Dads are going to spend more time with their babies from now on. Get to know them better, let mothers work more, and reduce the wage gap. It will be good for them, strengthen their bond with their families and prevent divorce, even improve their health.

That’s the purpose of the EU directive on parental leave that took effect this month. It increased the period “earmarked” for fathers (and “co-mothers”)—that is, the amount of leave that can be taken only by the father—to two months. The individual EU countries must set their own rules adhering to the two-month minimum. This is a fine example of the “welfare society” striving for “equity”: good intentions and complicated solutions.

More European dads will be doing this. Photo: Jeppe Bjørn Vejlø ©Scanpix Denmark

On the face of it, this looks like a salutary feminist initiative. In one stroke, it reduces inequality between the sexes in childcare, labor market status, and wealth, while encouraging men to cultivate their nurturing side. But the new rules present a wicked trade-off. If the father takes the leave, the family often loses income because he earns more. If he doesn’t, the family loses the weeks of leave allotted to him and the kid has to be put in a nursery sooner, when he or she should be breastfed. The parents are entitled to compensation equal to sick-leave benefits during the leave, but it is often much less than their usual salaries. The rule doesn’t apply to the self-employed and the unemployed.

Eleven weeks of diapers and formula

In Denmark, the previous rules granted 48 weeks of maternity and parental leave, plus four weeks before birth for the mother. Fourteen weeks were earmarked for the mother, two weeks for the father, and the parents could decide themselves how to divide the rest (evenly, or all for one parent, or anything between). Most men took only the two mandatory weeks immediately after the birth, and mothers averaged 39 weeks.

In the new Danish rules (DK), the total amount of leave after the birth is the same, 48 weeks, but they are divided equally between the parents. Thirteen of each parent’s 24 weeks can be transferred to the other parent. This means that 11 weeks, including the two just after birth, are earmarked for the father. If he doesn’t use them, they can’t be used by the mother and will lapse.

Doing the math

The rules were agreed upon by the business and employees’ organizations, which periodically hold negotiations to determine wage increases and employee benefits. One survey found that most people didn’t want eight weeks for men (more men than women favored it, at 38 percent versus 28 percent). The old allocation to fathers of two weeks was far less than the number in the other Nordic countries, which ranged up to 12 weeks.

But some families were surprised at the size of the shortfall (DK) if the father got only the leave compensation and expect to forego the father’s leave. Many people also believe in principle that the state shouldn’t dictate who cares for a child, or even nudge in one direction when there are financial consequences. Others note that it can be difficult for mothers to find good part-time jobs, at say 25 hours a week, that would let them maintain closer contact with the baby during the father’s leave period. Under the old rules, parents cited financial reasons as being most important in allocating the leave to the mother.

Unions to the rescue

Luckily for some wage-earners, their trade unions offer an escape from this dilemma or can at least mitigate the financial sacrifice. Their collective wage agreements include full pay during parental leave. This also came as a surprise to some families who were wrestling with the decision. Not all unions offer this benefit, though, so the workers who are left out are urging their union representatives to renegotiate the terms of their collective agreement. Many unions will probably make some adjustment, but not in time for the first wave of new babies.

There are several conflicting factors at play. Some parents, both mothers and fathers, may not think the father in question is suited to full-time infant care. Some people think children are generally better off in a nursery. Then there will be tweaks in the rules for single parents, step-parents, same-sex parents, “rainbow” parents, and “known donors.” Ideally, families should be prepared to take an occasional financial hit for a good cause like this, but unluckily, the surge in inflation began taking a toll just before the rule change.

That’s why they call it the nanny state

I expect that, for people who can’t find tenable solution, the Social Democratic administration—which is supposed to be family-friendly and, more important, has an election coming soon—will end up giving some kind of guarantee to alleviate the financial hardship until the unions act to lessen the discrepancy in coverage. It could be the last emergency disbursement that the left-wing governing bloc makes (after its Covid compensations) before facing the voters’ judgment. Which is to say, it would be the taxpayers who ensure that babies get more quality time with dad.

After all, the population is barely growing, even the center-left administration has taken a hard line on immigration, and there’s a labor shortage. It’s not in the interest of society to inordinately inflate the cost of a baby.