Paid maternity leave

[luvcricket]

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!

A 60% reduction in the human population may seriously help with global warming though, if you are convinced it is attributable dominantly to human activity.
Of course the economic system would have to be rejigged as we have been depending on a growing population to pay for the care of the older generation due to the fact that the system does not encourage people to plan and provide for themselves, nor the government to put away provisions to fund future costs instead of buliding up "deficits" [i.e. debts].

My conscience is clear - I am now a self-funded retiree, and have not even applied for a Seniors Card, let alone a publicly funded pension.

It's proven that 60% of the time it works everytime.

[wycbloods]

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.

Maybe some businesses do it as an investment to keep some very good female staff .

I think it is very important that mothers have adequate(18 weeks seems right to me) paid time to spend with their newborns as it is a very important part of the relationship between mum and baby. As for the men having two weeks that is what i had recently for my first child and that is a good amount of time to have off to assist in the start. We don't have to put up with all the changes to our bodies and the things women have too, so i don't think it should be equal time off and what is being suggested is a fair system.

[JK]

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.

Maybe some businesses do it as an investment to keep some very good female staff .

I think it is very important that mothers have adequate(18 weeks seems right to me) paid time to spend with their newborns as it is a very important part of the relationship between mum and baby. As for the men having two weeks that is what i had recently for my first child and that is a good amount of time to have off to assist in the start. We don't have to put up with all the changes to our bodies and the things women have too, so i don't think it should be equal time off and what is being suggested is a fair system.

I wasn't going to post on this one again given the heated nature it undertook, so I'll have a final say and clarify my position:

I don't think it's fair to expect business owners to be responsible for additional cost based on the decisions of others ... I wrongly assumed this is what was being mooted when in actual fact it isn't, so my opinion is actually irrelevant to this discussion.

I have taken onboard other opinions and have softened/changed my stance somewhat, and concede/agree, that in a country as well resourced as ours, finances shouldn't prohibit people from having children, or raising children as best they can ... I think whatever system is in place it needs to assist those legitimately trying to do the right thing, and not provide loophole assistance to those looking to exploit it.

I also think the system needs to include some responibilities on behalf of would-be parents to provide for their children.

[Psyber]

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.

Maybe some businesses do it as an investment to keep some very good female staff .

Perhaps they do on a voluntary basis if that particular staff member earns what amounts to an increased pay package by some form of productivity for the business.

I think it is very important that mothers have adequate(18 weeks seems right to me) paid time to spend with their newborns as it is a very important part of the relationship between mum and baby. As for the men having two weeks that is what i had recently for my first child and that is a good amount of time to have off to assist in the start. We don't have to put up with all the changes to our bodies and the things women have too, so i don't think it should be equal time off and what is being suggested is a fair system.

Fine, there is no doubt the bonding is important, but that is something you factor in to your choosing to have a child at any time in your life.
Why should an employer or the taxpayer in general pay for it though?
Nobody else funds my life choices.

[wycbloods]

Do businesses employ 'people' or economic numbers. The healthier an employee the more productive they will be for the employer. It will help ensure that the women that have helped the business into the position that it is will come back and continue to allow the business to prosper. I agree that no one funds my life choices either but would businesses rather that no women(wanting to have a family) participate in the workforce and we have a severe shortage of workers? What would that do to labour costs?

[JK]

Do businesses employ 'people' or economic numbers. The healthier an employee the more productive they will be for the employer. It will help ensure that the women that have helped the business into the position that it is will come back and continue to allow the business to prosper. I agree that no one funds my life choices either but would businesses rather that no women(wanting to have a family) participate in the workforce and we have a severe shortage of workers? What would that do to labour costs?

I think with anything like this the answer lies somewhere in the middle mate.

[wycbloods]

Psyber what do think employers/government should provide if anything?(a genuine question)

[Booney]

I have a feeling this debate will rage for some time.

[rod_rooster]

... 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.

Absolutely DA, If I had not already extracted myself from my 2 businesses earlier this year, and had employed women of child-bearing age, I would be now calculating whether they were still viable under this scheme, and whether I needed to replace the relevant staff with older women or men as soon as I could. In fact I saw the writing on the wall in 1987 and stopped employing younger women then - I had expected this to happen sooner - under the last Labor government.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

My view is that these days you get to choose whether to have children. You make the choice don't expect anybody else to pay for it..

I don't agree with you often Psyber but you are spot on here. Why would you employ a women aged 18 -45? Would make no sense if you have the risk of it costing you any money at all with maternity leave.

[Mickyj]

... 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.

Absolutely DA, If I had not already extracted myself from my 2 businesses earlier this year, and had employed women of child-bearing age, I would be now calculating whether they were still viable under this scheme, and whether I needed to replace the relevant staff with older women or men as soon as I could. In fact I saw the writing on the wall in 1987 and stopped employing younger women then - I had expected this to happen sooner - under the last Labor government.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

My view is that these days you get to choose whether to have children. You make the choice don't expect anybody else to pay for it..

I don't agree with you often Psyber but you are spot on here. Why would you employ a women aged 18 -45? Would make no sense if you have the risk of it costing you any money at all with maternity leave.

guys the Government are paying it

Anyway any business would not want to pay for it big or small .Seesshh my mob hate paying for RDO's holidays or sick days how do you think they would react to this one .

[Psyber]

.... guys the Government are paying it

Read my lips [well fingers] Micky.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

[wycbloods]

.... guys the Government are paying it

Read my lips [well fingers] Micky.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

Well why do companies provide for it now? They also do it at there employees base rate and not that of the minimum wage.

[Psyber]

Psyber what do think employers/government should provide if anything?(a genuine question)

Everybody:Fair contributions to their own superannuation/pensions by contributing proportionally to income to funding their own retirement.
Employers:Fair wages and safe working conditons with appropriate and adequate compensation in time off and penalty rates for weekend work. Overtime should not be compulsary.
Government: Fair policy and safe economic management with adequate safety net provisions for the elderly or incapacitated. Employment regulations that simplify the paper work and not add to it - for example by having to administer schemes like these for the government.

[wycbloods]

Psyber what do think employers/government should provide if anything?(a genuine question)

Everybody:Fair contributions to their own superannuation/pensions by contributing proportionally to income to funding their own retirement.
Employers:Fair wages and safe working conditons with appropriate and adequate compensation in time off and penalty rates for weekend work. Overtime should not be compulsary.
Government: Fair policy and safe economic management with adequate safety net provisions for the elderly or incapacitated. Employment regulations that simplify the paper work and not add to it - for example by having to administer schemes like these for the government.

Thanks for the response but i was referring to the thread's topic . What do you think they should provide in regards to paid parental leave? I think i should've stated that.

[Psyber]

.... guys the Government are paying it

Read my lips [well fingers] Micky.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

Well why do companies provide for it now? They also do it at there employees base rate and not that of the minimum wage.

Larger companies which have full time staff to do the bookwork can absorb the administrative workload, and with highly productive employees can provide it as a form of bonus/good will selectively to those employees who are a major assett. But a large proportion of the business in Australia is small business, and those imposts impact significantly on time and money overheads and viability.

[Psyber]

Psyber what do think employers/government should provide if anything?(a genuine question)

Everybody:Fair contributions to their own superannuation/pensions by contributing proportionally to income to funding their own retirement.
Employers:Fair wages and safe working conditons with appropriate and adequate compensation in time off and penalty rates for weekend work. Overtime should not be compulsary.
Government: Fair policy and safe economic management with adequate safety net provisions for the elderly or incapacitated. Employment regulations that simplify the paper work and not add to it - for example by having to administer schemes like these for the government.

Thanks for the response but i was referring to the thread's topic . What do you think they should provide in regards to paid parental leave? I think i should've stated that.

Sorry, I misread you because I had already stated here that I do not think either employers or government should provide any form of paid parental leave.
People should, when they decide to have children, take responsibility for their choice and not expect the rest of the community to subsidise them.
Similarly, I will not be seeking even a part-pension or a Seniors Card in my retirement.

[wycbloods]

... 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.

Absolutely DA, If I had not already extracted myself from my 2 businesses earlier this year, and had employed women of child-bearing age, I would be now calculating whether they were still viable under this scheme, and whether I needed to replace the relevant staff with older women or men as soon as I could. In fact I saw the writing on the wall in 1987 and stopped employing younger women then - I had expected this to happen sooner - under the last Labor government.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

My view is that these days you get to choose whether to have children. You make the choice don't expect anybody else to pay for it..

I don't agree with you often Psyber but you are spot on here. Why would you employ a women aged 18 -45? Would make no sense if you have the risk of it costing you any money at all with maternity leave.

guys the Government are paying it

Anyway any business would not want to pay for it big or small .Seesshh my mob hate paying for RDO's holidays or sick days how do you think they would react to this one .[/quote]

That shouldn't be a problem they don't have to fork anything out for that as you have to put hours away to cover them each week. I know it still irks them though .

[wycbloods]

Psyber what do think employers/government should provide if anything?(a genuine question)

Everybody:Fair contributions to their own superannuation/pensions by contributing proportionally to income to funding their own retirement.
Employers:Fair wages and safe working conditons with appropriate and adequate compensation in time off and penalty rates for weekend work. Overtime should not be compulsary.
Government: Fair policy and safe economic management with adequate safety net provisions for the elderly or incapacitated. Employment regulations that simplify the paper work and not add to it - for example by having to administer schemes like these for the government.

Thanks for the response but i was referring to the thread's topic . What do you think they should provide in regards to paid parental leave? I think i should've stated that.

Sorry, I misread you because I had already stated here that I do not think either employers or government should provide any form of paid parental leave.
People should, when they decide to have children, take responsibility for their choice and not expect the rest of the community to subsidise them.
Similarly, I will not be seeking even a part-pension or a Seniors Card in my retirement.

Ok i must have missed that earlier statement .

[Psyber]

Ok i must have missed that earlier statement .

Easy to do in a rapidly moving thread like this!

[wycbloods]

.... guys the Government are paying it

Read my lips [well fingers] Micky.

Not only are businesses going to be hit for the superannuation component under this scheme, but they are going to have to stump up the specified $544 per week, then pay someone to do the paperwork to reclaim that component from the government, and then wait who knows how long to get it, as well as pay casual rates for fill in staff for the 18 weeks as DA said above.

Well why do companies provide for it now? They also do it at there employees base rate and not that of the minimum wage.

Larger companies which have full time staff to do the bookwork can absorb the administrative workload, and with highly productive employees can provide it as a form of bonus/good will selectively to those employees who are a major assett. But a large proportion of the business in Australia is small business, and those imposts impact significantly on time and money overheads and viability.

I agree the impact it could have on smaller business is a concern but there needs to be some sort of scheme set up IMHO which works for all the parties involved employers, employees and the government.