Why is it suddenly ok for businesses to say they won’t hire someone based on their age and gender? We have laws against that, so why are journalists just reporting this nonsense, and not holding these groups to account? In today’s Courier-Mail, and picked up across the News Ltd network: Bosses warn maternity leave costs may hit jobs for women:
EMPLOYERS are warning Australia’s first national paid baby leave scheme could have hidden costs that make it harder for young women to find jobs.
Such a predictable journalese start to the story. What these employers really mean is that if they have to contribute to paid parental leave they won’t hire women. They even say that later in the story. And note, it’s parental leave, but it’s the women copping it. Sigh.
But CCIQ’s general manager of policy Nick Behrens said Queensland businesses advocated a scheme that did not require employers to manage and administer payments on behalf of the Government.
In the Senate submission on the plan, the CCIQ said companies could be hit with hidden costs by acting as “paymasters” for staff.
He said there could also be the “potential for discrimination in employing young people” and an “impact on the competitiveness and profitability of businesses in those industries that have a large number of female employees”.
That’s right – the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland says they don’t want to do the Government’s paperwork, so they’ll take it out on female employees and potential female employees. Classy.