Ah OK, we had heard at work that whatever scheme comes in, it will replace our existing one.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 21 to 30 of 65
10-06-2014 07:49 #21
10-06-2014 07:53 #22
@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!
10-06-2014 07:55 #23
"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."
The Following User Says Thank You to lambjam For This Useful Post:
10-06-2014 07:59 #24
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 08:01.
10-06-2014 08:00 #25
@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 08:11.
10-06-2014 08:00 #26
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.
10-06-2014 08:05 #27
You say "funding a lifestyle", I say "ensuring no one is disadvantaged for contributing to the propagation of the species".
10-06-2014 08:14 #28
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.
10-06-2014 08:15 #29
10-06-2014 08:17 #30
By Colbie in forum PetsReplies: 53Last Post: 12-07-2014, 20:31
By Helptalking in forum Issues with Family MembersReplies: 16Last Post: 14-04-2014, 17:30
By My Beloved Ones in forum General ChatReplies: 16Last Post: 16-02-2014, 10:46
SoftmatsSoftmats specialises in safe, non-toxic, and durable play mats. The international Premium Dwinguler™ Play Mats and ...
LATESTWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?7 ways to break the ‘mumnotony’ at homeGuide to government family benefit payments
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
How long would you leave your 8 (almost 9) year old at home alone?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Would you breastfeed in public?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
2.5yo hitting/pushing (possible ASD)Discipline & behaviour
A - Z of baby girl namesGames & fun stuff
Show me your lunchbox 2017!!Recipes & Lunchbox Ideas
Adelaide Hubbers #2Adelaide
The Not So Serious Vent Thread #7General Chat