There’s been a lot of discussion sparked by the Productivity Commission report into Parental Leave about “middle class welfare”. Because the PC also made recommendations about the baby bonus, and therefore there have been predictable calls to share the dosh equally with non-working mothers, paid parental leave is being conceptualised as “welfare” rather than as a workplace entitlement. The Commission is quite explicit that the goal of the recommendations is to ensure that leave (which in itself as a concept only works if it’s related to work) is available for parents - primarily for working women. That’s why it will be paid by employers (who will later claim the amount back from the government) - to symbolise that it is an entitlement pertaining to employment rights and not a “hand out” or “welfare”. I think that needs to be recognised.
But perhaps some of the conceptual slippage (which is really important politically) is understandable. The policy has more than one aim - and one of its aims is to foster early childhood development, and the assumption here is that direct involvement of a parent or parents is crucial at the early stages of infancy. But, nevertheless, it is worth reinforcing the fact that insofar as non working mothers have made a choice not to work, that under the current policy design, 10 hours a week for a year would be enough to trigger the paid parental leave entitlement.
So, that’s that. But there are some ambivalences around all this, some of which I share. Writing today in The Australian, George Megalogenis launches an assault on “middle class welfare”, giving readers a history lesson about when family payments took off, and pointing out that in the age of Menzies they were small change. The implication seems to be explicitly that politicians are in the habit of tossing bribes around, and that virtuous self-reliance was the norm for 50s and 60s Australia. What this ignores, though, is that Menzies Land was surrounded by high tarriff walls and as a result of the Australian settlement, had a highly regulated wage system that was openly premised (from Higgins onwards) on the male wage as a breadwinner’s wage sufficient to support two adults and the then average number of children.
As Kim pointed out in a post here a month or so ago, reflecting on Betty Friedan’s legacy, the second wave of feminism and the movement for women’s workforce participation coincided with the increasing inability of a sole wage to sustain the level of consumer demand that sustained a consumption oriented “modern industrial economy”. Feminism, if you like, lent a hand to save capitalism. Megalogenis is right to point to remaining hurdles in the tax/welfare mix to participation in the labour market, but I want to trouble the logic that this should be the sole aim of policy.
In doing so, I don’t want to argue that those barriers should not be addressed, nor that a thorough going review of the welfare and tax systems is in fact vital. The current demands for a $30 increase in the single aged pension are a symptom of the dysfunction inherent in segmenting the worthy demographics according to short term political advantage. Not only do such demands ignore those on disability and other pensions, but they also don’t do anything whatever to address the urgent needs of those who are poorest. (And not all pensioners are in that category - consider the plethora of concessions and also housing ownership, as well as the fact that many pensioners enjoy significant levels of wealth and income, not to mention the fact that the pension is set at a rate above the poverty line, unlike other benefits such as NewStart.) The recent Catholic Social Justice Statement identified horrific levels of poverty and social exclusion across a number of parts of the community, but as Eleri Harris noted in Crikey, it was more or less ignored in the media and political debate.
Lots of folks are actually “doing it tough”, and while that shouldn’t provide an excuse to ignore the need to redress the plight of pensioners of all stripes, nor should it mean that a quick fix should trump a holistic examination - with social justice principles foremost in mind - of disadvantage and welfare globally throughout the Australian community.
I was also interested to read this contribution from jo on the Parentonomics thread:
In respect of middle class welfare - I believe it psychologically binds people into a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare mindset and therefore they are more likely to feel emotionally connected to the system and will therefore support the entire system, including OAP’s, disabled and carers pensions, unemployment benefits etc, of which they may never need, as others may never require child related payments. (Not sure if there is more support for Govt welfare schemes than in previous periods, & how would you account for the relentless top down neo-con conditioning over past decade or so.)
Obviously, there are matters of fairness in respect of overall tax burdens, thresholds, bracket creep etc - and there is also the matter of the current situation where some pension payments have dropped below cost of living etc - which needs to be rectified and hopefully will be soon, but the idea that idea that people on middle incomes paying their correct level of PAYE taxes are just ‘bludging on the system’ is not reasonable and pretty narrow-minded, frankly.
This does underline the fact that in neoliberal regimes, the promotion of private “choice” (with reference primarily to healthcare and education) leaves the public system looking like a residual safety net, and as middle class voters withdraw from universal public health and education, correspondingly political support for universal provision has a tendency to drop. The same logic is at work with the division of welfare into “worthy” and “undeserving” recipients - which is why (among other reasons including basic civil rights) the small carrot/big stick approach to poverty and disadvantage is worth fighting, although very few are prepared to take up the cudgels.
There is no doubt that an “entitlement mentality” has been created, and that it becomes a social fact. In many instances such a mentality - which is encouraged by political segmentation of the population - undermines the universality and legitimacy of redistributive spending as a whole. But it doesn’t mean that we should place the purported needs of the labour market and the supposedly universal value of work (however demeaning, poorly paid and alienating the jobs provided are) above all else. What it does mean is that we should start thinking about employment rights and the welfare system from the point of view of the community as a whole, and particularly from the point of view of justice.
“A holistic examination - with social justice principles foremost in mind - of disadvantage and welfare globally throughout the Australian community.”
Yes. I agree. But this sort of approach will lead you inexorably away from the paid parental leave line of the PC and the feminist advocates. Are you willing to suffer their scorn?
While you express some qualifications about Megalogenis’ article, you seem to be basically agreeing with him. If “social justice principles” are to be “foremost in mind”, then it becomes very hard to justify payments to middle- and higher-income people who choose to have children.
As the well-worn economists’ saying has it, there is no such thing as a free lunch (except at economic conferences). Effectively, you have a given share of the federal budget that’s available for welfare, and every $ that goes to middle-income people is one less $ available for the poor. And that’s simply not going to change through taxation: as much as you may want greatly higher tax rates, you’re not going to see them under this or any conceivable future government.
By the way, I think Jo’s comment is completely wrong. In the past, I’ve hung out with paid-up Liberal party members, whose social and economic views made me look like a snivelling socialist. And yet, they told me that they did support a protective safety net for the genuine poor, with high-quality, compassionate healthcare and full educational opportunity. They just didn’t want this for people who could look after themselves financially.
People aren’t stupid — they can recognise an electoral bribe when they see one. And when government transfer payments are increasingly provided as electoral bribes (thank you John W Howard), it will engender a cynicism about welfare which will have precisely the opposite effect to what Jo suggests.
It’s an atavistic or residual thing with me, I suppose. I’ve always found it hard to support the concept of maternity leave because its somebody else paying for you to go off and do what you want do.
I understand a woman only has to be hired for a year to be eligible, so it could be hard for small employers as well as a well-worked rort, although I recall Mark concludes that government involvement should enable employers to avoid hardship (fancy me feeling sorry for an employer!).
Am on welfare myself, so my hypothetical proposition that I can’t get six months off to go and smoke dope, so why should women and “families” get paid to indulge their cultural conditioning and self image, could be misinterpreted.
My late mum, a radical lady for her time, felt that she had stayed home on whatever dad provided because it was a personal choice that she didn’t expect others to sponsor. And she was working class.
But Mark’s article does help me begin to bring myself up to current times, in some ways. He’s right about the sense of a nurturing community- for god’s sake, was that not where I came from?
And the system’s been there when I’ve slipped on poor life decisons in the past, too.
Also the point about changing income structures and the two-income family.
Finally, remembering the great childhood I had thanks to my stay at home mum, I’d have to support a system that gives todays kids at least some access to their mums and vice versa (don’t ask me to comment on my late old man’s parental abilities).
so it could be hard for small employers as well as a well-worked rort,
So, women will be getting preggers simply for the extra time off work. Twisty’s right: men hate you.
Helen, hope you are not after a cheap shot, through misquoting or quoting out of context.
I followed “a well-worked rort” with the following:
“…I recall Mark concludes that greater governemt involvement should enable employers to avoid hardship ( fancy me feeling sorry for an employer)”.
Of course it could be a rort, when the baby bonus is included.
The mortgage belt love it because they are taught to seek self-esteem through “the family”.
Fifty years since they invented the pill. There is no need for most people to get pregnant and impose hardship on themselves if they are sentient and want to avoid that.
Be fair and read a post properly before you attack selectively and out of context, eh, because that’s contempt prior to investigation.
I loathe the phrase “middle class welfare” because it ignores the fact that is is simply not possible to have a welfare system that performs the main function of a welfare system - sharing the risk of misfortune across the community - without very substantial “middle class welfare”. And I know whereof I speak - I’ve had a career in designing welfare benefits.
If you pay only the poor, it will only pay to be poor. If you want to give people incentive to get ahead, you’ve gotta get those EMTRs down. But for reasonable benefit levels that is only arithmetically possible by paying some benefits to “middle class” people.
And that’s just looking at payments that are intended purely as anti-poverty ones. A lot of payments and services serve other, and often quite legitimate, purposes than keeping people from starvation. If you’re aiming to encourage mothers to work, for example, then you can’t do it with a tightly means tested payment - it has to be more universal.
Does that depend a bit on how you define welfare? Eg effectively delivering the money that middle class families by reducing the tax that you take from them in the first place (eg income tax based on family, not individual income and taking into account the number of dependents).
What about loosely means tested payments? Eg like the baby bonus, mothers where the family income is > $150,000 wouldn’t get government paid maternity leave (though may like at the present get employer paid maternity leave).
Alternatively, you could say that motherhood is valuable; is this a factor not recognised in the incomes system of society. Is the discussion about dragooning mothers back to work, or recognising that it is good for the health of society to have kids and mums together.
Before folk swoop on me about”
what about dads”, I’d repeat an earlier comment that my no doubt subjective feeling is that mums make better parents than blokes and am unrepentantly old fashioned in beleiving this.
Chris ADO, “the middle classes” are no more entitled to the cream of the common wealth than any one else. They get better jobs because they are better mentally and physically equipped by nature and genetics, not because they are universally intrinsically more morally deserving.
I support parental leave.
Slighty off-topic - one thing that needs to be carefully designed is the incentives surrounding parental leave - there shouldn’t be any disincentives to employing (potential) parents. And this isn’t in the area of how employers should act but rather how they may act.
Mark, what do you mean by “What it does mean is that we should start thinking about employment rights and the welfare system from the point of view of the community as a whole, and particularly from the point of view of justice.” ?
To my mind, there exists a contradiction in this article between “There is no doubt that an “entitlement mentality” has been created, and that it becomes a social fact.” and supporting paid maternity leave.
I know that you will argue, as Bernard Keane did in Crikey that paid maternity leave is not a handout, but rater for the benefit of the economy. I have however disputed this assertion on my blog: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/10/addiction-to-welfare-in-australia.html
I also have concerns about paid maternity leave being essentially regressive - in that it pays more money to working women, who usually need it less, than stay at home mums, who generally need the money more. More details here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7535
My view has always been that welfare should be about need rather than greed. I view paid maternity leave as a symptom of the latter.
Well, Leon, obviously we disagree, because as I’ve been suggesting paid maternity leave is not a welfare benefit. That would be more obvious if employers were mandated to pay it (as occurs in many other countries), but those employers who do pay it voluntarily or as a result of collective or individual agreements certainly don’t see themselves as providing welfare but as part of remuneration. The principle is the same. I would assume you don’t see things like a minimum wage or other employment minima (for instance paid sick or recreation or carers leave) as an entitlement in this sense, but rather as part of the terms and conditions of remuneration stipulated by law.
Sacha, what I’m really getting at is that in my view it would be better if the welfare system were seen from a global perspective in terms of its aims and objectives rather than as an agglomeration of supplements, tax concessions and allowances. If anything, I suspect it should be more universal (as DD suggests) and less targeted to particular segments of the electorate. We may as well recognise reality that for many on low and middle incomes, while not in poverty, a wage or two wages even (where one partner is usually working casually) doesn’t constitute sufficient income. I’d much rather see some form of guarenteed minimum income set at a reasonable level, with some upwards adjustment for very broad classes of circumstances. All this, I think, would be good from a policy perspective and also go to adding legitimacy to the system as a whole.
Mark,
you propose that employers pay, but above you say that they would be reimbursed by the government.
So it’s really the state that pays, only there’s some clever accounting that results in it being part of the employment contract and delivered by the employer. Therefore, I still class it as welfare. As long as the state is paying someone without recieving goods or services in return, I classify it as welfare.
Actually making employers pay would be the worst outcome, particularly for women, who would find themselves unable to find work because employers would prefer male workers, who don’t have to be paid maternity leave (or much less of it). And that’s not counting the disastrous inflationary and employment consequences overall, as many businesses would hire less people due to the increased labour costs, whilst the others will pass the costs onto consumers.
“Those employers who do pay it voluntarily or as a result of collective or individual agreements certainly don’t see themselves as providing welfare but as part of remuneration.”
Fine, but since when has the government been paying part of the remuneration package for people in the private sector? Should the Commonwealth also start coughing up for other employment rights — leave loading, overtime, long service leave, etc — for private sector workers?
Furthermore, your neat definitional argument has a couple of holes:
1) The people calling for paid parental leave often use welfarist arguments to justify it — emphasising the cost and hardship of bringing up children.
2) If parental leave is not welfare and is simply a labour supply measure, then it follows that if labour supply becomes less of a problem, we don’t need the measure.
So if we are now sliding into recession, unemployment will inevitably rise substantially, and thus the government won’t need to pay to encourage mothers to work.
Well, Paulus, I’d be happier if employers were mandated to pay it, rather than government. I really can’t see why something that is common practice in so much of the world represents such a gross and unwelcome imposition for some Australian employers.
And I think we need to think about other issues than labour supply ones, as I’ve been suggesting. You know, that whole there’s more to life than working and more to the country than an economy thing.
I do agree, as I said, that there are a lot of ambiguities around in the way these measures are conceptualised and debated, so it’s worthwhile to tease them out, as we’re doing on this thread.
paul @ 7 said:
I’m not sure where you got the understanding that I believed that the middle class are more entitlted to the cream of the common wealth than anyone else. My reference to the income tax is because we have a progressive tax system that tries to take into account means to pay. And a family of 2 adults and two children clearly has less means to pay than a 2 adults without children, and so if they earn the same gross income, should pay less tax. The welfare/tax regime tries to achieve this, but in a roundabout manner of taxing first and then sometimes returning it via welfare.
Mark @ 12 - if the employer really paid the maternity leave then I wouldn’t consider it welfare. With the current proposal I would classify it as welfare, but am not opposed to the scheme in general (but would like to see the government contribution means tested).
Btw, Paulus, just on the labour supply argument, if it’s a structural fix, you should still do it now when there’s some momentum for it rather than assume it’s not needed because of rising unemployment. The underlying skills shortage issues and demographic trends in labour supply don’t go away if the labour market weakens some, and are still crucial in the medium and long terms.
It is of course, illegal to discriminate on the grounds of possible pregnancy and gender, Leon, and I don’t see normalising and condoning illegal discrimination as being a good public policy argument - or ethical! As to alleged employment consequences, I think that’s the same furphy as employers (and some economists) raise whenever there’s a movement in the minimum wage. The labour market is best conceived as a concatenation of submarkets and segments, and the price of labour simply doesn’t map onto the demand in as neat a way as some people suggest. In any case, that would be an argument about the level at which such benefits should be paid, rather than an argument for doing nothing if there are other compelling social reasons for doing something.
Chris -
Why and how?
“It is of course, illegal to discriminate on the grounds of possible pregnancy and gender, Leon, and I don’t see normalising and condoning illegal discrimination as being a good public policy argument - or ethical!”
I never condoned discrimination, I was just pointing out one of the inevitable and unintended consequences of making employers pay.
“The labour market is best conceived as a concatenation of submarkets and segments, and the price of labour simply doesn’t map onto the demand in as neat a way as some people suggest.”
And what are the compelling social reasons you refer to?
Perhaps not, but there’s no denying that it would adversely affect some submarkets. There’s also no denying the inflationary consequences, as costs get pushed onto consumers.
It’s not inevitable if employers act lawfully.
Equality and justice for female workers, early child development, and generally a fairer society.
Mark,
You seem to be under the impression that employers will follow the law even if it is against their financial interests AND they can get away with not following it.
Ever noticed how workers on airlines and in inner-city nightclubs tend to be young and good looking. That’s just one of the many examples of discrimination actually occurring in society in spite of the law. I’m not saying it’s right, but I do believe you have to look at reality before you have an opinion on policy.
Pitting the law against an employer’s financial interests is only asking for trouble. If they can get away with it, they will. And how can you prove that someone was discriminated against? Unless the employer actually says it, there’s no hard evidence.
Therefore, making the employer pay is the worst policy for women. You would be inviting discrimination, and inevitably it would occur.
In terms of justice and equality, I address these arguments right here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7535
I suggest you look at some of the case law on gender discrimination, Leon.
I’ll repeat my point that the last thing public policy should be doing is proceeding on the assumption that employers will act illegally. Some may, but it would certainly be unjust and idiotic for the government to make public policy on that basis. There is a separate argument about the necessity of cultural and attitudinal shifts to accompany legislation against discrimination, but you certainly don’t foster such needed changes in mindset through giving a big tick to aberrant and unlawful discrimination.
Have you flown with Qantas recently, Leon?
Also in many cases maternity leave is very much in the employer’s financial interest. There is often a lot of their intellectual property tied up in their workers who go off on maternity leave as well as a proven work track record. Whether they like paying them for maternity leave or not it’s often a much better deal than recruiting and training a permanant replacement.
Mark @ 16 - Why I’d like it means tested (for the government payment) is simply because I think taxpayer dollars can be spent better elsewhere. It also avoids subsidising many businesses for what they do already. Note that I’m not saying that the parental leave wouldn’t be compulsory, just that employer would pay instead of the government.
As for the how - until the tax review comes through then based simply on income - over a certain threshold the employer pays (at the minimum wage rate). The already have to allow for unpaid parental leave and the minimum wage rate is not a large burden compared to the employees standard salary.
Just on the topic of discrimination, there is one sure way to avoid it wrt to maternity leave - offer men the same benefits in a manner that allows for them to take it in practice. Eg allow for them to take equal amounts of parental leave at 6 or 12 months after the birth of the child where they take on primary carer duties. Not only does this remove the incentive for an employer to discriminate but it would strongly encourage and allow men to be more involved with their children at an early age. It would also make the transition for the women to get back into work easier and where parents want it, allow them to avoid childcare for longer.
Also hugely expensive I’d imagine
Mark, it’s foolish to think that the creation of a law or regulation determines reality on the ground - it’s the classic bureaucrat’s error. It’s a mistake to think that because something is illegal it won’t happen, and that goes double where it is innately hard to prove it happens.
That said, overseas experience is that the risk of maternity leave isn’t enough to make a noticeable difference in childbearing age women’s employment rate (though I don’t know of any studies that look at its effects on the gender wage gap - it’s possible there’s an adverse effect there).
Chris, I reckon very loosely means tested payments are the worst of both worlds. If the payment is an antipoverty one, then you’re imposing high EMTRs where you don’t need to and doing a lot of unnecessary churning. If its about other types of incentives (eg to encourage people to have kids) then there’s no reason to means test it at all, anymore than you’d means test, say, rebate for solar panels aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Unless you believe that, in the first case, the benefit to society of a poor kid is more than that of a rich kid and, in the second, that a ton of CO2 emitted by a poor person is less harmful than a ton emitted by a rich person.
As for delivering child payments in tax reductions rather than cash, on balance I probably agree. But I also know there are some strong counter-arguments - it’s no gimme. But that’s a long story.
I know, dd! After all, we’ve had equal pay by law since 1973, and… But I still don’t think dumbarsed business groups arguing that legislation will make them discriminate against women is something that should be taken into account.
Mega’s article is a little weird to me - for most of the article he seems to be about middle class welfare boo selfish selfish selfish but then in the very last para he seems to admit that maternity / parental leave is a legitimate employment entitlement. I must read it again.. Not so late at night.
Easy to get generous with other people’s money.
Employer paid maternity leave indeed.
If anyone thinks this would not have an impact on hiring practices, especially in small businesses, then they are having themselves on.
My taxes go to reimbursing tradies - currently still mainly blokes - on their tax returns for their tools and equipment and expensive utes which I could not afford. They go to a lot of other purposes directed by a largely blokey government, like war war war and useless Sea Sprites. Then we want to do something to redress the structural imbalance in income suffered by women (and hopefully, increasingly, men) who need to take time off work to raise the next generation and bingo, too expensive.
Discrimination would at least occur to the extent where if there’s a choice between a female and male candidate of roughly equal ability, the male candidate will usually get the nod.
GregM @ 21, if most businesses would benefit from paid maternity leave, you wouldn’t have to shove it down their throats using the full force of the state to force them to comply, would you?
The funny thing is that many of those who are ostensibly neutrally predicting the reaction of “most businesses” seem to imply that it’s a good thing. Entitlements for women? Aarrgghhh!
Yep, Helen, we’re now waiting in the queue behind pensioners. Can’t see Malcolm Turnbull running some high profile anti-Labor campaign on the deferral of paid parental leave somehow…
Some people will break laws in their own self-interest if they can. That’s no reason not to have those laws. Maternity leave goes in the same category for me. The same sort of argument was used about equal pay. And as GregM points out it may well be in the employers’ interests to look after their women employees.
So, there seems so confusion about who pays and how it’s administered. Can anyone clear that up?
I’m particularly curious about how it will benefit women (or not) in the casual workforce. These women often have the worst pay and conditions and I wonder if this will be repeated here. How will it benefit self-employed women. Does this mean they’ll just have save up to pay themselves, as they usually do for holidays etc? This is important because it’s a growing area of the workforce.
The government pays the federal minimum wage and the employer pays the super, Fine. The employer delivers through their payroll, and claims reimbursement from the government.
I’m not sure about casuals and contractors/self-employed women. It might be worth checking the report itself - there’s a link in the post.
The idea that Maternity leave disadvantages the employer is a truism that is held to be almost Holy Writ by people who haven’t experienced it. Actually the reverse is the case, both in studies conducted hitherto and in my own experience. I took maternity leave around the same time as another, younger woman and within a few months of us both returning to the workforce we’d both earned a productivity award (something we had back then, don’t now, but it was a useful reinforcement of the fact we weren’t being somehow carried, as it’s often implied.) And no, my employer is not large.
“The Commission is quite explicit that the goal of the recommendations is to ensure that leave (which in itself as a concept only works if it’s related to work) is available for parents - primarily for working women. That’s why it will be paid by employers (who will later claim the amount back from the government) - to symbolise that it is an entitlement pertaining to employment rights and not a “hand out” or “welfare”.”
A concern I have with this, is the implication that child rearing is not “work”. We have this working families aggenda running with social pressure on mothers to get back to “real work” and the growth of the baby and tot minding business.
I cannot see why employees, at child minding centres, are considered workers while those women who prefer to look after their own kids, perhaps on a parenting allowance, are often looked at suspiciously as not pulling their weight.
I agree Helen, however the opposite would be true if instead of “Maternity leave” it was “Employer funded maternity leave”.
Mark, I’m glad you highlight the option of conceptualising parental leave in terms other than ‘hand-outs’. Paid parental leave should not be regarded as simply a pitch to please one ‘class’ or voter segment. Members of ALL classes and voter segments aim to work and raise children.
Hopefully we can come together as a society, appreciating the widespread benefits of real parents raising their own children (as opposed to ‘professionals’ or television) in this workaholic-consumerist cultural climate.
“What it does mean is that we should start thinking about employment rights and the welfare system from the point of view of the community as a whole, and particularly from the point of view of justice.”
This assumes there is an Australian ‘community’ or an Australian ’sense’ of justice. In other words a positive consensus amoung Australians, in the first place. I would doubt the existence of one unfortunately. We’re a proudly ‘liberal’ nation after all.
That have been the case many, many years ago Leon, but considering women now make up such significant percentage of the workforce and that women, including women with children are in positions to make hiring decisions (HR is a female dominated occupation and sector) and the many men married to working women who likewise are in positions to make hiring decisions and increasing numbers of female business owners coupled with the Gen Y “two years in one job is way too long” ethos, and the fact that low skilled & casual jobs have always had a high turnover - all add up to the not surprising fact that hiring women between the ages of 18 and 45 and employees leaving work to have babies is just not a big deal these days - what is surprising is how out of touch some commentators are with modern workplaces.
Anecdotally, the last hiring decision I saw up close - senior manager $100pa. - they ended up choosing the 30-something single mother with a kindy kid who wanted to work 4 days a week over a more experienced male candidate with a stay at home wife and grown up kids.
Considering there has been an across the board 12 month unpaid maternity leave entitlement in place for decades Leon, I think the horse bolted when you were in um, nappies in respect of the overall concept, payment for a proportion of this leave to be funded by taxes, is just catching up with how society is organised as Mark points out in respect of Kim’s earlier post about women saving capitalism, but I’ll post something later as I want to read more of the report and I agree with Helen at 25 - George’s piece is a wee bit all over the shop.
Leon in respect of your discrimination ‘concern angle’ you many not realise but the exact same things were said in relation to unpaid maternity leave entitlements and haven’t things gone sour for women in the workplace and the economy since unpaid maternity leave was introduced!
I also tend to agree with Joe2 & some others, I’d probably prefer a more universal approach but I’ll read the report before commenting further.
“The funny thing is that many of those who are ostensibly neutrally predicting the reaction of “most businesses” seem to imply that it’s a good thing. Entitlements for women? Aarrgghhh!”
Not true. I don’t know why I have been misunderstood here. If employers are made to pay, that will result in at least some discrimination. This is an argument against making employers pay, if you oppose discrimination, as I do.
Jo, you seem to be referring to the higher pay occupations, as well as bigger companies. But small businesses employ far more people, and most positions are not six figure salaries.
Unpaid maternity leave does cost employers, in the sense that they sometimes have to retrain people, as workplaces are often changing. However, its a manageable cost. Not as bad as asking employers to foot a significant fraction of the paid maternity bill.
Employers will have to pay the superannuation?
So if the the chick who helps the husband & wife in the cafe on the corner gets up the duff, the husband & wife have to hire someone else, finding (somehow) the money for two wages despite only one lot of work being done.
Reimbursement later on is only possible if you have the upfront money.
Even after reimbursement, the husband & wife are out of pocket by 9% of the wage of the pregnant one.
And just WHO thinks this scenario will not have an immediate and negative effect on the small business jobs of women who are likely to breed?
Steve, not everyone operates at the level of the microbusiness, and those who do often use informal methods of balancing work and family. It is a problem that young and powerless workers (powerless enough to be dismissed by the diminuitive “chick”) are at the mercy of small business bosses, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to deny proper working conditions to the entire workforce, rather a weakness in the system that should be worked on.
Not all Leon, I’m pointing out that unpaid maternity leave has been an entitlement for nearly 30 years and since that time the economy has grown enormously as has female workplace participation.
If unpaid maternity leave “cost employers” in any meaningful way, this would have resulted in less women being employed and apparently in low-waged jobs according to yourself - whereas it is entirely the opposite in fact - women occupy more low paid positions and their participation at all workplaces increases annually.
Holiday pay, sick leave, long service leave, superannuation, bereavement leave, jury duty leave etc. all “cost” employers money if you view business and the economy in such a simplistic manner.
In the case of paid maternity leave employers will only be funding superannuation and the administration. Many smart small business oweners and directors will be keeping their traps well shut - as they were already finding it hard to keep up with larger companies who have been offering women generous paid maternity leave entitlements.
Over the long term, this is a big win for small business who will be able to compete for more skilled workers.
SATP, it’s 9% for 18 weeks at the full-time average wage which equals roughly $800 dollars and only if the person is eligible which still means 12 months continuous employment.
Using your scenario - that this person just ‘helps’ - meaning they are a part time employee - so assuming 20 hours per week - it will only $400 or less after 12 months employment.
If the Govt. are going to pay the other 90% and I get to choose from a bigger pool of competent workers who will easily bring in way more than $400 per annum in better productivity and because giving out the right change, being nice to customers, caring and knowing about what is on the shelves is easily worth more than $400 - sign me up!
As for being ‘out of pocket’ - the proposed scheme and it is only a proposal at the moment - the payments made to an employee on maternity leave will be then deducted from PAYE taxes held - considering that businesses hold PAYE tax for up to one or three months depending on payroll, this will mean that it would be an issue in workplaces with a very small number of employees, where there isn’t the volume to cover the payments.
And these are the very businesses that always pay quarterly, so it would seem that this isn’t a great option for small business if their cash flow is going to be effected. $6,000 for 12 weeks of leave payments is a lot of money to be holding for the Govt.
Hopefully, they’ll work out a better system - maybe a lump sum payment paid to the business to just prior taking the leave - which would mean a little bit of interest to cover administration and the bank payroll transfer costs also.
I really should be reading the report properly before blah-ing on.
Jo & Helen are happy to spend the money of a small business family.
Fine.
You see it as a POSITIVE that a micro business is imposed with extra costs.
Fine.
You want someone to get money for nothing, and you want to legislate for their boss to do it.
Fine,
Result, that person will not have a job. Your choice.
Jo, I happen to disagree, and agree far more with Steve’s comments. I think that employees get enough rights without paid maternity leave also being levied upon them. It is an economic fact that every industrial relations regulation to some extent discourages employment. The trick is to find the right balance, where unemployment and prices are fairly low, and employees are still guaranteed basic rights.
That’s complete nonsense, Leon.
To boil it down, paid maternity leave (almost) arbitrarily raises the cost of some employees over others (of equal work output & quality). In the proposed form it also creates an administrative headache.
This naturally will lead to employers preferring to employ those of less cost. Especially those employers who are least able to afford it. And especially those employers who, after a 13-hour day in the shop, do their bookwork late at night on the kitchen table, they will definitely NOT need yet another set of bookwork to complete.
Hey Steve, in the scenario you describe @ 38, what if it’s the wife of the cafe proprieter that, as you so quaintly put it, gets “up the duff”?
How about this as a compromise then: make it a mandatory payment, but put in a means test — not on the payment itself, but on who has to pay for it.
Below, say, $40k pa, the government pays it. This would cover women in junior or low-skill positions, as well as part-timers and casuals. SATP’s Cafe Chick would no longer have to worry about losing her job.
Above $40k the employer has to pay it by legislation. At this level, the recipients have professional and/or managerial skills, and employers should be happy to cough up to retain them.
Such a scheme would reflect that parental leave is partially welfarist in nature. It would protect the employment of vulnerable low-paid workers. And it would avoid the government having to fork out transfer payments to law firm partners and investment bankers who have kids — a prospect that rather sets my teeth on edge.
Danny @ #47. The drygoods delivery boy would have to leave town fast!
Heh.
Hey, Steve, I’ll be visiting north Qld in a few months. Any prospect of relaxing the veil of secrecy over the identity of your pub so that your fans, if they’re in the vicinity, can drop in for a beer?
Jo & Helen are happy to spend the money of a small business family.
Fine.
You see it as a POSITIVE that a micro business is imposed with extra costs.
Fine.
I said, Steve, that microbusinesses usually seem to use informal means of balancing work and family, rather than formal arrangements like maternity leave. But make shit up if it makes you feel better. I also pointed out that there is a world beyond your little world where many, many women are not employed in microbusiness. There is also the fact that many women head microbusinesses.
Helen, none of this shit changes the fact that you are asking microbusinesses to pay extra.
Or when you are saying “informal means” you are saying that micro businesses should break the law & not pay maternity leave?
There is a world outside of your little world, where real people actually have to put their hand in their pockets & pay for these fancy ideas.
Have other people found that women will be more accepting than men of things like paid parental leave when they are the ones paying it out of their budgets? In my rather limited experience this hasn’t been the case (no more reluctant, just no different - have encountered good and bad).
“My taxes go to reimbursing tradies - currently still mainly blokes - on their tax returns for their tools and equipment and expensive utes which I could not afford”
Sorry, I’m calling ignorant bullshit based on pure f’ing envy. Tools of trade are a tax deduction just as the costs of tools, equipment and very expensive executive motor vehicles etc for big businesses are a tax deduction. Claiming you are somehow subsidising the tools and ute however is bullshit. They get a tax deduction, however the tradie is paying at least 52.5% of the cost of those tools and his business use of their ute (their private use attracts NO tax deduction at all).
If you want to disallow the tax deductions for tradies then be prepared to forgo tax deductions for your own work related expenses for training, travel, phones etc because they aren’t really any different to the deductions claimed by tradies. Also be prepared to pay any tradie you call extra as he no longer gets to claim a tax deduction for the legitimate costs of running his/her business (including the costs of materials used such as light fittings, cabling, plumbing supplies etc) as he/she passes the extra costs on to you.
Sorry but your post sounds like jealousy because you think tradies are somehow getting something you aren’t.
Paulus, I hope you are joking when you say “above $40,000 the employee will have managerial/professional skills”.
Greenhorn staff, even at the most basic level, get paid more than $40,000.
eg, $20 per hour (lowest pay rate in the award I pay under) x 40 hours = greater than $41,000.
I could believe you are in 1960’s New Zealand!
Well, you must remember that I am from Adelaide, and down here you’re lucky to get six pence ha’penny a week, with a loaf of mouldy bread on Fridays.
Instead of $40k, substitute $50k or $55k or whatever.
I was just going by my personal experience: two degrees, a third almost finished, several years in the workforce, and yet I’ve never earned $40k. $50k would seem a king’s ransom.
Paulus is not joking. Read it and weep.
Sorry but your post sounds like jealousy because you think tradies are somehow getting something you aren’t.
No. Self-employed people get a plethora of deductions and depreciation allowances rather than transfer payments; but money is still money whatever way it’s coming out of the ATO. The whole backlash against the parental/Maternity leave idea is because some people can’t bear the thought of other people getting something they aren’t. So that is just projection.
ps, any one notice Sarah Smiles article in “Age” about “changes”to aboriginal work for. It is window dressed with replacemant literacy courses, but one suspects it is about razoring of benefits for the most deprived section of the blue collar unemployed.
Surely not an attack on above to pay for middle class welfare (eg bailouts for banks; not necessarily maternity leave).
Read somewhere they will give the greys a pension increase, but maternity leave might not now get up, due to rapidly changing econonomic issues.
Such is the intensity of populist bent dominance of all politics in the global West, despite the major questions about neoliberalism the financial crises have raised.
“Self-employed people get a plethora of deductions and depreciation allowances rather than transfer payments”
BS. They get tax deductions for expenses related to their business - the same sorts of deductions ALL mum and dad busineesses AND big business get to claim. They don’t get anything that any other business doesn’t get.
“So that is just projection.”
Sorry YOU are the one claiming tradies/self employed are somehow getting sometyhing you aren’t when it is patently bullshit. YOU are the one that expressed ute envy so, sorry, but if anyone is projecting it is yourself.
I made no comment about maternity leave only about your obvious envy of those YOU think are getting something you aren’t. Not sure how you think I’m the one ‘projecting’ when you are the one expressing outright envy.
Note to Huh: Economic illiteracy runs rampant on this site. Don’t be too concernted if someone has no idea what they are rattling on about. If you pulled up every incorrect money related comment every second thread would be derailed.
Just go with the flow & accept that not everybody’s experience extends to having handled numbers.
BS. They get tax deductions for expenses related to their business - the same sorts of deductions ALL mum and dad busineesses AND big business get to claim. They don’t get anything that any other business doesn’t get.
Did I say they did? I don’t care. Businesses get deductions and depreciation, landlords get negative gearing, woodchippers get government money for just being such whingers, asylum seekers get astronomically expensive gulags on offshore islands (which they didn’t exactly ask for), whatevs. It’s all government money. Maternity / parental leave is a useful use for my taxes, unlike enabling some yuppie to negatively gear his third apartment, or allowing Gunns Ltd to prop themselves up for another year.
That’s well-put, Helen.
Helen, more with the total CRAP showing your ignorance of the difference between taxes and welfare. Allowing businesses to claim deductions for their business costs is not welfare, it is not the same as welfare and any comparison to welfare is bogus.
Your whole non-argument was a load of ignorant BS which I simply pointed out. So you respond with more of the ‘they’re getting something I’m not’ as if this makes any difference to the fact that you were wrong.
Now you try to divert your argument from tradies claiming their tools etc to yuppies and negative gearing. Good argument, expand the list of those you envy while ignoring the .
“Gunns Ltd to prop themselves up for another year’
I agree maternity/paternity payments would be better than some of the welfare paid to business such as gunns and Mitsubishi. But I am talking about the subsidies they receve, which is welfare, not the tax deductions they receive which every business is entitled to claim and which if done away with would simply result in higher costs to the consumer.
But neither of them are the ute owning tradies you originally started whinging about and nor do those tradies receive any welfare payments for t