Thats before strikes reduced that still further. As your looking for €400M per week. I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.
...So, the employer (the state) has to top up €1.7M per week ...
It's not, this is just a discussion.I can see why maternity in the public sector would be such a burning issue.
You may find that they are very rich because they don’t stay at home with their babies.
No one has mentioned the teachers who plan their pregnancies to coincide with the start of the school year.
It's not, this is just a discussion.
If it's €1.7 million in the HSE then it's over €3.0 million in the entire public sector. Given that we will not save €00 million a week but should look to save at least half of that then this one measure will yield over 1% of total savings. That's a very substantial amount in the overall context.
Compared to the €850 million on 5% SW cuts?
We didn't have to save all the banks.
Maybe you should meet more people then. I've know a good few who done both. How is this relevent to Maternity Pay?
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.
We're bailing out bankers, and developers for billions. No problem with that. But lets target new born babies, the sick. Nice.
Maternity benefit was only 18 weeks prior to 2006 and now stands at 26 weeks.
The sensible thing to me would be to reduce the term of paid leave back to 22 weeks, which was what it was as recently as 2007. (A 15% reduction).
I don't really have a problem with the maternity benefit of €280 for 26 weeks. It's that additional top up that Public sector workers get to take then up to full pay that I was highlighting. This top up is not avaialable to everyone and seeing as the public sector is paid for by the taxpayer why should thay have benifits that not all taxpayers have.
We’re not going to get out of this mess by just cutting public sector costs and taking perks away from public sector employees that private sector employees think they don’t deserve. This has nothing to do with fairness per se, it’s about facing the harsh economic reality. In that light reducing maternity top-up for public sector employees would save money but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.
but reducing maternity leave to 2000 levels would help to stimulate the wealth creating private sector.
But is this the Remit of An Bord Snip?
"Elsewhere" is not as deep in the mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't.6 months is the norm elsewhere, it is very short sighted to look at this benefit as something that can be cut. We only relatively recently came up to standard with 6 months so lets leave it, it pays for itself in the long run.
"Elsewhere" is not as deep in the mẽrd as us so they can afford it, we can't.
BTW, how does it pay for itself in the long run?
Even if it does we need the money now.
I have three kids, number fuor will be here in a few weeks (all going well), so I do know what's involved. I see no good reason why 6 months is needed. It would be great if the first 12 months was paid for. Then again it would be great if we could all just stay at home and someone else paid for everything but we can't.Yeah but I think you will find that most experts in these matters insist 6 months is required leave - I mean, it makes sense to me: sending a 3 month old baby into a creche is unthinkable to me as a recent daddy. 6 months is the minimum age.
It pays for itself in terms of more content babies, less social problems and expenses etc in young adults (men) etc... a bit wishy washy but I bet there is a study out there proving it.
Look, babies are the future, these kind of cuts should be worst case scenario.
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?