How on earth can the inequity in benefits between workers with and workers without children be fixed?

CIVIL WAR RAGES IN THE OFFICE


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fe鈥?/a>





';Offices, factories, surgeries, shops and studios are having to cope with increasing incidents of job jealousy 鈥?between those who insist on more time with their children and those who are forced to take up the slack which their colleagues with families leave behind.';





Basically someone has noticed that this doesn't actually mean equality and so is proposing that these benefits are given to EVERYONE, but businesses are miffed because now it means no work is going to be done because there will be noone around to pick up the slack.





How is this to be solved?





Does this mean parents can only be employed half time each under feminism, or would this mean that both would have half the experience and not be as valuable as a single employee?





How can this work with single parents (ie. single mothers) around, who are probably the main causes of this inequality anyway?How on earth can the inequity in benefits between workers with and workers without children be fixed?
Well, first off I'm living with a widowed mother and a brother, quite comfortably if I do say so. My brother and I don't work, and my mother cleans (wealthy people's) houses for a living. If my mother can pull it off without all these benefits, I'm pretty certain other people should be able to. Those that demand those benefits are quite simply complaining, and don't really deserve the ';right'; to. The plain truth is, if you don't work as long as somebody else, and if you are doing the same duties, you should not be paid as much as they do or afforded bonuses, even if you do have children. That's my outlook.How on earth can the inequity in benefits between workers with and workers without children be fixed?
There should be a zero tolerance policy, in the sense that the only leave they should be granted as far as children are concerned, is a pregnancy leave. NOTHING ELSE! Then people who choose not to have children should get christmas bonuses. You are not legally obligated to give anyone a christmas bonus, so that would be the best way to make up for the inequality.
What sort of inequities are you talking about? I would like a little bit more specifics(more specific than more time to spend with their families, after all those people could actually be looking to not be forced to work overtime, week-ends, or more than 40hrs a week) before I continue to answer.





Barking Lunchbox, I am currently one-half of a two-income family. Some of us don't do it for the ';toys';, some of us do it because it is necessary at the time the decision was made for the SAHP to get a job.
daycare, government subsidized or otherwise, is a ROTTEN substitute for a healthy homelife.





People that aren't prepared to make the sacrifices required to raise children properly - and devote the required time - shouldn't have them in the first place. As I've said, what's more important, skiing trips and late model, his and hers expensive cars, etc, etc., or the welfare of the kids?





If you want a two income family, with both parents grubbing for all the useless toys they can get their paws on, then you shouldn't breed.
How are the problems faced by working parents to be solved? Nation-wide subsidised daycare. These programmes have been sucessfully implemented in Scandinavian countries and Quebec, Canada. In the case of very large employers with hundreds of staff, daycare facilities can be created within the existing structure. This was the case at the university I attended: daycare for staff and students with children was available on-site. If corporations can afford to pay their directors millions of dollars in bonuses each and every year then they can afford to create facilities for their staff.





EDIT:


REALITY CHECK: Governments around the world are becoming increasingly worried about who is to fund your retirement when you become too old to chew your own food. The next generation, that's who. Governments, traditionally conservative in this area, are loosening immigration rules in order to attract 'the best' , most desirable mmigrants. Again, if there are too few taxpayers in the workforce, who do you expect will pay the nice people whose job it is to put a roof over over your head, spoon-feed you and wipe your bottom - when you no longer can?





EDIT:


You go for it, Big Boy!