Good news from a trifecta of bad news

[steveadl]

My guess is that paid maternity leave has a very big influence on that stat, but you'll never see it written anywhere that it is an influence.

No employer will ever admit to it because they'd be sued to oblivion, but I can tell you as an ex-employer that if I had to choose between a man and a women of equal quals to fill a position, I'd take the man every time because he's gunna cost me less. Sad, but it's reality.

Unfortunately not all businesses have that option.

Whilst we don't know the proposed details of the new laws, my fiancée is against them. She's a realist and can see the reality that she's reaching her child bearing years, and given the choice between her and a guy - why would an employer choose her, all other things being equal? It's actually going to prove to be a huge disadvantage to a lot of women. Unless of course it's government funded, which again is not what this country needs - more people relying on govt. hand outs.

As far as small business is concerned - if they were made to pay for it, it would be crippling in many cases. I haven't had to face this sort of issue yet, but could imagine what it would be like. Not only would the small business need to pay the mother for a proposed 3 months (or more is it?) maternity leave, but at the same time pay someone else to do her job. Then what happens when she decides to come back at some point? The new girl gets the axe? That opens up another whole can of worms.

No wonder small business is hard! Yeah, keep piling on more crap/issues for us to deal with!

 

[BayView]

Just as an add on to my post earlier; one day I decided to add up every single cent it cost me to keep my 3 staff, divided by the total hours they worked for the year.

This was after I had just received my latest workcare premium increase - with no claims. Very happy about that.

The result was that the real cost of 3 people was 4.5 people - 50% more approx, based on their normal hourly rate. Even happier.

Imagine some company with say; 40 staff.

 

[natmarie73]

I would also agree that the 19000 female jobs lost would be in the retail and hospitality sectors. 1, because they are discretionary sectors and react to business and consumer confidence and 2, because according to the research I had to wade through last year when studying economics of labour markets these two industries comprise of 90% of female staff, most of them in casual minimimum wage jobs.

I would definately agree that forcing paid maternity leave on these industries would have a huge impact on their bottom dollar, and the smaller businesses would find it very hard.

It is not an option for employers in industries with a high female workforce to just say "well we'll just employ men now because they are cheaper" because ther are simply not enough men who are willing or able to work part time or casual hours for very low pay.

Without the many women who are happy to work part time, and not skilled enough to be able to find higher paying work many retailers and hotels would not be able to operate. Imagine if Woolies or Coles suddenly sacked their entire female workforce - there would pretty much be no-one around to man the check-outs.

 

[natmarie73]

Then what happens when she decides to come back at some point? The new girl gets the axe? That opens up another whole can of worms.

No wonder small business is hard! Yeah, keep piling on more crap/issues for us to deal with!

That is exactly what happens. Maternity leave replacement contracts need to specify the exact dates for the job and if the original staff member decides to come back early, she can put it in writing and the employer has to comply. The employer then has to give the replacement notice that his/her contract will finish early.

Maternity leave contracts are never ongoing, permanent positions specifically because the original employee still owns that job and can come back from mat leave whenever they like as long as they give a suitable period of notice.

Knowing what I do about employment law I would never want to be an employer - way too much hassle. And now knowing what I do about OHS law I definately, definately would never want to be an employer - very very easy to get sued and lose the lot for something that you may not even be able to control.

 

[steveadl]

That is exactly what happens. Maternity leave replacement contracts need to specify the exact dates for the job and if the original staff member decides to come back early, she can put it in writing and the employer has to comply. The employer then has to give the replacement notice that his/her contract will finish early.

Maternity leave contracts are never ongoing, permanent positions specifically because the original employee still owns that job and can come back from mat leave whenever they like as long as they give a suitable period of notice.

Knowing what I do about employment law I would never want to be an employer - way too much hassle. And now knowing what I do about OHS law I definately, definately would never want to be an employer - very very easy to get sued and lose the lot for something that you may not even be able to control.

Yes but in some industries this is just not feasible. Any decent prospective employee (in my industry anyway), wouldn't be interested in a short term job contract. If I could find anyone willing to do that, I'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel in regards to the quality of the applicant. That's if you get any applicants to start with when there is a chronic shortage of people in the industry.

 

[natmarie73]

Yes but in some industries this is just not feasible. Any decent prospective employee (in my industry anyway), wouldn't be interested in a short term job contract. If I could find anyone willing to do that, I'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel in regards to the quality of the applicant. That's if you get any applicants to start with when there is a chronic shortage of people in the industry.

I understand (not sure what your industry is). However, the law doesn't understand, and doesn't care, whether it is feasible or not.

Legally, Maternity leave replacements need to be advertised as such ie fixed term for whatever length of time. Basically if no-one applies then you are in a fix.

If you get someone in to replace an employee on maternity leave without appointing them as a fixed term employee, and then the original employee returns (as she is legally entitled to do since it is still her job), you will need to terminate the replacement employee. If you have not told her it is a maternity leave replacement and have appointed her as a permanent employee she can take you to the industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal. If you don't get rid of her and tell the original employee she can't have her job back she can take you to either the industrial tribunal, or the anti-discrimination tribunal. You can however appoint the original employee into another job, but it must be of the same level and at the same pay as her previous job.

P.S - You do realise of course that under the Workplace Relations Act (Subdivision B - Guarantee of maternity leave) you already have to provide 12months maternity leave don't you? At the moment you don't have to provide any paid maternity leave, but if a female employee of yours became pregnant and wanted to take 12 months maternity leave you would have to comply with the law and reinstate her to her position if/when she returns to work.

The above also applies to men - they can take 52 weeks unpaid paternity leave if they are the primary caregiver or 1 week unpaid leave otherwise.

Good luck with it all!

 

[steveadl]

Thanks for all that info. Nat, very enlightening!

Fortunately I have not had to go through the process myself yet, but yes I am aware they are currently entitled to the unpaid leave. The 'paid leave' is one of my major concerns with the proposed changes - as for small business, it's just not feasible. But obviously it's too early to worry about this until they get further along the process and outline it more clearly.

The current system can potentially still be a nightmare with the 12 months leave as you mentioned - but I'm hopefully not facing that problem any time soon. Again, no point in concerning myself with these potential problems too much until they happen - plenty more to occupy myself with as it is.

 

[Francesco]

Here's a bit of news to continue the discussion of the likely economic environment in the next few months, which Housekeeper has put up at another thread:

http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42918

It is an article by Ross Gittins about the low likelihood of stagflation in Oz. Forumites would be quite accustomed to the G&D arguments and would be prepared to accept the 'stag' portion if the 'flation' portion is to be disowned, leaving the likelihood of slowdown, unemployment and recession. If this is to happen, I would wish for a sharp and deep cut into the growth and employment statistics to have a turnaround on IR policy. It's happening, but how soon?

 

[natmarie73]

The 'paid leave' is one of my major concerns with the proposed changes - as for small business, it's just not feasible.

I agree -it is very expensive and many businesses would not be able to afford it. I think the groups that are pushing for it don't realise that it would be detrimental for women if their employer can't afford to keep their business afloat while they are on leave.