Here's one example:
Caltex has introduced a new ‘return to work’ 12% bonus to lure its female employees back to work after maternity leave.Here's another:
The quarterly bonuses of 3% of salary will be paid up to the child’s second birthday.
For a worker on a $75,000 salary, the 12% annual bonus would amount to $9000 a year before tax.
Caltex already gives maternity leave of 12 weeks at full pay or 24 weeks at half-pay.
Of Caltex’s 3500 employees, 30% are women. The company is actively pushing to attract and retain a diverse group of employees, including more women, and is keen to reduce its staff turnover as a result of primary carers of children not returning to work.
Caltex chairman Elizabeth Bryan said the package was designed to retain skilled employees...
One of Australia's largest companies is set to unveil a new paid parental leave scheme that offers women a "welcome back to work" payment.There was once a time when men were paid more on the understanding that this would enable them to support a family and allow a mother to spend time at home with her children.
Insurance Australia Group already provides 14 weeks' paid leave, but will now double the salaries of women for their first six weeks back at work...
The payment comes on top of the Federal Government's parental leave payment of up to 18 weeks at minimum wage.
IAG chief executive Mike Wilkins says the offer is designed to help women overcome the challenges of returning to work.
But this was shouted down on the basis that equal pay was a sacrosanct principle that could not be violated.
But the equal pay principle is not so sacrosanct when it comes to paying speical bonuses to women.
I wonder what would happen if a company paid its male workers an extra $9000 a year for a couple of years after having a child, on the basis that such men would be facing extra costs in supporting a family? If Caltex and IAG can run with this kind of logic for women, then why shouldn't a company do it for men?