Nine months maternity leave!
Discussion
I heard on the radio this morning that the Government is proposing that mothers be entitled to nine months maternity leave.
Now, as an employer, I consider myself pretty tolerent and and flexible, but here's a commecial reality:
The next time I have two candidates applying for a job who I consider to be pretty equal in their abilities, but one is a lady of child bearing age and the other isn not - I wonder which one I'll opt for?
Now, as an employer, I consider myself pretty tolerent and and flexible, but here's a commecial reality:
The next time I have two candidates applying for a job who I consider to be pretty equal in their abilities, but one is a lady of child bearing age and the other isn not - I wonder which one I'll opt for?
Plotloss said:
You and millions of others.
Ironic eh?
By attempting to swing the balance in favour of the female worker effectively they will emancipate them once more.
Labour: short on thinking, long on nonsense.
Basically, MP's work in a highly closetted environment where they don't have to balance the books. I reckon it should be mandatory that MP's be succesful in running a business before they're let loose running United Kingdom PLC.
My g/f is about to go on maternity leave soon, they are entitled to a year off now but only six months paid, the govement wants to extend that to nine months paid, then within a few years to one year paid.
Far to long as far as I am concered but we have looked into child care for when she goes back to work and it is very expensive. By the time she has paid for traveling back and forth to work and a child minder she would be left with about £100.00 per week, which is what she will get after the first six weeks of maternity leave anyway.
Far to long as far as I am concered but we have looked into child care for when she goes back to work and it is very expensive. By the time she has paid for traveling back and forth to work and a child minder she would be left with about £100.00 per week, which is what she will get after the first six weeks of maternity leave anyway.
srebbe64 said:
Surely the more logical thing to do is this to give reasonable Tax breaks to working mothers which goes towards childcare. The employers not screwed and the mother/employee is working and paying Tax.
I agree totally, as we both live together your combined income is just over the limit to claim for help with child care, that is one of the reasons I have now got to sell my cerbera, as I have got to get something cheaper to run, I have got my eye on a Monaro as soon as the cerb goes.
srebbe64 said:
Surely the more logical thing to do is this to give reasonable Tax breaks to working mothers which goes towards childcare. The employers not screwed and the mother/employee is working and paying Tax.
They do, its called family Tax Credits and has paid for the majority of Hughesie Jnr nursery/child care for the past 3 years.
hughesie2 said:
Surely the more logical thing to do is this to give reasonable Tax breaks to working mothers which goes towards childcare. The employers not screwed and the mother/employee is working and paying Tax.
They do, its called family Tax Credits and has paid for the majority of Hughesie Jnr nursery/child care for the past 3 years.
Unfortunately though for the vast majority of the residents of the South East WTC are calculated on gross income, not nett disposable so if you are over a threshold you get nothing.
There are ways to make private childcare more affordable and for families with two or more children a private nanny is significantly cheaper than two places at a good nursery.
hughesie2 said:
Surely the more logical thing to do is this to give reasonable Tax breaks to working mothers which goes towards childcare. The employers not screwed and the mother/employee is working and paying Tax.
They do, its called family Tax Credits and has paid for the majority of Hughesie Jnr nursery/child care for the past 3 years.
I know that, that's why I used the word "reasonable" - enough to make a serious dent in the costs of decent child care.
Well, I don't see why, as a non kiddy wanting adult, I should watch my taxes go up to pay for people who do want kids.
If you can't afford them, don't have them.
It will get even worse before the end of the decade and I can watch my pension going on Council tax, don't wanna work tax and Kiddy tax and bugger all left for mesen.
I'm not a happy hector.
If you can't afford them, don't have them.
It will get even worse before the end of the decade and I can watch my pension going on Council tax, don't wanna work tax and Kiddy tax and bugger all left for mesen.
I'm not a happy hector.
Piccy mate said:
Well, I don't see why, as a non kiddy wanting adult, I should watch my taxes go up to pay for people who do want kids.
If you can't afford them, don't have them.
It will get even worse before the end of the decade and I can watch my pension going on Council tax, don't wanna work tax and Kiddy tax and bugger all left for mesen.
I'm not a happy hector.
You should sympathise with me then. Why should an employer pay someone when they're not working. It comes straight off my profit (which is ultimately my salary.) Would you be happy about that?
Piccy mate said:
Well, I don't see why, as a non kiddy wanting adult, I should watch my taxes go up to pay for people who do want kids.
If you can't afford them, don't have them.
It will get even worse before the end of the decade and I can watch my pension going on Council tax, don't wanna work tax and Kiddy tax and bugger all left for mesen.
I'm not a happy hector.
Having Children benefits the whole of society. The problem with all the benefits Labour have brought in for parents is that they discrimanate against the Middle Class. I think the way forward is subsisidised child care for all-not just those who fit Labour's Social engineering agenda.
srebbe64 said:
You should sympathise with me then. Why should an employer pay someone when they're not working. It comes straight off my profit (which is ultimately my salary.) Would you be happy about that?
I do sympathise with you, but ultimately you're gonna put up your prices to pay for these absentees which means I'm gonna have to pay more.
As JagLover mentioned, its not really anything about maternity leave or employing a woman of child bearing age. Its about cost effective and flexible child care.....
I have two children and for the 3-4 days child care a month I am looking at nearly £1000!!!! I know that I am not suffering the worst though. A colleague at work pays £1200 a month for ONE!!!!
Cost effective child care will mean that maternity leave could be longer but have less "free money" involved. It could also be adapted to allow either parent to take extended leave, again it doesnt matter as child care is cheaper and hence grabbing every penny isnt as important.....
Take a look at some of the scandinavian countries - some of the best paternity / maternity leave providers but lowest complainers because the state funds child care to keep costs and the burden low.....
Shame that no government in this country would be as forward thinking.... why give tomorrow what you can take today?
I have two children and for the 3-4 days child care a month I am looking at nearly £1000!!!! I know that I am not suffering the worst though. A colleague at work pays £1200 a month for ONE!!!!
Cost effective child care will mean that maternity leave could be longer but have less "free money" involved. It could also be adapted to allow either parent to take extended leave, again it doesnt matter as child care is cheaper and hence grabbing every penny isnt as important.....
Take a look at some of the scandinavian countries - some of the best paternity / maternity leave providers but lowest complainers because the state funds child care to keep costs and the burden low.....
Shame that no government in this country would be as forward thinking.... why give tomorrow what you can take today?
JagLover said:
Having Children benefits the whole of society. The problem with all the benefits Labour have brought in for parents is that they discrimanate against the Middle Class. I think the way forward is subsisidised child care for all-not just those who fit Labour's Social engineering agenda.
Absolutely - good summary. It's not a case of non-parents being discriminated against. By that rationale, it could be argued that parents pay more tax for the NHS, schooling etc. The reality is, the kids being born today will be looking after us old farts when we're 95 yrs old. So kids are fundamental to society, so why should employers be paying when it's a society issue?
off_again said:
Take a look at some of the scandinavian countries - some of the best paternity / maternity leave providers but lowest complainers because the state funds child care to keep costs and the burden low.....
Umm, No. Have you seen the Tax they pay in Scandinavian countries - it's outragous. I do a lot of business in Sweden and most Swedes I talk to feel they pay far too much Tax. To hell with that!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff