Labour to double paternity leave

[Ernest]

Another attack on business by Labour, how are businesses supposed to grow if they have to pay the Living Wage,aren't allowed to bend thier accounts through Luxembourg and now have to pay their staff when they are not working ?

You'll want them to be paying their proper taxes next, how will businesses survive ?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Why not, might buy them w few votes. Just racks up some bills for others to pay, or other generations.

 

[1234andcounting]

If I don't get some love soon for the funniest line on todays NSC I'm going to scream and scream and scream until I am sick.

I didn't get it.

 

[portslade seagull]

And they're off ... what other barmy ideas can they spout off about before the election and how do they intend to pay for it ... hmmmmm wait a minute they probably haven't even thought of that much like the last time they were in office

 

[Ernest]

And they're off ... what other barmy ideas can they spout off about before the election and how do they intend to pay for it ... hmmmmm wait a minute they probably haven't even thought of that much like the last time they were in office

Can you tell me how much the new Pensioners Bonds are going to cost the tax payer ?

 

[kevtherev]

Wouldn't effect most Labour voters tbh, as half of them don't work anyway.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Who is supposed to be funding this bonding time? Are they planning for it to be funded by central government or placing the burden on the employers?
If the latter can they impose the condition retrospectively.
Having already costed taking on employees on an existing agreed contracts they will be expected to add this additional benifit at the there own cost.
Guessing it could be challenged in court.
Also it's appears it could be discrimative as it will only apply to couples of child bearing age.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who is supposed to be funding this bonding time? Are they planning for it to be funded by central government or placing the burden on the employers?
If the latter can they impose the condition retrospectively.
Having already costed taking on employees on an existing agreed contracts they will be expected to add this additional benifit at the there own cost.
Guessing it could be challenged in court.
Also it's appears it could be discrimative as it will only apply to couples of child bearing age.

You do realise this is already in place don't you - i.e. fathers can take 2 weeks currently ?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Nothing is free and for those employed is in effect a pay rise for those who benefit. But that is what politics is about, choices. Not exactly the most extravagant political "give away"

 

[Butch Willykins]

Nothing is free and for those employed is in effect a pay rise for those who benefit. But that is what politics is about, choices. Not exactly the most extravagant political "give away"

Either your employer pays your paternity leave or if not you can claim £136 per week. You can't claim both.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Can you tell me how much the new Pensioners Bonds are going to cost the tax payer ?

So giving something to pensioners who've paid tax all their working lives is a bad thing?

Also I wonder if giving out further concessions to people who have kids is a little unfair on those who don't, seeing as all taxpayers already fund family allowance?

My concern on this one for for small businesses, it's not the cost, it's the inconvienience and disruption that losing an employee for four weeks will bring.

 

[Garage_Doors]

You do realise this is already in place don't you - i.e. fathers can take 2 weeks currently ?

Yes fully aware of that, at an already rate of pay.
Labour want to double the monetary remuneration for this period.
Now back to the question in hand, who are they expecting to fund this additional expenditure.

 

[beorhthelm]

Can you tell me how much the new Pensioners Bonds are going to cost the tax payer ?

nothing. they will be offering a rate similar to that from new gilts issued. though why they have to limit them is beyond me.

 

[Nibble]

Good idea. Exactly why Labour is the way forward for this Tory crippled Isle. Can't wait for the labour government again.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

This is the Labour Party who claim to be good for business. Letting fathers have an extra couple of weeks off work each time they become a dad, is not that helpful to employers and not needed by employees. The average amount of holiday leave in this country is 4-5 weeks. You are also allowed to have an extra 2 weeks off when the baby arrives. This means that an employee who has 5 weeks a year holiday and has a baby will have 9 weeks off in one year instead of the current 7 weeks.

 

[User removed 4]

Jeez, no wonder our enemies see us as soft and weak.



We are already allowing fathers to take some time off to help with this, but now we need to DOUBLE it? How did any of us ever make it through without these indispensible benefits and comforts in the past?






That is the same argument that everyone who is asking for extra wages/benefits for no extra effort uses. It carries no weight whatsoever without relevant research to back it up.

Got to make you right with the first part of your post.

 

[Ernest]

nothing. they will be offering a rate similar to that from new gilts issued. though why they have to limit them is beyond me.

4% interest on the bonds funded by the 'hardworking taxpayer', although the cost of this has yet to be mentioned by Osborne

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Who is supposed to be funding this bonding time? Are they planning for it to be funded by central government or placing the burden on the employers?
If the latter can they impose the condition retrospectively.
Having already costed taking on employees on an existing agreed contracts they will be expected to add this additional benifit at the there own cost.
Guessing it could be challenged in court.
Also it's appears it could be discrimative as it will only apply to couples of child bearing age.

Please don't ever go into business employing people. You seem to know **** all about employment law. As has been pointed out....it's ALL already in place.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is the Labour Party who claim to be good for business. Letting fathers have an extra couple of weeks off work each time they become a dad, is not that helpful to employers and not needed by employees. The average amount of holiday leave in this country is 4-5 weeks. You are also allowed to have an extra 2 weeks off when the baby arrives. This means that an employee who has 5 weeks a year holiday and has a baby will have 9 weeks off in one year instead of the current 7 weeks.

If Germany's economy and society can somehow thrive on giving parents even better terms than what is being proposed I'm damn sure the UK can find a way.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Good idea. Exactly why Labour is the way forward for this Tory crippled Isle. Can't wait for the labour government again.

I really would not hold your breath.