A frequent point of criticism in the statements is that the draft does not go far enough. A gap in childcare is also feared. In its statement, the ÖGB points out that the reduction “certainly does not” contribute to a better compatibility of family and work, but will further exacerbate the care problems due to a lack of child education facilities, especially in rural areas. A more sensible measure would be a legal entitlement to an affordable child education place from the first birthday or an entitlement to parental part-time work.
The Chamber of Labor (AK) sees it similarly: On the one hand, the proposed change is unlikely to “result in a significant increase in father participation”, on the other hand, the AK also identifies a lack of childcare places for children under the age of two. While the Association of Cities agrees with the criticism of the “very low” mandatory proportion of fathers, the Association of Municipalities also points out that there will be a gap in childcare wherever children can only go to kindergarten at the age of two – especially when the father “simply” doesn’t have the opportunity to go on parental leave.
“Two months too short for a long-term effect”
The network of Austrian counseling centers for women and girls, on the other hand, sees “a step in the right direction”, but calls for accompanying measures such as the “immediate expansion of affordable, high-quality, flexible” childcare places throughout Austria. Furthermore, one sees the two months as too short for a “long-term effect”. Instead, one would prefer a mandatory split of at least five months. The opinion of the umbrella organization for family counseling is similar. The umbrella organization of Austrian women’s associations is also negative. After all, the amendment would reduce existing parental leave regulations, which primarily affect mothers, or “existing and hard-won achievements” would be undermined.
The umbrella organization of social security agencies, on the other hand, expresses concerns about the practical implementation. For example, the definition of single parents based on the shared household seems difficult. The wording of the law does not make it clear with whom the other parent is not allowed to live in the same household, whether with the child or with the other parent. It is also feared that the definition will provide an incentive to register a main residence that differs from the actual residential situation and is difficult to check.
GÖD: Decisive rejection
The changes in the Maternity Protection and Fathers’ Leave Act are decisively rejected by the Public Service Union (GÖD). The shortening of the waiting period in the explanations as a measure to promote women should be “rejected in the strongest possible terms,” says the statement: “Such a formulation is based on a completely antiquated image of women, which assumes that women should be protected from their own decisions by law. ” In its statement, the Austrian Chamber of Agricultural Workers also showed little joy with the cut.
On the other hand, the majority of the opinions gave a positive assessment of the omission of the requirement for a shared household when relatives are given leave to care for themselves. And the doubling of the family time bonus, which is also provided for, is also welcomed.
ePaper
Read the e-paper now!
Read the daily updated ePaper edition of the OÖNachrichten – now flip through it digitally!
to the epaper
info By clicking on the icon you add the keyword to your topics.
info Click on the icon to open your “my topics” page. You have saved from 15 tags and need to remove tags.
info Click on the icon to remove the keyword from your topics.
Add the theme to your themes.