Re: Should paid Maternity Leave in the Public Sector be abolished.
Because they've chosen to work somewhere that doesn't have it.
Because they've chosen to work somewhere that doesn't have it.
Why doesn't everyone get this top up then seen as they the tax paying public are paying for it for public servants?
Women and babies did fine when it was three months. I know women who have never taken more than 6 weeks.We can afford it, there are plenty of other places to make cuts. Planning pregnancy with miltary precision? Not in real life I'm afraid, doesn't often work like that.
The french minster is hardly a role model for women, and she got fired anyway, so I don't see your point. And you think 6 months leave to have a baby is too long? Perhaps they should push them out at the side of the road and get straight back to work? Or alternatively stay at home and not dare to work either. These damn women eh, having babies and then wanting to you know, feed them and stuff? The horror....
I despair, I really do.
Sorry, but that's just meaningless trade union speak. I am advocating that we live within our means and that reducing paid maternity leave to what it was a few years ago should be part of that.Why are you advocating for a race to the bottom?
From my experience I've never met anyone who left the public sector for a job in the private sector but I've lots and lots of friend who tried and some who succeeded in getting into the public sector.
I would love to work for the public sector, pensions, sick pay full maternity pay etc it's ridiculous especially in these times.
Everyone in full time employment should work at least 40 hours a week and no-one should get full pay for doing nothing i.e. full sick pay, full maternity benenfit.
No, now we cannot do better because we are broke. What bottom are we racing toward?You are advocating that we take something that has proven benefits to society and dial it back to what it was, before we could do better. That is a race to the bottom.
The good news is that nurses work very short hours so that's not going to be an issue.Meaningless trade union speak? You tell that to the nurse who has to go back to work when her baby is 3 months old, giving up breastfeeding (losing more proven benefits), putting her baby into long hours of childcare (earlier childcare placement directly linked to lower quality care and poorer outcomes on child acheivement).
I am for removing children’s allowance from the well off, medical cards from rich old people, tax breaks for landlords, removing the employers PRSI ceiling and increasing the top rate of income tax, getting rid of tax breaks where it cannot be shown that there is a very clear benefit to the country and possibly reducing the tax break on pension contributions to the lower rate etc.This kind of argument makes me sick. You always want to take good things from those who need them and deserve them, instead of taking frome where it is justified. Its not always just about the bottom line.
I think you’ll find that it’s done by companies that can afford it. At the moment the state cannot.The better Companies/Jobs in the private sector have similar terms. Why not get a job in either. Its usually done to attract better, more qualified staff.
Are you just being emotive or do you really not know why we are bailing out the banks?We're bailing out bankers, and developers for billions. No problem with that. But lets target new born babies, the sick. Nice.
I can understand there are big benefits to individuals but what are the proven benefits to society?You are advocating that we take something that has proven benefits to society
Before we THOUGHT we could do better.... If we hadn't lost the run of ourselves with the 'woohoo, aren't we rich' bubble, maternity leave would never have been increased to the extent it has been. Rolling back to the status quo before we mistakenly thought we were a rich country is a sensible thing to do. As I mentioned in a different thread, I know of at least two large employers who are changing their maternity leave provision because they can no longer afford to pay as much and for as long. The state as an employer needs to do the same. We are borrowing €400M per week to keep ourselves in the style to which we have become accustomed - our spending simply has to be cut anywhere it can be cut - we don't have the luxury of choosing which cuts suit us and which don't...dial it back to what it was, before we could do better.
I don't think you can get the dole if you give up work to stay at home with your baby.So they might as well go on the dole. At least they'll be with the baby, rather than a stranger.
I don't think you can get the dole if you give up work to stay at home with your baby.
Not sure - I don't think it's actively costing us anything at the moment - and I'm not even sure I understand the question as my interest rates haven't gone up. I think this is going off topic but you're preaching to the converted here anyway - I'm as annoyed about bank bailouts as anyone but ranting and raving about it won't change what is largely a fait accomplis at this stage - bar some unprecedented bravery from the Greens. Unfortunately we are where we are and we have to save massive amounts of money on our public spending, end of story.How much are we paying per week to have our interest rates increased?
It's not leaving the company that's the problem - it's the applying and being approved for the dole that's the problem. For a single parent your master plan might work but in the more common situation of a dual-income household, it's unlikely that a stay-at-home spouse will get the dole.A company will be happy to let them go. End of problem.
The massive savings are what we need in total - not what can be achieved through not paying top up maternity pay. But the massive savings will be achieved incrementally through smaller savings made in many areas - such as maternity pay - it will all add up (well, it won't but we can try ...). I would love to have access to the numbers to answer this and many other questions but my back of the envelope stab at your specific question: a previous post in this thread showed 2,305 HSE staff on maternity leave at the moment. Taking an average salary of €50K (open to correction here but this seems to be bandied about as a public service 'average' when talking about pensions), that's €1,000 of which €280 is the statutory maternity pay which everyone is entitled to. So, the employer (the state) has to top up €720 per week for 2,305 people which is €1.7M per week or €86M per year - just from the HSE - there's also teachers, gardai, civil service etc. Not to be sniffed at in these difficult times.Can you quantify these "massive savings" from not paying maternity pay per week.
Marriage shouldn't matter - unless they plan to put in a fraudulent claim which will hopefully be rooted out and punished.Maybe they won't get married either.
And no way does everyone get something - there are many single income families who get nothing but child benefit from the state...They get something, family income supplement or what ever its called.
Only the very well off will be able to stay at home with their babies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?