Small business denounces extra red tape
Paternity and retirement changes not helping
The British Chambers of Commerce has warned that changes to paternity leave and retirement rights introduced this week will damage the start of the UK recovery.
From yesterday British men will get up to six months paternity leave, if their partners return to work early. And from Wednesday the default retirement age is retired.
But business lobby groups complain this is just more red tape for firms to deal with, despite coalition promises to reduce the burden of regulation.
Just over half of businesses surveyed by the BCC expect extra paternity rights to hurt their business and 34 per cent fear the changes will be extremely detrimental. A fifth of firms are worried by changes to the retirement age. The BCC spoke to 1,300 UK companies.
David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "In the face of promises by the Government to listen to the needs of business and cut red tape, these two new pieces of employment regulation will hit businesses hard. The Budget revealed a policy to exempt start-ups and existing firms with fewer than 10 employees from new domestic regulation. But this week's changes show there is an urgent need to review and scale back policies already on the statute books."
Frost said if the government was serious about reducing regulation it should consider exempting a wider range of companies. He said unless practical steps were taken, the barriers to job formation would remain in place.
Yes, it's called "mothering" because back in the day (when religious nutjobs ran the world) women had no rights and were forced to stay at home with the children. It is indeed dead. It's an outdated concept from an outdated time, best forgotten.
I see no social pressure whatsoever for either parent to go back to work after six months. What I see is the state finally acknowledging that folk with archaic viewpoints needn't make any decisions or judgement calls whatsoever on who takes what length of parental leave. If any given parent wants to take the full leave, there is nothing stopping them, no pressure to do otherwise. Where you get “more options = pressure” from is only your own prejudices.
As for my “liberalist horsecrap,” no, I won’t save it. If you don’t like it, you have every option not to read these forums. You are wrong, your viewpoint is wrong, your opinions are wrong and I’m calling you on it. If you don’t like it, too bad.
re: Happy now?
The law should only reflect the needs of stereotypes, and force that view onto everybody else?
So what if some men don't want to be at home with their kids? That's no excuse for denying the option to those that do.
RE: How can paternity leave cost more?
Ah, so I'm not the only one who see's through the BS ! It seems that employers are quick to complain that it gives blokes the right to more time off, but quietly ignore the fact that this time off is balanced by women having less. So overall there will be less time off work per child, but it will affect different employers.
I suspect that it won't have as dramatic an effect as some people suggest anyway. Hard economics suggest that in many families, it will still be the (sweeping generalisation) lower paid woman that will have most of the time off, allowing the (sweeping generalisation) higher paid man to keep earning his regular pay.
What is needed is some reform of the rules. At present it's possible for a woman to take (IIRC) a full year off work during which the employer *MUST* keep the job open for her. After that time, the woman can decide not to go back to work. This is a big hit for smaller businesses - they cannot employ a permanent replacement, a temporary worker will cost more (and still need training), or they can let the other staff pickup the workload (not really fair on the other staff).