Comments on: Productivity Commission interim report on paid parental leave

By: dj

dj — Tue, 12 May 2009 06:34:28 +0000

almost enough to make me want to change my moniker

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:21:01 +0000

not quite public enough – here is but bloggery

By: thewetmale

thewetmale — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:08:09 +0000

Well said mr DJ, you truly are a public intellectual, perhaps second only to Robert Manne. BTW, you do realise that the ‘maternative’ will be paid by the government, and if they dump the baby bonus, will probably help the budget bottom line. No mortgage is going out the door because working women can have babies a little easier. And that 8% unemployment number, have you heard of the GFC?

Thanks for the laughs.

By: brissy dj

brissy dj — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:39:54 +0000

Helen, ask the small business owner, you paying tax when the small business owner doesnt have the staff member means they loose money and then go out of business and then have to fire people causing unemployment and then you dont get anything. Small business gives most to the economy and that is where they should be focused.
Rudd takes it away and then takes more. Small business gives jobs not Labor. Help small business. The more people that think the government is actually helping us is causing more and more pain. They are prodicting 8% unemployment. Penalise the people with health insurance and hospitals are struggling. They pay for most of it. God open your eyes , if small business is screaming for help how are they going to help the unemployed.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:00:11 +0000

Hilarious!
“Maternative leave”: I think that’s going to catch on.
“pay the grasshoppers and not the squirrels”: Um, dude, I think you are thinking of the ant and the grasshopper, not the squirrel and the grasshopper.
You are also imagining that women who take parental leave are “grasshoppers”, that is, thoughtless consumers. In fact, most of us want parental leave so that we can continue to work, pay tax and accumulate nuts, er, superannuation for our old age.

I want those fighting a rearguard action against Teh Evil Greedy Wimmin and their Maternity leave to justify all the Federal spending on toys for boys, sport and junkets.

By: brissy dj

brissy dj — Sun, 10 May 2009 08:16:20 +0000

i think no more women will be hired for our jobs as its not viable for small business anymore. Rudd can you screw up life for business owners anymore. People you can complain about this attitide buts its small business owners mortgage or some persons maternative leave. Rudd has taken away all possible reasons for small business owners. talk about robin hood Rudd! pay the grasshoppers and not the squirrels. Rudd who voted for him. CMon how many of you would do it again. Give with one hand and take with the other but multiple times of what he gave

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:14:12 +0000

wilful @ 17 – they are also recommend not means testing the maternity payment (the renamed baby bonus) for mothers without a job, probably because the parental leave is not to means tested.

As Mark and Mindy have mentioned some employers offer paid maternity leave as a means of retaining staff and attracting them in the first place, so I think some employers would even give the government payment to employees in addition to what they already pay (after all its not costing them anything more). So effectively it could end up being an 11k baby bonus for those who already have paid parental leave. For others its just going to be a govt subsidy for something they already do.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:07:41 +0000

Some might try it wilful, but most employers who offer maternity leave (who aren’t govt) do so because they realise the benefits of retaining staff. So most will probably just pay the difference, + super as Mark suggested.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:53:34 +0000

I’m not sure the incentive is there to do that, wilful. If the federal government pays minimum wage for 18 weeks, it reduces the labour costs of the employer to pay the difference between this and the actual wage rather than having to pay all of the actual wage themselves.

By: wilful

wilful — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:42:50 +0000

Different Chris, one reason means testing isn’t such an issue is it’s minimum wage.

I wonder what would happen to my wife’s mat leave (which she’s currently enjoying)? She gets 3 months (6 months at half pay actually) – would her work dare try to reduce her pay to minimum wage? Given their current hiring difficulties absolutely not, but for a certain number of businesses, professional women will do worse out of this.