For good of the nation, Emilia and Tina must return to work

The ABC asks two typical Aussie battler families about their ‘childcare’ needs…

For Alex and Emilia Bachem the idea that childcare isn’t seen as a cost of working, or that at least prohibits people from being able to return to full-time work, is strange.

When the couple had their first child, Leo, two years ago, they made a decision few families make: Alex would be a full-time stay-at-home dad.

Emilia, a fashion buyer, took the first 10 months off (some of that leave paid by the government and the rest unpaid).

Then, Alex, marketing manager at Loreal, took 14 weeks paid leave from his employer.

“I realised that this was my biggest priority in life, you know, being there for him and having that time with him,” Alex says…

This is why Tina Samardzija wants to see a change to policies that takes pressure off both parents and give incentives to women to return to work.

Tina and her partner Blake Sabo both took time off work when their kids, Ivan (5) and Mila (2) were born.

Tina, who works in the Victorian public service and as a local government councillor, took the first six months after giving birth off, through a combination of paid government leave and work leave.

Blake, who works in the federal public service, had to dip into his annual leave and long service leave to manage.

 
Without subsidies, Emilia’s fashion buying and Tina’s public servicing could end. Then what?

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Budget, Wasteful Spending. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to For good of the nation, Emilia and Tina must return to work

  1. PB says:

    “Tina, who works in the Victorian public service and as a local government councillor, took the first six months after giving birth off, through a combination of paid government leave and work leave.

    Blake, who works in the federal public service, had to dip into his annual leave and long service leave to manage.”

    Does the suffering never end??

  2. Bruce says:

    Having been made permanently redundant (65) by the covid madness, my heart f$%&ng bleeds for these “people”.

    “B” Ark?

  3. duncanm says:

    parallel universe.

    These are the people that will be given dispensation to travel under Covid rules.

  4. duncanm says:

    CL, you missed this pearler..

    Melbourne University law school professor Ann O’Connell says if the government doesn’t introduce tax deductible child care, they will seek to get a law change through the courts

    why have an elected government?

  5. Roger says:

    I’m guessing all the Anglo battlers can no longer afford to live in Melbourne.

  6. Pedro the Loafer says:

    Without subsidies, Emilia’s fashion buying and Tina’s public servicing could end. Then what?

    Why, the world will be a much darker and more miserable place. Children will be sobbing their little hearts out, joy and laughter will disappear, never to return. Chaos will ensue.

    These people should be entered in the Oxford Dictionary under the heading “parasites”.

  7. gardez bien says:

    #MeAnaw Bruce, aged 62 and career over.

    We should be thankful our being sacked is making way for all the wimminses to be handed all the best jobs.

    Inclusion and Diversity and Resilience. Right on.

  8. MPH says:

    Another sad legacy of the ‘Have their cake and eat it too’ generation, having raised their families in a time when a single income could provide a good middle class lifestyle and pay off a house in ten years, boomer women flooded the job market and destroyed that opportunity for all subsequent generations (while voting to hand out Australian passports like confetti).

  9. Des Deskperson says:

    “Blake, who works in the federal public service, had to dip into his annual leave and long service leave to manage.”

    As an APS employee, ‘Blake’ is also almost certainly entitled to 20 days ‘personal leave’ each year. This is cumulative. Intended for unforeseen emergencies, this leave has, in many agencies, morphed into a full entitlement.

    It’s a reasonable working assumption that ‘Blake’ has already had a lot of taxpayer-funded time off before having to ‘dip into’ his other entitlements.

    Much the same, I imagine, for ‘Tina’.

  10. Andre Lewis says:

    Well these ‘typical’ families were chosen by the ABC so their employment circumstances would parallel the average ABC staff profile – EXCEPT, these were both male and female partnerships so surprising that one of the families was not same sex or trans, or some other gender alphabet combination.

  11. Bad Samaritan says:

    From the heart-wrenching article….

    “Tina, who works in the Victorian public service and as a local government councillor, took the first six months after giving birth off, through a combination of paid government leave and work leave.

    Blake, who works in the federal public service, had to dip into his annual leave and long service leave to manage.”

    Unbelievable! Who TF believes that either of them works?

  12. Botswana O'Hooligan says:

    A great example of our increasingly socialistic way of life, and the sad part is that these people don’t realise what the eventual result will be.

  13. dover_beach says:

    childcare could lift women’s workforce participation

    Why must this be lifted at the expense of children?

    “I realised that this was my biggest priority in life, you know, being there for him and having that time with him,” Alex says…

    So one’s children at this early stage of development are the biggest priority in your life but you are rushing to get your wife back to work? Isn’t your child also her ‘biggest priority’?

    This is why Tina Samardzija wants to see a change to policies that takes pressure off both parents and give incentives to women to return to work.

    Hang on, if children at this stage are ‘ the biggest priority’ why are we priotizing the return of mothers getting back to work when they still have infants or children? It seems to me that something other the children is being prioritized.

  14. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    The terminal decline of the west fed by one government handout at a time

  15. calli says:

    It seems to me that something other the children is being prioritized.

    Let’s face it. Many…many women like the idea of being mothers but don’t enjoy being around small, demanding children. Little children can be a pain – constant crying, nappy soiling, sleeplessness, you get the picture.

    How convenient to dress it up by having a more important “career”, a means to get away from all the mess and bother and tedium and engage with more adult mess and bother and tedium in the workplace! And then pretend to be important in the workplace but not important in the child’s development – the most important role she will ever, ever have.

    Many of these women work to pay for childcare.

    And the carousel of madness will all be subsidised by big daddy government because these idiots are wondering why they’re working at all and start to whinge.

  16. calli says:

    These women are quite happy to foist their children off into lower paid women, provided they are a few steps up on the payscale.

    Then “early childhood” credentialism seeps in and, horror! University degrees, TAFE certificates, and they have to pay extra for the emotional sop of “educating” babies.

  17. stevem says:

    So they want more? The $10.3 billion a year the Federal government spends per year isn’t enough?

  18. Old Lefty says:

    An acquaintance who was an unrepentant married full-time mother for over a decade says before rejoining the public service days she found managing the tantrums of small children was excellent training for dealing with senior officials and politicians.

    The new subsidy bidding war is, so we are told, about offering women choice. The only choice the left wokists and the ABC will want to give full-time married heterosexual mothers, especially if they are Christians, is between retrospective abortion and compulsory euthanasia.

  19. Old Lefty says:

    Re the second item, why the suppression order and the lack of outrage about the tardiness of the centre in notifying parents? And take a close look at ‘him’ in the picture.

  20. Snoopy says:

    Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:
    May 4, 2021 at 10:56 am
    The terminal decline of the west fed by one government handout at a time

    Or a strongly felt entitlement to a handout. A sad example here.

    It had been common for Liam to suffer seizures every few weeks and the couple had applied to the NDIS for a specialised seizure mat that would have sounded an alarm in the case of an epileptic fit.

    But the Danhers said their application was met with knockbacks and requests for more documentation to justify the $2,500 mat.

    $2,500 must include the NDIS service provider’s mark up of 100% over retail.

  21. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Tina, who works in the Victorian public service and as a local government councillor,’

    Tina is a Labor Councillor on the Monash Council. She is not your typical mum, she has a political agenda.

    The ABC report doesn’t mention this

  22. rich says:

    Tina is a Labor Councillor on the Monash Council. She is not your typical mum, she has a political agenda.

    With Alex, Blake and Tina’s “customer profiles”, you can see who the policy is catering to, and what sort of people the policy writers have in their echo chamber

  23. cuckoo says:

    Reminds me of the Greek financial crisis. Every few nights ABC/Es-a-Bee-es ran a sob story about a “typical” Greek couple who were suffering. In every single instance they turned out to be either public servants and/or people working in some ‘social’ job that didn’t exist until recently. The last one I remember were a couple where she was a social worker and he was a ‘drug counsellor’.

  24. Perfidious Albino says:

    First world problems… (for the time being whilst we manage to remain a 1st world economy/country, getting harder every year…)

  25. cuckoo says:

    And take a close look at ‘him’ in the picture.

    Looks like the runner-up in a Boy George lookalike competition.

  26. Perfidious Albino says:

    Well spotted Old Lefty, as Austen Powers would say ‘he’s a man, baby!’

  27. Alex Davidson says:

    Underlying this latest piece of socialist engineering is Marx’s labour theory of value. It ignores the fact that greater prosperity requires greater productivity, and by far the greatest factor in that equation is savings and capital, not labour. Especially not labour employed in unproductive sectors of society.

    Plundering those who save and employ the capital, then handing the loot out to ‘encourage female participation in the workforce’ cannot possibly lead to greater prosperity. All it does is buy a few more votes, and confirm Thomas Sowell’s observation that the first lesson of politics is to ignore the first lesson of economics.

  28. Farmer Gez says:

    Public servants.
    Not there on weekends or any possible gazetted day off.
    Not there before lunch Monday or after lunch Friday.
    Return to work full-time work’
    Unintentionally hilarious.

  29. Scott Osmond says:

    It would be better all around if women stayed home to care for the kiddies. Better for the kids who have a 1 on 1 carer and someone who actually loves the kid instead of viewing it as a job. Better for the women as they have something productive to do instead of getting all worked up about whatever the latest office gossip is. But most importantly better for the nation’s bottom line. In a family gathering the topic came up and it seems that in many cases the subsidies to have kids in child care are higher than what the muther earns each year. Having and raising children is literally the most important thing any civilisation must do if it wishes to survive.

  30. The Sheriff says:

    The irony is that the left and the unions simultaneously want to stop mothers from raising their own children (hence the promotion of paid external childcare through government subsidy), but:

    1) said subsidies inflate childcare costs further
    2) left-union campaigning for “wage justice” and credentialism of childcare workers means childcare workers’ wages increase and again, increase childcare costs
    3) demand more subsidy
    4) vicious cycle spirals out of control

    So ironically if someone wanted to reverse this Marxist agenda and promote the basic concept of mothers looking after their own children, one need only cheer on the union wage demands.

  31. Entropy says:

    How do you work as a public servant and a politician at the same time?

  32. Roger W says:

    PB – “Does the suffering never end??”
    Comment of the week?

  33. Baa Humbug says:

    Me going to the pub at 6pm instead of doing overtime is a “cost of working”.
    Me going fishing on the weekend instead of working a second job is a “cost of working”.

    Choices. You makes ’em, you suffers ’em.

    They can all get fucked, and hard.

  34. Roger says:

    How do you work as a public servant and a politician at the same time?

    Good question, but generally states allow their public servants to serve as local councillors provided any conflicts of interest are avoided.

  35. billie says:

    oh the pain (Dr Smith), the pain

    is there somewhere I can “like” the pain of all this suffering?

  36. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Good question, but generally states allow their public servants to serve as local councillors provided any conflicts of interest are avoided.’

    My understanding is that the prohibition only applies to public servants – including State – remember Phil Cleary – and possibly local government employees – standing for and serving as Federal parliamentarians.

    An APS employee doesn’t have to resign to stand for or serve in a State or municipal political office, although conflicts of interest must be avoided and it can’t interfere with their APS duties. In a full time political office they would be almost certainly be required to take leave.

    I understand that Queensland, for example allows public servants to stand for or serve in Queensland State or municipal political offices without resigning.

  37. Des Deskperson says:

    Of course, public servants who are also municipal councillors mustn’t use – or at least shouldn’t use – the time and resources of their employer for purposes associated with their political office.

    I do wonder how strictly this is enforced, particularly where the Councillor is in the same party as the government which he/she serves as an employee.

  38. Roger says:

    My understanding is that the prohibition only applies to public servants – including State – remember Phil Cleary – and possibly local government employees – standing for and serving as Federal parliamentarians.

    Correct, Des.

  39. John A says:

    Perfidious Albino says: ay 4, 2021, at 11:30 am

    Well spotted Old Lefty, as Austen Powers would say ‘he’s a man, baby!’

    Alternatively, “he’s a baby man!” or “He’s a baby, man!”

    Definitely time for the “B” Ark for these B-arking mad ravers.

  40. Mustapha Bunn says:

    All four of them have never produced anything useful in their entire “working” lives. As an old mate of mine used to say,’they will only start producing something useful after they are buried’.

  41. Professor Fred Lenin says:

    Public employees ,standing for office cannot be stopped , where would the middle class ALP get their candidates from if that was banned ? You dont expect them to stand Labourors and Workers do you ,? that would lower the tone of the pardee even further ,you cant have vthem all sounding common like Giliard or Albo,you want a bitta class, like the krudster or the beloved Cough .

  42. Lee says:

    Sorry, but if anyone wants childcare, they can pay for it themselves.
    Not the taxpayer.

  43. duncanm says:

    MACK says:
    May 4, 2021 at 1:16 pm
    But wait, there’s plenty more female vote buying going on:
    https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/Pages/free-sanitary-pads.aspx

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/free-tampons-and-pads-to-be-offered-in-melbourne-cbd-bathrooms-in-proposed-city-trial-20210418-p57k92.html

    Given most public toilets lack basic cleanliness or toilet paper, I fail to see how they plan to do this.

  44. The Sheriff says:

    duncanm says:
    May 4, 2021 at 4:48 pm
    MACK says:
    May 4, 2021 at 1:16 pm
    But wait, there’s plenty more female vote buying going on:
    https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/Pages/free-sanitary-pads.aspx

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/free-tampons-and-pads-to-be-offered-in-melbourne-cbd-bathrooms-in-proposed-city-trial-20210418-p57k92.html

    Given most public toilets lack basic cleanliness or toilet paper, I fail to see how they plan to do this.

    This is why I don’t understand why the Coalition hasn’t decisively won the public v private school debate.

    Public schools are to education what public toilets are to hygiene and sanitation. To be avoided unless and until it’s the only option.

  45. Rebel with cause says:

    As hilarious as it may be, I don’t think it is helpful to frame childcare in terms of the alternative employment value of the parents. Would subsidies be more worthwhile of the parents are surgeons or rocket scientists?

    A better question to ask is: what kind of society thinks it is a good idea to effectively pay families to spend less time with their own kids?

  46. H B Bear says:

    Love the people the ALPBC get as interviewees. It can’t be easy.

  47. H B Bear says:

    Not like simply phoning some Associate Professor at La Trobe.

  48. H B Bear says:

    As hilarious as it may be, I don’t think it is helpful to frame childcare in terms of the alternative employment value of the parents. Would subsidies be more worthwhile of the parents are surgeons or rocket scientists?

    Economics suggests the reason people (women people really) have children is because they aren’t surgeons or rocket scientists.

  49. H B Bear says:

    Public schools are to education what public toilets are to hygiene and sanitation. To be avoided unless and until it’s the only option.

    Not to mention golf courses. Never know when you will come across someone in the bar with their cap on.

  50. Dot says:

    Economics suggests the reason people (women people really) have children is because they aren’t surgeons or rocket scientists.

    Maybe on your planet. They want kids, it’s innate.

    Hence the former anti natalist fuck girl getting an epiphany at 28 and begging for babies at 30.

  51. Squirrel says:

    “Emilia, Leo and Alex Bachem say they have struggled without the support of grandparents in Australia.”

    The ABC is also crusading for open-ended family reunion immigration – because it’s unfair, discriminatory, and possibly even the “r” word not to import grandparents to provide free childcare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.