The demographic timebomb was Re: the whole kid thing

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> 
wrote:

> They're also allowed to hire a replacement to cover provided it's 
> clear in the advert that this is 'maternity leave cover'. 

Employers here are allowed to hire a replacement to cover for an 
employee on maternity leave (or any other kind of leave). It's just 
that many of them are too miserly to do so.

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:

> As for whether one should be annoyed at having to cover for a 
> disabled worker . . . if one wouldn't object to benefits for
> someone recovering from -- oh, I dunno -- surgery to donate a 
> kidney, then I don't see why one would object to benefits for 
> someone recovering from childbirth.  A disability is a disability
> is a disability in my book.

How long is the kidney donor out for? At my current level of 
tiredness, I think they should hire a temp to cover for anyone who's 
out longer than a *week*, but probably a month is less unrealistic. 
It would probably *take* a month (of heavy paperwork) to get 
*permission* to hire a temp at my shop.