Viking Warrior Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 This seems to me to smack of discrimination against all those who are not mothers and fathers. Are they too, to be given the option of taking time off at any given moment, whenever they feel like it? If not, why not? Perhaps they are just expected to slog on in the job taking up the slack of those who go home to play mothers and fathers for weeks or months at a time. Where's the fairness, the equality, the human rights in that? I can well imagine it will be a nightmare trying to administer this change in law especially if each of the partners work for different organisations. The proposal for 2015 sound equally strange. if what is being proposed is true. Working grand parents and close friends will have a legal right to have flexible working so they can spend more time with their grand children etc Im still digesting the news but as a quick thought I would recommend all single people to have children so you can benefit from this new legislation Also Parental leave has been around for at least 10 years Whose going to take advantage of tis updated legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 I think if my daughter has a second child, she will take advantage of this. She earns a lot more than her teacher husband and I can see it would suit them if she gave up some of her maternity leave to him to take. I can't see the fact that parents work for different organisations will make any difference or cause any problems. Parents taking parental leave don't necessarily get paid for the time they have off (currently mothers get a basic payment until they've been on maternity leave for 6 months (and that includes the one or two months they have off before the birth)). Both my daughters saved up to have a further 2 months off, both returning to work when their babies were 6 months old. I think too that workers who have a caring responsibility for aged parents or for disabled older children currently have a right to ASK FOR flexible working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 I don't see it as discrimination, only sensible planning. If a worker has a child, then they should be entitled to parental leave in order to start to bring up their child in the best way possible. And "playing" at mothers and fathers? If only it were that easy. Although i can see that administration problems could occur, but the detail will have to be studied. oh, and the assumption that new parents are slacking in the workplace is an lazy, vacuous "argument", that doesn't stack up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Tough one.. Having a kid is a choice you personally make.. It is not a necessity.. Should your employer provide flexible conditions for you to carry on working??? Yes IF... It does not impact on someone taking up the slack and nit getting paid for it (that would seem your job is redundant anyway) And if that company and reasonably accommodate it.. If no to the above then you choose the possibility of losing your job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 But only women can give birth to children, TDD, so saying that there's a possibility of "losing your job" would be discriminatory. In your proposal only women would suffer, despite the fact that it takes a male and a female to concieve a baby. Do you not think this is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 But only women can give birth to children, TDD, so saying that there's a possibility of "losing your job" would be discriminatory. In your proposal only women would suffer, despite the fact that it takes a male and a female to concieve a baby. Do you not think this is wrong? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Can I back date my claim for paternity leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 This seems to me to smack of discrimination against all those who are not mothers and fathers. Are they too, to be given the option of taking time off at any given moment, whenever they feel like it? If not, why not? Perhaps they are just expected to slog on in the job taking up the slack of those who go home to play mothers and fathers for weeks or months at a time. Where's the fairness, the equality, the human rights in that? I can well imagine it will be a nightmare trying to administer this change in law especially if each of the partners work for different organisations. The proposal for 2015 sound equally strange. if what is being proposed is true. Working grand parents and close friends will have a legal right to have flexible working so they can spend more time with their grand children etc Im still digesting the news but as a quick thought I would recommend all single people to have children so you can benefit from this new legislation Also Parental leave has been around for at least 10 years Whose going to take advantage of tis updated legislation You're opening a can of worms here though arn't you? What about those who have 'smoking breaks' at work? Before I was teaching and working for NFDC I never had these odd 15 mins breaks when I felt like it for a cig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 No. And that is why you're a tw*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 And that is why you're a tw*t. I admire your gift for understatement. Breathtaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 And that is why you're a tw*t. Thanks for the great response Internet police Anyway.. I look forward to swanning off work when I have a kid.. I'm sure my colleagues will love the extra work when I'm off for weeks on end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 You're opening a can of worms here though arn't you? What about those who have 'smoking breaks' at work? Before I was teaching and working for NFDC I never had these odd 15 mins breaks when I felt like it for a cig. Agree that also winds me up.. Still, I go for breaks that I call "me time" Seems fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Thanks for the great response Internet police Anyway.. I look forward to swanning off work when I have a kid.. I'm sure my colleagues will love the extra work when I'm off for weeks on end Even I never thought you could be this clueless. What have women done to you exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Agree that also winds me up.. Still, I go for breaks that I call "me time" Seems fair I'm self-employed, what the f*ck's a break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Even I never thought you could be this clueless. What have women done to you exactly? Boring ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 You go for regular **** breaks, Delldays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 By the way, that word says "****". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 As in, "I'm just off for a quick ****". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 As in, "I'm just off for a quick ****". If and when benji..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 17 January, 2011 Share Posted 17 January, 2011 Tough one.. Having a kid is a choice you personally make.. It is not a necessity.. Should your employer provide flexible conditions for you to carry on working??? Yes IF... It does not impact on someone taking up the slack and nit getting paid for it (that would seem your job is redundant anyway) And if that company and reasonably accommodate it.. If no to the above then you choose the possibility of losing your job We don't want to make it ridiculously hard to consider to have Children. Because then, the birth rate would go down ALOT and then we'd all be ****ed, though perhaps not literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 We don't want to make it ridiculously hard to consider to have Children. Because then, the birth rate would go down ALOT and then we'd all be ****ed, though perhaps not literally. Actually it would be a whole lot better if the birth rate went down. Not that I agree with TDD BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 The sheer naivety and utter selfishness on this thread is astounding. "What about me?" "What do I get?" Discrimination...? Are you taking the p***? One of the pluses for the selfish brigade on here is that more tax will end up going to the government as many parents will make the decision of baby care to who earns the most, as already indicated on here. Hope that eases your pain you morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 It's a strange idea. Will mean that employers will now have to take into consideration a man's age and marital status when employing them. It is bad enough for women of child baring age getting excluded by employers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Agree that also winds me up.. Still, I go for breaks that I call "me time" Seems fair Don't think I would bother to put all that wet weather gear on just so I could stand out on the deck of a sub to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 18 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2011 I opened the debate just to see what the consensus was. The first pargraph was written by a single woman. It is not the first time this has been raised in the world of personnel or HR Companies do discriminate against single people who do not have families The Prudential in Reading is one such company that gives priority to staff with families having first bite of taking holidays around christmas, easter and summer holidays. The law is likely to open a can of worms administering it. If someone works for the private industry and the partner works for the public sector then communicatin of sensitive data will need to be passed and could technically breach data protection regs. also how are payroll going to administer this. It may turn out to be ok but to date the government (oh and this is the labour plan they are putting into place) have only given then headline grabbing part of the act. not the nitty gritty of how its going to work in practice My concern is the appendages they are proposing for 2015. Small business's could suffer but lets allow this new law to bed in first I suspect a lot of men will not take the option up . There has been a very small up take of parental leave since it was introduced many years ago. I do have concerns, Its like the HUman rights act. Some lawyers were of the opinion it would not be abused or misinterpreted . but it has been totall abused for all the wrong reason Oh and thorpie yes fag breaks are a contentious issue and is equally unfair to those that dont smoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 18 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2011 notnowcato Not selfishness at all. I personnaly do not give a toss about the changes its part of life but single people in the work place see themselves as second class workers. Its their perception admittedley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 It's a strange idea. Will mean that employers will now have to take into consideration a man's age and marital status when employing them. It is bad enough for women of child baring age getting excluded by employers.... I think you'll findd men can be fertile from 12-80+ so I don't think may employers will start to worry too much about the chaps. By the way i'm a none parent worker and I have never felt any hard feelings towards a fellow employee going off on maternity or paternity leave. After all they're the one's who have to look after a kid 24/7. I only have to work 9-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickfire Double Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 (edited) By the way i'm a none parent worker and I have never felt any hard feelings towards a fellow employee going off on maternity or paternity leave. After all they're the one's who have to look after a kid 24/7. I only have to work 9-5. Nice to see someone looking at it that way! Food for thought on this issue: - is it in many (not all by any means) cases every bit as much an individual's choice not to have children (and therefore to avail themselves of the support provided / shoulder the additional responsibility of parenthood)? - if we don't support working parents, particularly in the current economic climate, such that fewer working couples who wish to start a family are able to do so, what effect does that have on the next generation of children - born primarily (presumably) either to those sufficiently well-off to live off one wage, or to those not commanding a wage at all? Edited 18 January, 2011 by Quickfire Double Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Don't think I would bother to put all that wet weather gear on just so I could stand out on the deck of a sub to make a point. Why would you need to put wet weather gear on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Why would you need to put wet weather gear on? Well I would have thought it's quite wet underwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Well I would have thought it's quite wet underwater oh right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 I think that kids need their father around a lot as a positive influence at a very young age. They need to learn from their father's sensitivity and intelligence from such a young age. To be fair to thedelldays, though, in his case he'd be right not to take this paternity to be with the newborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 January, 2011 Share Posted 18 January, 2011 Actually it would be a whole lot better if the birth rate went down. Not that I agree with TDD BTW. That is in fairness a very good point. I was just focusing on our economic growth. There needs to be about 3 billion less people in the world at least. Then, maybe then, everyone can live their lives to a higher standard without it being unsustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 January, 2011 Share Posted 19 January, 2011 That is in fairness a very good point. I was just focusing on our economic growth. There needs to be about 3 billion less people in the world at least. Then, maybe then, everyone can live their lives to a higher standard without it being unsustainable. What are you basing this on? You're just making figures up. As a lefty, PC fanny, you should be aware that it is not the number of people that is the problem, it is the distribution of wealth that makes it seem like there are too many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now