howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#2
I have to agree with charley on this one ,companies or public sector employers should not have to pay for somebody's life Choices
I know of one doctor of work on maternity pay ,her husband also a doctor, he is more than able to support his wife ,but the taxpayers get stuck with the bill
If you were running a business you would think, before employing a girl likely to go of sick pregnant,
Or an MP
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
it's made charlie's profile more visible.
Guest 1103- Registered: 3 Nov 2013
- Posts: 759
#4
This advertising is actually misleading Howard and I have to admit, for an MP to speak to People on FB about this and bring in clarification Its not a bad move. It was actually a really good debate and many Dover People participated.
I am one for criticism but also do say something positive where it is due :)
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. Maya Angelou ☺🌈🌄🌌🌏🌍🌎
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
it is a joke photo heike.
Guest 1103- Registered: 3 Nov 2013
- Posts: 759
#6
I know ;)
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. Maya Angelou ☺🌈🌄🌌🌏🌍🌎
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#7
Facebook?!
If this is now a conduit for our democratic expression, then I think that we are on a worrying trajectory: #lazypolitics
'Insurance' - is this all politicians can offer in response to any 'burden' on the state. So by taking the cost away from the state, it can then be wasted elsewhere, such enforcing such schemes are being provided. How good any insurance is, is based purely on one thing, how good your cover is. And how good your cover is, is once again largely dependent on how much you can afford. So in the same way as the proposals the more affluent can command more provision. Remember everyone: people with money are much better.
I remember as a kid, being told what the Sun fire insurance plaques signified and being horrified. The way things are going, Conservative 'insurance' is going to take us back in time once more. Perhaps we could apply these principles to the army or the police.
"Sorry Sir, we're not going to prosecute the man who burgled your house because your 'police insurance' doesn't cover it.
I strongly believe that having children is a massive decision that should not be taken lightly and finance has to be a part of this. That being said, money is not the key factor - we only have to look at celebrity culture (who require no maternity/paternity rights) to see poor parenting.
Having children is a wonderful thing, giving people hope and so much joy. It is a part of what drives many people, as a part of being human. People don't have a baby to bunk off work and get paid as Keith would suggest - I think it very telling that he also views it as sickness!
Once again this is a policy that promotes 'survival of the richest' not the fittest.
How should we decide who is fit to have children and suitably support them?
Perhaps prospective parents could take a test...on Facebook?
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#8
Its not the responsibility of your boss or the taxpayers to pay you to sit at home so you can have your children.
The taxpayers pay for schooling and provide children's benefits
Most of the working class /poor/low pay , do not have jobs on the cards ,there mostly temporary worker jobs , or they have been forced on to CIS4 self employment with no employment rights
If these people become pregnant or sick, there employment is terminated ,and they have to be means tested for benefits
So the people we are talking about are mostly them in DT1 world ,the protected and some what pampered minority, middle class hands ,,out give me it all protected workers.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#9
What an unfortunate view of parenting.
No it is not sole responsibilty of an employer or the taxpayer, but you seem to misunderstand that these two entities are not mutually exclusive from that of a parent.
Perhaps as a society we should just stop having children? We could just age as the indigenous generation and just let future jobs be filled by post-compulsory education Albanians. It would save the 'taxpayer' a fortune; no more maternity pay, no more child benefit, no more paying those nasty teachers and building schools. And no one could 'steal' our jobs, as we would just be too old to do them. Immigration would be a great benefit, and scaremongering would be a thing of the past.
I can see the birth of a new party: the European Dependence Party. Abbreviated to EUDEP, pronounced "you-dip". I think that this is a fairly good policy and enough to form a real alternative to the two useless parties we have! As for the rest of the policies, they could just be made up as the party went along - you know that sort of opportunistic, populist, short term sort of policy making.
This new 'EUtopia' would only be jeopardised if the new migrant workers developed some kind of 'pregnancy epidemic' (I've heard such things can be very contagious). It would ruin it all - the end of EUDEP.
On a more serious note:
On being middle-class, I like to see myself as more 'progressive working class'. I was raised in a working class household but at this point in my life, meet the criteria of being middle class (maintaining my working class pub sense of humour). Maybe someday my social standing will change but my opinions on maternity rights will not.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#10
I have mixed feelings on this subject simply because when I was young the accepted thing was a woman gave up work to look after her children often until they went to secondary school. We went without what now seems to be the norm, a car, sometimes a second car, foreign holidays and as well as a career.
If I was running a small business I would not employ a woman who was likely to have children because of the cost and disruption.
Getting back to maternity pay some members of my family would have been in real financial trouble without it.
Perhaps we should make being a mother for the first few years of a child's life much more important than having a paid job and spending most of your pay on child care.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#11
Absolutely Jan.
You should have mixed feelings because it is so very different for everyone. What the current system attempts to do ( and that will never be perfect) is to allow people to have families without it financially devastating them and allow women to pursue careers. It is not going to suit every employer, but ultimately the statutory is from the taxpayer and I think that we can safely assume that if a woman is entitled to maternity pay, she IS a taxpayer.
The sort of reforms, that we are constantly seeing is one that promotes the idea that no one should have to pay unless they get out - a fairly dangerous outlook. It's no different to saying "Well my house hasn't flooded so how dare Mr Cameron pledge my taxes to those who live in low lying counties, it's their own fault." Applied to maternity, we are saying "Why should we pay just because a woman wants a career, I'm not even a woman". I would dearly love to believe that everyone in our society could be truly autonomous, but in a world of increasing complexity, anyone that believes this is deluded.
It would be great for everyone if things were simpler but external influences and choices by our supposed leaders make simplicity very hard to achieve. For example the model you present in your first paragraph is one I truly support, but one that is almost impossible. House prices alone make this a very different era. When my parents got their mortgage on our 3 bed terraced family home (where they still live), the lender would only consider my fathers wage, but then the cost of the house was proportionally less compared to his wage. I live in a house about the same size and it took both our wages to secure the mortgage.
When my first child was born 10 years ago, I had just changed career, starting on well below the average national wage. My partner stopped working to be at home; we had no car, no holidays. I also restructured my house at the time to provide another bedroom for the baby because we weren't in a position to move. The structure of things has changed and modernity provides other strains as a result. It was fine, but tough at times.
Things like not having a car seem simple to suggest but the reality is hard ( this sort of thing goes right over Iain Duncan Smith's head). To get food at a reasonable price you have to travel, Saturday morning was a 2-3 mile walk with a pushchair, rain or shine. Towns do not function the same way as they did, family dynamics are different, houses and renting areexpensive and the roles of males and females are continually evolving.
We have to ask how we can facilitate families in our society, not just make it the concern of those directly affected. The reductionist policies being churned out by politicians of all colours, only continues to demonstrate their limitations.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#12
The country is bust, we cannot afford to keep giving out cash .
Where do you think the money will come from to support mainly middleclass females mostly in public sector jobs .
Private sector employers will have taken steps to ensure they do not get trapped by this, by not employing females of berthing age ,or employing agency staff on short time contracts ,or self employment contracts .
You can puff and blow , but the fact are the facts, maternity wage payments ,big pensions ,and paying people to be of sick on full pay with the sniffles, is unaffordable to the taxpayers. And will have to stop just like in Greece ,
We have the biggest deficit in Europe ,we cannot afford to pay teacher 35k a year to sit at home Rattling out babies like a Gatling gun on steroids.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#13
I'll just reiterate, what an unfortunate view of parenting.
The hate within your post is summarised by your odious concluding sentence. That's the sort of comment that leads to people leaving such forums. Thankfully your posts provide constant amusement in our house Keith. I thought you were just talking about employment at DHB when you referred to 'berthing age'.
'mainly middleclass females mostly in public sector jobs'
I take it this is extensive empirical data is from your own research, maybe some kind of Facebook poll?
Do you know any women that have actually been on maternity leave Keith? I know loads - private sector, public sector...and get this, some of them even employ other women. Some of the women they employ even have wombs!
As for days off with the sniffles, these types get everywhere. I can't remember the last day I had off. My mum is the same, having had about a week off work in 30 years. Good working class stock, she just gets on with things, rather than puff, blow and hatefully blame others. That being said she has no worries as she must be highly employable at 64... there is no chance she will require any maternity pay before she retires.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
i think that this thread should end at this juncture it was interesting but clearly keith and daz are using it for a personal vendetta.
that is actually why "people leave forums" i know that for a fact.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#15
I say No free money. Another member says give free money
A political view on a political part of the forum ,whats the problem Theirs a non political forum for others
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
no keith, please give me credit for knowing the difference between political banter and personal abuse.
