Finland also offers 11 weeks of leave for fathers. I guess most Nordic countries are liberal in giving leaves compared to other countries in the world.
I believe it's mostly just Anglo-Saxon countries, or even just North American countries, that are reluctant to give leaves.
EDIT- wait wait, it's only 11 DAYS. Not even comparable. But I think there's another type of longer leave with maybe other conditions, or something, congé parental.
Spain has 2 days at birth and then 13 days in the first 3 months (I think, it has been a while), but this was only increased in 2006 or so. Prior to that it was just 2 days total, at birth.
True, but even as a British working parent, I think I'd vote to stick with it though. It's expensive to offer those benefits and Norway and France, say, are rocking 43.6% and 44.6% of GDP as tax revenues respectively versus our 39% and we already feel hard done by as it is ;-) (Now if we could cull the military to pay for more social benefits, fine, but that'll never happen..)
Well, Nordic countries have a reputation for strong social support systems throughout, so I'm hardly surprised that they have great parental leave policies.
That's new, as of this year. It used to be 3 weeks, and the state would compensate ~60% of your salary. Some employers would cover the missing 40%, but I wonder if this tradition is going to extend to the full 9 weeks.
Similar in Germany, although it was introduced only recently. We got 14 months in total, which we split 12 months + 2months. It's also possible to stretch the parental leave into a longer time of subsidized part-time. One of my bosses is doing that right now.
However, the system is designed for salaried employees. If you're self-employed, your parental leave benefits are based on whatever bills your customers chose to pay in the 12 months before birth (but hearsay).
The interesting thing is that introducing this 14 month of total parental leave (at 67% of your net salary or net income for self-employed parents) in 2008 failed to improve Germany's abysmal fertility rate (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....). We are still stuck at ~1.38 children/woman.
So while Norway is doing something right, it's not just parental leave. Furthermore, they seem to be far from having a sustainable fertility rate at 1.88 children/woman.
Ireland and Iceland are doing better. France too, but most likely this is due to a heavy influx of young Muslims from North Africa.
It's another side of it, but actually most Norwegians think their system is unique (at least to Nordic countries), and are not aware of the similar system in countries like Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium and so on.
France definitely isn't that good, the PDF you link notes 11 days + 3 days "family leave", no shared parental leave (whereas Belgium has 15 weeks maternity, 2 weeks paternity and 3 months parental leave for each parent)
With regards to Belgium: it's 4 months parental leave now (it changed last year, apparently to comply to a European directive).
However, only the first three months you get paid (by social security, not your employer). It is the same amount as unemployment benefits I think, so not your full salary. In my case it was more like 1/3 to 1/2 of my regular salary. The 4th month you get nothing. So whether you can actually benefit from this, depends also on your savings and whether you want to spend them this way.
On the other hand, you can make use of your parental leave until your kids are 12 years old, so you can save it up for when your kid goes to school, or to take them on a trip around world when they are old enough to actually remember it :-)
Sweden is up there with the other Scandinavian countries as well.
Sweden will even give the parental leave RETROACTIVELY to immigrants that are moving to Sweden after the child is born but is not yet 7 years old. So if you move to Sweden with 3-4 kids, the mother (or father) can stay at home several years - with pay. An immigrant to Sweden with 3 children will receive 20.000 SEK per month [~3000 USD] for staying at home, taking care of her kids.
[Source: http://fmalm.blogspot.se/2012/09/vandringshistoria-pa-natet-...]
Now do you see why Sweden has the world's highest taxes?
The link you provided has little to do with parental leave, instead it states that you have to attend school or similar activities full time. Also the 7 year limit isn't valid anymore, it's 80% of the time before the child is 4 years old and the rest before the child is 12 years.
"The calculation is based on a fictitous family which has been constructed solely for the point of maximizing the subsidies per family member. It includes subsidies that can't be combined, that are partly miscalculated and, in some cases, just improbable."
Yahoo PR is pushing their "new and improved" paternity policies. They are better than before, but people are trying to counteract with some perspective.
It was on the top when I posted this, but suddenly disappeared from the frontpage after this was posted. It was a response to this Yahoo PR post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5642705
In Czech Republic the mother have 28 weeks of paid leave (starting usually 6 weeks before the child is born. After this time one parent (no matter of gender) can take parental leave, which can't be refused by employer and he have to give your job back after the leave ends, until the youngest kid have less than three years. This additional parental leave is paid by government.
In Estonia the leave is 100% salary for 1.5 years (78 weeks) for one parent (either the mother or father). However there is a cap on the maximum salary the government will pay, so if the parent is earning a lot they will be taking a pay cut.
I actually think it's quite a good system, to encourage parents to have children.
I live in Oslo, Norway. I became a father for the fourth time just two weeks ago, and I am really looking forward to spend at least 3 months at home with my new born son. But when my two kids from a previous marriage was born in the mid 1994 and 1996, I did not have any paternity leave at all. I could have stayed home with my small kids, but I didn't. Things have changed. My then wife wanted to stay home with the kids longer. The number of weeks designated for the father has increased since then. Also the culture has changed. Now it's a lot more common to see fathers with strollers.
Besides all kids are guaranteed a place in child daycare from the age of 1. The number of active women working in norway is just as important for the economy as the huge oil reserves.
I'm ok with one or more of:
1a) Minimal required parental benefits, people make their own plans and decisions
1b) Companies competing based on offering the right mix of parental benefits
2) Government provided subsidies for childbearing or whatever to compensate for the costs (paid out of taxes)
The one thing I find unacceptable is 3) government mandates that employers provide generous childcare/maternity/paternity benefits, paid by the company (either cash costs, or costs like not being able to replace the worker or job).
The problem with generous mandatory benefits paid by the employer is that some employers, which attract a lot of childwanting workers, will be relatively penalized, and some employers will be incented to discriminate in hiring. Then you have to add all kinds of anti-discrimination laws too, which causes deadweight losses.
California is borderline 3. The US as a whole is 1a/1b. Some of the states of Europe are 2, some are 3, and I think some are 1a/1b.
Exactly. This is basically just that: "employers forced to discriminate in hiring:" I wouldn't hire a woman.
The reason is very simple: women give birth to children. I don't have the right to ask if she still wanted to. If I had the right, and she would answer, she could deceive me deliberately or she could change her mind.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with women giving birth to children. That's how I was born and that's how my child was born. I wouldn't hire a woman because when she gets pregnant, she goes for a 3 years maternity leave, during which I can't fire her. If she wants two children, the vacation is 6 years long.
Edit: Just to clarify, this is not my opinion, just a link to a blogpost about why said author shows why (in Hungary) it is basically impossible to hire a woman (or older people, or basically anyone) for that matter.
OTOH, Even in California, the costs of hiring women who might potentially have children are far lower than the costs of either not hiring women (and missing out on highly qualified candidates) or not hiring women (and getting a reputation for gender discrimination which either exposes you to legal liability or causes both men and women to not work with you).
Co-founders are IMO somewhat different; if a vesting agreement is set up properly, it probably will not vest during an extended leave -- even for protected reasons like maternity or military service. It's probably not worth having someone as a cofounder who would seriously game that, anyway. (and there are plenty of situations where issues other than pregnancy would cause an extended absence; illness, disability, ...) I am not a lawyer, of course.
For a regular employee in tech, I'd still not care, since the market for top talent is so tight. Where it might be an issue is in a job market oversupplied with talent, and where the job has substantial on the job training or search costs or whatever, and in small firms. A lot of these conditions don't apply to companies under 5 or 50 employees, too.
Another difference in Sweden is that you don't have to take you leave in blocks and you don't have to take whole days. For example my wife and I split our leave so that I worked 3 days a week and she 2 days. Also I know several people (and have done so myself) that take 2 hours of parental leave a day so they can work a 6 hour day and pick up their kids from day care earlier.
Sweden has no oil, but has a similar arrangement. Russia has plenty of oil, but fathers get no jack there, and maternity leaves are employer-funded. Strange how that works!
Sweden probably isn't poor either. Why not have 3 years pasternity leave for both parents at 100% wage compensation? Obviously how rich a country is plays a part in this?
Sweden isn't really "richer" than USA or most of Northern Europe either. Clearly instantiating a system like that in Rwanda would be a problem, but in context of developed countries it's mostly a matter of policy, culture and priorities.
> Obviously how rich a country is plays a part in this?
Of course it does. But not necessarily only in the direction you're hinting! At the end of the day it's not the number of hours worked, but the value created, that determines how wealthy a country gets. Having sufficient vacation and generally taking into account that employees are human beings might have an effect on how happy and productive they are.
I don't know if there are studies lending support to this, but to my mind it seems a pretty plausible thesis. I regard spending some of my tax money on my neighbour staying home with his kids as an investment. Social security is fundamental to human health, crime, education, and ultimately productivity.
To me, that is not all though. GDP growth isn't a goal or an end in itself - it is merely a (very important) means to worthy ends. It would be completely meaningless to have GPD growth if it did nothing to promote "the pursuit of happiness".
Statutory maternity leave in Spain is currently 16 weeks’ paid leave from work, of which six weeks must be taken after the birth. To qualify for this, the woman must have been registered with the social security office and made contributions for at least 180 days during the five years before the birth of the child. The mother also has the right to take one year unpaid leave after the maternity leave.
Fathers are entitled to 15 days’ paternity leave (depending on their job). In 2015 this will increase to 30 days. If there are complications for either the baby or the mother, the father is entitled to a longer period of leave.
core reason for this is the aging population of course. most of western europe is shrinking, so measures like this are meant to get people to procreate.
not needed in the US as it has population growth through a still massive influx immigrants. also a lot of poorer people who traditionnally create more children.
wealthy, educated, non-religious populations tend to stop having kids. scandinavia being a prime example. if there is no need, kids are a pure hassle if you don't really want them. turns out a lot of people don't.
labour conditions are a tricky sort of a topic and I think the lens of liberal economics vs socialist-labour economics hides some important perspectives.
Our politicians have a serious roles as leaders. It's intertwined but (IMO) still distinct from their role as legislators
Most leaders in history and outside of the "western" liberal democracy tradition place a huge emphasis on cultural leadership. The King/shah/cesar/great leader represents the ideal citizen. They don't just make laws, they make values. In Europe, you can still see this concept in the vestigial monarchies. In The States, it's present in the idea of a first family (sounds similar to "first citizen," the title of Roman Emperors.
To those of us that grow up in modern democracies, it seems hockey, cultish and dangerous to think of political leaders as paternal figures. We make a point of being critical of our leaders and react to attempts at deification as paths to tyranny - a way of maintaining power. That's probably a good attitude and keeps us safe from tyrants to an extent, but the role of political leader as cultural leader is so embedded in human political structures everywhere that I think it must have some fundamental role that's hard to do without.
Anyway, labour laws do seem to be capable of creating moral/social norms more effectively than say drug laws or tax laws. Our attitudes to discrimination, sexual harassment (or sexualization generally), bullying and other things are distinctly different in a work environment. These cultural elements evolved fast and I'm pretty sure legislation/ors have played a big role.
An employer paying under minimum wage, denying a woman maternity leave or only hiring attractive young women is not just breaking the law, he's an arsehole. He's abusing his role as employer.
Manufacturing, codifying and maintaining cultural norms in parliaments seems to work exceptionally well in the labour laws space.
I don't know about Norway, but in Sweden it depends on how new your company is. If your company is less than 2 years old you'll get a compensation based on what the average industry salary of whatever you are doing is. The idea being to compensate for the fact that it's common to take out less than normal levels of salary during the start up phase of company. If it's more than 2 years old it's based on how much salary you reported paying yourself over the past year.
When you chose to be an entrepreneur, you chose a different life style and set of rules. You do so because you see a benefit to you, over and above, or different, from an employed person.
Think it though, do you really want perfect equality between entrepreneurs and employees? For example, the entrepreneur is entitled to the profits from the venture. Should employees be entitled to the same? The entrepreneur can decide not to go in to work when (s)he feels like it. Should employees have that right? The entrepreneur gets to decide his or her salary. Should employees get that right too?
Still envious of the employed?
Edited:
Well, just read the other reply, and wow. Impressive. But I stand by the above in a general sense.
46 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] thread--
http://www.kela.fi/web/en/paternal-leave
I believe it's mostly just Anglo-Saxon countries, or even just North American countries, that are reluctant to give leaves.
EDIT- wait wait, it's only 11 DAYS. Not even comparable. But I think there's another type of longer leave with maybe other conditions, or something, congé parental.
For women, it is the same after 6 weeks I believe. Paternity/Maternity leaves in UK are truely horrible compared to most continental countries.
However, the system is designed for salaried employees. If you're self-employed, your parental leave benefits are based on whatever bills your customers chose to pay in the 12 months before birth (but hearsay).
So while Norway is doing something right, it's not just parental leave. Furthermore, they seem to be far from having a sustainable fertility rate at 1.88 children/woman.
Ireland and Iceland are doing better. France too, but most likely this is due to a heavy influx of young Muslims from North Africa.
http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/parent-leave...
However, only the first three months you get paid (by social security, not your employer). It is the same amount as unemployment benefits I think, so not your full salary. In my case it was more like 1/3 to 1/2 of my regular salary. The 4th month you get nothing. So whether you can actually benefit from this, depends also on your savings and whether you want to spend them this way.
On the other hand, you can make use of your parental leave until your kids are 12 years old, so you can save it up for when your kid goes to school, or to take them on a trip around world when they are old enough to actually remember it :-)
Sweden will even give the parental leave RETROACTIVELY to immigrants that are moving to Sweden after the child is born but is not yet 7 years old. So if you move to Sweden with 3-4 kids, the mother (or father) can stay at home several years - with pay. An immigrant to Sweden with 3 children will receive 20.000 SEK per month [~3000 USD] for staying at home, taking care of her kids. [Source: http://fmalm.blogspot.se/2012/09/vandringshistoria-pa-natet-...]
Now do you see why Sweden has the world's highest taxes?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5633954
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5642705
I actually think it's quite a good system, to encourage parents to have children.
Besides all kids are guaranteed a place in child daycare from the age of 1. The number of active women working in norway is just as important for the economy as the huge oil reserves.
The one thing I find unacceptable is 3) government mandates that employers provide generous childcare/maternity/paternity benefits, paid by the company (either cash costs, or costs like not being able to replace the worker or job).
The problem with generous mandatory benefits paid by the employer is that some employers, which attract a lot of childwanting workers, will be relatively penalized, and some employers will be incented to discriminate in hiring. Then you have to add all kinds of anti-discrimination laws too, which causes deadweight losses.
California is borderline 3. The US as a whole is 1a/1b. Some of the states of Europe are 2, some are 3, and I think some are 1a/1b.
Incentives matter.
The reason is very simple: women give birth to children. I don't have the right to ask if she still wanted to. If I had the right, and she would answer, she could deceive me deliberately or she could change her mind.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with women giving birth to children. That's how I was born and that's how my child was born. I wouldn't hire a woman because when she gets pregnant, she goes for a 3 years maternity leave, during which I can't fire her. If she wants two children, the vacation is 6 years long.
http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/09/this-is-why-i-dont-g...
Edit: Just to clarify, this is not my opinion, just a link to a blogpost about why said author shows why (in Hungary) it is basically impossible to hire a woman (or older people, or basically anyone) for that matter.
Co-founders are IMO somewhat different; if a vesting agreement is set up properly, it probably will not vest during an extended leave -- even for protected reasons like maternity or military service. It's probably not worth having someone as a cofounder who would seriously game that, anyway. (and there are plenty of situations where issues other than pregnancy would cause an extended absence; illness, disability, ...) I am not a lawyer, of course.
For a regular employee in tech, I'd still not care, since the market for top talent is so tight. Where it might be an issue is in a job market oversupplied with talent, and where the job has substantial on the job training or search costs or whatever, and in small firms. A lot of these conditions don't apply to companies under 5 or 50 employees, too.
* Father gets 10 days of "just had a baby" paid leave, at ~80% of normal pay
* 480 days of paid leave. Of these,390 are at ~80% pay, and 90 are at a fixed (low) compensation.
* Of the 480 days, 60 are reserved for each parent, non-transferable.
* Each parent is allowed by law to work 75% of full time until child turns 7, employer cannot refuse.
* If you adopt, you have basically the same benefits as after a birth.
In all cases "paid" means paid by the government, i.e. taxes.
The ~80% has a maximum, so you get at most ~80% of ~35000 SEK per month.
Of course it does. But not necessarily only in the direction you're hinting! At the end of the day it's not the number of hours worked, but the value created, that determines how wealthy a country gets. Having sufficient vacation and generally taking into account that employees are human beings might have an effect on how happy and productive they are.
I don't know if there are studies lending support to this, but to my mind it seems a pretty plausible thesis. I regard spending some of my tax money on my neighbour staying home with his kids as an investment. Social security is fundamental to human health, crime, education, and ultimately productivity.
To me, that is not all though. GDP growth isn't a goal or an end in itself - it is merely a (very important) means to worthy ends. It would be completely meaningless to have GPD growth if it did nothing to promote "the pursuit of happiness".
Fathers are entitled to 15 days’ paternity leave (depending on their job). In 2015 this will increase to 30 days. If there are complications for either the baby or the mother, the father is entitled to a longer period of leave.
not needed in the US as it has population growth through a still massive influx immigrants. also a lot of poorer people who traditionnally create more children.
wealthy, educated, non-religious populations tend to stop having kids. scandinavia being a prime example. if there is no need, kids are a pure hassle if you don't really want them. turns out a lot of people don't.
Our politicians have a serious roles as leaders. It's intertwined but (IMO) still distinct from their role as legislators
Most leaders in history and outside of the "western" liberal democracy tradition place a huge emphasis on cultural leadership. The King/shah/cesar/great leader represents the ideal citizen. They don't just make laws, they make values. In Europe, you can still see this concept in the vestigial monarchies. In The States, it's present in the idea of a first family (sounds similar to "first citizen," the title of Roman Emperors.
To those of us that grow up in modern democracies, it seems hockey, cultish and dangerous to think of political leaders as paternal figures. We make a point of being critical of our leaders and react to attempts at deification as paths to tyranny - a way of maintaining power. That's probably a good attitude and keeps us safe from tyrants to an extent, but the role of political leader as cultural leader is so embedded in human political structures everywhere that I think it must have some fundamental role that's hard to do without.
Anyway, labour laws do seem to be capable of creating moral/social norms more effectively than say drug laws or tax laws. Our attitudes to discrimination, sexual harassment (or sexualization generally), bullying and other things are distinctly different in a work environment. These cultural elements evolved fast and I'm pretty sure legislation/ors have played a big role.
An employer paying under minimum wage, denying a woman maternity leave or only hiring attractive young women is not just breaking the law, he's an arsehole. He's abusing his role as employer.
Manufacturing, codifying and maintaining cultural norms in parliaments seems to work exceptionally well in the labour laws space.
When you chose to be an entrepreneur, you chose a different life style and set of rules. You do so because you see a benefit to you, over and above, or different, from an employed person.
Think it though, do you really want perfect equality between entrepreneurs and employees? For example, the entrepreneur is entitled to the profits from the venture. Should employees be entitled to the same? The entrepreneur can decide not to go in to work when (s)he feels like it. Should employees have that right? The entrepreneur gets to decide his or her salary. Should employees get that right too?
Still envious of the employed?
Edited: Well, just read the other reply, and wow. Impressive. But I stand by the above in a general sense.