Hey mothers, maternity leave is bad for business!
Today I imagined I was a business owner. I run my business to make me some money and whilst I maintain a good repoire with my employees at the end of the day when they aren’t working I’m not making the money.
I don’t care about their family problems, who broke up with who or if they decide to have a family. What I do care about is whether any of this effects whether they are going to show up to work on time and keep my business running smoothly.
It’s a pretty straight forward concept and it’s always baffled me why people act surprised that women are penalised in the workplace for having kids.
I mean if you want to waltz off for months on end and have a family and cost me money, and meanwhile I can hire somebody else to do your job who isn’t going to get pregnant why should I fire them when you decide family time is over?
How is that even remotely fair to me or my new employee?
I had an argument with someone recently about, despite Julia Gillard being second in command, Australia didn’t have more women in prominent positions in Australian politics. I argued primarily because they do a bad job and my opponent pulled the sexism card and claimed it was all a big boys club.
In hindsight all I really needed to say was ‘If our prime minister decides to go off and have kids what then? Australia just flaps around for 9 months while mummy has some babies?’
Recently the Rudd government introduced a ‘Fair Work’ regime which put the onus on proving workplace discrimination due to maternity solely on the employer. Naturally every second mother is now claiming discrimination and a sharp increase has been observed.
MATERNITY leave complaints have spiked since the Rudd Government introduced tougher laws targeting sexist employers in July.
The new Fair Work Ombudsman’s office said it was receiving 30 calls a week, mainly from women, alleging discrimination.
‘Hallo there, I wish to complain about my terrible employer. When I had my baby they didn’t come visit me, wouldn’t pay for all my new furniture and bedroom rennovation, pay for a nanny and when I asked my boss to come over and change little Tommy’s nappies HE LAUGHED IN MY FACE. This is OUTRAGEOUS and clearly discrimination, I want to sue for ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!’
‘uh… you know that’s probably not discrimination right?’
‘SHUTUP. You must be a male, you’re all the same. Put me through to Kevin Rudd I want to talk to him myself.’
It’s hardly surprising to see a spike in complaints now that complainers don’t have to prove anything and can just fester in an imaginary persecution complex.
I imagine it’s going to turn into quite the racket, with soon to be mums making lists of demands their employers will be forced to consider otherwise they’ll just lodge a complaint.
Meanwhile as a single male I can only wish someone would pay me $5000, enable me to claim all the family tax benefits and give me months off work for having sex.
As someone who can’t get pregnant, won’t ever demand paid time off to have babies or leave a company in the lurch while I look after bubby, is it any surprise employers would be more willing to hire me over a soon-to-be-mum?
Traditionally after having one baby it’s not long before another one is on the way, and with new laws coming into effect next year granting mothers 18 weeks of taxpayer funded maternity leave it’s only going to get worse for business owners.
As far as maternity leave goes I think it’s safe to say we’ve gone beyond the having your own cake and eating it point. After these new laws come into effect we might as well just let pregnant women into the cake store with an all you can eat voucher.
With all the financial incentives to pop out kids that have been introduced over the last decade it’s no wonder that Australia’s population predictions have recently blown out to over 7 million above our previous estimates by 2048.
A week ago the federal government got a lot of publicity with a new estimate that the Australian population would rise to 35 million by 2048, a figure 7 million greater than previous estimates.
Mind you, 35 million is just an estimate. If birth trends are anything to go on this number will just continue to blow out as time goes on.
Here in Melbourne public transport is up shit creek, there are no plans for infrastructure upgrades, rezoning or the establishment of actual satellite CBD’s to compliment our current single CBD.
We’re short on water and there’s nowhere to build but even further out then we currently are. Meanwhile our government seems to think building new freeway lanes is all that’s required to sustain never ending population growth.
From what I hear Sydney isn’t any better and let’s face it, there’s no way Brisbane, Canberra or Perth are going to suddenly take off and pick up the population explosion.
Maternity leave and all the other financial concessions that come with having a baby aren’t the only reason people are popping out babies in record numbers but they certainly aren’t helping.
With a record defecit due to welfare handouts last financial year, lack of infrastructure and planning, an open door policy on asylum shoppers and increasing incentives for people to have kids and be paid for staying at home, I can confidently say that as a single person with no kids I only see myself getting further and further screwed looking into the future.
It’s progress like this that makes me glad I’m leaving Australia in a few months.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm motiv8dan(Quote)
i got two weeks paid “Paternity” leave last year when my wife had our last baby, i was suprised, i put in for two weeks off annual leave after she had the baby, but work said i was entitled to two weeks “Paternity” leave, so i didnt complain. It was a multinational company though so i dont know how common it is.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Good on your work for pointing it out, not often that happens.
As a guy I’d feel weird asking for paternity leave, sort of like I was bludging. If I took months off I certainly wouldn’t be feeling confident about job security, infact I’d almost expect them to replace me permanently.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:53 pm Matt(Quote)
Paternity leave is definitely not a bludge. No sleep, half-brain-dead wife and a little wriggly pink thing that makes the strangest noises all day and night. Plus you have to be shaved and well dressed for when the nurse comes around, not to mention the friends and family. Not a holiday. Not by a long shot.
I know you’re being purposefully inflammatory, but this whole issue comes back to the core issue for employment: are your staff generic? There’s research floating out and about that parents actually make much better workers – they’re less flappable, calmer, more certain of who they are. I can tell you they’re probably more likely to take sick/carer’s leave (I’ve had about five days off this year, none because I was sick: all to look after the three year old).
You’re absolutely right, you can’t beat a single person for unshaking devotion to the company, but is that kind of person always the best person in all roles in your organisation?
PS both times I’ve had two weeks unpaid paternity leave available. So, two weeks Annual Leave it is…
October 5th, 2009 at 11:51 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Wouldn’t specific skilled staff make it even more annoying for employers? If you have to hire someone who’s specialised or specifically trained for a position because somebody else decided to pop some kids I wouldn’t feel too confident about having my position waiting for me.
I’ve found parents can go either way in the workforce. Some might have the qualities you state but then there are those who are just frustrated at having kids and think everybody cares.
In any case two weeks I guess is managable, it was more the months of end leave that gets up my back. I mean if you want the leave take it, just don’t expect the world to stop turning while you do.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am Smithee(Quote)
Mr Soapbox, you talk like an arrogant 19th century mill owner. People are not robotic work units. Your use of them is not divorced from the reality of their lives and the imperatives of the human race to breed.
Having children is not some “luxury extra” that selfish women engage in. It is the reason that you exist. One of these annoying children may also be the doctor who revives you after a heart attack in old age. Together, many will be the new tax payers enabling you to have a pension.
Open your eyes ! You come across this time as a very selfish, boorish oaf with no perspective beyond your desire to make money.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Well it should be. When i was born you didn’t have kids unless you could afford them. Trying to raise kids on welfare was ridiculously tight and for good reason.
As for being selfish, well if you expect to throw out your employer for months, get the tax payer to raise your kids and then demand a guaranteed spot in the workplace when your return then yes – that is selfish, what else is it?
I exist because my parents could afford to have kids and budgeted for it. Sure kids are the future and everything but in case you hadn’t noticed it’s the dropkicks in society who are the ones running around with minibuses full of kids.
Also the idea that we need to keep producing more kids to pay for tommorow is flawed. As the population keeps exploding to cope with tommorow’ debt (more people = more debts to pay off) it just perpetuates a never ending and always expanding cycle.
Ultimately this is unsustainable and is going to result in widespread famine, war or disease.
I know it’s a comedy but the movie Idiocracy frightens me in so many ways.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am Vince(Quote)
Ain’t that the truth. The truth hurts for some.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Smithee(Quote)
It was ever thus. Maybe you need to read more history. This is the same complaint that is voiced again and again.
One response to this was the eugenics movement. It was popular for a time. One branch mutated into various right-wing extremist movements. In the end it was shown to be of no impact or effect.
Plenty of the great thinkers, leaders, composers and scientists have come from this “drop kick” class you seem quick to dismiss.
“Idiocracy” is a good movie, but I think its message isn’t about “dumb breeders”, it’s more about media, education and entertainment.
But back to the original topic. You claim that: “When i was born you didn’t have kids unless you could afford them.” What absolute rubbish. This is just so ignorant and absurd it’s flabbergasting that I need even to attempt to refute it.
Again I think your grasp of history, especially social history, must be almost non-existent.
You really need a broader education. I’m getting the feeling that you’re an affluent, life-long city-dweller, focussed on cash, intolerant of minorities, irritated by any sense of civic duty, and contemptuous of the poor.
‘Tis an evil portrait.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:20 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
I think you might have missed the underlying message entirely. Idiots are outbreeding the educated and more then ever people are just running around with their hands held out looking for a free ride.
Encouraging people who cannot financially support their famileis to breed is a longterm financial disaster.
Look what happened when people couldn’t afford their mortgages. The same problem is going to emerge with welfare (the pension being unsustainable as the baby boomers retire is the tip of the iceberg) as time goes on and it’s only going to get worse.
What are you talking about? All this baby bonus, family tax, first home buyers grant middle and all the associated tax cuts wasn’t there in the 80′s.
After my parents divorce my mum received some government support but still managed to privately rent and work to raise four kids.
Back then you couldn’t just throw your hands up and expect the tax payer to fund everything. They’d contribute somewhat but if you wanted any quality of life you had to work for it, and that’s the way it should be.
Sounds like you’ve been around welfare entrenched slums too long and have forgotten what it’s like to be financially self sustaining.
And if you’re not willing to refute the core of an argument when it differs from your own viewpoint, why bother bringing it up at all?
October 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm Vince(Quote)
I agree with that…so what’s your point?
October 7th, 2009 at 2:21 am Jo(Quote)
Well I’m sure my parents budgeted very carefully before my mother got pregnant when she was 18.
Nevertheless, I think the age that women have their first child has increased since the eighties and this suggests that people approach the issue with more caution rather than less?
I think it’s possible that the costs associated with raising a child – like rent/home-ownership, food, and education – have increased faster than other expenses and so now parents have greater need for financial support.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am Vince(Quote)
I believe it costs around $250,000 to raise a kid until their 18th birthday. And these days, that’s probably the minimum cost. I wonder how many people are actually aware of this.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:55 am Smithee(Quote)
Mr Soapbox, seems like you’re a fan of social Darwinism and resentful that governments sometimes modestly work against that philosophy.
I think you’d be much happier as a 19th century mill owner, or perhaps a Lord with an estate of tennant farmers who would doff their hat as the master rode past.
However, since I see that your grasp of “history” extends only to your own selective memory, I’ll try another tack.
There is a new version of the old “mill owner” attitude. In this version, people are simply one of many “inputs” to business. For maximum efficiency you need to keep these people at the edge economic collapse. Don’t give them enough to make any significant choices. Lock them into the economic process, make them avid consumers, work hard against any “radicalisation” by feeding them trivia, sex and sport.
( Oh hang on, I think we’ve come across “Idiocracy” again)
Ideally, they won’t stop to “breed” as this interferes with business. It should be made ever harder to have a family, and if there are children, they should immediately contribute to the system by being placed in extended daycare. Engineer the system so that both parents must work to maintain their consumerism. Instead of families, rely on immigration as this is a more cost effective way to increase the consumer and tax base.
Mr Soapbox, again I implore you to read some social history so your ideas can have some context and depth.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:01 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Um, this sounds like modern day Australia? Debt = keeping people on the edge and the government keeps banning/regulating everything reducing the amount of significant choices society makes.
Turn on the tv and be distracted by “trivia, sex and sport.’
In reality, this doesn’t seem to be happening. Well it is with educated people but as I’ve said before, the welfare dependant idiots of society are outpopulating everyone else.
…again, this sounds like modern day Australia? I’m not sure what you’re point is seeing as I’m rallying against the current system.