Saga To Offer Employees Paid Leave On The Birth Of A Grandchild

Why do posters, and the wider world always talk about people being 'upset' when they have strong reactions to something that is said or done.

I am rarely upset, but I do get irritated, angry or just object to silly ideas not thought through properly.

'upset' is always attached to how women react to things, men seem never to get upset. It is another way of diminishing and dismissing women's opinions and attitudes and women should not use it unless talking about personal distress on a bereavement or other personal, or emotional catastrophe, like the treatmen of little Arthur.

Doodledog, I don't think this is something that the employer needs to pay for, no! It's a matter of priorities. I took all of my paid leave and then added a week or so of unpaid leave (don't remember exactly, it was a long time ago!)

Philippa60

I took leave from my then full-time job to support my DD when she had her first baby nearly 13 years ago. I called it "graternity leave" and it was one of the best things I did. I was off for a month and was able to help my DD with whatever she needed. I loved that month so much!
But it NEVER occurred to be that my employer should pay for it! I used vacation days and some unpaid leave for that month.

So do you think that it's a good idea to allow those whose budgets may not be able to take the hit of a month's unpaid leave do the same?

I took leave from my then full-time job to support my DD when she had her first baby nearly 13 years ago. I called it "graternity leave" and it was one of the best things I did. I was off for a month and was able to help my DD with whatever she needed. I loved that month so much!
But it NEVER occurred to be that my employer should pay for it! I used vacation days and some unpaid leave for that month.

People are getting upset at what is basically a bit of PR by two private companies - it's not a statutory requirement or government guidelines.

It's along the lines of gym membership, private healthcare, subsidised canteen etc. It's a perk which can be utilised - or not if you've got a difficult DIL!

I don't think that there is a fair comparison between wartime extremis and a company who wants to do something good for a probably small percentage of its workforce.

I agree that not all new mums will welcome having a granny on the scene immediately after the birth; but there is nothing to say that the leave couldn't be taken at a more convenient time. Even if it's not used as intended, what harm is it doing? The aim is to attract more older people to Saga's workforce and make them feel valued. What's wrong with that?

My children were both born by c section. My husband worked long hours then, there was no paternity leave, and I got no help from my mother. It was tough, but I would rather things got better, not stayed the same because previous generations had a hard time.

We lived in a paper bag in't middle of t'road and we were grateful for it.

You've gotta laugh, haven't you?

Our parents didn't fight the Nazis so you could have a week off work!

I think it is a ridiculous idea. More and mor parents do not want family around in the first few weeks of their child's life. We have had thread after thread from agrieved grandmothers, not allowed to see the new arrival for weeks.

Yes, some mothers do need/want grandparents round, but often only the maternal one.

We are reaching a stage where people only go to work if they really feel up to it. If they have anything else happening in their life, they need time off to deal with it.

My parents were born during one world war and fought in another. My father was sent to India when my mother was 6 months pregnant with my sister and didn't see and touch his new daughter until she was nearly 3. I have friends who had similar experiences. perhaps we should have repatriated all those soldiers who went away when their wives were pregnant so that they could be present at the birth and be with their new child, or perhaps we could have concentrated on defeating Hitler who was trying to exterminate the Jews.

My mil insisted on coming to “help” after the baby was born. I landed up having to look after her as well. And yes, I had an emergency caesarean. I think that sometimes extra help is needed but the thought of grandparents descending on new families Willy Nilly fills me with dread.

Doodledog

Yes, they probably do have a range of age groups on the payroll; but this initiative is to attract more older people to the company. I don't see it as taking anything away from anyone, but as an additional measure. It's not an either/or, from what I can tell, it's an extra.

The attitude that if everyone doesn't get something nobody should get it usually results in nobody getting it, not the other way round.

My point was simply that if they actually wanted to benefit new parents/new babies, it would be better served to give the other co-parent an additional two weeks than a grandparent.

Otherwise, it seems like a performative thing, not an actual 'we care about families, let's take care of new parents at a vulnerable time' thing.

It strikes me as a 'this makes us look good and since it's so limited in who it applies to, won't actually cost us much' measure.

Yes, they probably do have a range of age groups on the payroll; but this initiative is to attract more older people to the company. I don't see it as taking anything away from anyone, but as an additional measure. It's not an either/or, from what I can tell, it's an extra.

The attitude that if everyone doesn't get something nobody should get it usually results in nobody getting it, not the other way round.

Doodledog

If this were a state-sponsored thing then I would agree that giving the other parent time off would (in most cases) be more beneficial.

But it's not. It's just a small perk given by a private company to its own employees. I see no reason at all why Saga should pay the salary of sons or sons-in-law of employees when the employees become grandparents :confused:

I'm assuming that the company has fathers/co-parents working for them, not just grandparents.

If you're going to give two weeks leave for employees, I'd rather see them extend the parental leave for the other parent by two weeks than give them to a grandparent.

Sorry - I'm getting my BB code mixed up! That should have been a

If this were a state-sponsored thing then I would agree that giving the other parent time off would (in most cases) be more beneficial.

But it's not. It's just a small perk given by a private company to its own employees. I see no reason at all why Saga should pay the salary of sons or sons-in-law of employees when the employees become grandparents :confused:

I think it would be better to give the other parent another two weeks than to give grandparents time off.

This is a long time ago before paternity leave was invented.I had emergency section for both of my children.Both times I had very little help.My first baby was two weeks overdue, my husband had booked 2 weeks holiday at the expected time of birth so he would be around to help me, with the baby being late his holiday was over by the time I got out of hospital and I was very ill and needed help.My mother was working full time and my MIL hardly showed up apart from coming to huddle the baby then making an excuse to leave.The second baby was born when my husband was working abroad and he made no effort to come home, both our mothers only appeared when they felt like it, I had to manage with a new born baby and a toddler while recovering from an operation where my tummy was sliced down the middle again.
My MIL did look after my older son the two weeks I was in hospital though, but disappeared when I got home.
I must have been unlucky with hep and childcare but it taught me to stand on my own two feet.We could not afford a car so not being able to drive for 6 weeks was no difficulty I just got on with managing things without one.

I was still working when my daughter had her second daughter (not C section), because of complications she was in hospital for a few days, I took time off from my A/L to look after her first child and to sort out her housework, the laundry and some meals (she had difficulties walking due to severe hip dysplasia) it would have been lovely to have paid leave but it was totally unexpected and had no impact on my helping her.

mar76

I think we live in a 'soft' world now.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing, do you think?

My manager tried really hard to get me 'paternity' leave when my daughter (who lived with me) had her first. She argued that, as the father was unreliable, with problems of his own, I would be the one taking on the 'other parent' role.

'No way' came the reply from personnel- or all the grannies will demand leave! As it turned out, she collapsed and was rushed back into hospital, so I was off anyway, on unpaid leave for a 'family emergency'.

She had heatstroke, dehydration, trauma from the birth, severe anxiety and low blood pressure. They thought they'd keep her (and baby) in for a week's 'rest'.

Rest? - she found herself alone in a little room, far from the nurses' station 'abandoned' with little help - and kept fainting. She sat on the floor to feed the baby, just in case. I made her discharge herself, got her home and just took over (apart from the feeding) so was off for three weeks until she felt a lot better!

I realise many will think it’s a PR stunt but I think it’s good that they’re valuing their older workers.

Lizy, that crossed my mind too as I wrote my earlier post!!

Sorry, MaybeMaw, it was actually agnurse with your name as a heading who made the comment.

I think we live in a 'soft' world now.

Do people resent those whose employers lay on a Christmas party (when there is no pandemic!), or give employees a bonus after 25 years' service?

What does it matter whether the new mum 'needs' help? Who can honestly say what others 'need' anyway, outside of basics for survival?

If Saga wants to offer this, it's up to them, and is unlikely to make much difference to anyone else. Colleagues who have to 'take up the slack' won't have to do it for long - it's just a week off on a very occasional basis, and as it's giving to, not taking away from older workers, what's the harm?

I was quite surprised by this. It’s a difficult issue. There are many new mothers who genuinely need help for all sorts of reasons but I would think that the majority will manage ok. I was not ok after the birth of my first child but had no choice but to get on with it. I had been in hospital for 3 weeks as I had had eye surgery 4 days before the birth. My husband had a week at home and then I had to manage in a second floor flat with no available family to help me. I was lucky that my neighbour was unemployed at the time and did a lot for me.
I think new grandparents should be able to request compassionate leave in a case of real need but not as a matter of course.