Erm, Nick?

The Lib Dems would give parents up to 19 months off, with the father able to take over care after six months if the mother wished to return to work, allowing men to be with their child beyond what Mr Clegg calls the "cooing and wiping phase."

Fathers already have the entitlement to take just as much time off work when they have children as they desire. What they don\’t have at present is the right to force their (ex-) employer to keep their job open for them. Nor do they have the right to get paid while they take care of said children.

So what you are in fact arguing for is that someone else has to pay for said men to take care of their own children. Which leads to two questions:

1) Who should pay?

2) Why should they pay?

8 comments on “Erm, Nick?

  1. Employers should pay of course. Because employers have an infinite amount of money which they can hand out whenever the state orders them to. Everybody knows that. Duh.

  2. This is why I think it is important for at least some MPs to have run their own business.

    If you start, build and run your own business, you DO value people from the cleaner to the Marketing Manager and you tend to connect at a personal level with all of them, as each has value and performs an essential function. However, if in an SME someone says “I’m off for 6 months and you MUST keep my job open when I get back” you are, usually STUFFED. You have to hire someone as a temp and then just as they are beginning to get up to speed they are kicked out and the previous person returns and will themselves take months to settle back in.

    To suggest such things as Nick does shows us the kind of world he inhabits.

  3. This is, however, an improvement on the status quo – where SMEs refuse to hire women of childbearing age at all, because they might have kids and the rules only apply one way round.

    (yes, it might encourage SMEs to only hire people aged 50+, but that’s probably a bonus given that we’ll all need to work to 70 anyway…)

  4. It’s easy- everyone takes a fifty percent pay cut, and the employers can afford cover. With the bonus that most of the unemployed could be put on a payroll working in reality as professional fathers, whatever their nominal profession. Guess a fair few of the long term sick would be able to carry out that function, so it’d really cut social security costs.

  5. I note also from the article that he wouldn’t “allow a copy of the Daily Sport in his house”. Presumably one tit is enough.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.