What are your unpopular opinions?

[Blown2CV]

Flibble said:

Blown2CV said:

Countdown said:

Employers shouldn’t have to pay sick pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, parental leave pay or adoption pay,

another childless adult wanting the world to favour them alone.

Another knee jerk reaction from an entitled parent as soon as anything isn't biased in their favour.

Entitled what a joke, all of those things are the law. If you’re an employer then you have a responsibility to employees. You also have a responsibility to comply with the law, and those employment laws don’t just benefit employees who are parents, do they?

[singlecoil]

Blown2CV said:

Flibble said:

Blown2CV said:

Countdown said:

Employers shouldn’t have to pay sick pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, parental leave pay or adoption pay,

another childless adult wanting the world to favour them alone.

Another knee jerk reaction from an entitled parent as soon as anything isn't biased in their favour.

Entitled what a joke, all of those things are the law. If you’re an employer then you have a responsibility to employees. You also have a responsibility to comply with the law, and those employment laws don’t just benefit employees who are parents, do they?

Whether they are the law or not you clearly feel that you are also morally entitled.

[Countdown]

Blown2CV said:

Entitled what a joke, all of those things are the law. If you’re an employer then you have a responsibility to employees. You also have a responsibility to comply with the law, and those employment laws don’t just benefit employees who are parents, do they?

I’m not disputing that it’s the law. I just don’t agree that it should be the law’

if it’s a good thing for society as a whole then “society as a whole” should fund it via general taxation. It shouldn’t be another tax solely on employers.

[Blown2CV]

singlecoil said:

Blown2CV said:

Flibble said:

Blown2CV said:

Countdown said:

Employers shouldn’t have to pay sick pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, parental leave pay or adoption pay,

another childless adult wanting the world to favour them alone.

Another knee jerk reaction from an entitled parent as soon as anything isn't biased in their favour.

Entitled what a joke, all of those things are the law. If you’re an employer then you have a responsibility to employees. You also have a responsibility to comply with the law, and those employment laws don’t just benefit employees who are parents, do they?

Whether they are the law or not you clearly feel that you are also morally entitled.

pretty much yep, because I am literally entitled to it - that is the point - however it isn't about parenting, before you try and dredge that st up again so pack that in before you go any further; no one wants to hear it. If someone chooses to start a business they know exactly what they are getting into. It's clear in black and white. If they don't care about their fully transparent moral and legal responsibility to their employees then they should sell up and go get a job somewhere because they are not cut out for it. or maybe they are crap at writing business plans. Or maybe they are naive and didn't speak to an adviser or ACAS before they started... Or maybe they are just not very good at running their particular business, so money is tight and that's why they are moaning etc. Life is too short for moaning about the life you've chosen for yourself. I am sure if you are even half decent at it, you're taking plenty of cash out the business and live a nice life - maybe focus on that and be thankful.

[Blown2CV]

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Entitled what a joke, all of those things are the law. If you’re an employer then you have a responsibility to employees. You also have a responsibility to comply with the law, and those employment laws don’t just benefit employees who are parents, do they?

I’m not disputing that it’s the law. I just don’t agree that it should be the law’

if it’s a good thing for society as a whole then “society as a whole” should fund it via general taxation. It shouldn’t be another tax solely on employers.

you mean like funded by and increase in corporation tax, for example. I think you'll find that many employers go above and beyond their legal responsibilities these days - and they tend to be the ones where people actually go to work, rather than work for a while, realise it's may be a st soulless harsh environment and quit, creating lots of churn. Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

[Countdown]

Blown2CV said:

you mean like funded by and increase in corporation tax, for example. I think you'll find that many employers go above and beyond their legal responsibilities these days - and they tend to be the ones where people actually go to work, rather than work for a while, realise it's may be a st soulless harsh environment and quit, creating lots of churn.

I have absolutely no problem with companies choosing to pay more. I think any decent/modern/ forward-looking company would ensure it ha d a pay and benefits package that was designed to attract and retain the most suitable talent, exactly for the reasons you mentioned above. However this should be optional, NOT legislated for by the Government. When companies are affected by "Churn" and the poor quality of labour they will either change their behaviours and go out of business

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

[singlecoil]

Countdown said:

Blown2CV said:

Some companies now offer several months full pay paternity for Dads, why should they have to pay in taxation to subsidise those companies who are doing the bare minimum required of them by law?

I assume they're paying several months full pay because it benefits THEM. They key difference here is that they're CHOOSING to do it.

I've thought about this since I read it earlier, I don't think there's a better answer to B2CV's strident championship of state-sponsored parenthood.

Whether he will be able to come up with a cogent argument in support of the moral aspect of the question remains to be seen, he may well stick with his 'it's the law' theme.

[PAULJ5555]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of football fans.


Only getting a season ticket when they hit the Prem, only supporting their national team when they are playing well or the team has changed.

Fans making jokes over the loss of Sala, but not liking jokes against their own chairman dieing in a crash.

[227bhp]

I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

PAULJ5555 said:

Pointing out the hypocrisy of football fans.

Your club makes a bid for the star player of a smaller club: It's a great move for him, he needs to think about his career, he'd be crazy to stay where he is when he could join us. He owes them nothing.

A bigger club makes a bid for your star player: Why does he want to go there, he won't be the star player any more, he needs to show loyalty to us who have nurtured him and made him the player he is. He owes us big time.

[DoubleD]

227bhp said:

I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.

Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?

[j_4m]

Blown2CV said:

If someone chooses to start a family they know exactly what they are getting into. It's clear in black and white. If they don't care about their fully transparent moral and legal responsibility to their children then they should give up and go get a dog because they are not cut out for it. or maybe they are crap at writing childcare plans. Or maybe they are naive and didn't speak to an adviser or midwife before they started... Or maybe they are just not very good at running their family lives, so money is tight and that's why they are moaning etc. Life is too short for moaning about the life you've chosen for yourself.

[Countdown]

DoubleD said:

227bhp said:

I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.

Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?

Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP

[PAULJ5555]

Countdown said:

DoubleD said:

227bhp said:

I know of a woman who got pregnant soon after she landed her new £30k job, she took maternity leave for a year then plopped out another so is taking a further year off.
She's a Public Sector 'worker' so basically you and I have funded her for 2 years to sit at home for £60k. She could hand in her resignation at the end of that period.
That was value for money wasn't it.

Are they paying full salary for a year for each one?

Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP

Job move could have been in the same organisation or maybe a within the NHS but a different Trust. Her service/benefit could follow her and apply to the new job/roll.

[Harry H]

Countdown said:

Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP

Not if she works for the council, they're not like the rest of us, they're special and as a consequence deserve extended rights and pay.

It's a well known fact, happening all over the land. But thats OK as it's a victim less crime and the poor old tax payer can suck it up.

[Countdown]

Harry H said:

Countdown said:

Highly unlikely. Firstly she will have needed a period of continuous service before she was entitled to OMP. If she was then in my experience they usually get roughly

- 6 weeks full pay
- 12 weeks half pay
- 8 weeks SMP

Not if she works for the council, they're not like the rest of us, they're special and as a consequence deserve extended rights and pay.

It's a well known fact, happening all over the land. But thats OK as it's a victim less crime and the poor old tax payer can suck it up.

Fair point. But I think the bulk of it is still at SMP rate which isn't great....

[PAULJ5555]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I would not mind for £40-200K a week.

[Wacky Racer]

Mobile phones, instagram and facebook should be banned for all females between the ages of twelve and twenty eight.

[captain_cynic]

Wacky Racer said:

Mobile phones, instagram and facebook should be banned for all females between the ages of twelve and twenty eight.

What makes you think they'll get better after 28?

Being mid 30's I'd strenuously disagree with that, if anything it gets worse as they have kids (friends don't start having kids until their 30's, perhaps that's something for the Middle Class thread).

However I'd much prefer them to be on Instacrap or Arsebook et al. than loudly chatting and cackling their inane claptrap like they used to before social media was a thing. I now get small bouts of quiet time in public areas.

[Shakermaker]

captain_cynic said:

Wacky Racer said:

Mobile phones, instagram and facebook should be banned for all females between the ages of twelve and twenty eight.

What makes you think they'll get better after 28?

Being mid 30's I'd strenuously disagree with that, if anything it gets worse as they have kids (friends don't start having kids until their 30's, perhaps that's something for the Middle Class thread).

However I'd much prefer them to be on Instacrap or Arsebook et al. than loudly chatting and cackling their inane claptrap like they used to before social media was a thing. I now get small bouts of quiet time in public areas.

Facebook should be limited to people born between about 1980 and 1992, those who are in the same generational spot as Mark Zuckerburg and amongst the first who were eligible to use it when it launched and was only available to those with a university email address and those who became eligible for one within the first 5-6 years of its life.

Older people should have stuck with Friends Reunited and younger people should have stuck with Snapchat.

By the same rule, I probably shouldn't have joined PH as I am after the apparent "golden era" but that's by the by