Alan Sugar's picked another one - Apprentice up the duff....

[randlemarcus]

Coco H said:

andy_s said:

I would say have two kids as a freebie, that's human procreation and population stabilisation; any more and you're on your own though.

Then we are getting onto the type of line that could lead to a 2 child only rule think of China (ad one allowed). In my village most people have 3+ children,. 4 and 5 are prefectly normal, with one stay at home parent and one breadwinner (normally in the city!!) Some people can afford to have as many children as they would like these days.

Your last sentence is kind of crucial to the point though.

Child benefits for children One and Two, housing benefit limited to the local equivalent of a three bed place. Like the man said, any more than that, fill your boots, but not from my wallet, matey.

[andy_s]

Coco H said:

andy_s said:

I would say have two kids as a freebie, that's human procreation and population stabilisation; any more and you're on your own though.

Then we are getting onto the type of line that could lead to a 2 child only rule think of China (ad one allowed). In my village most people have 3+ children,. 4 and 5 are prefectly normal, with one stay at home parent and one breadwinner (normally in the city!!) Some people can afford to have as many children as they would like these days.

Yeah, same in our village too - it's a tricky one, the resources are finite but we keep growing...'it'll all end in tears, mark my words etc etc'

[The Hypno-Toad]

As the great Goatboy once said;

"Humans. Too many of you.... Quit rutting for just one day. Try working out this food/air deal. Then go back to your rutting."

[tamore]

why do people get so precious about this?

big companies can absorb maternity leave fairly easily, but for a small company it's potentially crippling. i can't honestly say i'd ignore the issue as a small business owner.

it's a non issue for the beardy megalomaniac. he's does the show for his ego, not as a recruitment exercise.

[JagLover]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The specific role she wanted so desperatly was a year's 'apprenticeship' with AS which she completed. She can still go back after maternity leave to take up her job there.

[The Hypno-Toad]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And don't forget the media work whenever "women in the workplace" comes up on 5Live.

[bga]

g3org3y said:

Didn't the last one get pregnant as well?

I think small businesses are especially vulnerable if they hire women and they get pregnant.

It is an inconvenience but nothing that can't be planned for. If a small business can't cater for a pregnancy then they aren't going to be able to respond to an adverse market.
This is my experience of owning a small business, your mileage may vary.

[bga]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If guys were paragons of reliability then you may have a point. Each gender can cause problems, the ones that you get 6 months notice about are much easier to cater for than those that come out of the blue. One of my competitors has had one of their guys in custody for a few weeks - not common but much harder to handle than someone getting up the duff.

Many small businesses manage it and will continue to do so. While it is inconvenient, my female members of staff cause me much less hassle than my male ones.

[bga]

One of our senior management team works 3 days a week. It's not perfect but we make it work as he's worth it. My business partner & MD takes 3 months off a year. We know it happens & we plan for it.

It is less disruptive than someone screwing up at a client.

[cymtriks]

heebeegeetee said:

Company's want people to work for them, but don't want to do anything or pay anything towards the source of their biggest and most important asset.

Gee, how did companies manage before they were forced to pay for this.

Actually they do pay for their most important asset. It is called "paying people to do work". Note that phrase as it doesn't actually apply to people on leave.

Women had babies for umm, let me see, about 2 million years before maternity pay was invented. Since maternity pay and leave was invented family life hasn't exactly improved. I'm not claiming a connection, only that it obviously hasn't delivered any overall benefit whatsoever.

[Ribol]

heebeegeetee said:

Ribol said:

heebeegeetee said:

The attitude being displayed on this thread is one of typical greed, ie, we want it all but we want to get away with paying as little as possible for it all. We'd prefer it if others paid.

Exactly, we want a family but ................. "we want to get away with paying as little as possible for it all. We'd prefer it if others paid."

Well if society wants worthwhile people who will work and contribute, it has to pay for them.

Yes, to work the hours they are being paid to work, not to sit at home raising a family.

[HundredthIdiot]

cymtriks said:

Women had babies for umm, let me see, about 2 million years before maternity pay was invented. Since maternity pay and leave was invented family life hasn't exactly improved. I'm not claiming a connection, only that it obviously hasn't delivered any overall benefit whatsoever.

There are two seperate issues here. Maternity leave is designed to let a working woman recover from childbirth and bond with the baby. That has no negative impact on family life. Returning to work also has no negative impact, if the father stays at home to raise the child(ren).

The negative impact comes from the decision of both parents to continue working full time and outsource the raising of the children. That's nothing to do with maternity leave.

The problem is now largely the same for both men and women - the perception is that you can't take 10-15 years off to raise your kids without completely screwing your career. Hoping for some sort of reversion to a social position where women always raise the kids is neither realistic or fair.

Raising children does not have the same social status as working, regardless of which gender does it. Women are either slagged off as "chavs" or "yummy mummies", and "househusbands" are so far off the radar they're almost beneath commentary (except in the Guardian, I imagine).

I don't know what the solution is. It seems like we're on a path towards some sort of Brave New World situation where the raising of children is completely socialised, at least for the portion of the population which is career-obsessed.

[DJC]

HundredthIdiot said:

cymtriks said:

Women had babies for umm, let me see, about 2 million years before maternity pay was invented. Since maternity pay and leave was invented family life hasn't exactly improved. I'm not claiming a connection, only that it obviously hasn't delivered any overall benefit whatsoever.

There are two seperate issues here. Maternity leave is designed to let a working woman recover from childbirth and bond with the baby. That has no negative impact on family life. Returning to work also has no negative impact, if the father stays at home to raise the child(ren).

The negative impact comes from the decision of both parents to continue working full time and outsource the raising of the children. That's nothing to do with maternity leave.

The problem is now largely the same for both men and women - the perception is that you can't take 10-15 years off to raise your kids without completely screwing your career. Hoping for some sort of reversion to a social position where women always raise the kids is neither realistic or fair.

Raising children does not have the same social status as working, regardless of which gender does it. Women are either slagged off as "chavs" or "yummy mummies", and "househusbands" are so far off the radar they're almost beneath commentary (except in the Guardian, I imagine).

I don't know what the solution is. It seems like we're on a path towards some sort of Brave New World situation where the raising of children is completely socialised, at least for the portion of the population which is career-obsessed.

Actually I think you will find that back out there in the real world, raising children correctly has an entirely acceptable social status. At least it certainly does in the world I live in. I dont know anybody who takes more pride in their position at work or in their career than they do in their children.

[The Hypno-Toad]

TVR Moneypit said:

Have we worked at some of the same firms at the same time?

I doubt it judging by where you live but it is interesting that other people have found this going on in their workplace too.

[HundredthIdiot]

DJC said:

Actually I think you will find that back out there in the real world, raising children correctly has an entirely acceptable social status. At least it certainly does in the world I live in.

For men and women? That's good to hear. I don't think it's that common though. I know one man who took 4 or 5 years out to raise his kids (his wife had better career prospects) and it was tough going, socially.

DJC said:

I dont know anybody who takes more pride in their position at work or in their career than they do in their children.

Yes, but many people want both.

[sonic_2k_uk]

cymtriks said:

heebeegeetee said:

Company's want people to work for them, but don't want to do anything or pay anything towards the source of their biggest and most important asset.

Gee, how did companies manage before they were forced to pay for this.

Actually they do pay for their most important asset. It is called "paying people to do work". Note that phrase as it doesn't actually apply to people on leave.

Women had babies for umm, let me see, about 2 million years before maternity pay was invented. Since maternity pay and leave was invented family life hasn't exactly improved. I'm not claiming a connection, only that it obviously hasn't delivered any overall benefit whatsoever.

Historically women haven't been in a position that mattered

[Engineer1]

Ribol said:

If you think by stopping things like maternity/paternity payments society will die you are being naive, how do you think we got to where scoiety did before these payments started?.

Before the payments started the cost of living was lower my parents could afford to buy a family house on a single wage, now for an equivalent house you need 2 wages. If society moved back towards not paying maternity etc. then it would have to gear towards families living on one wage.

[Mr. Potato Head]

HundredthIdiot said:

DJC said:

Actually I think you will find that back out there in the real world, raising children correctly has an entirely acceptable social status. At least it certainly does in the world I live in.

For men and women? That's good to hear. I don't think it's that common though. I know one man who took 4 or 5 years out to raise his kids (his wife had better career prospects) and it was tough going, socially.

DJC said:

I dont know anybody who takes more pride in their position at work or in their career than they do in their children.

Yes, but many people want both.

One of my best mates earned 25k in a job he hated. His wife earned 50k+ in a job she loved. He was right up for being oppressed into looking after the house.
She wouldn't let him.

[heebeegeetee]

What's with all this two million years nonsense at people are spouting?

For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.

For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?


Jeez.

[HundredthIdiot]

Mr. Potato Head said:

One of my best mates earned 25k in a job he hated. His wife earned 50k+ in a job she loved. He was right up for being oppressed into looking after the house.
She wouldn't let him.

Why?