Employers and Manufacturers Association employment services manager David Lowe said most people took six to 12 months off when they had a baby.
Those who did come back at 14 weeks usually did so because of financial constraints and were often "unsettled".
"If you have a look at the returning parent and the child, everyone is more settled if they take a little bit longer off."
A longer period of paid parental leave would be better for those parents and employers would generally not mind, he said. However he acknowledged the Government faced financial constraints.
If he is right then there is no case for extending PPL to 6 months because most people already take that amount of time. Most people can afford to pay for it themselves. End of story.
8 comments:
Just to be ironic for a moment..
If a pregnant woman receives subsidised health checks, free birthing facilities and antenatal care, plus the proposed 6 months off work paid for.. who owns the property rights to the baby?
JC
Could I ask, as a former employer, at the end of parental leave time what sort of percentage of mothers gave notice to the employer.
This is typical of today's corporate welfare mentality whereby employers expect taxpayers to pick up their costs but not, of course, their profits.
No wonder the New Zealand private sector is so moribund.
Kiwitwit.
This is typical of today's corporate welfare mentality whereby employers expect taxpayers to pick up their costs but not, of course, their profits.
Really. Last time I looked profitsd were taxed but of course if you run a welfare business then the customers have to pay more so you can be nice and hand out large benefits for free for doing nothing but being a baby factory.
If employers can find a gain in operating a PPL scheme that's their business. The value of such isn't incomprehensible in some fields. But they shouldn't be compelled to pay PPL anymore than the taxpayer.
Paulus, I don't have the answer to hand sorry. There was some research conducted by Paul Callister in 2005/06 about the PPL scheme in its early days. Will let you know when I read it more thoroughly if it provides an answer to your question.
If employers can find a gain in operating a PPL scheme that's their business
no it's not - because the root problems are cultural, any benefits from employers, especially those involving employees not working - do nothing but encourage bludgerism. Whether its parentally leave, statutory holidays, ACC coverage, sick leave etc, all it does is encourage bludgerism.
the messes caused by EQC in Christchurch are just another example: clearly the efficient outcome is for government to cancel most insurance contracts, and/or let the insurers go to the wall, so that no-one will offer such stupid coverage ever again.
but no, bludgerism rules, the govt is spending yet more borrowed billions to buy useless red-zone land.
whether it's having a baby, a workplace accident, or an earthquake, people need to take p:erosional responsibility and not expect their employer, the government, or anyone else who happens to have some personal worth running to their rescue.
Anonymous
I suggest you find your own little country to live in .You appear to be able to afford one.
I wonder what you would say if you were one of the many people affected by the ChCh earthquake?
I wonder what would happen to low paid workers when they had a workplace accident without ACC?Often these accidents are the Employers fault but devastating to the people involved and their families even with ACC help.
What you are advocating is uncivilized,inhumane,backward and unkind.
You must be a really sad lonely person with such mean attitudes towards other people.
Anon....maybe first anon is simply sick and tired of being treated as a disposable means to the ends of others and taken for granted....as are many of us. Don't assume we don't care for or want to help others....we might just want to do it without the states gun being waved in our faces...
Post a Comment