Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-995"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101018.13.1-995"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We are unanimous regarding the need on the part of women who are pregnant or who have just given birth for special protection in society and the labour market. This is ultimately about the basic unit of society, about strengthening the status of the family. We nevertheless disagree on what sort of legislation should actually be enacted to realise this goal in the Member States. I support the Commission’s view that the minimum period for maternity leave should be raised across the Union from the present 14 weeks to 18 weeks, with compensation paid at the rate in place for a period of illness, at the very least. This would be a significant improvement in Europe. When, in addition, we bear in mind the changes to parental leave made last year, we may conclude that protection of the family is improving in the EU. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, however, has adopted amendments that do not respect the differences between national systems or financial realities. The Member States have widely varying maternity leave systems. Cramming them all into the same package would result in poor legislation and breach the principle of subsidiarity. For example, in Finland, maternity leave combined with paternity leave and a long period of parental leave lasting more than six months makes for a wideranging system, the cost burden for which is shared among different parties. The system has an additional component: the possibility of childcare leave, during which the contract of employment is not discontinued. The costs of maternity leave lasting 20 weeks on full pay, which is now being proposed, would go up in Finland from the current level of EUR 30 million to EUR 80 million. In many Member States, it would mean even higher costs. In this economic situation, such a proposal can only be made completely free of budgetary responsibility. From the perspective of equality, I also regard as worrying the dreaded scenario where women’s employment opportunities could, in fact, weaken if employers were saddled with the massive costs arising."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples