Low paid workers $10,000 worse off under Turnbull parental leave cuts: research   :(

Date
    January 14, 2016
    Sydney Morning Herald






New parents in low-paid jobs stand to be $10,500 worse off under a Turnbull government paid parental leave plan intended as a compromise on cuts proposed by Tony Abbott, according to new university research.

The research, commissioned by women's group Fair Agenda and conducted by the University of Sydney's Women and Work Research Group, shows mothers who work in healthcare, teaching and retail could lose between $3942 and $10,512 under the compromise policy.   :(

In the 2015 budget, the Abbott government unveiled changes restricting 80,000 new mothers from "double dipping" by accessing both employer and government parental leave schemes.


Critics say the cuts to paid parental leave will push mothers to return to work too early.

The unpopular proposals were modified by Social Services Minister Christian Porter in December after they were rejected by the Senate crossbench. Under the new version, the weeks of paid leave from the employer are deducted from the government's 18-week scheme.

Under the dumped policy, the cut was based on income - capping the payments at the equivalent of 18 weeks at the national minimum wage.

Fair Agenda said despite the Turnbull compromise, mothers with employer-based schemes will still miss out, with a reduction in the weeks of government-paid leave they can access.

According to the modelling, the worst hit example is a part-time teacher in South Australia, who loses $10,512 in payments.

A mother working in Woolworths in Tasmania, having her first child, loses $3942. A full-time ambulance worker in Queensland is stripped of $9198 and a part-time nurse in Victoria misses out on $6570.

Fair Agenda said the cuts - intended to take effect from July this year - amount to a cut of four to six weeks of average living costs and leave parents with government-provided paid leave for only half the 26 weeks it is recommended they have with their child for health and welfare purposes.

"Paid time at home is vital to making sure working parents can afford to give their baby the best start in life in those precious early months," said Renee Carr, the group's executive director.

"The government want to drastically cut the paid time at home available to 80,000 new parents, leaving many without support after their baby's first 18 weeks."

Carr said women in low incomes are hit especially hard and that the proposals will prove as unpopular as those in former treasurer Joe Hockey's 2015 budget.

The research group predicts changes would prevent women from spending critical time with their new child, increase financial pressure, adversely affect the health and welfare of babies and increase demand on an already strained childcare system.

Professor Marian Baird, co-author of the report, said that any undermining of the "important and positive" PPL system will see new mothers drop out of the workforce or leave their children in care to return to work too early.

A spokesman for Mr Porter told Fairfax Media that the government is "still in good faith negotiations with the crossbench on PPL policy."

"Any analysis is hypothetical as detail of the policy has not yet been announced."

Labor's Jenny Macklin said: "The government's so-called compromise is nothing more than a con and a cut that will leave thousands of new parents worse off.

"The Liberals are still treating new mums like they did in the budget, when Scott Morrison called them rorters and double-dippers.

"These cuts will mean thousands of new mums will be forced to live on less, and spend less time at home with their newborn babies.

"This Liberal Government's record on paid parental leave has been nothing short of atrocious."   :(

comments so far

        Nothing changes with this lot, everything stays the same, anyone that votes for these nice people deserves every thing they get   :(

    Commenter
        Rusty1
    Location
        Hobart
    Date and time
        January 14, 2016, 8:57AM

        Polished and splendidly suited - Malcolm is still "a sheep in wolves clothing" All spin but nothing has changed. The savage cuts remain - so much for "innovation" Mal.   :(

    Commenter
        pavlina31
    Date and time
        January 14, 2016, 9:11AM

    Sounds like the mean-spiritedness of the LNP toward the poor and toward low salary earners is continuing under Turnbull ...   :(

Commenter
    Bede
Date and time
    January 14, 2016, 9:11AM

    Who would have thought? Same old, same old with this ship of fools! Doesn't matter who the captain is.   :(

Commenter
    Rupert
Date and time
    January 14, 2016, 9:11AM

so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one? 

i'd love to see your logic.

Would expect nothing more from these ars%^&*&oles! Does not it make abborts scheme look even more stupid than it did now that you can see the real lib ball game, screwing us again as usual. >:( >:( >:( >:(

"return to work too early"....

Of course, they could always stay at home permanently.. but nobody wants that.....

If they are in a dual income household, which is most likely the case, they both should be organising their finances better to cater for childing....

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic.

(slits wrists again)  Twice in a day I agree with Longy.

We keep hearing how we old bastards are unsustainable - that money pot isn't endless, you know, and is not subject to the whim of the 70% of public servants who are women.  they need to man up and take responsibility for their own lives and not expect the public teat to feed them endlessly.

God help us if Labor force 50% on us......

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic.

How about you explain your views on Joe Hockey getting his full parliamentary pension while serving as Ambassador to the USA. Double standards much?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic.

Why was it only PS?

Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only?

Simple answer - if you get one you don't get the other - you get to choose which is better for you....easy as pie.  I don't see why so many make this kind of thing so hard.

Actually - it's because politician's daughters might miss out.... life's tough in the sweet lane.

Bam wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. How about you explain your views on Joe Hockey getting his full parliamentary pension while serving as Ambassador to the USA. Double standards much?

the differences are enormous that anyone who wasnt an idiot would work out.  TWO parental leave payments are two lots of UNEARNED FREE MONEY going to parents.  Joe Hockey's pension is something he earned and his other salary is from his current job.

must suck to be as jealous as you!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only?

Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:07pm:

Joe Hockey's pension is something he earned

that's debatable  :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice.

I thought your agument was against double dipping, now it seems you only care when certain people double dip.

Would you be happy with PS choosing which scheme, or demand they take the least benefical?

Who would think that any government could come to power with a promise of implementing a PPL scheme widely agreed to be much too generous to high income earners who in the end not only don't implement their own election commitment on PPL but cut back the current position.

The employer negotiated PPL payments were always designed and intended to sit on top of the government system. It isn't double dipping.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice.

there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice


Many employees are paid hundreds of times and some thousands, some get paid every week ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice.

How odd.  Treating employment contract conditions and a government entitlement as the same thing.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice.

so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees?

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:19pm:

so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees?

...no they shouldn't get extra

Swagman wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? ...no they shouldn't get extra

If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well

If I work for the Qld police and am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has a problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well



double standards don't you think?

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:06pm:

If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well

Since when?

That's like going on holidays and getting paid the dole.... :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:06pm: If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well Since when? That's like going on holidays and getting paid the dole.... :D

since you took up longies argument . ... you should have stopped to take that into consideration before  answering for him

Swagman wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:06pm: If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well Since when? That's like going on holidays and getting paid the dole.... :D

or perhaps getting Long service leave while working?  :o :o :o :o

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

or perhaps getting Long service leave while working?

No, that's different.

Swagman wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different.

why? Govt. pays it.

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:33pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it.

...for BSPSs yes,

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. I thought your agument was against double dipping, now it seems you only care when certain people double dip. Would you be happy with PS choosing which scheme, or demand they take the least benefical?

the concept of 'double-dipping' is taking twice FROM THE SAME SOURCE.  I dont care it they get 5 lots of PPL as long as no one is asked to pay TWICE.

stunspore wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. How odd.  Treating employment contract conditions and a government entitlement as the same thing.

it is simple... remove the employment conditions.  the funny thing is if this were a liberal policy that sees someone paid twice for the same thing you would scream murder.

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 8:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees?

VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice.

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:06pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? ...no they shouldn't get extra If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well If I work for the Qld police and am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has a problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well double standards don't you think?

BHP is a private company and can do what it wants. the public service does what the government wants.

its simple really.

John Smith wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 9:33pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it.

since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit?

All this is nonsense - you either get no PPL - or you get PPL from your employer (who may be the government) - or you get Government PPL.  Whichever way it cooks - you only get ONE.

What IS the problem in comprehension here?  Not hard at all - NOBODY should get it twice, and if the government as an employer has signed up to such theft from the public pocket - they should be hung, drawn, castrated and quartered.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:47am:

All this is nonsense - you either get no PPL - or you get PPL from your employer (who may be the government) - or you get Government PPL.  Whichever way it cooks - you only get ONE. What IS the problem in comprehension here?  Not hard at all - NOBODY should get it twice, and if the government as an employer has signed up to such theft from the public pocket - they should be hung, drawn, castrated and quartered.

If i decide to give my employees additional PPL then that is my business and the government scheme is additional.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. I thought your agument was against double dipping, now it seems you only care when certain people double dip. Would you be happy with PS choosing which scheme, or demand they take the least benefical? the concept of 'double-dipping' is taking twice FROM THE SAME SOURCE.  I dont care it they get 5 lots of PPL as long as no one is asked to pay TWICE.

So as long as they work in any other government agency besides welfare your OK with it?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit?

Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer

I.E the government

Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately?

The lib supporters are really, really strange lot - when they don't understand "double dipping" here.

They are confused about LSL and clearly despite how clearly  explained it is to them, they remain strangely ignorant.

The government LSL is to all public - from the poor to the rich.

The LSL paid to an employer via employment is specific to that EBA or contract.

The money comes out of 2 different areas and budgeted accordingly.  As for the same "source" argument - that's plain rubbish.  It's like buying from woolsworths and expecting to get a refund or exchange at Big W.  They are from the same conglomerate (same source) but they are considered 2 different companies.  Same with LSL.

stunspore wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 1:18pm:

The government LSL is to all public - from the poor to the rich.

That's a strange statement..........even for you  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:47am: All this is nonsense - you either get no PPL - or you get PPL from your employer (who may be the government) - or you get Government PPL.  Whichever way it cooks - you only get ONE. What IS the problem in comprehension here?  Not hard at all - NOBODY should get it twice, and if the government as an employer has signed up to such theft from the public pocket - they should be hung, drawn, castrated and quartered. If i decide to give my employees additional PPL then that is my business and the government scheme is additional.

If you choose to pay your employees PPL, then the amount of government PPL should be paid on a diminished basis so as to ensure that no extra is paid out of the public purse.  Unless - of course - you are wishing to give your employees free gifts - meaning you would be circumventing the rules...

Simple enough.  If you get private, your government allowance is reduced.

This is not an endless pot of gold for some.

Sounds like a good idea the whole deal is stalled until all the bugs are worked out.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit?

shut up stupid ... you shouldn't talk if you have no idea

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit? Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer I.E the government Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately?

Not quite what I was referring to. Anyone in the building industry gets paid long service leave by the govt. It's a federal scheme so it won't matter what state you live in.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice.

no , no ... you're trying to avoid answering the question by using some lame numbers excuse. You claimed there is no problem with companies paying PPL to someone already claiming it from the govt. as its a company decision but then cry about it when that company if govt. owned?

;D ;D ;D ;D

quick, put your garter belt back on, you did much better when you were wearing a dress.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:06pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? ...no they shouldn't get extra If I work for BHP and I am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has no problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well If I work for the Qld police and am able to negotiate PPL through my union, the right has a problem with my getting the govt. PPL as well double standards don't you think? BHP is a private company and can do what it wants. the public service does what the government wants. its simple really.

yes it is simple ... you want double standards just because you're not a public servant. :D :D :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:43am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. I thought your agument was against double dipping, now it seems you only care when certain people double dip. Would you be happy with PS choosing which scheme, or demand they take the least benefical? the concept of 'double-dipping' is taking twice FROM THE SAME SOURCE.  I dont care it they get 5 lots of PPL as long as no one is asked to pay TWICE. So as long as they work in any other government agency besides welfare your OK with it?

at least TRY to understand what is being said.  NO government employee should get two lots of PPL.  it is our taxes paying for it.  if BHP wants to do it that's fine.  NOT MY MONEY.

why cant i clam the dole when I am on holidays?  SAME THING.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit? Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer I.E the government Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately?

he said LSL.... IN GENERAL.

John Smith wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit? Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer I.E the government Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately? Not quite what I was referring to. Anyone in the building industry gets paid long service leave by the govt. It's a federal scheme so it won't matter what state you live in.

and the funds for this is collected from.... EMPLOYERS.

idiot.

John Smith wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:46am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice. no , no ... you're trying to avoid answering the question by using some lame numbers excuse. You claimed there is no problem with companies paying PPL to someone already claiming it from the govt. as its a company decision but then cry about it when that company if govt. owned? ;D ;D ;D ;D quick, put your garter belt back on, you did much better when you were wearing a dress.

because it is MY TAXES paying for it. TWICE.

now if a company I am a substantial shareholder in does it I might object again BECAUSE IT IS MY MONEY.  but if it isnt my money and no one else complains, why shoudl you?



your problem is quite simple.  your position on any and all topics is easy to deduce. If it is a liberal policy, you will 100% oppose it no matter what. and vice versa.

you havent seriously considered any topic... probably ever.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

because it is MY TAXES paying for it. .

You don't pay taxes.

If we are worse off under Turnbull - what's the alternative?

Mr 14% - Shorten?

Maqqa wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:30pm:

If we are worse off under Turnbull - what's the alternative? Mr 14% - Shorten?

Yes.

Sad, but true.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:46am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice. no , no ... you're trying to avoid answering the question by using some lame numbers excuse. You claimed there is no problem with companies paying PPL to someone already claiming it from the govt. as its a company decision but then cry about it when that company if govt. owned? ;D ;D ;D ;D quick, put your garter belt back on, you did much better when you were wearing a dress. because it is MY TAXES paying for it. TWICE. now if a company I am a substantial shareholder in does it I might object again BECAUSE IT IS MY MONEY.  but if it isnt my money and no one else complains, why shoudl you? your problem is quite simple.  your position on any and all topics is easy to deduce. If it is a liberal policy, you will 100% oppose it no matter what. and vice versa. you havent seriously considered any topic... probably ever.

you don't get to cry about what your taxes pay for ... you pay taxes, where it's spent after that is not up to you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:22pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit? Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer I.E the government Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately? Not quite what I was referring to. Anyone in the building industry gets paid long service leave by the govt. It's a federal scheme so it won't matter what state you live in. and the funds for this is collected from.... EMPLOYERS. nice person.

you really have no friggen idea do you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, employers do not pay the LSL for tradesmen. I could tell you who does, but I'm enjoying your pathetic squirming.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:33pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 9:17pm: or perhaps getting Long service leave while working? No, that's different. why? Govt. pays it. since when was LSL paid by the govt, twit? Every government employee has LSL paid by his/her employer I.E the government Have you been drinking from the same bottle as teaspoon lately? he said LSL.... IN GENERAL.

well, I wasn't aware anyone other than tradesmen could claim LSL whilst working ... if you know different, please tell us ... you're doing so well so far  ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:43am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. I thought your agument was against double dipping, now it seems you only care when certain people double dip. Would you be happy with PS choosing which scheme, or demand they take the least benefical? the concept of 'double-dipping' is taking twice FROM THE SAME SOURCE.  I dont care it they get 5 lots of PPL as long as no one is asked to pay TWICE. So as long as they work in any other government agency besides welfare your OK with it? at least TRY to understand what is being said.  NO government employee should get two lots of PPL.  it is our taxes paying for it.  if BHP wants to do it that's fine.  NOT MY MONEY. why cant i clam the dole when I am on holidays?  SAME THING.

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT UNEMPLOYED YOU DUMB CARNT

John Smith wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:07pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:46am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice. no , no ... you're trying to avoid answering the question by using some lame numbers excuse. You claimed there is no problem with companies paying PPL to someone already claiming it from the govt. as its a company decision but then cry about it when that company if govt. owned? ;D ;D ;D ;D quick, put your garter belt back on, you did much better when you were wearing a dress. because it is MY TAXES paying for it. TWICE. now if a company I am a substantial shareholder in does it I might object again BECAUSE IT IS MY MONEY.  but if it isnt my money and no one else complains, why shoudl you? your problem is quite simple.  your position on any and all topics is easy to deduce. If it is a liberal policy, you will 100% oppose it no matter what. and vice versa. you havent seriously considered any topic... probably ever. you don't get to cry about what your taxes pay for ... you pay taxes, where it's spent after that is not up to you.

it most certainly DOES or dd the entire purpose of representative democracy elude you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 5:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:07pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 8:46am: John Smith wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 8:53am: so crook, you think it is fair for ANYONE to double-dip on parental leave? why should public servants get TWO lots of leave when everyone else gets only one?  i'd love to see your logic. Why was it only PS? Many large companies have a PPL schemes, why single out government workers only? Because it is the GOVERNMENT paying twice for the same person. they only pay once to a private individual. if their company also pays it that is their benefit, but there is no way a government should be paying THEIR employees twice. so government employees shouldn't be allowed the same rights or benefits as offered to private sector employees? VERY FEW private sector employees get it as well as PPL.  there is only a few.  but the poin t is that the government itself is currently paying it twice. no , no ... you're trying to avoid answering the question by using some lame numbers excuse. You claimed there is no problem with companies paying PPL to someone already claiming it from the govt. as its a company decision but then cry about it when that company if govt. owned? ;D ;D ;D ;D quick, put your garter belt back on, you did much better when you were wearing a dress. because it is MY TAXES paying for it. TWICE. now if a company I am a substantial shareholder in does it I might object again BECAUSE IT IS MY MONEY.  but if it isnt my money and no one else complains, why shoudl you? your problem is quite simple.  your position on any and all topics is easy to deduce. If it is a liberal policy, you will 100% oppose it no matter what. and vice versa. you havent seriously considered any topic... probably ever. you don't get to cry about what your taxes pay for ... you pay taxes, where it's spent after that is not up to you. it most certainly DOES or dd the entire purpose of representative democracy elude you?

in that case, can the govt. please stop subsidising private schools and health, paying for wars on foreign lands and stop paying for tax cuts to rich peoples superannuation. :D :D :D