On Feb 7, 6:25*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:51:02 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra
salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be
just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the
employer? *That would especially be the case if such a thing became
law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several
chancers who did not*really* *have to stay at home as a carer.
IF such a thing became law? *Have you ever looked at the rights for
pregnant women?

Yes - and fathers as well now. *At least it is not completely
open-ended, which paying for an unproductive "carer" would have to be.

The law regarding maternity leave has resulted in many employers being
even more reluctant that they used to be to employ women between
certain ages.

Not that I think it would be a bad thing, from a sociological
perspective, to return to the old-fashioned system of having the
husband as the breadwinner and the wife staying at home taking care of
the domestic duties.

Lol! Aside from the fact that domestic duties are not nearly as
onerous as they once were, what advantages do you see in this system?



*Unfortunately the economy has changed to make it
impossible for a great proportion of families to be able to live on a
single income.

It is possible from a purely economic point of view - our society is
more than rich enough.