Want It, Pay For It...
Amazing how it's all about perceived entitlements. Everyone believes themselves to be special. Being exceptional requires recognition. That recognition should result in benefit.
Except that there is nothing particularly exceptional about a man and a woman conceiving a child. Women have borne children since humankind evolved from ruder species in the animal kingdom. And they have raised their young from time immemorial; on their own, with the assistance of tribal members and sometimes with the help of the male who fathered the child.
In the present era the tribe has become the society in which we live. It wasn't all that long ago in Canada when, if you had a child, you paid for the hospital stay, the medical delivery, all associated costs with raising that child; through taxation society enabled that child a universal education. And then as the country became wealthier and developed its social programs, child benefits, universal health care and municipal outreach programs began to kick in, to assist families.
This has made a huge difference. We think. What it has done is enabled both parents to take advantage of entitlements guaranteed to everyone, and in the process decisions taken that in very many instances both parents will leave the family home during the working day with the child left in the care of a paid child-care worker. So Canada went a little further and decided to encourage parents to bond with their newborns, one or the other of the parents to devote full time to the child.
Parental leave, if the family was fortunate enough to qualify, would ensure that 35 weeks of supported time for one of the parents to take leave to spend with the child was available. This hugely beneficial entitlement, however, was not enough for some people who feel that both parents should be entitled to each have 35 weeks of paid time under employment insurance if, for example, there were twins born or adopted into the family.
A man by the name of Christian Martin struck a blow for multiple-birth families in 2009 when his argument for qualification for himself and his wife to care for their twins succeeded in convincing an employment insurance board of referees. The federal government, as is its wont, when its guidelines for entitlements are challenged, appealed that decision. And now, years later, an EI umpire has ruled against that original decision.
EI umpire Russell Zinn stuck to the original intent of the Employment Insurance Act: "The policy of the act is to grant a set amount of parental leave benefits after birth, regardless of need or burden imposed. It does not calibrate benefits according to the burden imposed by a particular child's birth." The original reasoning by the first panel that addressed the issue of sleep deprivation, fatigue and onerous household obligations, was thrown out.
Mr. Martin seems philosophical about the result. "We took a big hit, but it was worth it", he said, referring to his having decided to take the 35 weeks of leave before matters were ultimately decided, and now he will not receive that remuneration, and as a result self-financed his time off. Some might consider his actions to represent contempt for society when a family that is capable of paying its own way seeks to further ransack a public trust.
Simple fact is not everyone qualifies for that employment insurance entitlement. Those that do are usually fortunate enough to have solid, well-paid employment. No one would argue that raising children isn't a difficult task, and adjusting to the needs of a newborn in a family is a difficult transition. But this is a universal problem facing all new parents, and everyone someone manages to adjust to the demands.
"Leaving my wife home alone with twins was not a good option", he said. Kudos to him. But it should be on his dime, not the taxpayer's.
Except that there is nothing particularly exceptional about a man and a woman conceiving a child. Women have borne children since humankind evolved from ruder species in the animal kingdom. And they have raised their young from time immemorial; on their own, with the assistance of tribal members and sometimes with the help of the male who fathered the child.
In the present era the tribe has become the society in which we live. It wasn't all that long ago in Canada when, if you had a child, you paid for the hospital stay, the medical delivery, all associated costs with raising that child; through taxation society enabled that child a universal education. And then as the country became wealthier and developed its social programs, child benefits, universal health care and municipal outreach programs began to kick in, to assist families.
This has made a huge difference. We think. What it has done is enabled both parents to take advantage of entitlements guaranteed to everyone, and in the process decisions taken that in very many instances both parents will leave the family home during the working day with the child left in the care of a paid child-care worker. So Canada went a little further and decided to encourage parents to bond with their newborns, one or the other of the parents to devote full time to the child.
Parental leave, if the family was fortunate enough to qualify, would ensure that 35 weeks of supported time for one of the parents to take leave to spend with the child was available. This hugely beneficial entitlement, however, was not enough for some people who feel that both parents should be entitled to each have 35 weeks of paid time under employment insurance if, for example, there were twins born or adopted into the family.
A man by the name of Christian Martin struck a blow for multiple-birth families in 2009 when his argument for qualification for himself and his wife to care for their twins succeeded in convincing an employment insurance board of referees. The federal government, as is its wont, when its guidelines for entitlements are challenged, appealed that decision. And now, years later, an EI umpire has ruled against that original decision.
EI umpire Russell Zinn stuck to the original intent of the Employment Insurance Act: "The policy of the act is to grant a set amount of parental leave benefits after birth, regardless of need or burden imposed. It does not calibrate benefits according to the burden imposed by a particular child's birth." The original reasoning by the first panel that addressed the issue of sleep deprivation, fatigue and onerous household obligations, was thrown out.
Mr. Martin seems philosophical about the result. "We took a big hit, but it was worth it", he said, referring to his having decided to take the 35 weeks of leave before matters were ultimately decided, and now he will not receive that remuneration, and as a result self-financed his time off. Some might consider his actions to represent contempt for society when a family that is capable of paying its own way seeks to further ransack a public trust.
Simple fact is not everyone qualifies for that employment insurance entitlement. Those that do are usually fortunate enough to have solid, well-paid employment. No one would argue that raising children isn't a difficult task, and adjusting to the needs of a newborn in a family is a difficult transition. But this is a universal problem facing all new parents, and everyone someone manages to adjust to the demands.
"Leaving my wife home alone with twins was not a good option", he said. Kudos to him. But it should be on his dime, not the taxpayer's.
Labels: Economy, Family, Health, Human Relations
posted by Pieface @ 1:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home