict, it has been added. Llachglin 00:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the ILO information for New Zealand and France where I believe it was more up to date or complete than the information in the table. Hjb26

1. The description of Bulgaria rules in text and in table differs seriously. What is true?

2. Laws of Russia allows to transfer maternal leave to father or to grandparent. How should it be mentioned in table? Unpaid (m/p)aternal leave in Russia is 3yrs since cnildbirth.213.148.27.40 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---
Parental leave systems can't be labelled "generous". For the vast majority of the population they are paid through the beneficiary's own taxes. Hence it is just a redistribution of income (and a mandatory one at that) inside a person's life. Generosity implies that someone else is paying (and pating voluntarily, as in giving). Parental leave is not more generous than highways, it is a mutually agreed system that advances some (perceived or real) common goods. 213.238.217.99 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It would not be generosity if people were receiving a payment equal to their contribution, but in this case, not everyone is a parent and not everyone has the same number of children. Hence, those who have less kids that their national average can be labelled as "generous" to offer any parental leave, and the better the offer, the more generous the policy. When a government is democratically elected, you can assume that a society has made the decision of being generous to its members who decide to have children. --Mozza 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have a question, does the information in the article reflect legally mandated paid leave or customary? Because its my understanding that US employers can offer paid parental leave as part of their benefits compensation along with the usual health insurance. 204.13.78.154 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's legal information referring to "rights". Any employer can offer what he wants - Ferrari as signing bonuses, stock options, 1 year of parental leave - so it would be impossible to track and not an indication of what citizens are entitled to. --Mozza 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brazil: I made some alterations. The "1 day 100% paid (Article 473, section III, of Labor Laws)" doesn't apply anymore, because Brazilian Constitution of 1988 is newer.

Situation in Germany

I tried to compress the situation in Germany to fit in the table. Here is the complete picture: The mother gets 6 weeks before and 8 weeks after child-birth with 100% salary (paid for by the employer). Additionally, both parents can share up to 14 month at 67% salary capped at 1800 Euro/month (paid for by the family secretary). Each parent can only take 12. So e.g. first the mother 10, then the father 4 or both 7 at the same time. Typical is 12 for the mother, 2 for the father. Single parents can get all the 14 months for themselves.

This support is not limited to biological parents. Also grand-parents and adoptive parents can get it (if they care for the baby), but only two care-givers per baby. Side-note: wedlock or differing sex is also not a requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.228.207.103 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article floored me.

This article is so skewed, possibly even beating the Iraq War one. "Parental" leave is not a 'right' as listed in the blanket-statement beginning. It is true that certain countries recognize it as such, but certainly not the US. Not to mention the majority of countries. And why is the whole fact that maternity leave is far more common completely untouched. Most refer to the entire concept as 'Maternity Leave.' I'm not saying that the article should be renamed, but it should be mentioned.

How about the fact that small businesses discriminate against hiring women of child-bearing age due to the fear that they would have to pay for months without work.

How about the hardship it causes to those small businesses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.111.53 (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be some representation of positions critical of parental leave, (eg, some groups may consider child-raising to be the responsibility of the parent, not the workplace/state; and/or that the "liability" of having to devote time to it comes about as a result of a parents rational choice to do so) and possibly of the potential for abuse by persons who have multiple children spaced apart to receive the maximum amount of parental benefits. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The US is the odd man out here. Maternity Leave is a right in 99% of countries around the world (along with Health Care). If there is some discussion added on criticism of leave, it should be noted that these views generally don't exist outside of the US. ... Seabhcan 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "not a right" simply because the U.S. does not see it as such? Most countries in the world view it as such (apart from a few tinpot dictatorships) so in reality it should be presented as such but (as the previous poster implies) with a small section denoting the fact that the U.S. does not consider this a right. Please save your "poor downtrodden American" comments regarding the Iraq war for that article as well please.(89.107.7.71 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Paternal leave in Romania

In Romania the Paid Paternal leave is 2 years, not 126 days. Also at this moment the payment is not 85% but a fixed 600 RON (romanian new leu), but I think from 1st january 2009 it will be 85% from the salary again (minimum 600 RON).

Well done - but update?

If it's been anonymous users who have done this page, it's really useful, and thanks. Are those graphs for the Americas and Europe out of date, though? The UK is depicted as having about 10 weeks leave, but if that was true before, I don't think it is anymore. Can it be changed? Wikidea 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

U.S.

This article's treatment of benefits in the U.S. is really shitty (i.e., listing "0 weeks" for Paid Maternity Leave and "0 weeks" for Paid Paternity Leave). This gives the (false) impression that American mothers are dropping the babes in the open fields and hopping back on the tractor. The Family and Medical Leave Act (which covers over 94 million American workers) is relegated to a note in the "Restrictions" column. Was this done for propaganda effect? OK, so the FMLA does not cover every single worker. And parental leave is not a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. But the majority of U.S. workers fall under the FMLA, so I propose using FMLA benefits as the default rule and noting limits to the FMLA's application in the "Restrictions" column. 38.96.137.87 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the FMLA unpaid? I think that by comparison to other developed countries, poor Americans without good employment contracts probably really do struggle, and yes, America is about half a century behind (like on health care). I would like to know what specific states do, however. Do you know? Wikidea 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a teacher, in my district in California, I did not receive any FMLA. I did receive "paid leave', for six weeks, but that was used with my sick days. When I ran out of sick days then I had to split the remaining days to pay my substitute. With my second child I did have some help through disability insurance, which was needed because I used my all of sick days on my maternity leave with my first child. I don't know if this is true for all teachers in California.(Hapamama (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

Whatever your political opinion, there is no question that US law is different from most other countries on this area. (The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, unlike most countries, provides only for unpaid leave.) That fact should emerge more clearly from the article, not in the form of a political polemic about what US law should be but as a neutral, encyclopedic fact about the international legal landscape. I suggest that it appear not in lead to the article as a whole but in the lead to the section "Benefits in a selection of countries" (which should maybe be retitled something like "Variation in International Laws"). This isn't original research; there must be some published discussion out there to cite.

There could be a brief discussion of arguments for and against paid parental leave, but this article shouldn't be a political battleground; maybe there could be a link to a separate article, "Debates about Parental Leave."

There could also be a short discussion of de facto vs de jure parental leave. Many US employers, esp. larger ones, do offer paid parental leave. At the same time, many poorer countries have generous paid parental leave requirements on the books that are a dead letter in practice.

The charts are great, but they are not entirely up to date. The chart showing US parental leave as zero should be titled not "Maternity Leave in the Americas" but "Paid Parental Leave in the Americas." Also, the charts should be preceded by a sentence preparing the reader to understand them, esp. the first one.

I know that making lots of suggestions is less useful than actually implementing them. I'll make a start in this area, which I hope some editor more knowledgeable than I will add to. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

0% Paid Leave

Papua New Guinea is listed as having "12 weeks 0%" paid leave for the mother. Is this supposed to be 12 weeks unpaid leave, a mistyped number, or does 0% mean something else in this case?--Cosmicosmo (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Slovenia

Maternity leave in Slovenia is 105 days, paid at 100% of the income basis. Parental leave is 260 days, which can be used by one of the parents (either father or mother). Payment for parental leave is 100% of income, amounting to at least 55% of minimum salary and no more than 250% of national average wage. Paternity leave is 90 days, and must be used before child is 3 years old. Fifteen of these days are paid at 100%, and must be used before child is 6 months old. These figures were compiled by the the ILO Travail legal database, and directly come from Slovenia's "Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.92.50 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

185% in Lithuania?

The figure stated for annual maternity leave in Lithuania is 185%. I assume that this is a typo, so would someone who knows the correct figure please edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.102.189 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why "Variation in international law"?

It has nothing in common with international law. It should be called e.g. National regulations". Tomasz Raburski (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)