Surely, being smokers, they're already tarring themselves, and as such need no help from you?

Ok, sorry, etc. read the sig!

</off topic>

Do you even bother checking your coat in any more JV?

According to the rules, if I didn't tar I'd have to throw feathers...Not sure what they'd prefer

You know back when I was a smoker someone once mentioned how taking time to go out for a smoke was unfair. In principle I actually agreed. But a colleague of mind at the time doing the same job as me was a non-smoker yet incompetent in the role. He would take twice as long to do any job and 'swing his leg' whenever possible. In the smokers case its easy to say "you waste half an hour in the day smoking" and quantify that. Yet the non-smoker who wastes infinately more time and does half the amount of work goes (in this instance anyway) free to do as he pleases.

The point being a smoker may take the odd five minutes for a fag but there's a hell of a lot more ways to waste more time at work and not be noticed.

Not that I condone smoking. Its a disgusting habit and everyone should quit!!

It's paying for the NHS to deliver your baby though

No, I guess not, but mostly employers will do everything they can to make allowances and I think that's what it's all about. You *want* to be there for your partner and baby which is brilliant, but you don't *have* to be there (from a point of view of the baby being inside your partner.)



To be honest, that's your opinion as you see this situation currently. It doesn't strike me as unfair because I don't see a logical reason that the annual holiday or flexi situation wouldn't work, it's been working for "interested" men for many years. It does strike me as unfair that you should be legally entitled to more time off than I am, just because you and your partner have *chosen* to have a child.

It's not as though there's a way to claim that women *shouldn't* be entitled to the time off, because there's no other option regarding how children are born. What about adoptive parents? Do they have the right to take maternity leave even though they haven't actually given birth to the child? What about foster parents? How about the partners involved in those cases? What if a same-sex couple have a child, Is it any more "fair" for them?

You dont see why it wouldnt work. For me it it probably will work. But there's many cases where it hasnt worked for others. Ask the mother who was told her baby was dead at a scan whilst she was alone if she thinks her husband should be entitled to have been there. So you're wrong that it has been "working" for many years. Have a look around and you'll see a lot of cases where it clearly hasnt worked.

Ok, the question is did she want her husband there? did he want to be there? did she ask him to be there? did his employer say no? If the answer to all those questions is "Yes" then that was a case (and an awful one) where things didn't work properly.

But that is one case, there may be more and if there are enough that things are seen to need changing, then perhaps it's not a workable system, quoting one case where things went wrong isn't an argument for making a legal committment that will affect every business and every worker in the country. Most people must make it work, I know plenty who have and none who haven't (you are a case in point) so it's can't be all that bad.

Hear, hear (waves paper in the air for no reason)

Quoting one case? That doesnt mean its the only one. It just happens to be one I came accross. I will absolutely never change my mind though. A father has every right to be there in times of tests, scans, etc and until a legal entitlement is in place to allow that to happen you are at the mercy of your employer.

Having a child is a personal choice. Personally, I don't see why the employer and fellow employees should be forced to suffer because of that choice.

I don't even approve of paid maternity leave. If a couple decides to have a child, they should first ensure they can fund the process and support it as it develops. It's their responsibility and no one else's. If both parties wish to attend stuff, then it's their responsibility to arrange their own lives. I don't see having a baby as much different to having a cat, and I sure as hell never got time off work for that.

We seem to live in a world where both parents expect to work, while some strangers look after the sprogs and the whole thing is subsidised by the tax payer. It's insane. My mother stayed at home to look after me when I was small, and then took a part time job with flexible hours when I was older. Before returning to full time work, she was sterilised.

For a well off couple to expect privileged treatment simply because they chose to have a child is selfish and irresponsible. It could of course be rather different if we were talking about a single mum.

I'm not even going to formulate a proper response to that absolute drivel you've just written. I am actually in shock. Not only are a lot of the comments you make not relevant to me but to liken bringing a human life into this world the same as owning a cat.............?

But he actually has a point dude...

I was generalising. My post was a response to the points raised in your thread, and not directed at you personally.

As to the cat, I concede that some people consider humans to be some kind of God-approved super-being with superior rites to other other mammals. Personally, I think that's conceited and irrational.

I cried more when my cat died than I did when any of my friends or family did. What you're talking about is a need to emotionally support your partner. Well, your emotions are no more important than mine. If you think they are, then F*ck you.

What he said.