How true

[***super_nova***]

[nero_bolt]

JUST more desperate labor lies re this scheme.... 

So are all the luvvies on here and granny in the advert denying the average wage earning woman this scheme..? It would seem so.... 

If ABC staff oppose Abbott’s parental leave scheme, they should junk their own

Tony Abbott tripped up the ABC’s Fran Kelly this morning as she was mid-attack on the lack of “equity” in his parental leave scheme, which pays women their salary while on maternity leave - up to $75,000 for the best-paid.

Abbott asked Kelly why other Australian women should be denied a full-wage replacement that already was paid by the ABC, as well as other government bodies.

Er, said Kelly, because of the ... cost? (As in: the rest of the country couldn’t afford the goodies showered on ABC staff, argues an ABC staffer complaining about inequity of a Liberal scheme.)

But as Abbott rightly responded, cost was a different argument to equity.

Boy with a Bike crunches the numbers on one of the most expensive parental leave schemes in the country - one of the most “inequitable”:

According to this CPSU article, 18 weeks seems to be fairly common across swathes of the public sector....

Take the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

According to the last annual report, the department had:

602 staff (although this number seems very rubbery)
60.8% were female
77.2% were under 45

In short, the PM&C seems to be chockful of breeders.

Pay bands:

64 SES staff paid – $139,000 – $388,498 (although the top staff seemed to take home a lot more than this)
EL2 107 staff – $112,340 – $141,591
EL1 173 staff – $96,518 – $117,647
APS 4-6 – 227 staff – $59,119 – $92,456

Total employee expenses – $109.6 million

Average employee expense based on 602 staff – $182,059 per employee

So let’s recap.

We have a department full of women at peak breeding age. They are very highly paid – the average salary puts them in the top 1% of earners in this country. They are entitled to possibly the most generous maternity leave arrangements in the country as they stand today.

True, the commonwealth schemes are for 18 weeks rather than the Liberals’ planned 26. But the principle is the same.

[izabsmiling]

it wouldn't seem so unpalitable if the past number of years the opposition and a vast number of supporters hadn't got around making Australia's most vulnerable citizens  feel like worthless expenses and a drain on the all important budget.

We have heard some say that they were put off employing women of child bearing age (though they were ,as they say careful in this day and age not to say the real reason)...due to the cost and time off involved if they had children.What will be the cost and time lost disadvantage to businesses of this scheme for higher income earning females ...and will it affect their changes of ever becoming  quote *women of calibre* ?

[***super_nova***]

New mothers of calibre will struggle to survive on a measly $574.71 a day. Maybe age pensioners could chip in a bit instead of spending all their cash on wasteful things such as heating when they could pick up an extra blanket a St Vinnies for a dollar or two.

[*stuff*books*]

The worrying part is how this will affect the bosses who have to try and find another employee to fill that spot for six

months,(and then sack them).

None of that seems to have being taken into account.

How many are willing to fill those spots and are they capable?

So do they need to hire someone a month earlier to learn the job?

Do they have to go through an employment agency and pay a higher cost?

What if the employer can't find anyone suitable?

Then the big question is why should the tax payer fund the costs when that money could be better utilized elsewhere.

It could also be termed as discriminatory as it's another form of baby bonus but this time it's only available if you work.

Well thought out? I don't think so,

[***super_nova***]

---

@*stuff*books* wrote:

The worrying part is how this will affect the bosses who have to try and find another employee to fill that spot for six

months,(and then sack them).

None of that seems to have being taken into account.

How many are willing to fill those spots and are they capable?

So do they need to hire someone a month earlier to learn the job?

Do they have to go through an employment agency and pay a higher cost?

What if the employer can't find anyone suitable?

Then the big question is why should the tax payer fund the costs when that money could be better utilized elsewhere.

It could also be termed as discriminatory as it's another form of baby bonus but this time it's only available if you work.

Well thought out? I don't think so,

---

They are valid concerns, however about filling a position while the worker is on the leave is not any different to when people take holidays or just time off.  My daughter and her husband used to travel a lot, but when they came to Melbourne for a while my daughter did exactly that; went back to her old company on short term contract to fill for somebody on leave.  The money was really good and they just organised their next o/s trip after the contact ended.  Some people would be happy to get a job for 6 months, just for the experience and it may help them get another job.

[freakiness]

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Oh come on now....white goods were no where near the cost of todays.

In the 70's I was earning a modest $200 per week. First block of land was $11000, house was $20000, brand new car $3000

---

They were not proportionally lower than today. In terms of wages they were worth many weeks wages. In today's terms most would be worth a weeks wage or less.

Our first colour TV was over $1000 in the 70s.

[cherry*135]

Maternity leave/ parental leave (unpaid) has been available for 25 years or more. Employers may have another employee who can step in to the job for a set amount of time or they advt for temporary position.. the person getting the job knows it is temporary (usually a fixed term, 3mths, 6mths etc. 12 months the maximum.

I took 12 mths maternity leave in 1989,and returned to my job at the end of that 12 mths. I did get a payment from employer, when I returned to work (about 3 weeks pay? can't remember exactly).

[cherry*135]

A woman interviewed said she is a barrister on a high income, but her husband is a minister of religion on a low income. They have 1 child. She said it was tough financially when she took unpaid parental leave, to stay home with the baby, living on her OH's wage. She would be better off  financially on parental leave with the LNP plan. She also said they will have a 2nd child when the time is right for them, not going to have one just so they can get this money (if the LNP wins the election).

[carls*world]

I see one particular poster seems to have quickly jumped the fence here from "PLAN PLAN PLAN for your life and future" to supporting this silly idea.

[vampire-teddy]

a couple of weeks ago everyone on here was against it and now have changed their minds.  I don't agree with this scheme as it being presented.  the biggest winners will be women of non child bearing age as many businesses (as supported on here recently by posters who are business owners)  will not employ women who may become pregnant because of the expense.