dbd33

I think that's rather cloying and over-intimate for the parents and child but, we're talking about employment here, and it's bad for the company. Children in general are bad for the company, it's absurd to expect employers to do more than grudgingly accept that some staff will have them.

dbd33

Every time you begat another one? My word, any amateur hip-hoppy person would never have to work.

Zoe Bell

We have teachers who have returned from their mat leave with a sizeable bump. So they are here for half a semester and off on mat leave again.

There are people who are employed here whom I've never actually seen ( and I've been here 18 months now) because they are busy reproducing.

Ironically it seems like the biology teachers are the worst culprits.

ireland2canada

Someone I work with announced her expectancy the day after her 6 month probationary period for a new employee was over. She is now off on 1 year paid maternity leave. Fair play to her I suppose, she worked it to her best advantage and why not.

It's rubbish for the rest of though, we have to cover her work for a year with no additional monetary benefits. It grinds on me at times that she is off on her baby holiday while we are sat here doing her work.

If people wish to reproduce they should do it on their own time, with their own funds. Why should I sit here covering someone elses's work for no extra cash, only to contribute to their tax credits and whatnot as well?

Partially discharged

In some ways, I can see your train of thought. The workplace in many ways discriminates against workers who are not parents raising children.

However, if there wasn't the ability to go on maternity leave etc, what do you think the birthrate would be like in this country......it could end up being taken over by immigrants

It appears to me that your opinions may mirror those of a notorious poster who you may share a postal code with.

ireland2canada

I don't feel necessarily discriminated against, just put upon due to someone else's life choices. This is the workplace, not somewhere where your personal life and associated choices should impact on the rest of the organisation.

I'm not overly bothered about the population either, people can populate the earth as they see fit. It would just be nice if it wasn't such a costly hassle for the rest of us.

And do catch yourself on, I'm sure there are multiple BE posters in my general vicinity. I don't need them or anyone else to form an opinion either.

dbd33

Ahem, I've been highly reproductive on my own time and budget.

fledermaus

Having or not having kids isn't always a matter of choice of course.

I don't mind the maternity leave thing, but I get a little p'd off when it's always the parents who have to leave on time leaving the rest of us with the work, or the parents who take all the vacation days in the summer, or who can't work Christmas, or take sick leave when their child is ill and don't get hauled up by PR for excessive sick leave.

iaink

Because their kids contributions will be paying your pension

Reproduction is very good for the long term economy...hence the reason France and Quebec (with shrinking birth rates) are both frantically doing all they can to encourage more of it.

ireland2canada

Is that right? I should look into why a little thing called CPP is deducted from my pay cheque then.

No one is arguing that people should not have children, you should go back and read where I said that people can populate the earth as they see fit.

My point is that people who do this are a drain on the organisation who employs them during their lengthy absence. I cover the work of an individual who was employed for 6 months before leaving for a 1 year hiatus. She will return in due course and will resume her post. She gets paid a considerable amount more than me (in fact, she gets paid to sit at home!), yet I receive nothing but additional work for covering her duties. I couldn't care less what she does in her private life, the fact is that her choices have impacted on business and not for the better.

iaink

That money is paid in order that todays pensioners receive their check.

My understanding is that pension contributions are not like an RRSP, they are not invested and grown and paid back to you come retirement, those payments go to meet the immediate need for funds, and when we retire our pensions will come from what people are paying into the system at that time.

As for the drain, your employer is being cheap, they should hire a temp to help out, as the person on maternity is mostly drawing money from the EI pool, not from the employer.

ireland2canada

If being cheap is allowing someone to be paid a full wage to sit on their ass for a year, then yes, they are being cheap.

iaink

So if they are going to go above and beyond the minimum requirement (which doenst cost them as its EI that pays) then they should pay for a temp!

Have you told your supervisor that too much work is getting dumped on others as a result of this policy? Im guessing that mangement wont fix it if they think its not a problem, and as it sounds like money isnt a problem for them maybe it worth asking?

ireland2canada

You crack me up Iain

iaink

One of my biggest frustrations as a manager is people assuming the company wont pay for things and therfore not bringing good ideas to my attention. I cant comment on where you work , but around here unhappy workers are unproductive workers. Its sometimes better to pay more to keep them happy than it is to have a constant loss of people who need training and replacing because they are unhappy at work.

Most of the people where I work have been here longer than me, and I am entering my 13th year here, We are profitable, the share price is increasing compared to others in its sector, so I guess we must be doing something right, whether it cracks you up or not.