Discussion
Let's say I decided I wanted to go off round the world for 12 months, I wouldn't expect to be paid for it, nor be guaranteed a job when I returned. It's a choice.
If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all the early months when women don't?
If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all the early months when women don't?
Edited by Funk on Monday 19th October 12:49
Lord Flathead said:
Well until men can bear offspring then women should be paid less because that's totally onesided. Everyone knows they should be at home doing the washing and ironing and putting my steak on the table for 6pm 
If my dinner was on the the table at 6pm I'd want to know why the hell its 30 minutes late.Tut tut tut.
Lord Flathead said:
Well until men can bear offspring then women should be paid less because that's totally onesided. Everyone knows they should be at home doing the washing and ironing and putting my steak on the table for 6pm
If my dinner was on the the table at 6pm I'd want to know why the hell its 30 minutes late.Tut tut tut.
Funk said:
Let's say I decided I wanted to go off round the world for 12 months, I wouldn't expect to be paid for it, nor be guaranteed a job when I returned. It's a choice.
If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
If you went through nine months of child bearing I would think some time to physically recover from that might be neccesary - or would you rather your female employees were wandering around pissing themselves and leaking breast milk everywhere? If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
Get realistic, men don't need the extra time off...particularily if the wife is on maternity leave then she will be the one getting up in the night etc.
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 12:56
Herbie58 said:
Funk said:
Let's say I decided I wanted to go off round the world for 12 months, I wouldn't expect to be paid for it, nor be guaranteed a job when I returned. It's a choice.
If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
If you went through nine months of child bearing I would think some time to physically recover from that might be neccesary - or would you rather your female employees were wandering around pissing themselves and leaking breast milk everywhere? If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
Get realistic, men don't need the extra time off...particularily if the wife is on maternity leave then she will be the one getting up in the night etc.
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 12:56
I still think that if you make a decision not to work and to have a child then it shouldn't fall to the employer to finance that lifestyle choice at all.
Funk said:
Herbie58 said:
Funk said:
Let's say I decided I wanted to go off round the world for 12 months, I wouldn't expect to be paid for it, nor be guaranteed a job when I returned. It's a choice.
If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
If you went through nine months of child bearing I would think some time to physically recover from that might be neccesary - or would you rather your female employees were wandering around pissing themselves and leaking breast milk everywhere? If a woman decides to have a child, why should she be paid and guaranteed a job when she gets back? Either the career is more important or the child is more important. Women aren't forced to have children, it's a choice; so why should an employer have to jump through hoops just because a woman chooses to have a kid?
Getting really picky about it, men should be given as much time on paternity as women are for maternity - they're both new parents, both struggle with lack of sleep and adjusting to having a new addition to their home. Why should men miss out on all that when women don't?
Get realistic, men don't need the extra time off...particularily if the wife is on maternity leave then she will be the one getting up in the night etc.
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 12:56
I still think that if you make a decision not to work and to have a child then it shouldn't fall to the employer to finance that lifestyle choice at all.
Those who don't have 'a career dream' so to speak, give up work altogether to become full time mums.
It's the Govt who allow everyone in between those two brackets take the piss. Let's face it, if there is a benefit available to you, you will use it. And remember, most of these laws were set by men.
ETA - I've been fairly broadbrush in my statements and there are 101 kinds of family out there from single mums to step family and I realise what I said doesn't apply to all - but it does apply to the broad brush statements made by others.
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 13:16
Bing o said:
Every other thread on PH slates the welfare state for allowing chavs to breed, yet we don't want to encourage working families to breed either....
Hmmmm
My main gripe is the equality issue:Hmmmm
Womens rights groups said:
We want equal pay, and bonuses, and to work less, and to take time off whenever we need for poor little Johnny, and his school play, and I can't work late tonight either because I have to pick him up from school
Equal pay for equal work.Funk said:
My final point was pedantry.
I still think that if you make a decision not to work and to have a child then it shouldn't fall to the employer to finance that lifestyle choice at all.
Does the employer finance that lifestyle? I thought maternity pay was reclaimed from the Government? I still think that if you make a decision not to work and to have a child then it shouldn't fall to the employer to finance that lifestyle choice at all.
Most people don't have the choice of child or work. They have children and still have to return to work to pay the costs of basic day to day living (and I'm not just talking about single women, I'm talking about families - mother, father, child(ren)).
If you are a woman who has established herself in a good career and proven yourself to be a good employee, and then choose to have a child, (which will pay towards your pension in the future) why should you be forced to go back to working in the local bakers on minimum wage because that's all that's available when there is so much prejudice around towards working mothers?
This prejudice will never change until men can physically bear children, or until there is a significant change in the economic climate that allows mothers (or fathers) to stay at home and be a parent to their children.
If maternity leave is paid by the Gov't, then that's even more irritating.
The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
Funk said:
If maternity leave is paid by the Gov't, then that's even more irritating.
The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You have an issue with working families recieving what may only be 2-3 months statutory maternity pay after paying years of taxes? Yet benefit scroungers who have never paid into the system can be susbsidised for their entire lifestyle? In my opinion the working family who intend to continue paying into the system are the very ones who should recieve the benefit of it. The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You then contradict yourself by blaming the decline of society on children being left with carer's rather than mum or dad? So who pays the bills if one income is cut to enable this? You've made it clear it shouldn't be the govt.
So which is it? Help from the Govt for law abiding tax payers to have children and give them quality time with a parent?
Or quality time with a parent but unable to pay the bills?
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 13:25
when i was made redundant some years the choice was between myself and a woman co-worker who was 3 months pregnant.......Of course i was selected despite several years more experience in the job and the fact that i had a wife and two kids to support as we know you cant make pregnant women redundant as its descriminatory...
5 months later the woman is on maternity leave and i am temping to keep up my mortgage payments, pay the bills etc..Oh and what really pissed me off the most was this woman decided not to back to work after her maternity leave had expired!!
Equal rights?? Pull the other one...
5 months later the woman is on maternity leave and i am temping to keep up my mortgage payments, pay the bills etc..Oh and what really pissed me off the most was this woman decided not to back to work after her maternity leave had expired!!
Equal rights?? Pull the other one...
Herbie58 said:
Funk said:
If maternity leave is paid by the Gov't, then that's even more irritating.
The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You have an issue with working families recieving what may only be 2-3 months statutory maternity pay after paying years of taxes? Yet benefit scroungers who have never paid into the system can be susbsidised for their entire lifestyle? In my opinion the working family who intend to continue paying into the system are the very ones who should recieve the benefit of it. The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You then contradict yourself by blaming the decline of society on children being left with carer's rather than mum or dad? So who pays the bills if one income is cut to enable this? You've made it clear it shouldn't be the govt.
So which is it? Help from the Govt for law abiding tax payers to have children and give them quality time with a parent?
Or quality time with a parent but unable to pay the bills?
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 13:25
2) The issue with 'working families' is that unlike days of yore, a single income is no longer sufficient to provide for a household, allowing a parent to stay at home with a child. That's the problem; distinct and separate from whether they receive money from the Gov't.
3) People who choose to have children make a decision to do so. Being particularly harsh, why should they be given money from the 'communal tax pot' for it when someone who chooses not to have kids gets nothing (and subsidises those who want children)?
I have less of an issue with those who've paid in 'getting something back' than I do with those who've never contributed (and never intend to) robbing the system blind.
However, I think that if people choose to make a decision to have a child then they should be in a position to do so financially.
Funk said:
Herbie58 said:
Funk said:
If maternity leave is paid by the Gov't, then that's even more irritating.
The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You have an issue with working families recieving what may only be 2-3 months statutory maternity pay after paying years of taxes? Yet benefit scroungers who have never paid into the system can be susbsidised for their entire lifestyle? In my opinion the working family who intend to continue paying into the system are the very ones who should recieve the benefit of it. The issue is that people simply can't afford to have children in the traditional sense now, where in most homes a single income is usually insufficient. I also think that some of the decline we see in society is down to the fact that children are dropped in the lap of a 'carer' and not spending more time being raised by the parents. Again, this is down to the necessity of both parents to work in order to be able to maintain a household.
You then contradict yourself by blaming the decline of society on children being left with carer's rather than mum or dad? So who pays the bills if one income is cut to enable this? You've made it clear it shouldn't be the govt.
So which is it? Help from the Govt for law abiding tax payers to have children and give them quality time with a parent?
Or quality time with a parent but unable to pay the bills?
Edited by Herbie58 on Monday 19th October 13:25
2) The issue with 'working families' is that unlike days of yore, a single income is no longer sufficient to provide for a household, allowing a parent to stay at home with a child. That's the problem; distinct and separate from whether they receive money from the Gov't.
3) People who choose to have children make a decision to do so. Being particularly harsh, why should they be given money from the 'communal tax pot' for it when someone who chooses not to have kids gets nothing (and subsidises those who want children)?
I have less of an issue with those who've paid in 'getting something back' than I do with those who've never contributed (and never intend to) robbing the system blind.
However, I think that if people choose to make a decision to have a child then they should be in a position to do so financially.
I do agree wholeheartedly that you should be able to afford a child before you can have one, however if only those who could 100% afford to 12 months off work could have children we would have a very elitist breeding program on our hands.
Let's face it, if a dole scrounging druggie can have kids, I don't see why a hardworking family shouldn't have a 'little' help from the govt.
Mrs Trackside said:
Does the employer finance that lifestyle? I thought maternity pay was reclaimed from the Government?
Yes. And doesn't even that run out after a few months?So you can't have your baby and just stay at home for ever because you are a scrounger.
You can't go back to your job because employers shouldn't support women who have babies.
and you can't be kept by your husband because he didn't play any part in it and wants you to go back to work to help pay for it....
ahhhh yes. Man logic....
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff