The tripartite family leave reform has recently been circulated for comments. In this text, I will provide a brief assessment of the reform's positive and negative aspects.

As a whole, the reform is positive and commendable and in line with the Ombudsman for Equality’s recommendations. Family leave is distributed extremely unevenly in Finland — fathers only use approximately 10% of family leave and one in four fathers does not take family leave at all — which in turn has a detrimental effect on, for example, the position of women in the labour market. Occupational discrimination related to pregnancy and family leave is still a common experience for women, and long family leave also has a negative impact on women’s pay and career development. Accordingly, a more even distribution of family leave between fathers and mothers has been one of the starting points for the reform.

The reform will probably increase the use of family leave by fathers, as the family leave earmarked for fathers will be lengthened. Parents are free to divide their family leave as they wish even now and, according to a number of calculations, a fairly equal division of family leave would often be the most advantageous option for families also from a financial standpoint. In practice, however, family leave is used entirely by the mother. Fathers, on the other hand, use the paternal leave earmarked for them — or at least some portion of it. It is thus important to specifically increase the non-transferrable family leave quota intended for fathers.

In addition to increasing the paternal quota, it is positive from the perspective of equality and non-discrimination that the reform will both increase flexibility in the use of leave and take better account of different family types and situations. These opportunities for flexibility must nevertheless be taken into account not just in health insurance legislation, but also in employment and service relationship legislation as well as collective agreements, so that families will actually be able to use the flexibility provided to them. The development of family-friendly workplace practices is likewise key in translating the reform's commendable intentions into practice.

The fate of paid maternity and paternity leave agreed on in collective agreements should nevertheless be addressed from the viewpoint of gender equality and, in particular, equal pay in the further drafting of the reform. Paid maternity leave is typically longer than paid paternity leave, which has thus far been possible under the Equality Act because of the different purposes of maternity leave and paternity leave: maternity leave has been intended to safeguard the mother’s recovery from pregnancy and labour and secure her income for this period, while paternity leave has been intended to let the father care for his child and deepen their relationship. 

In future, however, there would be no dedicated maternity or paternity leave any more, with family leave following the mother's pregnancy allowance period. The purpose of the leave — caring for the child — would not depend on whether the leave was used by the mother or father, for example. In this scenario, the determination of pay for the family leave according to who is using it could become problematic in light of the prohibition of discrimination provided for in the Equality Act. If the child’s mother and father would be in an equal position with regard to the purpose of the leave, they should also be paid for an equal portion of the family leave.

It would be detrimental to the income of families, and to pay equality between women and men, if the pay of mothers would be cut by a reform intended to promote gender equality. 

 

Read more: Ombudsman for Equality's statement on the family leave reform