by Sploosh » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:14 pm
by Thiele » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:24 pm
by JK » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:29 pm
Thiele wrote:A good idea
by Wedgie » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:36 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Footy Chick » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:45 pm
by best on hill » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:46 pm
by Wedgie » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:47 pm
Footy Chick wrote:Typical ignorance from the male species![]()
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by JK » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:50 pm
Footy Chick wrote:Typical ignorance from the male species![]()
by Dutchy » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:51 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
by JK » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:54 pm
Dutchy wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
its not the business that pays, the taxpayer does....so therefore the businesses that currently pay maternity leave (some already pay up to 14 weeks) would love this as its a money saver for them
its a good idea IMO, but they are still going to pay the unemployed the lump sum baby bonus, I cant understand that if anything they should be paying that over 26 weeks on a drip feed....
by Footy Chick » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:55 pm
Wedgie wrote:Footy Chick wrote:Typical ignorance from the male species![]()
Mrs Wedgie has exactly the same opinion, you probably would too if you'd seen what we have in our careers.
Being a male or female has nothing to do with it.
by Wedgie » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:58 pm
Footy Chick wrote:I don't suppose women need money when they're tied to the kitchen sink though, do they Wedgie?![]()
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Mickyj » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:03 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
by bulldogproud » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:06 pm
by best on hill » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:07 pm
Wedgie wrote:Footy Chick wrote:I don't suppose women need money when they're tied to the kitchen sink though, do they Wedgie?![]()
What an utterly ridiculous and insultive thing to say, Ive had 2 children and my partner has a higher paying salary than I do as that's her choice (she's more career orientated than I).
What an absolutely moronic uneducated stupid thing to say.
by JK » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:10 pm
Mickyj wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
According to 7 news most of europe has paid maternity leave .And a couple of countries in Africa as well .
But the USA and Australia dont .
Working mothers will not get the baby bonus instead be paid the maternity leave .
business complaining after 14 weeks they get their worker back .Or the worker leaves they have to hire another worker and train that worker.
Not sure who would win and lose
14 weeks leave for a baby
13 weeks leave if your with the same company after 10 years whats the difference ?
by Wedgie » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:10 pm
best on hill wrote:Wedgie wrote:Footy Chick wrote:I don't suppose women need money when they're tied to the kitchen sink though, do they Wedgie?![]()
What an utterly ridiculous and insultive thing to say, Ive had 2 children and my partner has a higher paying salary than I do as that's her choice (she's more career orientated than I).
wedgie you as a site admin should now better. just because you have a difference of opinion doesnt give you the right degrade another person opinion!
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by devilsadvocate » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:20 pm
Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
by Mickyj » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:24 pm
devilsadvocate wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Thiele wrote:A good idea
I know my argument is age old, but why should a business owner be forced to fork out for others life choices? Absolutely crazy IMHO.
Very, very well put.
It's not ignorance from the male species, it's a sensible, rational economic and social viewpoint.
Take any small business. With the risk of having to pay a mother for 18 weeks, while also having to cover their absence with a temp who are ridiculously expensive and hard to source, why would they employ a young woman who is potentially going to cost the owner their business.
Now obviously you can't discriminate based on gender, but this is the most efficient way to FORCE gender discrimination.
by devilsadvocate » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:27 pm
Mickyj wrote:I think you are all misinformed the Govt is going to pay for it .
Cue everyone saying don't use my tax money
And its all at the lowest wage rate 540 a week that seems like what i make ho hum
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |