Originally Posted by bondipom

If it is the economic and social interest of the nation then laws will be made and employers should have to follow them. The selfish wants of the childless should not get in the way of running an economy. Who else is going to be productive in the economy to pay your pension? Compulsory pension schemes (temps and contracting agencies also pay compulsory super) mean Australia is better placed than most western nations to afford its aging workforce.

The popularity of temps and contractors is due to unfair dismissal laws where it is near on impossible to fire any permanent staff who have passed probation.

It is also notable that the government wants mothers to return to work to improve productivity. Without childcare allowances there is no incentive for 2 child mothers to return to work as it costs more.

Originally Posted by Mercedes

20 years ago the Governments stated that people would have to be responsible for their own pensions and look at the old dears nowadays there pensions are a joke anyway. Again if people take the responsibility of their own pensions they will be looked after. Many people are not relying on the pension scheme, I know many people retiring in their late 40's and 50's and that is because they save and invest their earnings in various areas, they are not relying on any government to make sure they are okay. We are all responsible for our lives and our welfare.

Originally Posted by Mercedes

Don't emigrate to Australia then. Actually my viewpoint is that women who want kids should stay at home with them until they are at least 4 rather than put their upbringing into the hands of stranger. I know a few that the baby was put into creches not long after birth. I don't see the point in having kids if you are going to let strangers bring it up and then the kid becomes a latch door kid. A number of single women also get fed up being discriminated in against that the women with kids often get priority on leave at holiday times etc. What happens if a single woman has a sick mother and needs time to look after her or her husband they generally don't get time off. You say the economy is great in the UK, but why are so many companies now going offshore. Answer because the labour is cheap and they don't have to pay matunity leave, sick pay etc. Because they come under another countries laws and the more the Government of UK makes the Employer responsible for making sure husbands pay their wives (which many go overseas to avoid that also) blah blah they will find alternative labour. I know some companies in the UAE were rather taking Indian workers in the IT area because they were more qualified and much cheaper than the British workers. All most companies are really interested in you as an employer is what you can do for to make them money, and some companies will discriminate in taking older women or men rather than someone who may decide to have children. Discrimination I know but it does happen, and the more Governments make Companies pay more out, the Companies will look for an alternative way of saving money. There will always be exceptions but look how many companies have gone offshore in many countries in the last few years and laying off thousands in the UK and hiring overseas.

Originally Posted by bondipom

Successful economies have always imported more and more because the money coming in has forced inflation up. Outsourcing/importing has always happened and always will happen. This happened with textiles, shipbuilding, steel and now it is human capital that is being imported. Japan and Korean companies now outsource and manufacture abroad to reduce costs yet they used to be the nations the west jumped up and down at because of their low wage cost base. If outsourcing was to be blamed on socially progressive policy then surely it wouldn't happen in the US. Fact is that US companies have jumped on the outsourcing bandwagon.

Originally Posted by Mercedes

A factory I know in the UK has gone offshore, as the Director of the company said he trains his staff and often they will move on so and there isn't the loyalty between employers or employees like there was when he first started 30 years ago. By moving offshore and employing overseas he is saving £250,000 per month in wages, NI, and taxes. He would be stupid not to, as he was struggling in the UK and more companies will continue doing so while it is profitable. Companies are interested in a profit they are not a charity so maybe people should be grateful they have a job at all and any benefits they get apart from their wages is a bonus not a right. At the end of the day there are plenty of people overseas who have nothing who would jump at the chance to have even something of a wage.

Originally Posted by Mercedes

You are assuming that companies are going offshore to run sweatshops rather than the costs in running a company in another country might be 50% cheaper. Along with the staff may be highly qualified and of good quality and will still have a standard of a good working environment and being treated well. But the company will have them at a much cheaper price than they may have in their home country.