13 ms·

Indeed. In Norway fathers and mothers must each take 15 weeks. And then in total there are either 49 weeks (with 100% pay) or 59 weeks (with 80% pay), so you ca

Indeed. In Norway fathers and mothers must each take 15 weeks. And then in total there are either 49 weeks (with 100% pay) or 59 weeks (with 80% pay), so you can divide the remaining weeks between the two. But there are some inequalities in the system still. For instance, the father can only take the shared weeks if the mother is in "activity" (working or studying). While in Sweden there is no such requirements. And I am not sure what happens with the father's share if the mother is out of work and ineligible for proper ompensation. In that case the mother gets a one-time, approx €10 000, compensation, but I think the father does not get anything except two weeks off in connection with birth.

sdfqasdghj 6y ago
1. The two weeks at birth aren't legally full pay (most employers pay you anyway). 2. Yes if the mother doesn't qualify the father doesn't qualify. I think that there has been a court case that found that this is not legal. But the law has not yet been updated.
- allan-a 6y ago
  I can confirm this. I'm an American living in Norway and I have had two children. My wife is also American, and we moved to Norway while she was pregnant with our first child. Because my wife had not been working we were not entitled to the normal benefits. Time has passed, and my wife got a job in her career field. We are now expecting a third, and because of covid-19 my wife has been unable to work the required minimum during her pregnancy. So we are looking at having a third child without the normal benefits! From the American perspective this is still great. We get "free" healthcare and a nice lump-sum grant, but I (the father) don't qualify for paternity leave and the lump sum grant is not huge in comparison. The grant is like 1/6th of the amount that most families get with their leave.
  - black_knight 6y ago
    You probably did this already, but make sure to double check that your wife really did not work enough under any possible requirements. I know someone who had only substitute positions for shorter periods in the ten months before birth. But after several rounds of back and forth with NAV (even after birth), she got her benefits. She had to argue that staying at home would cause her to loose income (showed that she had to say no to some substitute work because of birth), and give them detailed lists of all hours she worked. Somehow it amounted to "enough".
echelon 6y ago
A company has to pay workers for 49 - 59 weeks without getting any work? I'm all for parental leave, but that's a full year. Does the government subsidize this? That expense could sink a small company. What happens if the workers leave the company after getting the benefit? I'm really curious how European firms compete with American ones when workers can take so much time off and saddle their companies with so much responsibility. If every company in the world had to do this and the governments and taxes supported it, I'd be all for it. I'm not passing judgment, just really curious how this works. I certainly favor parents getting plenty of time to adjust and spend time with their newborns. But I wonder if this is too much for companies to bear when they have to compete with companies that don't do this.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Yes, the government will subsidise this, although exact details vary, for example government might choose to arrange that they pay the employee over this period instead. It's not magic, obviously overall the economy is still paying for this to happen, but then the US system isn't magic either, babies don't magically receive any benefits from parents who are actually working all the time and barely see them for a handful of hours per week. So the question is only: Is it a good idea? Because if it's a good idea then paying for it is just a question of mechanics. Same for universal healthcare, the provision of safe drinking water, literacy programmes, you name it.
- matsemann 6y ago
  It's the government paying. Up to a fixed amount. But most high earners are in a position where the company will pay the difference as a perk. If it were companies having to pay, that would probably lead to some aversion about hiring people without children in the right age. But that's probably an aversion lots of companies in other countries have about women. "Will they have kids and leave the workforce soon?". I strongly believe giving dads a lot of paternity leave is good for equality. Of course dads should have the same opportunity as moms, but males taking paternity leave has an indirect good effect on woman in the work force as well. No longer is it assumed that they will be gone for X months in their 20s/30s, compared to men. Some argue the rules should be "X days, split as the parents see fit". But that is what historically has put the pressure on the man to work and the woman to stay at home.
matsemann 6y ago
The pay is capped at some amount. But if you're working a job where you earn above that, most employers will pay the difference as a perk anyway. And yes, the "aktivitetskrav for mor" is stupid. There are some other subtleties as well. I helped make the original digital application in 2015, and there was a lot of edge cases. Like if you're a fisherman your pay should be documented a different way. Fun times.
misun78 6y ago
Parents must take the leave? whats with such an involuntary enforcement?

sdfqasdghj 6y ago

1. The two weeks at birth aren't legally full pay (most employers pay you anyway). 2. Yes if the mother doesn't qualify the father doesn't qualify. I think that there has been a court case that found that this is not legal. But the law has not yet been updated.

allan-a 6y ago
I can confirm this. I'm an American living in Norway and I have had two children. My wife is also American, and we moved to Norway while she was pregnant with our first child. Because my wife had not been working we were not entitled to the normal benefits. Time has passed, and my wife got a job in her career field. We are now expecting a third, and because of covid-19 my wife has been unable to work the required minimum during her pregnancy. So we are looking at having a third child without the normal benefits! From the American perspective this is still great. We get "free" healthcare and a nice lump-sum grant, but I (the father) don't qualify for paternity leave and the lump sum grant is not huge in comparison. The grant is like 1/6th of the amount that most families get with their leave.
- black_knight 6y ago
  You probably did this already, but make sure to double check that your wife really did not work enough under any possible requirements. I know someone who had only substitute positions for shorter periods in the ten months before birth. But after several rounds of back and forth with NAV (even after birth), she got her benefits. She had to argue that staying at home would cause her to loose income (showed that she had to say no to some substitute work because of birth), and give them detailed lists of all hours she worked. Somehow it amounted to "enough".

echelon 6y ago

A company has to pay workers for 49 - 59 weeks without getting any work? I'm all for parental leave, but that's a full year. Does the government subsidize this? That expense could sink a small company. What happens if the workers leave the company after getting the benefit? I'm really curious how European firms compete with American ones when workers can take so much time off and saddle their companies with so much responsibility. If every company in the world had to do this and the governments and taxes supported it, I'd be all for it. I'm not passing judgment, just really curious how this works. I certainly favor parents getting plenty of time to adjust and spend time with their newborns. But I wonder if this is too much for companies to bear when they have to compete with companies that don't do this.

tialaramex 6y ago
Yes, the government will subsidise this, although exact details vary, for example government might choose to arrange that they pay the employee over this period instead. It's not magic, obviously overall the economy is still paying for this to happen, but then the US system isn't magic either, babies don't magically receive any benefits from parents who are actually working all the time and barely see them for a handful of hours per week. So the question is only: Is it a good idea? Because if it's a good idea then paying for it is just a question of mechanics. Same for universal healthcare, the provision of safe drinking water, literacy programmes, you name it.
matsemann 6y ago
It's the government paying. Up to a fixed amount. But most high earners are in a position where the company will pay the difference as a perk. If it were companies having to pay, that would probably lead to some aversion about hiring people without children in the right age. But that's probably an aversion lots of companies in other countries have about women. "Will they have kids and leave the workforce soon?". I strongly believe giving dads a lot of paternity leave is good for equality. Of course dads should have the same opportunity as moms, but males taking paternity leave has an indirect good effect on woman in the work force as well. No longer is it assumed that they will be gone for X months in their 20s/30s, compared to men. Some argue the rules should be "X days, split as the parents see fit". But that is what historically has put the pressure on the man to work and the woman to stay at home.

matsemann 6y ago

The pay is capped at some amount. But if you're working a job where you earn above that, most employers will pay the difference as a perk anyway. And yes, the "aktivitetskrav for mor" is stupid. There are some other subtleties as well. I helped make the original digital application in 2015, and there was a lot of edge cases. Like if you're a fisherman your pay should be documented a different way. Fun times.

misun78 6y ago

Parents must take the leave? whats with such an involuntary enforcement?