Fuss about freedom of choice

“Grandparental leave” causes a stir

Grandma and grandpa should pay to look after their grandchildren in future - at least if the ÖVP has its way. Symbolic image

(Bild: APA/HERBERT NEUBAUER (Symbolbild))

Childcare that stays in the family and is "financially supported" by the state. At the start of the election campaign, the ÖVP is reheating its grandparental leave model. What it is all about and what the other parties have to criticize about it. 

As part of his Austria Plan, Federal Chancellor Karl Nehammer presented his "grandparental leave" model for the first time. Just two months before the national elections, his party has now dug it up again. A reminder of exactly what it is all about: both grandmas and grandpas who are still working and grandparents who are already retired should be able to take advantage of the model to look after their grandchildren. "Financial support", as the ÖVP puts it, is to be provided in the form of a "grandparent bonus", which is to be paid out "in the same amount as childcare allowance".

Minister Raab is pleased about "freedom of choice"
The only condition for this would be that the grandparents look after the grandchildren instead of the parents because they are working. A leave of absence option should therefore also be provided for working grandparents. A good plan, at least according to the ÖVP.

"For many families, the contribution that grandma and grandpa make to child rearing and childcare is indispensable. Grandparents' leave is therefore not only a great tribute to the older generation, but also a milestone for families' freedom of choice," explains ÖVP Family Minister Susanne Raab. She sees "an additional voluntary offer for families who want to return to work earlier".

SPÖ sees disadvantages for women
The SPÖ takes a completely different view. "With the proposal for grandparental leave - inspired by Orban's Hungary - the ÖVP is admitting its deliberate blockade on the issue of child education. After former ÖVP leader Sebastian Kurz prevented the urgently needed child education billion in 2017, families and women in particular are now being asked to pay for this mistake," criticizes SPÖ women's leader Eva-Maria Holzleitner.

The women who are already trembling today when they look at their pension statement because parental leave periods are still not being credited accordingly. In addition, the retirement age for women is currently being raised year on year. "This means that they have to work longer on the one hand, but are expected to take parental leave a second time on the other. Instead of such regressive and simply absurd ideas, we finally need a legal entitlement to child education from the age of one in Austria, otherwise we will not be able to close the pension gap of around 40 percent."

Instead of excuses and abdication of responsibility, we finally need reliable, free and comprehensive childcare throughout Austria.

Barbara Neßler (Grüne)

Even with the ÖVP's current coalition partner, parental leave will not be possible after the election. Green family spokesperson Barbara Neßler clearly rejected the model and said: "It is unacceptable that the responsibility is shifted from the mother to the grandmother. Families must no longer be left in the lurch."

NEOS with criticism of the ÖVP
For the NEOS, the proposal "means nothing more than getting working grandmas and grandpas out of work so that they can do the childcare that the ÖVP itself has been unable to do for decades". According to the Pinken, real freedom of choice requires not only a fair division of parental leave, but also nationwide, affordable and high-quality childcare - with a legal entitlement from the first birthday that enables mothers to work full-time and know that their children are in good care. 

FPÖ: "Having children should cost time"
FPÖ women's and family spokesperson Rosa Ecker is also not happy with the grandparental leave model propagated by the ÖVP: "This plan offers no freedom of choice and leads to discrimination. It is a crude attempt - apparently initiated by business and industry - to take children away from their parents as early as possible. That is not our approach: having children should also cost time."