Hand #1 offering a carrot -
The Rudd government had committed to an 18-week national scheme that would pay the primary carer $544 a week.
Hand #2 offering a slightly larger carrot -
Mr Abbott has announced the Coalition will reveal its own paid parental leave policy and has said there is merit in six months' paid leave.
Votes, that is what they want. Which carrot, tied up in strings I might add, looks the best? I would say neither.
This is wrong for so many reasons....
1. Businesses are paying out and not getting anything in return. So they will pass on the loss via higher prices on products and services. Article #5
2. Taxes for more wealthy companies are going to increase to help pay for the program. This is even worse that number #1. In this case the company might not even have any women taking maternity leave but they are still required to pay the tax.
So who would pay for it? Big business, or more specifically, Australia’s top 3200 companies. There would be a 1.7 per cent levy on businesses earning more than $5 million a year. Article #1
3. Businesses will not be very excited about hiring women when they may leave for 6 months at a time to have kids. Of course, all sorts of legal battles would ensue. Discrimination! We should be allowed to have kids and still get paid for doing nothing.
So far, Abbott’s proposal has been attacked from everywhere. Predictably, corporations have got stuck into it with the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warning that it would hurt investment and jobs, distort the tax system, harm Australia's competitiveness and unfairly penalise big business. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson says these sorts of initiatives need to funded by the community at large (i.e.taxpayers). Rio Tinto Iron Ore boss Sam Walsh says paid parental leave should be left up to individual businesses, not dictated by government. Commentator Alan Kohler suggests the Coalition has taken leave of its senses abandoning its free market philosophy. He says the scheme is too expensive and besides, would institutionalise workplace discrimination against young women. Article #2
Of course in an election year common sense does not abound. Maybe we should follow some of the European countries who offer 18 months paid leave. Or wait! Maybe we should try to up them one and offer moms a 18 years! Now you're talking.
As the GetUp campaign points out, places like France, Sweden and Estonia offer 18 months full pay, as opposed to 18 weeks here. Article #2
Here are some more tasty sections from the articles I read on the subject.
The commission also points out that, after an initial bonding and recuperation period, there are diminishing benefits to mothers and babies from being together around the clock. Article #3
Really, really? I am sorry but this is
The main economic argument for any type of paid parental leave scheme is that it provides an incentive for women to remain in the workforce. Article #3
Has anyone asked the question that maybe moms shouldn't stay in the workforce full-time when they have little kids? I know there are exceptions, but we are not talking about exceptions we are talking about the norm.
Here are the articles if you want to read more.
Article #1
Article #2
Article #3
Article #4
Article #5
No comments:
Post a Comment