Should Maternity Leave Be Paid for 12 Months?

Trying2SaveABuck on 29/08/2022 - 16:55
Last edited 29/08/2022 - 17:23 by 2 other users

Now I'm not a 'believer in a Gender pay gap but I do believe there is a life time 'earnings gap' between the two sexes which probably could be 'better' managed in Australia.

A recent article - The message is clear, women are not part of Australia’s fair go

Does talk about the 'gap' widening from what I have 'read' from the actual research not journalist sensationalism is women generally do get paid mostly the 'same' as men per-hour (for same work) however they tend to 'work less hours' though out there working life (despite living longer then their male counter parts) and one of the big issues is women take 12 or so months off for maternity leave for every child they have (note: some take more then 12 some take less but the average is about 12 months)

The other bits of research I've read in the past is there is a gap because men more likely to take a heighten risk to create wealth i.e. start a business, invest in stocks etc (however interestingly women who invest on average do better then men from a returns POV) - but I don't think there is much society can do about that so to focus on the matter at hand….

With that said from a balanced perspective I actually think there is a reasonable argument women should not be 'dis-advantaged' for having children especially in countries like Australia that have a relatively low birth rate. The system should be encouraging women to have a solid career but also not harm them financially if they choose to have children. If anything it should be 'encouraged' from a social and financial perspective.

This is probably the most 'socialist' thing you will read me type, but I think there is a fair argument women should be fair at least 12 months full pay maternity leave with super and all…(this should be paid by the government not the employer to stop discrimination at the hiring point) - Certain workplaces might want to give additional benefits but I think the minimum time for full pay should be 12 months or at least 12 months at minimum wage.

What does the OzBargain community think?

Full: Disclosure my wife and I have two kids do not intend to have anymore i have no 'dog in this fight'

Poll Options

  • 192
    Maternity leave is fine the way it is
  • 466
    Maternity should be paid for at least 12-month
  • 97
    There shouldn't be any Maternity leave
Education & Work Maternity Leave

Related Stores

Services Australia
Services Australia

Comments

    • Scantu on 30/08/2022 - 13:38

      Nothing like the government directly dictating how private individuals life their lives!

      • donga100 on 31/08/2022 - 13:16

        Do you want to fix the earnings gap or not? If we just let people choose how to live their lives then men will keep working more than women and not spending as much time raising children and the vicious cycle continues. The government should also mandate that all jobs have equal representation of men/women so that women stop missing out on the higher earnings that more physically demanding, dangerous, and family unfriendly jobs offer. If we got more women into roles like truck driving, mining, military, asbestos removal, nightclub security etc. it would make a big difference.

        • Scantu on 31/08/2022 - 16:06

          No, I don't want to. I want the pay gap to be equal, which on account of most statistics it is, and from thereout I'm good with whatever happens. Down to the choice of the individual.

          The concepts you speak of "mandating women to X%" or "mandate women in jobs where they don't want to go or aren't physically capable" are gross fever dreams of people who have lost touch with reality.

  • Mugsy on 30/08/2022 - 07:19

    Just pay the the early learning educators more so that the existing maternity leave arrangement looks better ;-)

  • ozbjunkie on 30/08/2022 - 08:10
    +1

    I'm in support of 12 months maternity leave, but I also strongly suggest that males that have no plans on having children are not left behind.

    I'm dead serious.

    If I have to work an extra year to receive the same pay, just because I choose not to have children, then I think that is unfair.

    A 12 month paid break regardless of the number of children one has, sure.

    If people are awarded multiple 12 month maternity breaks, I also want multiple 12 month paid breaks.

    • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 11:33
      +2

      As someone with kids, this is only fair if your extra 12 month break involves relentless backbreaking labour.

      • initiateit on 30/08/2022 - 12:44

        Well men already do that and they have the deaths to show for it.

        • morse on 31/08/2022 - 04:33
          +3

          Is that the reason? Or stupidity? Men have higher rates of death from trauma and obesity - both in the most part preventable. I’m not sure that it’s because they are doing back breaking labour.

    • Ughhh on 30/08/2022 - 12:14
      +1

      Having and taking care of a child is a different type of work. It's not a break where you can drink and party everyday.

    • Miss B on 30/08/2022 - 19:20
      +1

      Why only men who don't plan to have children and not women who don't plan to have children?

      • ozbjunkie on 30/08/2022 - 23:47

        Because you have a choice!
        Your body your choice.

        Unfortunately as a man I don't get the same choices (I know, sexism amirite).

        Therefore, I as a man deserve a special provision.

        Seems reasonable from where I'm standing…

        • Miss B on 31/08/2022 - 00:06
          +1

          I wasn't sure 'dead serious' meant 'trolling', so was just confirming.

    • morse on 31/08/2022 - 04:45
      +2

      Sure I'd support this if you were doing something equally beneficial to support the economy and society in the long term. Maybe you could volunteer to provide vocational education to newly arrived refugees, or support people with addictions to stay sober and get back in the workforce or care for children in foster care so they end up being functioning members of society. To be fair though you’d have to work a 24/7 roster and have the people move in with you. For sure you could sleep and chill some of the time, but maybe old mate with the drinking problem needs your support, perhaps a cuddle at 3am?

      I say why not start this now. Anyone wanting to access 14 weeks minimum wage from the government (but doesn’t want to have a baby) can volunteer for something to help the society. Oh wait, I think we had that? Wasn’t it called ‘work for the dole’?

  • Wasup73 on 30/08/2022 - 08:22

    Given women live longer should they work longer if they choose too. That fixes the gap based on the statistic used. Given men don't live as long maybe they should retire earlier. Further reducing the statistical gap. Problem solved, as far as the stat goes. Gender equality. Alternatively implement "Logans Run" staggered based on your earnings. Forced gendered equality achieving the stat.

    • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:15
      -1

      That is actually a good idea. Retirement age should be lowered for men so they can access their super earlier, and thus enjoy as much time as women can later in life.

      Otherwise, it's a gender retirement gap, built under an oppressive MATRIARCHY. Let's not even talk about what the system is doing to men in terms of suicide, homelessness, prison rates etc.

      Then again, you'll never hear the media or politicians mention this because men aren't a bunch of whiny babies.

  • jetblack on 30/08/2022 - 08:28
    +3

    Now I'm not a 'believer in a Gender pay gap

    Gender discrimination is still a thing, unfortunately, even if you don't believe it because you can't see it.

    Upon leaving a previous job I found out a female with more experience than me (male), starting the same day I did was paid less than me. It took a new (female) manager to join to discover and rectify the situation.

    This bs absolutely goes on.

    • bobbified on 30/08/2022 - 10:21

      It's not necessarily discrimination in that situation though. Discrimination is if they pay you less because you're a woman. Or pay you more because you're a man.

      With salaries and work, it mostly comes down to negotiation.
      If someone offers you a certain amount and you simply accept it, then that's what it is what both sides have agreed on. On the other hand, if someone offers you an amount and you ask "how about $x?" and they agree, then you get a higher amount. If you don't ask, you don't get. Nothing to do with male or female.

      I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, but I don't think it's anywhere near as high as it's claimed to be.

    • Willy Beamish on 30/08/2022 - 12:41
      +3

      Because someone is getting paid differently doesn't mean there's discrimination going on… You'd have to be willingly ignorant to believe that there's not other factors that can determine how much someone is paid, including negotiation.

      • jetblack on 30/08/2022 - 14:34
        -2

        willingly ignorant

        Ironic.

        First result for 'women and negotiation'.

        Bit of a cop out to blame negotiation skills, and not sure what other factors come up frequently enough to justify paying a higher-qualified person less money.

        • Willy Beamish on 30/08/2022 - 15:58
          +2

          Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.

          No, it's not a "cop out". You are worth what you negotiate for, no one is going to negotiate your worth for you.

          • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:18
            -1

            @Willy Beamish: Women should just work in government jobs and be done with it. All pay is pre-determined by unions and usually fixed. No negotiations, no 'discrimination', etc.

            Why go into the private sector if you're just gonna complain about how hard it is to get ahead?

  • saltypete on 30/08/2022 - 08:36

    I think 12 months leave or not is too simplistic. There needs to be support for women, and partners that support them.
    Something more flexible that allows a mum to share caregiving with her partner and get back to work if she prefers.

    We need to value equality and child rearing in a fundamental way if we are to continue as a population and give everyone a fair go.

  • 2esc on 30/08/2022 - 08:37

    I do support a government maternity leave but if the full impost is placed on a business that business could potentially fail. They don't have to pay just the maternity leave but also the staff member that comes in temporarily.

  • jrvb42 on 30/08/2022 - 10:31
    +1

    No leave should be paid at all, nor should allowances. Children are a personal choice, bad for the environment and a drain on resources on an overpopulated planet.
    Social conditioning makes people desperate to obtain at least one of these unnecessary accessories.

    Sorry, it's the elephant in the room that people seem to ignore.

    • trapper on 30/08/2022 - 15:07

      lol, producing children is basically the purpose of our civilisation, our entire society is geared around it.

      Now there is obviously great reward in having your own children, but parents are making the biggest sacrifice of time and resources by far, don't forget that.

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 14:06

      looking more like population collapse than overpopulaion.

  • SlavOz on 30/08/2022 - 10:53
    +3

    If women get 12 months maternity leave, men should get extra leave to make up for their biological setbacks too. Currently, men die sooner and are far more likely than women to suffer serious, long term health issues that keep them out of work.

    Look up the statistics for virtually every condition and men are more likely to get it. It's just the way biology works, just like how women are required to carry babies. Well men are required to build our houses, pump our spetic tanks, fight our wars, detain our criminals, mine our materials etc. Society would fall apart without these roles and women either can't do them or choose not to.

    If we make efforts to undo a woman's biological disadvantages, it's only fair to do the same for men. We are more likely to die at work, get seriously injured or suffer a permanent health setback. Where is our freebie?

    • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 11:32
      +1

      Women looking after children is not a "biological setback", it's an entrenched bias which is completely unnecessary. There is no physiological reason why men shouldn't (and shouldn't be entitled to) look after young children too.

      • SlavOz on 30/08/2022 - 12:14

        There is no physiological reason why men shouldn't (and shouldn't be entitled to) look after young children too.

        Except the part about men not being able to get pregnant, which makes up the bulk of maternity leave.

        They also can't breastfeed, which makes rearing babies a little less practical. Plus, women are extremely fragile and exhausted after a 9-month pregnancy, so it makes sense for the woman to take that time off recovering while the man works.

        (BTW sorry for the transphobic post, I mean no harm to men pretending to be women)

        • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 12:17
          +4

          Cool, I'll tell me partner and multiple colleagues that what we all did is not possible because SlavOz on the ozbargain forum says so.

          Also not convinced you've been through the process if you think most of maternity leave is used up by the pregnancy itself.

          • SlavOz on 30/08/2022 - 12:29
            +2

            @caitsith01: I didn't say it wasn't possible, it's just less practical. A large part of maternity leave is the actual pregnancy, then the recovery period afterwards. Very little of that time is left for taking care of the kid, which is many women take additional time off after giving birth. The mat leave is not a "it's your job to take care of the kids" scheme.

            If you have male colleagues who can breastfeed, I'd like to meet them.

            • SBOB on 30/08/2022 - 13:13
              +1

              @SlavOz:

              A large part of maternity leave is the actual pregnancy,

              you do realise women can work while pregnant right? :/

              • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2022 - 13:24

                @SBOB: lol

                No, he's of the 'boomer' era when women were not allowed to work once they were married

            • Ughhh on 30/08/2022 - 14:47
              +2

              @SlavOz:

              A large part of maternity leave is the actual pregnancy,

              Wrong.

            • Cookiescream on 31/08/2022 - 11:18

              @SlavOz: I can't believe I am about to agree with SlavOz.

              Most people here have no idea.

              Women need to STOP working 6 weeks before giving birth, because thats when maternity leave starts, unless they have permission from doctors.

              Most men here seem to dumb that think women should give birth while at work, because bellies are not heavy, or their feet and back are sore.

              People here seem to not have mothers or sisters or even daughters to teach them a little bit of compassion.

              • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 11:58

                @Cookiescream: This culture of feminism has turned women into objects of political influence rather than who they are as individuals. Most people only care about women to the point where they can be used as political or economic puppets. Beyond that, they couldn't give a shit.

                They want maternity leave not to help women with the child rearing process, but simply to give women another reason to vote for them. Truth be told, they couldn't give a shit about the pain, suffering, and sacrifice a woman goes through during the process.

                • SBOB on 31/08/2022 - 18:40

                  @SlavOz:

                  turned women into objects

                  From the one wiping their hands on their hair and claiming a women is his property…
                  Sometimes you even outdo yourself if self reflecting comments…

              • Ughhh on 31/08/2022 - 18:34

                @Cookiescream: Are you assuming everyone here is male?

              • SBOB on 31/08/2022 - 18:39
                +1

                @Cookiescream:

                Women need to STOP working 6 weeks before giving birth, because thats when maternity leave starts

                Want to back that up with facts? Maternity leave is allowed to start from 6 weeks prior but it's not a requirement, law or actual 'need'.

                It's their choice, but they don't need to stop working 6 weeks prior.

          • Miss B on 30/08/2022 - 19:31
            +1

            @caitsith01: A colleague had her baby after working for part of the day. She was due to go on maternity leave at the end of the week, about 1.5 weeks before she was due. I guess no one told her she was too fragile to work once she found out she was pregnant.

            • Laurana on 01/09/2022 - 00:29

              @Miss B: Funny enough I was being paid whilst giving birth.

              This is because I was due to finish work on a Friday (at 38.5 weeks pregnant), but the baby was born on the Monday which was a public holiday. So Tuesday morning I called into work and asked if I could take personal leave for the Tuesday - Friday period since I was in the hospital looking after my new baby.

        • moar bargains on 30/08/2022 - 12:24
          +7

          Go on Slav, tell us you don't have a partner and have never had kids without telling us… 🍿

  • FlyingMiffy on 30/08/2022 - 11:22
    +1

    I vote for paid parental leave like the Nordic countries.

    • icanconfirm on 30/08/2022 - 11:37
      +1

      I wish there was paternal leave more than 1 week. I think fathers yearn for more time in caring for youngens

    • xdigger on 09/09/2022 - 10:28

      In Nordic countries like Norway most of their oil wealth profits goes to the state, while here in Australia our billions in mining profits flow to individuals like Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest. Plus we need to pay for hundreds of billions for American nuclear submarines.

      This is why we don't have paid parental leave like the Nordic countries and are losing our universal free healthcare, ie, no more bulk-billing GPs.

  • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 11:31
    +1

    It should be parental leave, not maternity leave, and there should be a default 50/50 split between parents so that we have not only the option but the expectation that men will also be primary caregivers.

  • lew380 on 30/08/2022 - 11:32
    +1

    Would you ever hire a women if they were a risk of birthing and having to pay them 100k+? That would send most business bankrupt. That sounds like a disaster. Your describing some socialist nightmare, many have tried and most end with eating your children to survive the famine.

    The solution is unpopular but well tested and effective. Marriage and with strong family ties. The ideology of working yourself to death in some deadbeat job and sacrificing your family for more expensive stuff is some virtuous pursuit, is garbage. Your boss will replace you in 24hrs when you retire and never talk to your again, children are your heritage.

    Also, who said women having time off for children is unpaid? Its a long term investment! Are we that shortsighted that a weekly paycheck is the only thing of value in society?

    • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 12:13

      Cool 1950s attitudes there that completely ignore the cost of living and housing in 2022. I bet you'll also complain when our birthrate drops like South Korea's and we have population problems because no-one can afford to have kids.

      • lew380 on 30/08/2022 - 13:10

        Choices, you cant have everything. I have a 5acre property, will be paid off before im 35, a few kids, nice car, everything i need and more. But i have a cheap phone, no expensive holidays or hobbies, dont eat out. Perfectly fine on a 1 income household. Live within your means.

        I work with people who complain about housing while spending $150/month on all the streaming subscriptions available and spend all their time off in some expensive floating villas on some expensive islands, then whinge that housing and kids is too expensive. Yea right. critical thinking and basic budgeting skills is lacking, maybe not so in the 1950's!

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 30/08/2022 - 12:04
    +3

    Yes and no.

    As someone who chose not to have kids, I woukd like to take a year off looking after my cats.

    If thats not possible, where is the equality for those with and without children.

    • caitsith01 on 30/08/2022 - 12:14
      +1

      Lots of things don't involve 'equality' in that sense. If someone gets free medical treatment that I don't need, where's the equality? Etc. We all benefit when people have access to these sorts of benefits.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 31/08/2022 - 02:36

        I reckon the major inequality in this sphere is the near absence of any real paid paternity leave. I suppose I'll be negged to kingdom come for even daring to suggest this, but I don't care. I'd like to point out that many fathers are just as interested in taking time off work to raise their newborns as mothers are; but 'the system' ignores this reality, and blatantly discriminates against fathers in this regard. Should the union between the mother and father falter/end at any stage before the child/children turn 18, the father is then effectively penalised (both emotionally and financially) for not having contributed 'equally' to the upbringing of the children historically; by way of a severely skewed legal custody order (generally dictated to the judge by a female family court psychologist) that simultaneously decrees that the father has a lot less time with their children than the mother, and pays the mother a large percentage of their income on that basis.

        The current system is an absolute joke in this regard, and it is little wonder that the rate of suicide is as enormous as it is among Australian fathers who find themselves in this ludicrously inequitable situation.

        • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:03
          -1

          Yet women want gender equality, but only in position of power/prestige.

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 02/09/2022 - 00:40

            @SeVeN11: What many Australian men want is legally sanctioned/recognised gender equality when it comes to parenting. This has been embraced in the US for many years now, but—familiarly—Australia is lagging behind by a couple of decades. In Australia there is no legally institutionalised concept of 'gender-neutral parenting rights'. We are still at the 'all children are best off spending almost all their time with their mother, and the father should go to work and pay for that' assumption; regardless of anything else. Court psychologists (invariably female) dictate this policy to judges in the Family Court (or more recently, the 'Federal Circuit Court'). This 'formulaic approach' is absolutely to the detriment of the children in many cases; but no one seems willing to acknowledge this. The archaic mantra that 'mamma knows best' pervades, even at this high jurisdictional level. It is both bizarre, and tragic.

            Again, I invite readers to have their own look into the reasons for the high rates of suicide among fathers involved in split marriages in Australia. If you have time to delve into it from an objective mindset, you will be shocked and dismayed.

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 02/09/2022 - 00:42

            @SeVeN11: I upvoted your comment. For some reason, the 'system' has converted my upvote into a downvote. Bizzarro.

    • Juice-Wa on 31/08/2022 - 11:41
      +2

      Parental leave isn't as much for the sake of a parent, it's for the sake of the child.

      Your cats can be left at home for 8 hours while you work, you can come back and they will be fine.

      A child on the other hand, you're playing with fire to leave them alone for a few hours and expect them to still be alive by the time you get home.

      Also, even kittens require 12-13 weeks with their mother before you can remove them.

      You chose to be a cat lady, don't pretend to have the same responsibilities as a mother.

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 14:04
      +4

      your pet wont eventually pay tax and contribute to the economy. why would the gov have any interest in incentivizing you to have a cat? what good does it do for them?

  • srven3 on 30/08/2022 - 12:07

    You make a fair point and set it out in an even minded way
    I would be ok with 12 months at min. wage or 6 months at full wage, whichever is the highest
    Just need to ensure it works economically (not sending the country broke) and be careful we don't cause Idiocracy

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 02:01

      There's no such thing as a free lunch my friend. You're definitely sending someone broke.

      • srven3 on 02/09/2022 - 11:28

        I agree with the no free lunch however you need to consider the societal impacts as whole.
        If you believe in no social policies ie… no social welfare between jobs (which has significant cost) then crime and homelessness increases
        If you don't have free basic healthcare it has cost to society in other ways
        I believe capitalism with some socialist policies is a somewhat decent system
        Just need to watch corporations trying to take too much control and government overreach

  • Dack Smith on 30/08/2022 - 12:17
    -2

    Should be paid for 24 months, and paternal for six months.

    It’s hard for mothers to look after really small children and work, so two years is a good balance.

  • Wilson Wallace on 30/08/2022 - 12:31
    +4

    So if you have 2-3 kids you’ll be paid for 24-36 months? Nope. Not coming out of my taxes. Men, women, who ever.

    Your lucky you get to keep your job for the 12 months. I know lots of women who have kids that do other things on the side whilst getting paid leave. It’s your choice whether you want to do it or not.

    Half of these replies I’m reading, will contribute to even more inflation.

  • Viper8 on 30/08/2022 - 12:32
    +1

    Option 4: Both parents should receive 6 months off, 1 at a time, so they can both take turns at being primary care giver.

    My workplace offers all employees 4 months off at any time within the first 2 years of the child being born on condition they're the primary care giver.

    Partners should be able to establish that close bond with their child as well, and this also supports the mother returning to work earlier if she wants to by giving you the time to takeover full-time care of the child and the running of the house.

  • Willy Beamish on 30/08/2022 - 12:57
    +3

    Men can have babies too you absolute bigot, It's 2022.
    /s

    If women want to get paid more the solution is simple, just identify as a man. There's absolutely no other factors at play regarding pay, only being male/female.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:59

      This reminds me of that yt thing on this whole LGBTQIA+ thing thats seems to be overdone…

      I.e. just because a person was born with a penis they can still identify as a female… This is what LGBTQIA+ is all about.

      Funny thing is if men identify as female does that mean they can get a promotion so the organisation can reach their 50% female target…

  • Gros21 on 30/08/2022 - 13:03
    +3

    Its the parents responsibility to fund there child not there employers, other wise some brood mare of a women could keep pumping out kids and never really have to work.

    I know a small accounting firm that went bust as a few girls got knocked up at the same time while employer had to train up extra staff to cover there work. If your work place has a large number of 20-mid 30 year old females you are asking for trouble thats alot of possible liability there.

    • Willy Beamish on 30/08/2022 - 13:30

      What's your thoughts on childcare subsidies if both parents choose to work, should the government be assisting them with that? personally I say no, especially since they both choose to work.

      • Gros21 on 30/08/2022 - 13:37

        Childcare is a scam propped up by govt rebates.

        Id say rebates should not be given to those who do not work.

        i would not scrap rebates but i would not raise it at all.

        People need to take responsibility for there actions

      • SeVeN11 on 02/09/2022 - 09:54

        I believe childcare subsidy has a net positive NPV, ie the subsidy pays for itself. If so I support it.

        Childcare subsidy was to encourage female back into the workforce as Australia does not have enough labour force.

        If they go back into the workforce the government will collect more taxes from their income and other goods and services they provide to the general economy.

  • Lichen6420 on 30/08/2022 - 14:40
    +6

    Government (tax payers) have enough shit to pay for.

    If you want to have children that’s fine but it’s not up to the rest of us to give you a fully paid holiday for each one you decide to pop out.

    • Ughhh on 30/08/2022 - 15:14
      -1

      Do you have a child?

      • LFO on 30/08/2022 - 19:07
        +2

        Does it matter?

        • Ughhh on 30/08/2022 - 19:20
          +1

          Just wondering if theres any new parent who would call sleep deprivation, postpartum depression etc a "holiday".

          • buckethat on 30/08/2022 - 23:29
            +1

            @Ughhh: You mean you want have your cake and eat it too?

            • ozbjunkie on 30/08/2022 - 23:51

              @buckethat: I think the gist of the argument would be "you'd see things differently if you had a child"…

              Which seems to me a bit of projection really, and reveals that the other person's views are simply based on them having a child.

              • Ughhh on 31/08/2022 - 00:48
                -1

                @ozbjunkie: I use to have the same perspective as what his face. I don't have an issue with some disagreeing with the payments, but to call it a "holiday" is just ignorance.

                Dont forget kids will be the future tax payer too. May even contribute to your pension.

                • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:25

                  @Ughhh: Kids will be the future criminals, rapists, and child molesters too.

                  I vote that any parents who's kids do terrible shit should have to pay back all their maternity leave or support payments. Taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.

            • Ughhh on 31/08/2022 - 00:44

              @buckethat: I mean if your definition of "holiday" is that and that's what you like to do during Xmas break with a bunch of dolls and nappies, well, it's weird, but good for you.

          • LFO on 31/08/2022 - 15:58
            +1

            @Ughhh: Just wondering if there's any childless person who would call loneliness and emptiness a "holiday".

        • TimboAus1234 on 31/08/2022 - 13:25
          -1

          Yes it does as you would know that you don't get a fully paid holiday.

          If you don't have any experience with having a child your opinion isn't really worth anything, as you don't have any experience.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2022 - 16:00
      +2

      It's hard enough for me to get a week off work. I can't imagine telling them I'm gone for a year.

  • trapper on 30/08/2022 - 14:57
    +3

    note: some take more then 12 some take less but the average is about 12 months

    I think the average is far higher to be honest.

    My wife for example hasn't gone back to full time work yet and it's been over seven years since our first was born. This is not unusual.

  • SeVeN11 on 30/08/2022 - 15:58

    If I was an employer, I would avoid hiring child bearing females so that I don't get screwed by the 12m paid maternity leave.

    Its like an employer paying a fee for no service… This is what the banks got screwed on during the royal commission.

    If Australian wants more handouts/welfare, then raise the taxes and get this funded so it is clear who is paying for it and not a tax hidden within employment.

    The government needs to stop printing money to pay for this stuff and voting Australian need to get educated and understand inflation is really just another form of tax.

    • Laurana on 01/09/2022 - 00:37

      Employers do not have to pay for parental leave. The government pays for it. Some employers offer it as a benefit, but it's not legally required.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2022 - 15:59
    +2

    I think this kind of stuff would make employers much less likely to hire young women.

    • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:28

      Only the hot ones.

      Should be less of a risk hiring the fuglies (fat + ugly).

      My last co-worker at my old job - whoa, she had no place in the workforce. Just a walking pregnancy waiting to happen.

  • jellykingdom on 30/08/2022 - 16:15
    +1

    Maternity leave is minimum wage. So you're saying that women should get more maternity leave but not be financially disadvantaged. So you you actually mean "should maternity leave by longer/12mo at full pay?"
    i just noticed you did sorta say this further down

    I'm a parent, and my wife makes more than I do, but I still find it hard to feel like that is a reasonable thing to ask…

    I am however in favour of more maternity/paternity leave in general, since she got 6mo and I got like 2wks, and although to be honest I wasn't exactly clambering so spend more time with a wailing newborn, I did want to help her out more

  • negger on 30/08/2022 - 17:45
    +2

    Expecting tax payers to foot the bill of everyone's pregnancy is a bit rich. I would prefer skilled migration over this.

    • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:28
      +1

      If I were poor, I would be pumping a kid out every 12m since I'm being paid at least minimum wage in addition to all other the other Centrelink benefits…

      Definitely agree with you and would prefer skilled migration versus paying for babies.

      These babies would likely end come from lower social economic level given they have more incentive to take advantage of it which will result in further tax burdens on everyone else.

  • cashless on 30/08/2022 - 17:51

    Quotes news dot com article.
    Obviously not true then

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2022 - 18:09

    Migration is the solution. We should pay nothing and offer more pathways for more fully grown children from other countries,Having children is a choice to selfishly deprive other nations of economic advancement and opportunity. It will be better for the economy, diversity and freedom of outcome for others. Other nations seem to be able to develop children without support. It would seem to be the logical decision to lift the world out of poverty.

    • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 30/08/2022 - 21:51
      -1

      Like your solution.
      Everyone owns up to their life decisions, and we make the world a better place by encouraging skilled migrants to come work in our rich land, thus lifting the world out of poverty.
      And agree, most of the nations with strong family values have children and give them good education and develop them while receiving no monetary assistance.

      • SlavOz on 31/08/2022 - 18:35
        +1

        How exactly are you lifting the world out of poverty by taking all the skilled migrants away from their homeland? All this does is make the West richer and other nations poorer.

        It's completely selfish of us to swipe the brightest and most hard working people from poor countries just because we're too lazy to produce our own kids. Those people could be better utilised in their own countries to create jobs or advance certain fields.

        Migration is a band aid solution, won't work long term. All you get is generations of people who treat Australia as a workplace and have no vested interest in seeing succeed.

        • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 01:51

          Skilled migrants come to Australia and work, then send their money back to support their family.

          This is how it's been for centuries.

          If they stayed in their own country, they would not be able to support their families.

          When I say families, I mean their extended families too since their earning power is so much more here.

          You don't sound like you've lived in a developing country before… Migrants are very vested in Australia because they don't want to go back to their developing country and want to get their family and extended families out of poverty. Meaning they will work like a dog and stay here for ever.

          • SlavOz on 01/09/2022 - 10:03
            -1

            @SeVeN11: lol I am a migrant… from a third world country.

            What you said is wrong. Migrants here love the pay, but they have no long term vested interest in Australia. It's basically just their workplace. Once a better opportunity comes knocking or things get a little rough here, they'll find somewhere else to go.

            As you'll see in most major cities, the migrants usually not assimilate. They want to become Aussies and embrace this culture. They stick to their own community and speak their own language.

            • SeVeN11 on 01/09/2022 - 12:59

              @SlavOz: I agree that they love the opportunity and if a better opportunity comes they would be out, this is where Australia needs to have policies to make Australia one of the best choices.

              I guess it depends on which developing country you come from and what opportunities you have, but at least for me after many decades living in Australia, I would rather call Australia home, raise a family here, education, safety etc. compared to many of the SE Asian countries.

              Assimilation simply takes time and a person is more impressionable the younger they are.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/09/2022 - 19:34
          +1

          @SlavOz Of course it's selfish to swipe the brightest and hard working people for example Liberia, Niger, Malawi, Somalia according to the world Bank have a Doctor/Patient ratio of 0/1000 patients. People in those countries suffer and die needlessly without medical treatment because Australia and other countries vacuum-up their human capital necessary to develop.

          Here is the thing if Australian women continue to demand the 'right' to abort their healthy offspring, and businesses demand an immediate and flexible workforce on demand, and government needs to reduce wage demands whilst universities churn students for profit then the country has no choice.

          As abortions are much more common amongst the university educated cohort then we are as a country self-selecting for lesser intelligent genetics.

          Migration it seems is a logical conclusion as it is an infinite resource.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDceLiPLHWQ

          However, if you prefer I propose a $250,000 hecs-like-tax on abortions to increase the childbirth amongst the most capable, and reduce the plundering of economic migrants from poor countries. This I suggest would encourage more live births than a 12 month paid maternity leave.

    • StalkingIbis on 31/08/2022 - 14:03

      we should deny having children so that people in poor countries can have kids and then come over here?

    • TimboAus1234 on 31/08/2022 - 23:40

      How will it lift the world out Of poverty?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join