Mums And Choice

Dunno how it works in the US, but if a women is employed here, and happens to get pregnant, her employer is obliged to keep her job open, for a perid of one year, on full pay.

Seems a bit amiss to me.

First of, you want to have a baby? Cool. But why expect your employer to pay you for not turning up for a whole year?

The small business must feel this esp hard, imo.

A lot of women are known to take that year out, get the salary, and never go back.

That is a practice that should stop.

Feck, if someone makes the personal choice to have dog, then they would not expect their gaffer to pay them while they took it for walks. Why expect them to pay for YOUR choice to have a baby?

This is gonna sound as sexist as hell, but if I were a small employer, I would mabe think about that, before taking on a female.

I agree. Legislation like this, rather than help women get jobs, is just going to make it harder for them.

If you're running a business and you have a choice between a man that you can fire if he doesn't come in to work, or a woman that may get pregnant in 2 months and you'll need to pay an extra salary for a year, it's the man hands down.

I think what should eventually happen is that larger companies will realise it's in their best interest to offer women something like this. That way they'll be able to attract good female employees to their company, and it will be worthwhile for them to bear the cost if the woman gets pregnant.

I don't know how long it is here, but there is maternity leave. I don't think it goes to a year. Maybe three months, then there has to be a medical reason for any longer. I think it more depends on the company as to how long they allow. But there is a law to protect a woman from just being let go when she has a baby.

CarolinaHound wrote:I don't know how long it is here, but there is maternity leave. I don't think it goes to a year. Maybe three months, then there has to be a medical reason for any longer. I think it more depends on the company as to how long they allow. But there is a law to protect a woman from just being let go when she has a baby.

I think it's a good idea to keep the job open, but not to keep them on full pay. It's too hard on the company to have to keep paying them.

it may seem hard for some companies but most companys take advantage of people as it is and the fact that 9months of the year is spent being sick and getting bigger and bigger it gets continuesly harder to work, i understand that the women that take the money for a year then leave, that is wrong, but it is very hard paying for a baby and yes it's a personal choice most of the time but not always, sometimes u can do everything right and wear everything to prevent getting pregnant and one fo those lil fellas still gets through lol Or on the other hand there are some sercumstances where it's forced upon someone, there are many different ways this can happen.

a year may seem a bit much to you but to be fair you are a women lol? It's a little difficult for men to judge
also some women dont take a year and keep working for about 6months whilst pregnant like my mate did and take half the time! it's upto the mum really aint it?

i understand all points i just wanted to get mine across too and bring up the other point of view too

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I don't know how long it is here, but there is maternity leave. I don't think it goes to a year. Maybe three months, then there has to be a medical reason for any longer. I think it more depends on the company as to how long they allow. But there is a law to protect a woman from just being let go when she has a baby.

I think it's a good idea to keep the job open, but not to keep them on full pay. It's too hard on the company to have to keep paying them.

No, they usually at least go to half pay. Most hourly jobs don't pay that. Just depends on how good the benefits they have for you are. As far as I know, there's no law that says they have to pay them on maternity leave at all. They just have to keep their job for them during the maternity leave or have a job of equal pay for them to come back to.

xshivx wrote:it may seem hard for some companies but most companys take advantage of people as it is and the fact that 9months of the year is spent being sick and getting bigger and bigger it gets continuesly harder to work, i understand that the women that take the money for a year then leave, that is wrong, but it is very hard paying for a baby and yes it's a personal choice most of the time but not always, sometimes u can do everything right and wear everything to prevent getting pregnant and one fo those lil fellas still gets through lol Or on the other hand there are some sercumstances where it's forced upon someone, there are many different ways this can happen.

a year may seem a bit much to you but to be fair you are a women lol? It's a little difficult for men to judge
also some women dont take a year and keep working for about 6months whilst pregnant like my mate did and take half the time! it's upto the mum really aint it?

i understand all points i just wanted to get mine across too and bring up the other point of view too

The ladies here in the US would love to be able to take a year off. Most work up till the baby is born, take however many weeks the maturnity leave is, and are back at work within a month and a half.

Here's another bugbear....

Family allowance money.

Why?

Why are people PAID a weekly amount, just because they choose to have children?

If it is to be paid, it should be means tested.

Well fair enough but over here 90% of us greatly apprecite it too
but as i said different sercumstances and also different country's lol it aint our fault u dont have the same benifits

If it is to be paid, it should be means tested. <<<< i totally agree with that though

xshivx wrote:Well fair enough but over here 90% of us greatly apprecite it too
but as i said different sercumstances and also different country's lol it aint our fault u dont have the same benifits

If it is to be paid, it should be means tested. <<<< i totally agree with that though

I am in the UK, same as you.

See, this is the way I see it.

Wanna have dogs? Cool. Just don't expect a payment from the Government to help feed them.

Wanna have a baby? Same.

There are people I know who don't really need their child allowance, they put it into a savings account, have a holiday with it.

A holiday...

At taxpayers expense.

Well i dont deny some people take advantage of it but tht's not evry1 elses fault i aint saying ur wrong im just saying in my point of view i think most mums need the money, yes not all, but a lot do!

i dont'a wanna argue with you im just saying my point of view too

xshivx wrote:Well i dont deny some people take advantage of it but tht's not evry1 elses fault i aint saying ur wrong im just saying in my point of view i think most mums need the money, yes not all, but a lot do!

i dont'a wanna argue with you im just saying my point of view too

And I welcome it.

No, it is not the fault of those that don't exploit it, of course not.

My question is, should family allowance even exist, at all?

I mean, why are we paying people to have children?

Are we dying out, as a species?

ahh right i see

and cheers god i love it on here everyone is so nice

neways i think we're paying because having a child is very hard work, exspensive, all the work whilst ur carrying that baby, post natal depression many many reasons i would go through all the pro's and con's but im too lazy haha

i dont think it's so much paying for the baby i think it's more paying to help the mother take care of the child and helping out the mum after all she's been through

i mean a year out of say if the kid lives until he's 80, 1 year out of that aint a lot really is it?

xshivx wrote:ahh right i see

and cheers god i love it on here everyone is so nice

neways i think we're paying because having a child is very hard work, exspensive, all the work whilst ur carrying that baby, post natal depression many many reasons i would go through all the pro's and con's but im too lazy haha

i dont think it's so much paying for the baby i think it's more paying to help the mother take care of the child and helping out the mum after all she's been through

i mean a year out of say if the kid lives until he's 80, 1 year out of that aint a lot really is it?

I support the assistance if there is genuine hardship, or it happened to be a single parent.

But a blanket family allowance, which even rich people are entitled to claim, this is just a drain on resources, imo.

Now that i intirely agree with, it shud be investagated into people that actually need it

but i still think it should excists otherwise all the working class people will be buggerd wont we? lol

xshivx wrote:Now that i intirely agree with, it shud be investagated into people that actually need it

but i still think it should excists otherwise all the working class people will be buggerd wont we? lol

Not really.

There are plenty of working class people who work hard to bring up their own kids, which is how it should be, since they opted to bring them into the world.

I don't believe they want hand out's.

i know loads of working class people that still need the help too though

i'm working class but if i ended up having a baby i would need help too

xshivx wrote:i know loads of working class people that still need the help too though

i'm working class but if i ended up having a baby i would need help too

As I said, in cases of genuine hardship, I would be happy with that.

But how many people moan about the cost of kids, when they still find money for their booze and cigs?

I think quite a lot.

They could sacrifice that a bit more, right?

yeah and im saying it still should excist for those people that can't cope, i dont drink or smoke but with the reant and my perscription every two weeks and my nephew and my bf and everything else i would find it nearly impossible to have bring up a baby atm

but it should excist for those who need it is all im saying

xshivx wrote:yeah and im saying it still should excist for those people that can't cope, i dont drink or smoke but with the reant and my perscription every two weeks and my nephew and my bf and everything else i would find it nearly impossible to have bring up a baby atm

but it should excist for those who need it is all im saying

Good point.

It can be an expensive thing, having kids.

But surely you would think about that beforehand, right?

I mean, everyone can do that.

Well yes ofcourse buit sometimes it dont work that way

as i said before sometimes u can to everything to prevent it but it can still happen, protection is never 100 percent and rape for example (sorry to bring it up but it is a point) u may be against abortion and want to keep the baby but yet it still isn't planned and need help, also being a single parent, i could be with my bf when i got pregnant and have it all planned and then he cud dump me or run off with sum1 else

xshivx wrote:Well yes ofcourse buit sometimes it dont work that way

as i said before sometimes u can to everything to prevent it but it can still happen, protection is never 100 percent and rape for example (sorry to bring it up but it is a point) u may be against abortion and want to keep the baby but yet it still isn't planned and need help, also being a single parent, i could be with my bf when i got pregnant and have it all planned and then he cud dump me or run off with sum1 else

What I am witnessing here in the UK, and indeed, in the US, is a culture were people have children, without properly thinking matters through.

'Mistakes' can happen of course, but I think there is purposeful ignorance.

And it doesn't help when the Government hand out more money for each child spawned, that just sends out the message that you don't need to take personal responsibiity, that there is always going to be the Government there to bale ya out.

If you see what I mean...

yeah i totally see what u mean

but some people need the choice, hence why i think it shouldn't be taken away

xshivx wrote:yeah i totally see what u mean

but some people need the choice, hence why i think it shouldn't be taken away

I wouldn't remove anyone's choice to have children, just shift the burden back to them, the financial burden. As I have said, there should be a safety net for genuine hardship, of course, however, we should not be essentially rewarding people for merely having children.

Any fool can make any other fool pregnant.

You need only tune into Jeremy Kyle to see this!

I know hun i agree i just dont want it completely taken away from epopel that need it, get me?
and are u kidding??? i specifically get up every morning to watch that show, i have religiously watched it for like 2years strait haha

xshivx wrote:I know hun i agree i just dont want it completely taken away from epopel that need it, get me?
and are u kidding??? i specifically get up every morning to watch that show, i have religiously watched it for like 2years strait haha

Hey, I have heard that old Jeremy has been a bit of bad lad himself, in his day.

And those lie detector tests? In reality, they are about 60% effective, not over 90%, as is stated.

FACT.

yea i heard so too, gives me a chance aye haha

and that maybe so but to be honest i dont care haha i still love the show and will always watch it hehe

Would you go on it, if only to get a DNA test or some such thing?

Nope
if i needed help for sumit else like psychological help and there was no other way, or had problems trusting people and needed help i would go for the help but nah i wudnt go on there for that

I guess in a sense we do the same thing here in the US, but we get it in the form of tax deductions.. Heck, my first child almost got named Deduction. And lower income mothers get WIC (which isn't easy to qualify for, the income has to be real low). With WIC they get vouchers to by formula, milk, cereal, baby food, and juice. They don't actually get cash, just a voucher to get the food at the store.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

xshivx wrote:I know hun i agree i just dont want it completely taken away from epopel that need it, get me?
and are u kidding??? i specifically get up every morning to watch that show, i have religiously watched it for like 2years strait haha

Hey, I have heard that old Jeremy has been a bit of bad lad himself, in his day.

And those lie detector tests? In reality, they are about 60% effective, not over 90%, as is stated.

FACT.

I don't think they are even 60% accurate. If you can learn to control your heart rate and stay calm, you can beat it easy.

CarolinaHound wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

xshivx wrote:I know hun i agree i just dont want it completely taken away from epopel that need it, get me?
and are u kidding??? i specifically get up every morning to watch that show, i have religiously watched it for like 2years strait haha

Hey, I have heard that old Jeremy has been a bit of bad lad himself, in his day.

And those lie detector tests? In reality, they are about 60% effective, not over 90%, as is stated.

FACT.

I don't think they are even 60% accurate. If you can learn to control your heart rate and stay calm, you can beat it easy.

Hi mate.

I got the 60% from a series of tests that a team of psychologists took part in, a few years ago.

The general point is that they are clearly unreliable.

Do some US police forces ever use them, and if so, how do they warrant it, given said unreliability?

CarolinaHound wrote:I guess in a sense we do the same thing here in the US, but we get it in the form of tax deductions.. Heck, my first child almost got named Deduction. .

Lol.

But the question still remains.

We have that too, here in the UK, there is a range of things, working tax credits, child tax credits, etc, etc.

But the question remains.

Why?

Why all these perks for those that choose to have kids?

Why are they given priority over those that choose not too?

I could understand it more if we were on the point of extinction, CH...

xshivx wrote:Nope
if i needed help for sumit else like psychological help and there was no other way, or had problems trusting people and needed help i would go for the help but nah i wudnt go on there for that

I sure do wish that we had some one as cute as you here working at our Mac Donalds.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

xshivx wrote:I know hun i agree i just dont want it completely taken away from epopel that need it, get me?
and are u kidding??? i specifically get up every morning to watch that show, i have religiously watched it for like 2years strait haha

Hey, I have heard that old Jeremy has been a bit of bad lad himself, in his day.

And those lie detector tests? In reality, they are about 60% effective, not over 90%, as is stated.

FACT.

I don't think they are even 60% accurate. If you can learn to control your heart rate and stay calm, you can beat it easy.

Hi mate.

I got the 60% from a series of tests that a team of psychologists took part in, a few years ago.

The general point is that they are clearly unreliable.

Do some US police forces ever use them, and if so, how do they warrant it, given said unreliability?

Well, it depends on what the state and local laws are, but in general, they can ask you to take one and you can refuse. They really can't force you to take it. And I don't think they are admissible as evidence. But a prosecutor will eventually blurt out how a defendant either failed a lie detector or refused to take one. Which it's suppose to be on the prosecution to prove guilt, innocent until proven guilty, but you and I both know once someone is accused the jury is automatically half convinced they are guilty. And they know a juror is gonna think "If he's not guilty why is he afraid to take the test." So it's basically just a stage prop to convict someone in my opinion.

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:I guess in a sense we do the same thing here in the US, but we get it in the form of tax deductions.. Heck, my first child almost got named Deduction. .

Lol.

But the question still remains.

We have that too, here in the UK, there is a range of things, working tax credits, child tax credits, etc, etc.

But the question remains.

Why?

Why all these perks for those that choose to have kids?

Why are they given priority over those that choose not too?

I could understand it more if we were on the point of extinction, CH...

It's not really meant to be a perk. It's suppose to help folks with little income and the middle class. I think the main idea is to help the lower income folks to provide better for their kids.. ie healthier kids. But God forbid lower income people get a break that those with high incomes don't get, that wouldn't be fair.(being sarcastic )

Frankly the human population is getting to the point that if we were deer or some other animal who's population got to big, we'd have special hunts to thin the herd. Which I don't even classify some of those as hunts, it's more akin to fencing herds of animals in and just shooting them where they stand.

Old Timer wrote:

xshivx wrote:Nope
if i needed help for sumit else like psychological help and there was no other way, or had problems trusting people and needed help i would go for the help but nah i wudnt go on there for that

I sure do wish that we had some one as cute as you here working at our Mac Donalds.

Silver tongued devil. aka Suck up. hehehehe

I've already gone through most of the points why i think we have those benifits

haha thanks OT but u wudnt wanna see me stressed on the job lol i aint so cute then i asure you
plus at the job it's all greasy and horrid lol aint a pretty site

xshivx wrote:I've already gone through most of the points why i think we have those benifits

haha thanks OT but u wudnt wanna see me stressed on the job lol i aint so cute then i asure you
plus at the job it's all greasy and horrid lol aint a pretty site

I bet you're just as cute as can be. All greasy and smelling like fries. or do ya'll call them chips over there?

aaaaaw thanks so much CH but nah i look terrible when im at work lol
and u can call em fries some of us over here do, but most of us call them chips
mmmmmmm chips lol