SA Footy

Seems like working mothers would get 18 weeks paid leave at $544 a week, and Dads would get two weeks. Would not get the baby bonus on top, though.

What do you think? A good idea? Not?

A good idea

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.

Especially when some members of society should be discouraged from having (more) children and not encouraged!
Personally I disagree with the whole concept of any payment for children and it only gets worse and worse because governments will only give more and not take it away due to wanting more votes.

Typical ignorance from the male species

i for one think that paid maternity leave is a good thing! even though me and the missus have finished having kids.

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.

PS The world is overpopulated and people are dyign of starvation till, to actually encourage people to breed is nothing short of ludicrous in the grand scheme of things.

Footy Chick wrote:Typical ignorance from the male species

My missus understands it too and she's 22 weeks pregnant with our first, so it's pretty relevant

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....

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....

OK then, I wasn't aware of that ... Still don't think it's fair to force people to pay for what is essentially a decision others make.

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.

I don't suppose women need money when they're tied to the kitchen sink though, do they Wedgie?

The Government wants to take away the baby bonus from the ferals that don't deserve it (and rightly so) and put some of it towards women that have worked hard in their careers and now choose to start a family.

It's not a payment for children Wedgie, maternity leave is so that families minimise the impact of losing the best part of a whole income at a time they need the extra cash most.

Not a handout by anymeans, unlike what you're accustomed to.

Telstra have done 12 weeks full or 26 weeks half pay for years now..

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).
Our first child was unexpected but we'd planned our lives so we had a year or more of leave up our sleeve in case of an 'emergency'. We planned our second child and once again took equal amount of time so we could both share the caring duties.
For you to insinuate Im the sort of person who would want a woman tied to a kitchen sink is the more ridiculous thing Ive ever read on this site and highly insultive!

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 ?

There are a number of women who elect not to work not because they are feral but because they believe that a mother should spend time with their baby/child during their formative years. These women forego an income so as to provide more time and love for their children. I would be against paid maternity leave except for the fact that non-working mothers will be compensated for through the payment of the baby bonus.
I must admit that I find the comment made above that people should not have kids very worrying. Based on that thinking, the whole human race would be wiped out in one generation!

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.

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!

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 ?

I don't think you could ever say that paying an absent staff member wouldn't be a burden on business ... Particularly when it could be several members at once.

Anyway, it's an argument for another time I guess as apparently I'd misunderstood the situation and it won't be business owners that cough up the $$.

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!

Huh? Perhaps read from the top and work your way down mate.

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.

And contrary to what was said above, nothing I've seen from the government has suggested they are going to compensate business for the full cost of paid maternity leave. If they are going to scrap the $5k baby bonus for a paid maternity leave scheme, how will they cover the varying wage awards between say a Lawyer or Doctor and a waitress for example?

Finally, obviously you can't discriminate based on gender, but this is the most efficient way to FORCE gender discrimination.

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.

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

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

Cheers, yes, just updated my post.

And you've answered a question I raised.