Who would hire a woman worker - Maternity pay to Treble !

GreenNinja

teaspoon1 wrote: »

Proper order too! Why shouldn't it be increased and the term extended? And I say this as a woman who doesn't particularly want children.

Where is the money for this coming from though? the taxpayer I am guessing.

fedupfreda

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Because those who don't have children:
Pay for the schooling of children
Pay for hospital/medical treatment of children
Pay for the child benefit given to the parents
Pay for Gordon Browns trust fund thingy for children
Pay for tax credits for people with children

I was going to say exactly what SMK77 said but they beat me to it

What goes around comes around. Your parents must have received some sort of help from the Government when you were a child - even if only family allowance - deny a child a 'hand up' at the beginning of its life and when it becomes old enough it is likely to say 'screw you too' and turn its back on you just when you need it most. Parents eventually return to the workplace -'cos children eventually become old enough to stand on their own 2 feet! I can understand why non-parents feel resentment to their 'burdensome' colleagues - but they are taking time out to invest in their country's future. As such they should be assisted, not vilified. Children are the future of society.

lostinrates

fedupfreda wrote: »

I can understand why non-parents feel resentment to their 'burdensome' colleagues - but they are taking time out to invest in their country's future. As such they should be assisted, not vilified. Children are the future of society.

As someone else not convince that we have things right ATM, I'd like to say I in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM, villify parents or children, and am happy to pay my state share. I too believe in the sentiment 'children are the future ' and I think their needs in the present are paramount.

Tiggergirl

GreenNinja wrote: »

Where is the money for this coming from though? the taxpayer I am guessing.

Yes, including the taxpayer on maternity leave! I've been on maternity leave for part of this year and still paid more tax than the SMP I received.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Its simple. We want to encourage people to have children. That way we reverse our ageing demographics and become less expensive to run as a nation.

If you are a woman with a decent job, having a baby is a hugely expensive business - and thats just the loss of salary. Lots of talk on this board in snooty tones about people who get into debt. How many families who were doing OK find themselves slipping into debt when they start a family - debt that sticks around?

lostinrates

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its simple. We want to encourage people to have children. That way we reverse our ageing demographics and become less expensive to run as a nation.

If you are a woman with a decent job, having a baby is a hugely expensive business - and thats just the loss of salary. Lots of talk on this board in snooty tones about people who get into debt. How many families who were doing OK find themselves slipping into debt when they start a family - debt that sticks around?

I don't get why it is that simple? What is wrong in offering some of our space an workload to young immigrants?

SingleSue

StevieJ wrote: »

I didn't think you had a job have I misssed something?

I don't at present but it wasn't always this way. When I started having children, I was in a very well paid full time job and had been for many years.

It has only been in the very recent past that I have not been in paid employment, way after I had my children and had access to maternity leave etc.

Yep, I am getting an old begger! :rotfl:

chopperharris

I dont think this is geared towards the uk , I think its geared towards the parts of the eu that have very little or none.

And remember the man can have the maternity leave , it doesnt have to be the woman.

On another note.Yesterday the STV , the commercial tv station of the english shire of scotland , reported that last year there was more kids born to unmarried folks - 50.1 percent ....and the majority of folk whom were asked about it seen no problem , of course they asked outside a nursery so it wasnt much of slice of the population to ask , in fact the answer would always be biased.

However one of them said profoundly , if they dont have a commitment enough to marry do you think they will be around to bring the kids up?Her view is spot on , as this rate has went up so also has the split family and single parent....is there a link , well numbers dont lie or do they?

From what I see those with children are getting the better shake from this government , theres no tax break anymore for being married , theres plenty though for having children in order to repay this generations bank bailout and credit debt , perhaps thats the reasoning.

smk77

Tiggergirl wrote: »

Yes, including the taxpayer on maternity leave! I've been on maternity leave for part of this year and still paid more tax than the SMP I received.

lol..exactly! You aren't a typical case because your earnings are obviously high but even someone earning £15k will pay some tax whilst their employer is paying their maternity pay.

When my wife was on maternity the tax I paid was far more than her SMP. We were simply getting back a fraction of what we've paid in over the years. Some people clearly think that people like you and my wife aren't entitled to some of the money they have already paid in tax.

Alan_M_2

vikingaero wrote: »

It's ironic how may women bosses go on record as refusing to employ women of child bearing age.

We have a large local nursery that employs around 25 childcare assistants. When DD2 left there were 7 of them off on maternity leave. For small businesses that must be crippling.

Here we have the crux of the problem.......It was only Recently I found out Sir Alan Sugars views on this very point are quite controversial.

Consider the following....

You own a small business, you have two possible prospects for a job, one male, one female both recently married. Which one do you choose?

Obviously you're not allowed to ask if either intend to have children, I've not doubt that would be sexist.....

It's a no brainer if you ask me....the cost of people not being present can outweigh their salary considerations in multiples.

It's a simple operational decision, it isn't sexist. I have nothing personal whatsoever against women of child bearing age. What I'm interested in is employing someone who isn't go to go on extended leave and threaten the operation of my business. That isn't unreasonable.