+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Ah OK, we had heard at work that whatever scheme comes in, it will replace our existing one.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,524
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    @NoteToSelf that's not necessarily the case. There is no legislation I'm aware of that employers won't be able to give their employees anything extra.

    At my work we have already discussed "topping up" Govt payments to ensure women get the same amount as they would currently with us.

    @delirium I know I am one of those women you normally agree with but don't on this topic if you read my earlier post you'll see I agree that a scaled back approach would make sense at the moment.

    It's the notion of replacement wage I am adamant about.

    Has anyone who is against this read the link I posted? What are your thoughts? Do you think the other countries have it wrong?

    Out of interest.... What does Scandinavia do? I don't know for sure but I would wager it's replacement wage. And most people on here LOVE whatever the Nordic countries do! I will check when I get time.

    Nice to see you @lambjam!

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to kw123 For This Useful Post:

    lambjam  (10-06-2014)

  4. #23
    lambjam's Avatar
    lambjam is offline Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked
    4,956
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    "Approximately 51 per cent of currently employed women have access to employer paid PPL (either through industrial awards, or individual employment contracts), which they may access in addition to the current Government scheme. This includes State, Commonwealth and Local Government employees as well as private sector arrangements. This will cease under the proposed new arrangements. It is likely that some low paid Commonwealth and State employees currently able to access both their employer scheme, and the (Labor) Government scheme, will be losers under the new arrangements.

    In a surprising step, the Commonwealth proposes to use the social services powers in the Australian Commonwealth Constitution to override private employer contracts as well as industrial agreements. This has the potential to raise alarms about whether the Commonwealth might similarly use its powers to override other sections of individual contractual agreements or industrial awards."

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...man-ppl/521270

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to lambjam For This Useful Post:

    NancyBlackett  (10-06-2014)

  6. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,846
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by lambjam View Post
    But hold on... Take the public service, which already has maternity leave provisions in place. Under their model an entry-level employee would get far less than an SES employee, simply because maternity leave is paid at their current salary. Would you see this change, for the sake of shortening the gap? There would be an uproar, and rightly so!

    If PPL is a step towards eradicating employer-paid maternity leave and replacing it with government-funded leave, then all it's doing is emulating the system that's been in place in workplaces like the PS all along.
    I understand that different people get different wages. Someone on 100k a year under a 30k cap would get 30k, while a woman on 40k a year would only get 20k. So that does allow for differentiation of wage.

    I just don't see why those already well off are given a further leg up solely based on their wage? PPL should be there to make things easier for women to take time off to be with their babies. Not to fund a lifestyle. I know that's going to make people prickly (sorry Lamb lol I think politics is the only thing we disagree on) but just as the poor need to take into account if they can afford another child, so it should be for the wealthy.

    All I know is if I earned 150k a year with DH working as well, I'd have more than enough to top up a 30k 6 month PPL. If I couldn't I'd think there was something really wrong.

    I support govt paid maternity leave over employer. I just don't support the amounts Abbott is planning.
    Last edited by delirium; 10-06-2014 at 09:01.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    ABigDeepBreath  (10-06-2014),ertgirl  (10-06-2014)

  8. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,321
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked
    2,537
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    @lambjam this was a proposal not what will necessary happen.

    Even if it does most people would be better off with a 26wks wage replacement scheme except very high income workers. These workers though would most likely receive a top up from their employer. I know my work place has been discussing this too.

    I just did the calc. Assuming that one gets 14 weeks employer funded PPL at the moment + the 18 weeks from the gvt and that the new scheme comes in and replace ones employer benefits, only people over 180k salary would be losers.
    And that's assuming employers don't offer any top ups.
    Last edited by ExcuseMyFrench; 10-06-2014 at 09:11.

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    kw123 unfortunately I work under TA's state premier counterpart and a comment has been made about public servants `double dipping' from the public's pockets with maternity leave (state gov funded and then federal gov funded).

    We have def been told out current arrangement will go once TA's new scheme comes in.

  10. #27
    lambjam's Avatar
    lambjam is offline Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked
    4,956
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I understand that different people get different wages. Someone on 100k a year under a 30k cap would get 30k, while a woman on 40k a year would only get 20k. So that does allow for differentiation of wage.

    I just don't see why those already well off are given a further leg up solely based on their wage? PPL should be there to make things easier for women to take time off to be with their babies. Not to fund a lifestyle. I know that's going to make people prickly (sorry Lamb lol I think politics is the only thing we disagree on) but just as the poor need to take into account if they can afford another child, so it should be for the wealthy.
    But I think you've missed my point... If this scheme replaces the current employer-funded maternity leave schemes (as I think it will) would you really see women who are currently eligible for continuation of their salary stripped to minimum wage? Why should women who earn more only find themselves taking major financial steps backwards when they have a child? What does that say about the value we place on women in the workplace, and the value we place on childbearing?

    You say "funding a lifestyle", I say "ensuring no one is disadvantaged for contributing to the propagation of the species".

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lambjam For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (10-06-2014),atomicmama  (10-06-2014),kw123  (10-06-2014),smallpotatoes  (10-06-2014)

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,321
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked
    2,537
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    The new scheme will only be replacing current employer funded parental leave IF it passes in its current form ie with wage replacement.

    If they only extend the current PPL nothing will happen to any employer benefits.

  13. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,524
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by lambjam View Post
    You say "funding a lifestyle", I say "ensuring no one is disadvantaged for contributing to the propagation of the species".
    Just letting you know that I will be stealing this line

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to kw123 For This Useful Post:

    lambjam  (10-06-2014)

  15. #30
    lambjam's Avatar
    lambjam is offline Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked
    4,956
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    The new scheme will only be replacing current employer funded parental leave IF it passes in its current form ie with wage replacement.

    If they only extend the current PPL nothing will happen to any employer benefits.
    I should have written "as I think it eventually will".


 

Similar Threads

  1. Dog breed - DH and I cannot agree!
    By Colbie in forum Pets
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-07-2014, 21:31
  2. Partner making me do something i don't agree or believe in. HELP!!
    By Helptalking in forum Issues with Family Members
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14-04-2014, 18:45
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 16-02-2014, 10:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Nice Pak Products
Australian Made and Owned. The Baby U Goat Milk Skincare range is enriched with soothing goats milk sourced from country, Victoria. Goat's milk has a pH level close to that of our own skin and contains natural sources of amino acids and vitamins.
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Einsteinz Music
Fun & interactive music classes!
Classes are taught by professional musicians! Children are taught the fundamentals of music: beat, pitch, rhythm and tempo through hands-on experience. Click for more details!!!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!