Like Tree85Likes

Maternity leave

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,821

    @hullexile, No they don't - there's nothing inherently wrong with the population of a place getting smaller as far as I can see.

    And maternity leave is absolutely discriminatory - it discriminates against those who choose not to have kids. I don't see why the lifestyle choice to have x months off to have children should be subsidised by the rest of us any more than, say, the lifestyle choice to have x months off to go and volunteer in Africa building basic infrastructure to bring clean water to people. It seems to me that the latter is of far greater benefit to humanity as a whole.

    bibbju likes this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Have a look at the demographics of places like Japan, Hong Kong, several countries in Europe. They need kids.

    It is not a question of population but non discrimination and humanity. It is OK if you are a bloke, you can father the kid and then have little to do with it while you progress in your career and retire early and comfortably.
    Hong Kong is different than Japan or Britian. It is not a sovereign country, and though it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world...it will be swallowed up by China very soon and than it is part of a 1.3 billion person country. No need to subsidize child birth here.


    Unpaid maternity leave is one thing, it protects a woman's job. That is good.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,821
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    Hong Kong is different than Japan or Britian. It is not a sovereign country, and though it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world...it will be swallowed up by China very soon and than it is part of a 1.3 billion person country. No need to subsidize child birth here.


    Unpaid maternity leave is one thing, it protects a woman's job. That is good.
    But sovereign countries can simply make their country attractive to immigrants if they need more bodies. No need to bribe people to have babies. Again, the world as a whole has enough people.

    And as for protecting a woman's job, that's a commercial decision for her employer, not something that should be mandated at a national level any more than there should be a legal requirement that all employees should be allowed to take a year off to go fix sewage systems in Africa. Again, companies may choose to offer such sabbatical arrangements, but I see no reason why they should be mandated by the state.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tuen Mun
    Posts
    6,191

    As a father of two I agree that long term maternity leave takes the piss. If my wife had better career prospects than me I would have stayed at home.......

    You can trust me on this, having been a business owner and having worked in the public sector in Britain, dumb maternity legislation is having undesired effects...

    1.) Private business avoiding employing ripe women.
    2.) A mounting unsustainable financial burden on the NHS, social care providers, police, etc, etc, etc....

    Having children is a choice.......yes, you have a right to have children, if I'm paying for that with my taxes then I want a bloody say in how they're brought up too!

    Gruntfuttock likes this.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Gruntfuttock:
    @hullexile, No they don't - there's nothing inherently wrong with the population of a place getting smaller as far as I can see.

    And maternity leave is absolutely discriminatory - it discriminates against those who choose not to have kids. I don't see why the lifestyle choice to have x months off to have children should be subsidised by the rest of us any more than, say, the lifestyle choice to have x months off to go and volunteer in Africa building basic infrastructure to bring clean water to people. It seems to me that the latter is of far greater benefit to humanity as a whole.
    a human mother gave birth to you, right?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Gruntfuttock:
    But sovereign countries can simply make their country attractive to immigrants if they need more bodies. No need to bribe people to have babies. Again, the world as a whole has enough people.

    And as for protecting a woman's job, that's a commercial decision for her employer, not something that should be mandated at a national level any more than there should be a legal requirement that all employees should be allowed to take a year off to go fix sewage systems in Africa. Again, companies may choose to offer such sabbatical arrangements, but I see no reason why they should be mandated by the state.

    I agree in principle, but certain parts of the world can absorb population growth better than others. Guangdong Province (including Hong Kong) has a population of 120 million. Makes little sense to subsidize birth in this part of the world. Canada, Finland or even the UK is different. I think most countries would prefer to grow their population through births rather than immigration.

    So you don't think women should be granted any unpaid leave? Whoa.... That is unfair. 10 to 12 weeks unpaid leave should be mandatory.....that way their job is protected.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,821
    Quote Originally Posted by dumbdonkey:
    a human mother gave birth to you, right?
    Yes she did. But she wasn't subsidised by anyone to do it, and I see no reason why she should have been.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,764

    What about free education, including a very expensive university, free health service, etc.


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,821
    Quote Originally Posted by closedcasket:
    So you don't think women should be granted any unpaid leave? Whoa.... That is unfair. 10 to 12 weeks unpaid leave should be mandatory.....that way their job is protected.
    No, I think that good employers would recognise the value of keeping a trained employee within the company rather than retraining someone else. But if a company chooses to offer it, it should form part of a contract of employment; I see no reason why it should be mandated by law.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Gruntfuttock:
    No, I think that good employers would recognise the value of keeping a trained employee within the company rather than retraining someone else. But if a company chooses to offer it, it should form part of a contract of employment; I see no reason why it should be mandated by law.
    I think the glass ceiling just became a concrete ceiling.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast