The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case against paid maternity leave > Comments

The case against paid maternity leave : Comments

By Leon Bertrand, published 25/6/2008

Those who believe in paid maternity leave being forced upon businesses and taxpayers should stop and think about the real effects of their policies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Another way of operating is to have a baby bonus that is paid by the taxpayer on the birth of the child, but the bonus is paid in vouchers.

The mother or father can only spend the money on the child, and not spend the money at the pub, or spend it on the latest model plasma TV screen.
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 9:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tax payers and employers should not have to bear the burden of paid paternity leave.

If women wish to take a break from work to have babies, they should be prepared to bear the cost. Most employers hold their jobs for them; that should be enough.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 10:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article strikes me as pretty silly. I repeats a number of points we have heard before but we need to remember some facts:

1) It is not true to say that people who do not have children do not benefit from schemes that make it easier for others to have children if they wish. We are a COMMUNITY that PROVIDES SERVICES FOR EACH OTHER. The young medical staff emptying your bedpan when you are seeing out your final days in the "luxury" of a modern hospital bed do not just spontaneously spring into existence to serve you. They must be BORN and RAISED for our community to continue. Or would you rather die hungry, unwashed lying in your own filth at home? This applies to all services. They do not continue without society reproducing itself.

2) Common differences between women earning six-figure salaries and the unemployed are:
A) The former are highly skilled - we have a skills shortage do we not? Do we want these people to give up work to raise a family or can we compromise with a maternity leave scheme?
B) The former pay LOTS and LOTS of TAX! Why should they not see benefit from the tax money they contribute to our system.
Women who stay at home and choose not to work have that right - but they are not paying tax so why should they benefit to the same extent?

3) Why not do what Sweden does and, recognising the needs of the workforce and young children, increase the % oncosts of employment by having all employers/employees contribute to a pool of funding for maternity/paternity leave. Parents can then draw out of the scheme in proportion to how they have payed in - i.e. according to their former salary. There is no domestic competitive advantage/disadvantage for any employer.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 10:05:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How dare anyone deprive me of free lunches.

Who cares who pays... as long as it aint me.

These anti-woman types need to just shut up, make like a bike, carry some one else's load and just learn to peddle harder.

Maybe these people who complain about tax burdens should be quiet and get a second job or something. Sheesh, the greedy capitalist pigs need to tighten their belts so that the lefty leeches can loosen theirs.

And be damned the consequences. Entitlement addicts dont respect any reasoning that invalidates their self absorption. They dont care about the truth of these sorts of things or how their reasoning is all askew. All they care about is the money, the entitlement, the hand-out and the faux acknowledgement of their contribution to the social order. The stuff of deep insecurity. Who cares what the public thinks about your contribution to it. You already know the truth.

Who cares about the ultimate ironic betrayal of this sort of dependency on big brother and the nanny state, together with its inherent disempowerment and arcane, retrograde view of women (as paid breeders). Me thinks that either feminism is selling out women or that it was always about manipulating women to drive political ambitions.

Anyway, drink from the glass, before its empty.

And dont wounder too loudly why the cost of living is rocketing along.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 10:09:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael in adelaide sprouts the usual responses to this topic. And the usual answers to those responses:

3) The "Sweden does it so why don't we?" argument: Some asian countries have the death penalty so does that mean we should also be adopting those policies too?

Just because one country does something doesn't mean that other countries should do it. Also, because one (or more) countries does something doesn't mean that it's applicable to another country, or that fundemenally that it's the right thing to do.

1) The "The kids of the future will look after you!" argument: While this is true, it doesn't mean that the kids have to be born here. There are a hell of a lot of people (inc kids) in the world and a lot of them want to come here, so let them come.

If people choose to have kids, that's their business and they should bear the consequences of that decision. The state should not interfere. If employers wish to offer maternity leave then that's their business, however they should not be compelled to do so
Posted by BN, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 10:14:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW BN, that's some powerful logic there. Lets look at it:

" The "Sweden does it so why don't we?" argument: Some asian countries have the death penalty so does that mean we should also be adopting those policies too? "

Comparing childcare to the death penalty - NICE!

" Just because one country does something doesn't mean that other countries should do it. Also, because one (or more) countries does something doesn't mean that it's applicable to another country, or that fundemenally that it's the right thing to do. "

BN, it called LEARNING. We see how other countries are doing it better and we try to do better ourselves.

" The "The kids of the future will look after you!" argument: While this is true, it doesn't mean that the kids have to be born here. There are a hell of a lot of people (inc kids) in the world and a lot of them want to come here, so let them come. "

That sounds like the kind of Australia I want to live in! One overrun by people with no connection to my culture. What is Australia anyway?

"If people choose to have kids, that's their business and they should bear the consequences of that decision. The state should not interfere."

The state is US. Its whatever we want it to be. Since you think that children are unimportant, you should stop accepting any services from any person younger than you this minute! Can you survive without other people's children doing things for you?
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 11:37:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MiA:

"That sounds like the kind of Australia I want to live in! One overrun by people with no connection to my culture. What is Australia anyway?"

In case you hadn't noticed, Australias birth rate has been below the replacement rate for some time (see here http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/images/adc-13.gif) so us taking kids (and their families) is nothing new. We've been doing it for decades.

"The state is US. Its whatever we want it to be. Since you think that children are unimportant, you should stop accepting any services from any person younger than you this minute! Can you survive without other people's children doing things for you?"

What a silly thing to say. As per above, we've been importing kids (and their families) for years and we can continue to do so.

I say again, if people want to have kids then that's their business. It doesn't mean that society should subsidise that decision.
Posted by BN, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 11:44:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that there will be other significant reasons for the following but I do wonder what impact the increased talk of paid maternity leave has had on the totals.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23856032-5013404,00.html

"The job losses were almost entirely caused by a reduction in the employment of women, and were concentrated in NSW."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/money/story/0,26887,23867159-5015810,00.html

"Almost 20,000 jobs were lost last month, with women taking the full force of the cuts. Of the 19,700 jobs lost, 19,600 were female workers. "

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The former pay LOTS and LOTS of TAX! Why should they not see benefit from the tax money they contribute to our system."

That's a novel argument. I always thought the rich paid proportionately more tax because they could afford to. That's the principle behind the progressive tax system.

The idea that because you pay more tax, the government should pay you greater subsidies is incompatible with the values on which our society was founded.
Posted by grn, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 1:22:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Capitalism has individualised what is essentially (or should be) a communal activity, the raising of children.

It does this becaase its production process is geared around the extraction of surplus value (eg profit) from workers. Individualising childcare to a family unit means the workers in that family bear the costs of child raising. The bosses benefit because the surplus value we create is larger.

I think however that maternity leave will spread across the workplace now that big firms like Wollies and Coles have adopted such plans. SMEs will be at a competitive dsiadvantage.

Of course the real driver for maternity leave is the ongoing changing nature of the workforce and women's participation in it. Lack of maternity leave is an effective barrier to participation so it is socially just to have some form of universal maternity leave.

I suggest those earning more than $100,000 per annum (evidently the new rich) pay a special maternity leave tax to help fund a universal maternity leave scheme. All businesses could also pay the levy.

Indeed a windfall tax on the resources sector alone is probably enough to fund the ACTUs' scheme of six months on the minimum wage.
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 1:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
michael_in_adelaide,

1) That's dumb though. People don't have children to help society. People will still have children if you don't pay them.

2A) Paying women to stay at home is the reverse of encouraging them back to work. If they want that new TV, they will have to get a part time job if they cant use the Baby Bonus to pay for it.

Passy,
' Lack of maternity leave is an effective barrier to participation.
'
How?
Why would a woman not re-enter the work force because she is not being paid to stay at home? It doesn't make sense. If you need money and the government doesn't give it to you, you go to work. If the government gives it to you, you stay at home.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 5:07:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael in Adeliade makes some valid points. The children that we women who put our life on the line to produce will be the future workforce of Australia, your future doctor, lawyer or policeman. So as a mother who is expecting my fourth child, I know the pain & agongy of having children.

Our obstertricians charge a small fortune due to the minority who always want to blame the doctor for some problem.I could have sued my first doctor after my first son died in utero. If you had seen the bruising on my arms some might have employed a lawyer to justify the anger of loosing a baby. We choose to accept the hand of nature and I was grateful to be alive. Mind you I nearly died from a massive haemorrhage.

What we really need is a cap on the cost of living so that we as women can have the right to raise our own children without being robbed of this right by the rising cost of fuel, food, government, society and financial costs thrust upon us. Wait till the carbon trading system is introduced into Australia.

Paid maternity leave must benefit all women who give birth not the select few as some want to argue. This absurd idea that a mother in the home does do not work is an age old argument that feminists and a few men want the world to believe. A mother is the best person to look after her own little ones. We change the nappies, cook the food, go to the supermarket, manage a budget, taxi our children to many activities and the rest. Now if you want to anlyse it we have many occupations. The crazy notion we are only contributing to society if we are a taxpayer in the paid workforce fails to recognize the unpaid work that you don't have to pay extra taxes to fund while we raise the future generation of Australian workers. It is becoming harder and harder to do as we face the rising cost of living.
Posted by lunch, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 5:38:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish all of those who are against paid maternity leave, the author and commentators, would re-write their article or comments replacing "maternity leave" with "long-service leave."

Why should business be forced to pay for this unfunded liability? If there were no long service leave in Australia today and some body (oh those terrible nasties from the left) tossed out the trial balloon about it, oh what a stink the right would raise over it.

If you are against paid maternity leave, then come clean and admit being against long service leave...then try to run an election on that platform.....
Posted by RenegadeScience, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 6:02:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-truly-believe-men-need-to-be-wary-of.html

"My guest today on my radio show was Carnell Smith, an expert on paternity fraud. He claimed that 30% of men who went to blood banks for paternity tests found that they were not--as the child's mother claimed--the father. Smith went on to say that in most states, DNA evidence, in many cases, is inadmissible. He estimated that, currently, one million men are paying child support for kids they did not father.

Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws. But why would a woman falsely claim that a man is the father of her child when he isn't, thereby forcing him to unfairly pay many thousands of dollars in child support, and manipulate him into spending 18 years involved in raising a child he didn't father? Smith says that these are the major reasons:
-- He had the deepest pockets among the men she slept with
-- She was trying to chain him to the relationship
-- She thought he'd make the best father
-- She was trying to lash out at the man"
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 6:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that our society is totally stuffed.We are over taxed,over regulated,over worked and really,just over it.

We have all the halmarks of decay,from drug abuse,corruption,crime,political correctness,lack of respect,too much aggression etc.

Only large corporations and the Public Service can afford paid maternity leave.If you want to lose more of our small businesses,just implement another dose of insanity that will put another nail in the coffin of our struggling industries.

Our plentiful resources in a way have been a curse,since the excesses of fanciful people in Govt have destroyed personal responsibility and innovation in this country.We are the stupid little rich bitches,paving the way to our own destruction.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 8:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see good reasons for large companies to provide paid maternity leave.

>>All this is certainly not to say that paid maternity leave which is voluntarily funded by employers is a bad thing, or should be prohibited. Recently, some very large companies, such as Westpac, News Ltd and Woolworths have decided to provide paid maternity leave to female employees who have been with them for a while.<<

It is a competitive advantage that big business enjoys today, and one that smaller businesses cannot afford to match. The latter are therefore already disadvantaged in the job market against the big players.

To make the payment of PML mandatory would increase costs relative to the big guys, who have alraedy factored these is, and further disadvantage them in the marketplace.

The media are so totally besotted with the aura of government and big business, they see small businesses through their lens.

Australian small businesses do not have the clout in the media, or with government.

The media are inundated, daily, by the PR announcements from major companies, all promoting a posture that will ultimately make them their business the most money. It's their job. It's what they do.

And the government puppydogs follow along, seduced by everything from photoshoots with Bill Gates to a private boxes at the footy.

Paid Maternity Leave is just another nail in the coffin of those pesky fruitflies, small businesses. They are a nuisance to Big Business, and provide no value to politicians, so stuff the lot of them.

Declaration of interest: for the past twelve years I have invested my own after-tax earnings, run up a six-figure overdraft, foregone any semblance of a decent salary, in four small businesses. All have survived, and employ between them a couple of dozen people. And it's stuff like this that makes me realize that at some point I am going to have to give in to the rising tide, sack all the people so they can go and work at Woollies, and simply say sod it, I tried.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:26:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you are against paid maternity leave, then come clean and admit being against long service leave...then try to run an election on that platform....."

Unless you are arguing paid maternity leave should only be available after 10 years and that it should only last a couple of months, like long service leave, your comparison is bogus.
Posted by grn, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comparison, grn, is not bogus. It is all about an unfunded liability that is expected of businesses. No business today would be happy with having that forced upon them, and yet it is a part of the Australian way of life that no dares to ask to be removed, now that would take courage.
Posted by RenegadeScience, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:34:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...furthermore, grn, if that's your argument against my original comment, then your real point is the amount of money and not the points mentioned in the article.
Posted by RenegadeScience, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:39:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually RenegadeScience, there are plenty of us who would choose to cash in our Long Service Leave provisions if the choice was there. For those of us who change jobs regularly, LSL provisions mean nothing.

And also for the record, LSL is usually unfunded (in an accounting sense) in the various public services. Most private enterprises have fully funded LSL provisions
Posted by BN, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is crystal clear RenegadeScience that you have never run a small business, nor have you bothered to understand how they work.

>>The comparison, grn, is not bogus. It is all about an unfunded liability that is expected of businesses.<<

Long service leave has been part of the Australian business scene for a while, and has already been built into the cost structure.

A business has to start accruing LSL liability from the fifth anniversary of the employee's start date. This is taken through the P&L as a cost to the business, so decreases the profits of the company, but does not count against tax. So if you are earning $60,000p.a., after five years I take a non-tax-deductible hit on my P&L of $5,000, and continue to accrue every month thereafter.

This is called "funding". I have set aside the amount required to pay out your LSL at the appropriate point in the future. It is sensible business practice, so it doesn't greatly surprise me to hear it isn't followed in the Public Service.

My question to you is this: how do I accommodate paid maternity leave in a similarly responsible manner?

Do I automatically assume that every female worker is likely to require it, and add this to the costs of every one that I hire? Do I take the actuarial approach, and determine a statistical average across the women in my employ? Because sure as eggs, I'm not allowed to ask them before I hire them, am I?

I'd also like to point out that your argument that I must protest an existing perquisite in order to be consistent in my opposition to a brand new one, is a strange form of logic indeed.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 27 June 2008 9:06:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm very interested than ASymeonakis, Celivia, Fractelle and others so pro maternity leave are absent from this thread. I think the article makes a lot of excellent points, and was waiting for a rebuttal.

I think it's a pretty water tight case against PML.

The silence is deafening.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Friday, 27 June 2008 9:25:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I had noticed the gender of the debaters and the thrust of the arguement and think that for those posters for whom this is not a dry academic arguement the thought of arguing against such entrenched positions is just too hard.
Posted by billie, Friday, 27 June 2008 10:27:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Usual Suspect describes this article as a water tight case against PML.

Really? It just looks like another whinge from business that it will cost too much. They say that about every move like LSL, sick leave, the 48 hour week, the 40 hour week, the 38 hour week, etc and now PML.

No doubt the sky will fall in just as it did with all those other changes. Mass unemployment, inflation, starvation.

The point is that none of this will happen. Business needs to be forced to accept PML. It will happen. It is social justice for a start.

And since workers create all the wealth in society why not reward them with some small benefit like PML? It will benefit capital too. Happy workers are productive workers.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 27 June 2008 9:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It always fascinates me how some folk - most often those shielded from the real world as a result of working in the "public service" - have so little understanding of the laws of cause and effect.

Passy, of course the sky won't fall in, nor will there be mass starvation. You're just being a drama queen.

But a business will be able to afford to employ fewer people, because while expense increase as a result of the PML, it does nothing to improve the business' profit margin.

But this is the one that really cracks me up:

>>And since workers create all the wealth in society<<

Who do you think puts up the capital to provide them with jobs in the first place? The tooth fairy?

And where do you imagine that capital comes from?

For the vast majority of small businesses it is saved from after-tax income,or borrowed from the bank, or a combination of the two.

>>why not reward them with some small benefit like PML?<<

It is discriminatory. You are not benefitting "them", as in "the poor downtrodden and oppressed working class", you are benefitting "some", at the expense of "others".

>>It will benefit capital too. Happy workers are productive workers.<<

Where is the evidence that PML will improve productivity in a small business? You don't have any, because it does not.

This isn't a capital vs labour argument anyway, Passy. As far as the backbone of our economy - small business - is concerned, it is a "sensible allocation of scarce resources" discussion.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 28 June 2008 10:41:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,

I was looking forward to some actual arguments. You know, NOT like 'it is social justice so it will happen'.

Just how does a socialist like yourself justify someone getting 6 months full pay on $150k, while a single mother of two on $30k pays for it?

Doesn't sound like social justice to me.

How do you address the arguments against Churn for example?
Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 30 June 2008 10:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy