One aspect of the Maternity Leave debate I have never been able to understand is this common statement of Maternity leave encouraging women to return to work.

http://smallbusiness.smh.com.au/managing/workplace/maternity-leave-lure-in-returning-to-work--911765911.html

Now to me this doesn't make any sense at all. The title says maternity leave is a 'lure' in returning to work. But surely people work because they need money, and paying people not to work in the form of paid maternity leave would logically allow them to put off returning to work while they used this money.

I can understand the corelation of women in higher paid jobs would be more likely to have access to paid maternity leave, and also be more likely to return to work anyway because they are more career minded. Also the effective marginal tax rates and child care costs would swamp lower paid women's wages, making it very unattractive for them to return to work.

The effect of the above means it's easy to understand the correlation of women with maternity leave returning to work, but I cant understand how this correlation is used to assert maternity leave itself 'lures' women back to work.

Later in the article it states...
'It doesn't seem to be that paid maternity leave results in far greater retention. Unpaid leave is doing what it is supposed to and giving women that protection'

This is what I would expect; At the 1 year mark, those women with any anxiety about finding a new job, would take the comfort of returning to their old job while they can, possibly without as much regard to the immediate financial need to do so. But this would lure only the women wealthy enough to survive longer before returning.

Regardless, as it states, paid maternity leave is no more likely than non paid leave to 'lure' women back to work. I actually think it will delay a lot of mothers returning to work, as the extra money will allow them to stay at home for longer.

I've said before I'm against PML, but I genuinely don't understand this return to work argument. Can anyone explain?

Dear Usual Suspect,

The Pros and Cons for Paid Maternity Leave
can be found at the following website:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/INTGUIDE/ECON/maternity_leave.htm

Cheers.

I don't know the answer US.

I suspect it goes along the lines of - if a job is 'held open' for a person on maternity/paternity leave then they are more likely to return to the same job and the organisation does not lose it's skill base.

Whether they would return to the same job anyway if the job was left open for them, without PML I cannot say. Maybe they would if the job was one they loved and one in which they had already achieved some success.

My problem with PML is that it pays people not to be at work while they care for children but for those parents who do not have access to PML (there is usually a qualifying period) they get nicks. The same applies for those people who choose to stay home to raise children for ideolgical reasons. There is very little support or acknowlegment by all governments for these types of families ie. not 'working families'.

This lack of acknowledgment might be seen as social engineering by stealth. To continue to feed the workforce and to perpetuate the myth of eternal 'economic growth' at the expense of all other aspects of community and family life. Or at least it reduces our options and with it our democratic right to choose.

US, I dont get it either (goodness, all these women agreeing with you!).

I think the pro arguement must essentially be a fairness issue. Eg seen as not fair that well-off high-paid women get access to paid leave while others dont.

I have issues with it on a number of fronts:
- there is already a maternity payment now equal to $5000 available to everyone. Dont see why the government should have to cough-up more money
- paid leave is a considerable cost to business, particularly small business
- it will encourage covert discrimination against women if paid by business

US I would not worry about it, “One Term” Krudd and Co are about push us into recession with their stupid carbon tax –

Hey does anyone know what will happen with the money they raise (piss it into railway lines and rail unions or maybe more diesel buses I suppose or pay people to use public transport).

When the recession bites we will have 10% unemployment and no one will want to negotiate PML, they will be too scared about the company folding and losing their jobs. That is except for the public service parasites, who, to maintain “parity” with the private sector should get a 30% pay cut.