this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
53 points (100.0% liked)

Australian News

526 readers
49 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

18 weeks at minimum wage is inadequate. 26 weeks at replacement wage is a good start. I think paternal leave “use it or lose it” is missing from the equation as well. It’s much better to have 2 parents caring for a newborn in the first few months than 1.

If the government are trying to encourage people to have children the massive elephant in the room is the cost of housing though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Forget the activity test - get rid of means testing, too. Why are women who have worked hard to establish a career being penalized by returning to the workforce?

Child care is a necessity, not a luxury. It should be funded, like health care.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

im usually very pro-means testing but i agree with you here

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't this mean workplaces will be less likely to hire women of a particular age lest they have to pay out a years salary?

Just seems that corps aren't going to just agree to this because of their sense of "fairness".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

That is why it should also be equally available to fathers/partners on a "use it or lose it" basis. The "risk" of parental leave becomes even between men and women, thus one reason for hiring discrimination is removed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Probably. I mean, that's definitely illegal, but if they don't explicitly say that's why they're not hiring you, I doubt anything would ever come of it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

If we want this, we need to fight for it. Like the 8 hour work day, this will never be something the employers want. Though my employer does in fact offer some pretty nice maternity policies above the government minimum. Not a year or course, but appreciated all the same.