各位妈妈，你们是否TONY 提议的赞同带薪产假？

水月境天

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/po ... -20100312-q40u.html
作者 Adele Horin
Tony Abbott的带薪产假计划，让他象个白痴。
但是仔细想一想，他至少让执政党重新考虑了他们吝啬的底薪产假计划。
换而言之，也许这是一件好事，让澳大利亚能够和西方其他国家，例如英国和加拿大一样对产妇有更好的福利。

Big business is on the rampage over Tony Abbott's paid parental leave plan and the Opposition Leader has come in for a terrible savaging. Anyone inclined to regard him as flaky has seized on his announcement with unfeigned glee: now he's really made an idiot of himself.

But I am thankful he's drawn attention to Labor's stingy parental leave policy that we are likely to be stuck with for aeons. Once in place no government will be bothered to unpick the pieces, and remake the policy.

In industrial relations policy what we get in the beginning is often what we get for a lifetime. We have lived with four weeks' annual leave for 36 years with no hope of it becoming more generous. For 33 years we lived with a standard working week of 40 hours before it was finally lowered a notch to 38 hours. Just look at the history of maternity leave in this country. We got 52 weeks' unpaid leave more than 30 years ago, and while every other country in the world bar the US streaked ahead of us in establishing paid parental leave, Australia remained recalcitrant.

Business argued back in the dark ages it could not afford even unpaid parental leave because of the hassle involved in keeping a woman's job open and replacing her with a temporary. Prophecies of Armageddon proved baseless, business boomed, and learnt to live with the adjustment. Now it vehemently argues it cannot afford to make a contribution towards paid parental leave. Armageddon looms again.

If long service leave had not been won in 1953, I doubt there would be a hope of it being introduced today, and its timid advocates in any case would be calling for it to be paid at the minimum wage rate (at least to women). Even as we deride Americans for Neanderthal views on universal healthcare, I wonder if Medicare, and the Medicare levy, would win support if proposed now, representing what has become the unspeakable - a tax increase.

That's why it is so important to start off with a first-class paid parental leave policy, not one that leaves us laggards in the developed world. It is a fallacy to think Labor's policy of 18 weeks' leave paid at the minimum wage is simply a ''start''. We will be living with it, I wager, for decades. Britain, for example, has deferred indefinitely its plan of 52 weeks' paid maternity leave that was due to start in April. The economy, the weather … there is always a good reason to defer upgrading plans that support working women in particular.

Australia's proposed 18 weeks at minimum wage compares unfavourably with much of the developed world. Sweden grants 16 months of paid maternity leave (a minimum of two months to be taken by the father), and so does Norway, Denmark 52 weeks, Czechoslovakia 28 weeks, Ireland 26 weeks, Hungary 24 weeks, Canada grants 15 weeks to the mother and a further 35 weeks to be shared with the father. While baulking at 52 weeks, Britain already grants 39 weeks' paid maternity leave. In many of these countries weeks or months of unpaid leave are also available.

Australia's proposed quantum of leave compares more with Asian or Latin American countries than with Europe, and the low payment ensures fathers will not take it.

It was always going to be difficult to fund a generous parental leave scheme out of general revenue given the straitjacket politicians have tied themselves in. With any hint of a tax increase evoking howls of hysteria, governments are confined to very modest social initiatives that involve cuts elsewhere in the budget.

In Australia more than most places, couples are reliant on two incomes given astronomical housing prices, rents and mortgages. Yet most women want at least six months off work when they have a baby, and babies need that time, too. Paid parental leave is as legitimate a right as sick leave.

The only way to have secured a better parental leave scheme, 26 weeks with replacement wages, such as Abbott is suggesting, was to have imposed a levy on business, with a contribution from government. The levy goes into a funding pool so that no single employer is penalised by having a large female workforce, and there is no incentive to discriminate against women in hiring. The thrust of Abbott's scheme is not outlandish, except in a world where business is untouchable. It was not so long ago business almost succeeded in rewriting the nation's industrial relations policy. What business wants - and doesn't want - is not always good for Australia.

The details of Abbott's policy may well need refining - the 1.7 per cent levy on taxable income on the top 3200 companies might be too high and too narrowly based. It would be helpful if he provided more details on who advised on and costed the policy. With his track record, and with business, Labor, and the media against him, Abbott is not the best advocate for a policy that in principle is far from reckless.

Instead we will settle, with gratitude, for paid parental leave that is so much better than nothing but leaves us behind countries such as Britain and Canada. And we'll be stuck with it for decade

[ 本帖最后由 水月境天 于 2010-3-14 18:55 编辑 ]

水月境天

Australia's proposed 18 weeks at minimum wage compares unfavourably with much of the developed world.瑞典的带薪产假是16个月。 Sweden grants 16 months of paid maternity leave (a minimum of two months to be taken by the father), and 挪威和丹麦是52周 so does Norway, Denmark 52 weeks,捷克是28周。 Czechoslovakia 28 weeks,爱尔兰是26周。 Ireland 26 weeks, 匈牙利24周 Hungary 24 weeks, 加拿大是妈妈拿15周之后35周是爸爸和妈妈可以分享的假期。 Canada grants 15 weeks to the mother and a further 35 weeks to be shared with the father. While baulking at 52 weeks, 英国在52周中的39周是带薪的。Britain already grants 39 weeks' paid maternity leave. In many of these countries weeks or months of unpaid leave are also available.

水月境天

既然踢到亲子版来了。
正好顺便问问，各位妈妈，你们是否赞成这个带薪产假的计划。
是否担心会对自己以后换工作有影响？

weiying800

路过~~~漂走。。。。

gohome

我们公司是挪威那边就是一年的带薪产假. 其实澳洲福利真的不怎么样, 我看了新加坡那边, 公司出8周, 政府出8周. 一共16周.
还有以前我们一个同事刚从英国移民过来,说看牙英国福利比澳洲好太多了.

leeniuniu

福利好的都是不能移民而且出生率低的国家，，如果澳洲这种高度移民国家有20几周带薪产假，，那会有更多的华人和印度人疯狂涌入，，那些不工作靠生孩子赚钱的人会更篮，，老老实实工作的人税收会更高，，这个国家就完了

shuyuanli

楼主, 标题的词序弄反了

一路向北

进来顶标题

alyssa

原帖由 leeniuniu 于 2010-6-16 10:50 发表
福利好的都是不能移民而且出生率低的国家，，如果澳洲这种高度移民国家有20几周带薪产假，，那会有更多的华人和印度人疯狂涌入，，那些不工作靠生孩子赚钱的人会更篮，，老老实实工作的人税收会更高，，这个国家就完 ...

我忽然发现，福利这事是双刃剑。
有(paopaobing(60)) 拿福利的人，可能这一辈子就一直拿福利下去了。没什么变化。

vicki2011

当然是好事了。

huoyinga

同意，感觉很多人为了拿政府的福利，狂生孩子，最后生了一个排，结果都是问题孩子，一个都没教育好。但大部分是澳洲的白人，尤其是乡村的地方。

鱼石

生孩子重要还是教养孩子重要？如果只鼓励生孩子，生了一堆孩子之后，为了省钱，孩子尽可能不上幼儿园，大了随便上个公里学校。父母为生计奔波没有时间教育孩子，放羊式养孩子，如同养宠物。这要的澳洲实在没前途可言。
个人认为钱要用在最有价值的投资上。应当加大对幼儿园的补贴，孩子7岁前的生理和大脑发育至关重要。如果天天在家，孩子没有社交，没有系统学习（能有时间和能力进行系统教育的父母有多少？？），白白荒废智力开发的大好时间。当然政府对幼儿园的要求也要提高，阿姨的素质，幼儿园的设施等都需要政府高标准严要求，投资也是很需要的。之后是孩子上学后，加大对学校（尤其是公立校）的高标准严要求，对老师的培养和硬件的投资要大大投钱。人不在多，高素质就好。移民政策也应该倾向于高技术人才。

鱼石

总而言之，政府要给家长补贴，让孩子尽可能早的上幼儿园，上综合素质好的公立学校；
政府要给幼儿园阿姨，公立学校老师提供福利性质的好的培训，给幼儿园和学校加大硬件投资。 这要的导向是让钱堆出一个高素质的澳洲，不要学老毛，什么英雄母亲，把好好个中国变成这样了。

小Will妈妈

澳洲也还好吧，公司给１２周带薪产假，加上政府的１８个星期最低工资，我觉得够好了