Paid maternity leave

[Mr. Fabulous]

I read in the paper this morning that Labor have admitted that they won't be considering legislation for paid maternity leave, which I think is fantastic. The idea that women want/expect/deserve paid maternity leave is beyond ridiculous.

Why should a woman's employer sponsor her choice to have a child? If she can't afford the unpaid leave, then it's simple - don't have children. It already costs employers enough (especially small business) to find, hire and train someone while a woman goes off to have kids. Just another example of the 'I expect everyone else to look after me' attitude.

Mark

 

[splade]

it is more a point of encouraging woman to have children. society needs new children or everything will start to break...

 

[Simon]

This post is going to cost you mate.

Is best to kept things PC in this forum - even if true or a valid opinion.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Hahahahaha Simon, since when have I ever worried what anyone thinks of me? If chicks want kids, fine - but why should her boss pay for her to have them?

Mark

 

[alexlee]

I'm sure there is the battler argument of we need two incomes to buy houses and so on, so employers should pay maternity. From a more objective viewpoint, it IS true that we need women in the workforce, right?

Personally, my fiance doesn't look like she's planning to work, so I'm not going to benefit.....
Alex

 

[Pushka]

As a small business owner we couldnt afford to provide paid maternity leave -it is difficult enough for us to manage the process of unpaid maternity leave - ie recruiting, training and employing someone for 12 months, then having to let them go at the end to allow the original person to come back - with an office of only 2 support people this really bites financially.

I thought though that Rudd's concept was that the Government would be providing the benefits and not the employer? If paid maternity leave came in then we would really have to think about who we could afford to employ in the first place, and that isnt going to help younger women gain employment.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

I thought though that Rudd's concept was that the Government would be providing the benefits and not the employer?

Hi Pushka,

You might be right - I do recall there being something in the article about it being too expensive, so maybe it was meant to be yet another welfare handout?

Mark

 

[Pushka]

Hey Mark, when I was in the midst of having children I didnt receive a cracker from the Government, and while I hear that you are frustrated with the benefits received by families today, we still do need children to be born so we have to ensure that the population at least replenishes itself. And that if finances are the reason why women have to go back to work, then we need to think about how we can as a society improve that because while child care is appropriate for some, I really do think it is best when mum (or dad) is around for at least the first 12 months. And as a small business owner I cant afford to pay maternity leave. So how can we reconcile all these seemingly conflicting needs?

I have always thought 50/50 income split for tax purposes would solve a large number of these issues but Governments never seem to consider this option.

 

[caz]

Touchy subject.

I think the really hard thing now is that whether you get paid maternity leave really depends on who you work for and nothing else. Working for a small business I have had no paid maternity leave (even though I used to do countless hours of unpaid over time every week).
They simply can't afford it and wouldn't employ young females if that was the case.

The unfair thing is the government pays their employees and people can even go from part time to full time for a week before maternity leave so they get full pay. So really the government is paying here anyway. I think if anything the government should pay for all or the public servants stop getting it too.

I really think that as Pushka wrote that we should be able to income split between partners.
With our financial situation it would cost me money to work the 12 or so hours a week I want to work. I'm not interested in doing more. That's my choice but shouldn't the government try and change their policies to help mothers work, not to make it financially unviable with all their bonuses and childcare rebates etc changing as soon as earn money.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

I'm currently frustrated both ways on this. I've been speaking with someone to help the business a few hours a day, a few days a week and I can afford to pay her a fair wage for the job she'd be doing, even though she'd be worth far more in a different role. She's ideal for the job and I'd like to expand her role as the business grows, at which point I'd be happy to pay her more.

She's got a 9 month old baby and is keen to get out of the house and back into the outside world. Unfortunately child care is quite expensive for the hours she need and would eat up about half of what I'd pay her.

The additional problem is that her husband does earn a good income, so she doesn't really receive any centerlink allowances (that I'm aware of).

Are there any subsidies for business wanting to get Mums back into the workforce? I'd happily it straight back to her to offset her childcare costs. I hate the idea of idea of someone working for a net income of $10 per hour, when they're being paid 2-3 times that at a very fair market wage, but small businesses simply can't afford to hire people and pay for their childcare costs as well.

 

[nomadic]

Don't employ women who plan to start a family soon.

And as a small business owner I cant afford to pay maternity leave. So how can we reconcile all these seemingly conflicting needs?

 

[Ricardo29]

ive had 3 go off and start a family this year alone....good on them, couldnt be happier for them, what right do i have to be downtrodden because our devoted and loved employee(s) is about to start her family.

its not that hard to deal with.....you go into the gig knowing they will most likely marry/have kids etc. thats life. you can tailor things so there's a backup scenario for when it happens. you can of course choose not to hire young women. or you can be the best bloke in the world like me, and let them work from home part time thereafter which suits everybody,...the mum, the newborn kids, the business (as you can get crappy admin jobs done), and the world is a rosy place.....its becoming the norm in many businesses to have flexi hours, work from home, part-time setups etc....i have 2 at home (long term employees who became mums), and 1 x in the office (advertised part time position to suit a flexible mum type role). its sometimes even cheaper, and more efficient (when theyre at work...they work! as opposed to reading mags, gossipping, doing their nails, talking on the phone, and all those other perfectly stereotypical things that il get shot down for!!).
all good.

 

[geoffw]

She's got a 9 month old baby and is keen to get out of the house and back into the outside world. Unfortunately child care is quite expensive for the hours she need and would eat up about half of what I'd pay her.

This happened to MrsW. Worse actually- she was not on a high wage, so child care probably ate up just about everything she earned. (well, probably not initially- it was worse at pre school, when fees ++ after school fees were cery high).

But she did this, not for income at the time, but for the chance to get out of her small circle of mothers with small dependant children, into an environment where she was appreciated for the work she did. And it meaqnt that she could keep her skills current, making it much easier to get back into the work force full time when the time was right.

 

[Tizzy]

%$#@!! I'm not going to engage in this debate my dear Mark...I'm sure you only started this thread to stir people up. An intelligent man like you can't possibly believe the dribble you just delivered.
Cheers

Tiz

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

%$#@!! I'm not going to engage in this debate my dear Mark...I'm sure you only started this thread to stir people up. An intelligent man like you can't possibly believe the dribble you just delivered.
Cheers

Tiz

Hi Tizzy,

I absolutely do believe what I wrote. Absolutely 100%. As a far lefty, I think we as a society live too dependantly on a welfare system and it needs to be addressed. If this went through, it would just be another handout.

I passionately believe that we need to help the helpless, those who need our help - the homeless, the poor, the sick, the young and the old who have nothing. But all too often the system gives money to those who don't need/deserve it and it pisses me off!

So Tizzy, if you believe women should get paid maternity, tell us why. Why should employers and/or taxpayers sponsor a woman or couple's choice to have children?

Mark

 

[Xenia]

Leave to have children is not just for women it can be shared by both the mum and dad. In Canada the mum has to take the first 6 weeks but anything after that and up to a year can be taken by either parent.

I agree with Mark though, if people can't afford kids then don't have them! I'm expecting number 3 in two weeks time and definately don't expect anyone to pay for my choice, I don't even depend on their dad for financial support, obviously he was needed somewhere in the equation but not for finances

 

[Tizzy]

You would pick tonight to start this thread, when I haven't got the energy to explain anything in depth, let alone why maternity leave is a good thing. I know you must have heard all the reasons before.

For me it boils down to the inequity that exists with parenting. Generally two people decide to create a baby. Thing is only one person (the female) sacrifices time out of the workforce & her wages to carry, deliver and nurture, so why shouldn't we recognise that time out period?

Why is it that the woman sacrifices the wages (and the super payments) to bear and raise the baby? The workforce is not treating fathers and mothers equally when it comes to parenting. She is penalised for being a mother by either having to leave her job, or return to it sooner than she should after the birth.

If she leaves the workforce to have the baby, she loses super while not working. Once child rearing is over, she returns to the workforce in lesser skilled or lower paid roles. Thing is, someone needs to have the baby and raise it. Generally that is the mother, so generally it ends up being women in the lower paid casual roles.

I don't believe any mum should have their super stopped and be forced to return to the workforce too soon. Why is the maternity period not recognised as a necessary cost of raising our future workforce? If there weren't plenty of people out there choosing to have babies, Australia would be in trouble. We need more babies

http://www.austlii.org/au/journals/HRD/2002/26.html

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/paid_maternity_leave/

As a community I think we need to put more effort into valuing the roles of caring, nurturing and raising children. I applaud mums bearing children and Dads actually raising them if it suits that particular family unit. I like the idea of that kind of flexibility (call it parenting leave if necessary), just so long as actually having children is recognised as a contribution to society that requires recognition through workplace legislation.

I know my child rearing has meant that I have very little in the way of super. Thats a prime reason why I need my property investments to do well. But a lot of women simply don't have alternative investment strategies to fall back on.

 

[Xenia]

You would pick tonight to start this thread, when I haven't got the energy to explain anything in depth, let alone why maternity leave is a good thing. I know you must have heard all the reasons before.

For me it boils down to the inequity that exists with parenting. Generally two people decide to create a baby. Thing is only one person (the female) sacrifices time out of the workforce & her wages to carry, deliver and nurture, so why shouldn't we recognise that time out period?

Why is it that the woman sacrifices the wages (and the super payments) to bear and raise the baby? The workforce is not treating fathers and mothers equally when it comes to parenting. She is penalised for being a mother by either having to leave her job, or return to it sooner than she should after the birth.

If she leaves the workforce to have the baby, she loses super while not working. Once child rearing is over, she returns to the workforce in lesser skilled or lower paid roles. Thing is, someone needs to have the baby and raise it. Generally that is the mother, so generally it ends up being women in the lower paid casual roles.

I don't believe any mum should have their super stopped and be forced to return to the workforce too soon. Why is the maternity period not recognised as a necessary cost of raising our future workforce? If there weren't plenty of people out there choosing to have babies, Australia would be in trouble. We need more babies

http://www.austlii.org/au/journals/HRD/2002/26.html

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/paid_maternity_leave/

As a community I think we need to put more effort into valuing the roles of caring, nurturing and raising children. I applaud mums bearing children and Dads actually raising them if it suits that particular family unit. I like the idea of that kind of flexibility (call it parenting leave if necessary), just so long as actually having children is recognised as a contribution to society that requires recognition through workplace legislation.

I know my child rearing has meant that I have very little in the way of super. Thats a prime reason why I need my property investments to do well. But a lot of women simply don't have alternative investment strategies to fall back on.

I disagree here Tiz sorry! This is suggesting that one gender is weaker than the other and must be protected. As a 38 week pregnant woman with 2 kids already I don't see myself as having a lower earning capacity than my husband (or any other man) and certainly do not expect charity from anyone! I know that even in the event of losing absolutely everything tomorow I can and will succeed and again get myself to the point where I am now (even quicker the second time). I know that I can make money kids or not and have never let my gender or kids become an excuse!

I have structured myself in a way that I will continue to make as much money as my husband or more even with a new born on the way.

The minute you start thinking, poor women, they can't earn as much, don't have as much time blah blah... You become a victim and develop a limiting belief that will gaurantee that you will not succeed. I don't think any gender should be given any special privelages over another and as soon as they government does it they are killing the creativity in that gender and creating a problem. If welfare was never introduced, more people would be successful, we don't need more problems and we especially do not need more women who think they can't get ahead because of their gender.

As for super, mine is zero! I can work out where to investm my own money thank you without the government forcing a low return investment, no leverage strategy on me! I have even structured my busienss in a way where I'm not employed by the business so that I don't ever have to waste money on super!

 

[POB]

Thanks All For The Money

My wife and I both work for the government and both have paid maternity leave. Mine is obviously only for a short period.

We pay our taxes and maternity leave lets us have some comfort in this period of our lives.

I love it and thanks for the money.

POB

 

[Dazz]

Why is it that the woman sacrifices the wages (and the super payments) to bear and raise the baby?

....um....cos they have the necessary bits....

Thing is, someone needs to have the baby and raise it. Generally that is the mother, so generally it ends up being women in the lower paid casual roles.

This is one of those deliciously rare cases where we can dispense with the wishy washy 'generally' and say with iron clad, irrefutable, without exception, 100% certainty that the female of the species is the anointed gender in the lottery of birthing roles. Males need not apply.


Well that puts that debate to bed....what's next ??