Every decision the government makes has benefits and downsides.  Depending on which side you want to argue for, you tend to only see that one side.  It is the bane of every government to be the root of the public’s discontent.  I don’t foresee any changes.

The changes in maternity and paternity leave that the government has imposed or will impose have significant impact in the workplace.  I’ve argued that before, but I can really see it now.

Yes, it’s really wonderful to give parents a chance to be with their new child and of course, a new child brings changes in the pattern at home and work that can greatly affect an individual’s emotional and physical well-being.  No one can argue against that.  It’s very humanistic to grant parents the option of being at home for their child in their first year of life without worrying about losing their job.  After all, these days it’s more and more difficult to find a job once you’ve lost a good one.

The downside is: who pays?

Several ladies at work are currently pregnant and planning to take maternity leave.  Unfortunately, they will all be leaving within 2 months of each other. New staff will need to be found to replace them temporarily.  Meanwhile, they will be getting maternity leave pay.  I don’t know all the ins and outs of the maternity pay, but I do understand that it is full pay for a significant length of time.

Already, I have seen staff cutbacks due to lack of funds.  I know about forthcoming staff cutbacks, which will considerably impact the workload.  Though it would be easy to say that if they have to cut back they should not replace the mums-to-be with temporary staff, but just keep the regulars, that is not possible.  You see, the staff cutbacks are in various departments, not just the one where the maternity leave is coming from.

Although the payroll reduction is not a result of excessive maternity leave, I’m sure maternity leave does not help.  How can we, the public, expect that the funds remain unlimited, such that we can afford to pay two people for the same job – one doing the work, and one on maternity leave?  Someone, somewhere will have to lose their job in order to provide for this extra pay.

I can see why some businesses would be opposed to having maternity and paternity leave extended.  Either they will have to deal with staff shortages or pay out for extra help.  Where will the money come from?  Big businesses will have less to worry about, but the government and public sector have a limited supply of funds.

First, they said that housing prices were going up.  This was a marker that the recession was improving.  I really have not seen much improvement in the recession when the cost of living is so high compared to earnings.  The report had said that house prices were going up as fewer properties were available and more people were in the market to buy.

OK, if earnings have not gone up and cost of living is rising, how do people suddenly manage to have enough saved up to buy?  What am I missing?  Where did these people come from?  Are they the rich trying to buy up cheaper properties so that they can go on to rent it out at unreasonable rates?

Recently, a different report states that homes are now more affordable in more locations throughout the UK.  OK, if house prices are going up, how are they now more affordable? And where are they more affordable?  In locations that most people don’t want to live due to job opportunities, etc.  Therefore, people already living in those areas probably can’t even afford those homes.  It’s only people with money and a good job living outside those areas that can afford to buy into it.  And why would they buy into it?  The only reason would be to retire or as an investment opportunity.

Even those with a good job are unable to get onto the housing ladder.  I’ve only been working for 3 months, so I can’t lump myself in with those people, but my starting salary would be considered “extremely good”.  Unfortunately, I have no savings, and the current cost of living means that despite my high salary, we really are living “hand to mouth”.  How would someone like myself ever be able to get a mortgage?  Banks and the government are no longer in the business of helping people in the middle ground.  And the frustrating part is that if we were able to get a mortgage, our monthly mortgage may be lower than our rent, and we’d be gaining some equity (hopefully).

Anyhow, companies argue that in this recession, they should be allowed to choose their own hours.  They feel that employees should be given the option of working overtime for additional pay.  OK.  That sounds fair enough.  Everyone’s trying to do what they can to survive.  But working excessive hours continuously can be detrimental to a person’s health, physically and psychologically.  Already, the recession has created stress. Need employees feel more stress by increased work demands?  Though they may not be forced to work longer hours, they may be under pressure to increase performance or be replaced.  Companies will increase work load on the smaller staff that they now employ.  Anxiety and insomnia go hand-in-hand and the dangers of lack of sleep cannot be ignored.

Speaking of recession and unemployment, why not hire more people but keep the same level of pay-out?  Instead of having someone work overtime, which usually means a higher rate of pay unless they are salaried, employ someone else to work those hours.  You can stay within the working hours limit and help with unemployment at the same time.  Not all companies will opt-out, even though the UK allows them to do so.  Therefore, it will be argued, the opt-out gives companies more freedom in determining what works for them.  After all, shift work has never been popular and there are dangers with that. 

One of the jobs most notable for long hours is the junior doctor role.  Being a doctor is stressful in itself. Long hours make it worse. However, limiting working hours to 48 is not exactly doable.  Especially because they have “on-call” rotas.  Contrary to popular myths about a doctor’s daily rounds, it is not filled with high drama as depicted on TV.  There may be days like that, but for the most part, junior doctors are not rushing around on emergencies throughout the day. 

So, how can we protect employees’ interests while ensuring that companies can still function properly in this recession?  I suppose it would be best determined individually.  But we must be vigilant to prevent people from being exploited at a time when they fear they may lose their jobs.  Increases in errors or accidents may be due to stress or inadequate sleep/rest. When this occurs, there should be some consideration for reducing the employee’s working hours in an attempt to resolve the issues. But this should be done in such a way that the employee does not feel demeaned or fear unemployment as a reprimand.

I don’t know how Confessions of a Shopaholic is doing at the box office, but I for one, do not care to see it. After seeing Sophie Kinsella give a reporter advice on how to shop during the recession, the determination was cemented. Perhaps, she only meant to be funny, but it seemed that she probably was a real shopaholic and her advice was downright stupid. If her book is anything like her advice, I’m surprised it was so popular. And for someone to pick it up and turn it into a movie – let’s just not go there.

At a time when the cost of going to the theatre is so high, can they not come up with more enticing stories? A comedy about spending during the recession? It might make some people step out of their lives for a moment and laugh at the situation. However, it may also cause frustration as most people can’t see their way out of their own troubles. I’ll take a guess and predict that the story has a happy ending.

To kick-start this economy, we need people to start spending. People can’t spend unless they have money, or have the security of knowing they will have money. Right now, the only people who can REALLY spend are the rich. But are they spending? Are they investing? If so, where? I’d like to put a call out to all the celebrities – major to minor, aristocrats to commoners – all those with money in their pockets, to go out and spend their money and help us get this economy back on track. With all the publicity, Ms. Kinsella should probably have enough money to support her shopaholic ways. She should now use that money as payback to society.

I am no economic expert, so my statements may sound ridiculously absurd and ignorant. However, listening to all these pundits expressing their predictions about the way the economy will go makes me wonder what they are basing their statements on.

OK. The economy is shrinking. What happened? The banks messed up so badly that they had to be rescued. The housing market declined because the bubble burst. Businesses shut down because they could not make an adequate profit and no one came to their rescue. People became unemployed. Now they are spending less. The economy continues to shrink, more people are unemployed, so they are less likely to spend. The vicious cycle continues.

Experts are predicting further contraction of the economy for the near future. From what I hear, different experts predict different times at which the economy will improve. Some say this year, some say next year, some say not for a few years. But for those saying this year or next year, they are also saying that the economy will continue to shrink before it recovers. So, what is the basis for saying that it will improve? No one has stated how that was going to happen. If people are not given jobs with adequate pay, they will not spend.

Are there really plans to get more jobs out there? I’m hearing people complain about making applications for positions that are oversubscribed. Where will the new jobs be? Are they not advertising it out of fear that they will be oversubscribed before they are well-organised?

They need to put money into providing jobs in order for people to start spending and kick-starting this economy again. They have bailed out several large companies, such as the car companies. Unfortunately, these people might still lose their jobs if no one is willing to buy cars at this time. What is the point of making more of the products that are less in demand?

I am not an expert, so I do not have a plan. But it seems the government needs someone who does.