Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact is, it IS law in Australia. This law was introduced, to ensure that women do have the opportunity to have a baby as well as contribute to society and earn an income.
It is to encourage women back into the workforce.
Most would probably prefer to be fulltime stay at home mums, even after 1 year.
It is to ensure equal employment is upheld. It is to ensure that families are able to afford having children.
Part of being a government is to not only govern for today but for tomorrow. If Australia's population continued to fall at those rates, we were going to have a problem. Increased migration would have been more necessary than what it was even today.
It is called social change.
Were you against women voting? Or for segregation. Times change.
You actually think a women "plays mommy". Get a grip of reality.
You'd really flip out to know that our government PAYS people to have kids.. haha
Yes, times change, and the whole world is on the verge of financial collapse.
Unemployement is at an all time high since the Depression........businesses cannot afford to operate..........and you think putting rediculous demands on them is going to help?
How many businesses are going to want to hire women when the "social" costs are so high?
When there is a job openeing, hundreds of people want the job.......why hire someone that is not going to be available to do the job?
Mothers demanding excessive maternity leave put ALL women at a disadvantage. Why hire a woman of child bearing age with all of the maternity cost baggage..........when you can hire someone who will actually be on the job everyday?
Why should your co-workers be denied the vacation they earned because they have to cover for you, because you made the personal choice to have a baby? Just who is being self-centered here?
Bringing a child into this world is not the be all and end all. In fact, it is rather selfish considering the thousands upon thousands of children that starve to death everyday.
You want "society" to help raise your child? Why aren't you helping all of the children that starve to death everday instead of deliberately bring another mouth to feed into this world?
I meant to say that, after a woman recovers from birthing, she or the father could stay home and be primary caretakers.
I personally would like to be able to take three months off and come back to my job. It'd be OK unpaid, if that's what I want to do. FMLA in America is only for medical/caretaking/personal necessity stuff. (I recently used it for six weeks with a badly infected dog bite).
I also fear that businesses will make sure not to hire a woman of childbearing age if more leaves are in the running.
FMLA doesn't apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees. In my state, Massachusetts, there's something about six weeks leave in in a company of fewer than 50. I think. Haven't looked into it too hard.
I think the "social contract" was wrecked when companies moved their businesses down South for non-union and cheaper labor, and then out of the country. Unfortunate, but true.
Also, in the afore-mentioned good old days where there was supposedly a social contract, most women weren't working and had no legal protection if they were. (Witness the mass layoffs after WWII, when the men came home to be the "real" workers).
Very few people have such unique and amazing skills that a company will stand on its head to accommodate maternity leaves. If they do have such a person and it's a woman who wants leave to have kids, they'll acommodate her. Personally, I wouldn't hire her (but then, I'm not in a position to hire).
Yes, times change, and the whole world is on the verge of financial collapse.
Unemployement is at an all time high since the Depression........businesses cannot afford to operate..........and you think putting rediculous demands on them is going to help?
How many businesses are going to want to hire women when the "social" costs are so high?
When there is a job openeing, hundreds of people want the job.......why hire someone that is not going to be available to do the job?
Mothers demanding excessive maternity leave put ALL women at a disadvantage. Why hire a woman of child bearing age with all of the maternity cost baggage..........when you can hire someone who will actually be on the job everyday?
Why should your co-workers be denied the vacation they earned because they have to cover for you, because you made the personal choice to have a baby? Just who is being self-centered here?
Bringing a child into this world is not the be all and end all. In fact, it is rather selfish considering the thousands upon thousands of children that starve to death everyday.
You want "society" to help raise your child? Why aren't you helping all of the children that starve to death everday instead of deliberately bring another mouth to feed into this world?
Self-centered much?
You really don't KNOW a whole lot about how the rest of the world operates do you?
WHY are you so concerned with what Australia does for their new mothers anyway? You really need to rant about your OWN country.
fwiw Australia's UE rate right now is something like 5.3% - oh and those POOR co-workers get 4 weeks paid vacation leave as a RIGHT - AND something you don't have here called Long Service Leave after 10 years with the one company, and on top of that they don't tie health insurance to employment.
But I wouldn't worry honey, it's highly unlikely the USA will see anything close to what the original article was talking about anytime soon, so you can rest easy.
Excuse me........I don't recall bringing Australia into this thread. I don't care what you do in Australia. My concern is with the US. I am tired of my taxes being raised everytime you turn around to provide yet another social program for parents that can't seem to raise their children on their own.
Tax payers pay to educate children.........and that's where it should end. As it is, you have way too many people having children even though they do not have the resources to care for them.
Raising children is the job of the parents......not tax payers and not employers. If you are not up for the job........you should practice personal resposibility and not have children.
How many businesses are going to want to hire women when the "social" costs are so high?
When there is a job openeing, hundreds of people want the job.......why hire someone that is not going to be available to do the job?
You guys are talking about unpaid leave, right? As I stated before, as far as the US goes, what's reported in census doesn't seem to be that bad. Professional women typically take 3 months with 6 months being the most. Women wanting more than that aren't usually career women for the simple fact that long absences will affect a person's career, regardless of why they are absent and probably country. I don't know why it would be any different here compared to Australia.
I may be wrong here, but if the positions in question are lower level jobs, where it's relatively easy to train a person, I wonder if it makes that much of a difference. OTOH, I wonder if a co has to continue paying payroll taxes, UI ins, workman's comp, etc for those out on disability/leave. If so, that's a problem. Does anyone know?
Excuse me........I don't recall bringing Australia into this thread. I don't care what you do in Australia. My concern is with the US. I am tired of my taxes being raised everytime you turn around to provide yet another social program for parents that can't seem to raise their children on their own.
Tax payers pay to educate children.........and that's where it should end. As it is, you have way too many people having children even though they do not have the resources to care for them.
Raising children is the job of the parents......not tax payers and not employers. If you are not up for the job........you should practice personal resposibility and not have children.
the article highlights that the US is the last developed nation in the world that does not offer this type of leave.
In regards to why a woman would be hired - there are laws for that too. You can not ask a woman/man about their personal life in an interview. No questions about how many kids, if they're thinking of starting a family etc.
Why would your taxes be raised for maternity leave? It is UNPAID.
In regards to your other post and the selfishness of people having children, that is just an absurd argument that isn't worth my time in discussing.
Remember, I don't have kids, I am not sure if that is the life for me,.... but I am not as selfish as you are to think that other people shouldn't have that in their life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
You guys are talking about unpaid leave, right? As I stated before, as far as the US goes, what's reported in census doesn't seem to be that bad. Professional women typically take 3 months with 6 months being the most. Women wanting more than that aren't usually career women for the simple fact that long absences will affect a person's career, regardless of why they are absent and probably country. I don't know why it would be any different here compared to Australia.
I may be wrong here, but if the positions in question are lower level jobs, where it's relatively easy to train a person, I wonder if it makes that much of a difference. OTOH, I wonder if a co has to continue paying payroll taxes, UI ins, workman's comp, etc for those out on disability/leave. If so, that's a problem. Does anyone know?
yes, unpaid leave.
in Australia, your employer must keep your job for 12 months. I work in a corporate environment, and there has only been one woman in management position who took the full 12 months. She did do some work from home in that time.
Other women in my workplace have taken maternity leave. The business continued, without any hitches and the women returned to work after "playing " for 12 months.
Excuse me........I don't recall bringing Australia into this thread. I don't care what you do in Australia. My concern is with the US. I am tired of my taxes being raised everytime you turn around to provide yet another social program for parents that can't seem to raise their children on their own.
Tax payers pay to educate children.........and that's where it should end. As it is, you have way too many people having children even though they do not have the resources to care for them.
Raising children is the job of the parents......not tax payers and not employers. If you are not up for the job........you should practice personal resposibility and not have children.
Did you even READ the article? The OP was foaming over other countries (not the USA) and Australia was mentioned as one of the countries that offered 12 months maternity leave. As I also stated earlier it's not very likely to happen in the USA anytime soon, so I would stop getting your knickers in a knot over it.
The article was talking about the state of maternity leave in the US, just using other countries as a comparison........and the possibility of implementing such policies in the US. I was not complaining about the policies of Australia {I don't care}.............I was saying I am against such policies IN THE US.
The article also mentions pre-school programs to help parents with child care.........I believe those programs would be funded with my tax money. Did YOU read the article?
Americans are already being taxed to death supporting welfare mothers and their offspring. Legal citizens AND illegal citizens. Now you want the taxpayer to fund programs to provide child care for working parents too? If you want children, scale back on your lifestyle and pay for your own childcare......don't add another burden to the taxpayers.
Also, my knickers are not in a knot, I do not have to deal with work place politics any longer.......I am retired. I just hate to see the women of the US losing ground in the job market because of outrageuous maternity leave requiremnts..........and believe me.........they will lose ground. ALL young women, not just those that are planning families.
Yes, it is against the law to ask about children, etc. BUT.......when a man gets a job instead of a woman.......just how are you going to PROVE that maternity baggage is the reason? If I were an employer, and I had a choice between two equally qualified job seekers, one a man and one a woman of childbearing years........why would I want to take the chance on the woman if I knew she may take 2, 3, 4 or more years off of work to have children? The disruption, cost and training of temporary employees is going to cut into my profits........and I am in business to maximize my profits.
Wake up to the REAL world.........employers will take outrageous maternity leave policies into consideration when hiring..........and knock yourself out trying to prove it.
in Australia, your employer must keep your job for 12 months. I work in a corporate environment, and there has only been one woman in management position who took the full 12 months. She did do some work from home in that time.
Other women in my workplace have taken maternity leave. The business continued, without any hitches and the women returned to work after "playing " for 12 months.
My job offers to hold a position for 6 months. I've known one woman that has done so out of, geesh, maybe 12 maternity leaves I've seen in the past 3 years. My boss was back to work a month later. If a woman has a high paying salary career, it's understandable. She has a lot of responsibility. They all work from home except the week of the birth. There's also the fact that many can't afford to be out of work for that long. That's why I think this is more of a hot topic for the sake of argument, rather than being an actual issue.
The article was talking about the state of maternity leave in the US, just using other countries as a comparison........and the possibility of implementing such policies in the US. I was not complaining about the policies of Australia {I don't care}.............I was saying I am against such policies IN THE US.
The article also mentions pre-school programs to help parents with child care.........I believe those programs would be funded with my tax money. Did YOU read the article?
Americans are already being taxed to death supporting welfare mothers and their offspring. Legal citizens AND illegal citizens. Now you want the taxpayer to fund programs to provide child care for working parents too? If you want children, scale back on your lifestyle and pay for your own childcare......don't add another burden to the taxpayers.
Also, my knickers are not in a knot, I do not have to deal with work place politics any longer.......I am retired. I just hate to see the women of the US losing ground in the job market because of outrageuous maternity leave requiremnts..........and believe me.........they will lose ground. ALL young women, not just those that are planning families.
Yes, it is against the law to ask about children, etc. BUT.......when a man gets a job instead of a woman.......just how are you going to PROVE that maternity baggage is the reason? If I were an employer, and I had a choice between two equally qualified job seekers, one a man and one a woman of childbearing years........why would I want to take the chance on the woman if I knew she may take 2, 3, 4 or more years off of work to have children? The disruption, cost and training of temporary employees is going to cut into my profits........and I am in business to maximize my profits.
Wake up to the REAL world.........employers will take outrageous maternity leave policies into consideration when hiring..........and knock yourself out trying to prove it.
So what is YOUR solution then? Whether you or any given woman wants children or not, inevitably if we want there to be a human society 100 or 200 years from now, SOMEONE has to have children. In what you describe, it is thus virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a woman who wants children to have a job, yet unless she has a very rich husband, it's also almost IMPOSSIBLE to raise a family on one income nowadays.
If we don't have these protections, we produce a society where only the very rich and the very poor (because of welfare money and having the time for kids) reproduce. Is that what you're suggesting should be so that there's no "burden" on business? Businesses do need to make profits, the old Soviet Union is proof that without "incentive" you won't have a working economy, but to keep it a "fair playing field" for society you need SOME regulation. Imagine if we had no minimum wage, or child labor laws. Yet, I don't think that makes us a "command economy" at all, not does it really "burden" business (a "burden" we do needlessly put on business is health care, which I talk about below).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozgal
the article highlights that the US is the last developed nation in the world that does not offer this type of leave.
As we are also the only developed nation that puts the burden of healthcare on business (Annie, what about THAT "burden"? I bet you're still for that, or maybe again only the uber-rich and the poor on gov't money should get health care, right?). I'm curious from any poster (especially the ones who now live in or grew up in a foreign country) why you think this is so (that we're the only developed nation like this)? I don't get why we so fight something that the rest of the civilized world (regardless of ideological worldview) more or less sees as a given without debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opyelie
Yup, if my kid had borne her kids in Australia that would be 3 x $5K
Watch that make certain posters froth at the mouth
Opyelie, you know this isn't meant as a criticism, as I'm mostly on "your" side of this thread, but I'm curious, since we're apparently so "backward" on social policy compared to the rest of the developed world, what made you come to the US? Again, I don't mean that as sarcasm, I can see why Canadians, Israelis, Europeans and Australians would be puzzled at how we go against what everyone else sees as "moral social policy" with our shorter, non-regulated vacations, health care crises, and problems dealing with having a family while needing to work, yet that doesn't stop people from those regions from moving here. I'm really just curious what about our country would attract someone like you, there's obviously something that makes people from other developed countries come to live here despite a much more risky "safety net". I hope I'm asking/explaining that right and not sounding sarcastic or patronizing.
Last edited by 7 Wishes; 08-13-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" for 12 months.
