+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 415
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Lili81 View Post
    What about working on reducing the gender gap?
    Maybe then women wouldn't have to rely on anyone but themselves.
    I've got a better idea. If women don't want to rely on anyone but themselves then don't take extended periods of leave from paid employment after having a kid. That will reduce the gender and super gaps.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Mum2b87 View Post
    What ever the PPL is, whether that's 18 or 26 weeks.
    18 weeks minimum wage I might be swayed on. 26 weeks full wage (Abbott's scheme) I think is selfish, financially irresponsible and expecting something for nothing.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mortlake, VIC
    Posts
    1,672
    Thanks
    444
    Thanked
    831
    Reviews
    7
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    18 weeks minimum wage I might be swayed on. 26 weeks full wage (Abbott's scheme) I think is selfish, financially irresponsible and expecting something for nothing.
    As I said previously I don't agree with 26 weeks full pay either, I think it needs to be 26 weeks minimum wage plus super

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Mum2b87 View Post
    As I said previously I don't agree with 26 weeks full pay either, I think it needs to be 26 weeks minimum wage plus super
    I don't agree with super for 26 weeks ppl at all. 18 weeks minimum wage is barely acceptable to me.

    Ba*h* humbug!
    Last edited by VicPark; 30-04-2014 at 19:30.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,005
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Sorry I've only skimmed most of this so apologies of question has been asked before. Does TA's proposed scheme replace what a woman would be paid privately by her employer?

  6. #126
    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 Sonja View Post
    Sorry I've only skimmed most of this so apologies of question has been asked before. Does TA's proposed scheme replace what a woman would be paid privately by her employer?
    Yes, for 6 months and capped at $100k so most anyone could get would be $50k

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,005
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    I'd far worse off under this scheme. I don't agree with it as we can't afford it but as I've said before it's completely unnecessary.

    A) very few women earn above $100k
    B) many that do already have decent maternity leave provisions. I'd actually be interested to know how many women like me would be worse off.

    Waste of time.

    I fail to see what desperate need this is addressing that wasn't already being addressed by private enterprise.

  8. #128
    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
    I think the bigger organisations will "top up" people on higher incomes so they won't be worse off than their previous employer PPL, but it will still cost the company less than before.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,005
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    And to add my last paragraph was in reference to high income earners. My personal view is women earning less than say $80k should get better PPL from government but over that leave it to private enterprise (subject to knowing in this day and age how many companies don't actually offer PPL.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,005
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by kw123 View Post
    I think the bigger organisations will "top up" people on higher incomes so they won't be worse off than their previous employer PPL, but it will still cost the company less than before.
    Probably but maybe not.

    And won't they be paying higher taxes to pay for it?


 

Similar Threads

  1. Paid Parental Leave
    By Silvana in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 22:29
  2. Paid parental leave
    By joannamarie in forum General Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 17-05-2013, 06:51
  3. Paid parental leave
    By joannamarie in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-05-2013, 23:42

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Pea Pods Reusable NappiesPea Pods are the smart choice when it comes to choosing what's best for you, your baby and the environment. Affordable ...
REVIEWS
"Pigeon teats rule!"
by Alex
Pigeon PP Wide Neck reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›