Equality numpties strike again

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347673/New-fathers-months-paid-paternity-leave-Coalition-plans.html
New fathers to get paid paternity leave increased from two weeks to TEN MONTHS under Coalition plans


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/16/article-1347673-0CC9920B000005DC-431_468x369.jpg



Coalition plans to allow parents to share childcare will allow new fathers to take up to 10 months of paid paternity leave. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will announce the reforms tomorrow in a move which will enable couples to choose how they divide parental leave between them. The plans will allow parents greater flexibility over childcare arrangements but are expected to face criticism from businesses over the prospect of men taking long periods of time off work, the Sunday Times reported.

Current regulations allow men just two weeks of paid paternity leave. David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce said: 'The plans show a complete lack of understanding of how small businesses work. 'If men and women have flexible parental leave, how can you plan for the absence and how do you plan for cover?' In April, paternity laws passed by Labour will come into effect which give parents the option of sharing the 39 weeks of paid leave and 13 weeks of unpaid leave.

This could, in theory, result in fathers taking all of the time off while mothers return to work early. Mr Clegg, himself a father-of-three, is expected to announce the proposals tomorrow at the launch of a report by thinktank Demos.

Before long we will start giving singles/gays time off in order to be 'equal' (forgetting that we are not all equal), is it any wonder why unemployment is so high in this country standing at the 8 million mark? is it any wonder why small businesses are struggling not only with high taxation and a flood of regulation from Brussels and Whitehall, but also with equality madness such as this.

I'm sorry to the lads but you don't have the kids therefore you don't deserve the time off, maybe a week at most (but that should be down to the employer and perhaps people could use their holidays rather than expect it automatically off) and for women it should be around 2 to 3 months maximum time off. The video below explains it pretty well, and it is as per usual the 'laws of unintended consquences' which these equality laws drive.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea9dwFBKnNw



How can we possibly compete with the East when we have ridiculous laws/schemes like this? how can business survive? it simply can't. And on a final note, yes the Coalition is adopting the policies Labour drew up despite Dave Cameron pledging to put an end to ridiculous laws before the election.. well i'm glad to say he never fooled me. Maybe its time we start electing politicians with some private sector experience who know how business works like above, rather than these numpties [EU-Lib/Lab/Con] who couldn't run an ice cream van if they tried.

Thoughts on these types of laws (maternity, equality etc)?

[alexxxxx]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347673/New-fathers-months-paid-paternity-leave-Coalition-plans.html
New fathers to get paid paternity leave increased from two weeks to TEN MONTHS under Coalition plans


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/16/article-1347673-0CC9920B000005DC-431_468x369.jpg




Before long we will start giving singles/gays time off in order to be 'equal' (forgetting that we are not all equal), is it any wonder why unemployment is so high in this country standing at the 8 million mark? is it any wonder why small businesses are struggling not only with high taxation and a flood of regulation from Brussels and Whitehall, but also with equality madness such as this.

I'm sorry to the lads but you don't have the kids therefore you don't deserve the time off, maybe a week at most (but that should be down to the employer and perhaps people could use their holidays rather than expect it automatically off) and for women it should be around 2 to 3 months maximum time off. The video below explains it pretty well, and it is as per usual the 'laws of unintended consquences' which these equality laws drive.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea9dwFBKnNw



How can we possibly compete with the East when we have ridiculous laws/schemes like this? how can business survive? it simply can't. And on a final note, yes the Coalition is adopting the policies Labour drew up despite Dave Cameron pledging to put an end to ridiculous laws before the election.. well i'm glad to say he never fooled me. Maybe its time we start electing politicians with some private sector experience who know how business works like above, rather than these numpties [EU-Lib/Lab/Con] who couldn't run an ice cream van if they tried.

Thoughts on these types of laws (maternity, equality etc)?


well this shouldnt be a problem in terms of productivity unless you consider men to be more productive than women?

[matt$]

well this shouldnt be a problem in terms of productivity unless you consider men to be more productive than women?

Still businesses having to pay someone who doesn't really need to be at home for 10months is just a stupid amount of time, how are small businesses going to cope? especially with most of them barely having enough staff to begin with let alone paying for people that aren't even working it'd make life extremely difficult.

[alexxxxx]

Still businesses having to pay someone who doesn't really need to be at home for 10months is just a stupid amount of time, how are small businesses going to cope? especially with most of them barely having enough staff to begin with let alone paying for people that aren't even working it'd make life extremely difficult.

i would be willing to bet having a baby is hard for both the man and the woman in the relationship. if anything it should stop as much discrimination against women in employment in prime child-baring age as it is likely that she would not have the full-time off. it is unlikely to have any sort of negative effect.

[dbgtz]

I think the man should be allowed a couple of weeks but should not be allowed to be used in more than 2 or 3 day intervals, as the woman does need stress relief. 10 months is ridiculous, I wouldn't take a scratch of that if it passes and I have kids. I don't think the government should really get a say in the male side of maternity leave in the end, and should be the companys decision.

[GommeInc]

Surely a system where a couple have a set amount of time off (maternity/paternity) and the time is split between them. Say, 100 hours. The mother does 75 hours which leaves the father 25 hours. If they both take it off then it's 50 hours (2 hours for each hour passed). A strange idea they're planning here. It will be interesting to see how they worked out that men need 10 hours paternity.

[Oleh]

maybe lets say.. 1 week paid for every month off? would be a much more suitable payment term if people where this spongy and decide to take 10 month.

[-:Undertaker:-]

well this shouldnt be a problem in terms of productivity unless you consider men to be more productive than women?

Well women have babies, and as women can take time off for this (for months on end) then yes, women are less productive than men and thus businesses will be less likely to take somebody on of child bearing age and thus you then end up with the classic law of 'unintended consquences' - but who can blame businesses for it? they are being taxed to the hilt with a mass of regulation coming from Whitehall and Brussels weekly.

Infact, its going on as we speak (from today);
Nigel Farage (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1343813145)
Voting in Strasbourg. Loads of the damned things. I'm mainly pressing 'no'...


i would be willing to bet having a baby is hard for both the man and the woman in the relationship. if anything it should stop as much discrimination against women in employment in prime child-baring age as it is likely that she would not have the full-time off. it is unlikely to have any sort of negative effect.

It will loose business money so that in the end they may simply decide not to take people on, or might find themselves unable to cope with the regulations and costs of those regulations - just as is what happened with the British slaughterhouses where over 1,000 closed down to EU regulation (Godfrey Blooms brother owns one and his experience thanks to EU regulations even made it into Private Eye, where they had a supervisor supervising a supervisor and so on).

[alexxxxx]

Well women have babies, and as women can take time off for this (for months on end) then yes, women are less productive than men and thus businesses will be less likely to take somebody on of child bearing age and thus you then end up with the classic law of 'unintended consquences' - but who can blame businesses for it? they are being taxed to the hilt with a mass of regulation coming from Whitehall and Brussels weekly.

Infact, its going on as we speak (from today);
Nigel Farage (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1343813145)
Voting in Strasbourg. Loads of the damned things. I'm mainly pressing 'no'...



It will loose business money so that in the end they may simply decide not to take people on, or might find themselves unable to cope with the regulations and costs of those regulations - just as is what happened with the British slaughterhouses where over 1,000 closed down to EU regulation (Godfrey Blooms brother owns one and his experience thanks to EU regulations even made it into Private Eye, where they had a supervisor supervising a supervisor and so on).

Yes but there is no new time being added in! So there is no net loss in weeks from the labour force? So how would this increase costs to companies?

[FlyingJesus]

You do know that the changes are going to mean that maternity/paternity leave is going to be a shared thing with the parents choosing who gets how much time off, right? They're not saying that the women get 12 months AND the men get 10, the current increase happening now is that men can (if the mother agrees that it's necessary) have up to months off, but all paternity leave time comes out of the woman's maternity leave allowance. The total maximum time off is still 12 months and is still going to be regardless of whether the 10 month idea comes through or not.

[alexxxxx]

You do know that the changes are going to mean that maternity/paternity leave is going to be a shared thing with the parents choosing who gets how much time off, right? They're not saying that the women get 12 months AND the men get 10, the current increase happening now is that men can (if the mother agrees that it's necessary) have up to months off, but all paternity leave time comes out of the woman's maternity leave allowance. The total maximum time off is still 12 months and is still going to be regardless of whether the 10 month idea comes through or not.

entirely my point.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm not sure how it was in Dan's household and I don't like to speculate on such personal matters but the idea that men don't look after children and therefore shouldn't have paternity leave rights is utterly ridiculous

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure how it was in Dan's household and I don't like to speculate on such personal matters but the idea that men don't look after children and therefore shouldn't have paternity leave rights is utterly ridiculous

Well in my household, the woman gave birth to the babies (naturally, you couldn't have it any other way) and thus she had the time off. My dad on the other hand didn't have the babies and didn't have to carry them for what is it? 9 months? so therefore he didn't get the time off.

Fairly sensible I think, woman has the babies and thus has the time off - the man doesn't and thus isnt entitled to the time off.

[FlyingJesus]

Maternity leave isn't to let the mother "recover" which doesn't take a whole year, and it isn't some kind of reward for squeezing a baby out, it's time off work to look after the kid once it's been ejected. If for some reason the dad's more willing or able to do that (be it for health, psychological, employment or any other issues) then why should families have to suffer?

[Ajthedragon]

I believe they have to balance it between them? I didn't read the whole article but I would like more time if I were a father to spend with my new-born, although I wouldn't care paid or not.

[Conservative,]

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, it's a bit OTT I mean..10 months? Seriously..? But on the other hand my father got 2 DAYS with me, before he had to go back. I think a month would be sufficient tbh.

&& This shows the problem with socialism - IT DOESNT WORK.

[GommeInc]

It's a bit odd, you don't desperately have to have two parents off to look after one child, the world has survived with the father going to work and coming home to the child to look after it with the mother. There seems to be this assumption that daddy never sees junior, so somehow daddy has been forced to work way too many hours if that is the case, and should probably seek legal advice. Of course, the father can see the child, but it seems odd that he should be paid to when the reward for seeing your child is self-explanatory :P

[alexxxxx]

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, it's a bit OTT I mean..10 months? Seriously..? But on the other hand my father got 2 DAYS with me, before he had to go back. I think a month would be sufficient tbh.

&& This shows the problem with socialism - IT DOESNT WORK.

read and comprehend the article. the father will not get 10 months - the mother and father would have the option of sharing their allowances together (if i remember correctly men get 10 days off) and women get 39weeks - not all of this at full pay of course - in fact a lot less than full pay.

and @Gomme, what if the mother earns more than the father? Why is it fair that they have to lose money?

[Nationalism]

Let's let businesses pay for workers who aren't actually working at a time when the country NEEDS all it's workers working like they've never worked before!
Terrible idea yet again from the political elite, why our country is bonkers is beyond me.

[GommeInc]

and @Gomme, what if the mother earns more than the father? Why is it fair that they have to lose money?
In most cases you would be paid for time off work. If she isn't she can request it or take it to a tribunal to get paid time off work if she is denied. Plus preparing for a baby is usually helpful, so it's common sense to get saving anyway.

[alexxxxx]

In most cases you would be paid for time off work. If she isn't she can request it or take it to a tribunal to get paid time off work if she is denied. Plus preparing for a baby is usually helpful, so it's common sense to get saving anyway.

you aren't paid 100% or even close to it if you are taking maternity leave.

[Inseriousity.]

If the maternity leave is shared between the mother and father then that's alright. I imagine the 'tradition' will stay the same in general so the mother would have the bulk of it and the father would have the minority but now at least parents are allowed the choice of doing the opposite.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, it's a bit OTT I mean..10 months? Seriously..? But on the other hand my father got 2 DAYS with me, before he had to go back. I think a month would be sufficient tbh.

&& This shows the problem with socialism - IT DOESNT WORK.

What is it with people not actually reading threads before posting in them? The time is shared between the two with 10 months given as the maximum for new fathers - if that option is taken then the mother has only 2 months off or something around that timespan. This is not ADDING 10 months of paternity leave to the current maternity leave allowance


It's a bit odd, you don't desperately have to have two parents off to look after one child, the world has survived with the father going to work and coming home to the child to look after it with the mother. There seems to be this assumption that daddy never sees junior, so somehow daddy has been forced to work way too many hours if that is the case, and should probably seek legal advice. Of course, the father can see the child, but it seems odd that he should be paid to when the reward for seeing your child is self-explanatory :P

What about cases when it's more beneficial - to the child or the family as a whole - for the father to be the one at home with the child? Not all mothers are as capable as one might assume, and again this isn't an additional allowance it's merely giving the option of splitting the time off between the parents as necessary


Let's let businesses pay for workers who aren't actually working at a time when the country NEEDS all it's workers working like they've never worked before!
Terrible idea yet again from the political elite, why our country is bonkers is beyond me.

You're right because of course women do not have jobs

[Niall!]

This is brilliant. More single males will be hired. I'm all for this.

[Mrs.McCall]

This thread is ridiculous. Really. Basic common sense is not being explored for example:

What if the female has a better paid job? Therefore it makes more sense for her to return to work sooner than the male. Some women are career women who happen to have children.

Also, why shouldn't the father be allowed just as much time? Babies develop emotionally from the get-go and in the first few months they form attatchments to their caregivers. Having both parents off at the same time for a little bit longer just means that both parents will have the opportunity to form attachments.

I don't see the problem with this, as previously stated, it's 12 months between them. It's just men get longer if they choose.