Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
She wasn't sure what to do - in the end we'd hoped she'd go part time and see how it panned out for her and the baby.
She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and f
k them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.
She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and f
k them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.Actus Reus said:
She wasn't sure what to do - in the end we'd hoped she'd go part time and see how it panned out for her and the baby.
She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and fk them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.
On the whole?She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and f
k them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.Gee, glad i took the time to respond....
I'm sure the others who took the time to respond with the correct legal stance (a solicitor included in that) feel great now too.
Oh and if a promotion were on the table she might take it - though of course forcing it leaves a sour taste for both sides so perhaps better not to go that way.
I'm disappointed in the employer because they are so huge and the field they're in would suggest that they would look after their staff (they employ many more women than men).
For the record I sympathise with the PH members who think business gets st on by maternity law - I own my own business and it would be tough if one of my staff went off on maternity leave, but we've cut out cloth accordingly to allow for that eventuality - whether you agree or not it's the law and it applies to everybody.
Put another way I know Breadvan's real identity and reputation and there's no way I want to be on the wrong side of him or any of his brethren.
I'm disappointed in the employer because they are so huge and the field they're in would suggest that they would look after their staff (they employ many more women than men).
For the record I sympathise with the PH members who think business gets s
t on by maternity law - I own my own business and it would be tough if one of my staff went off on maternity leave, but we've cut out cloth accordingly to allow for that eventuality - whether you agree or not it's the law and it applies to everybody.Put another way I know Breadvan's real identity and reputation and there's no way I want to be on the wrong side of him or any of his brethren.
daemon said:
On the whole?
Gee, glad i took the time to respond....
I'm sure the others who took the time to respond with the correct legal stance (a solicitor included in that) feel great now too.
Not sure I see your point? I'm grateful for all the constructive posts offering advice - sorry if I've not made that clear. Just that on the whole most people seem to be suggesting that my wife is only in it for the money and shouldn't expect equal treatment because of the baby.Gee, glad i took the time to respond....
I'm sure the others who took the time to respond with the correct legal stance (a solicitor included in that) feel great now too.
Actus Reus said:
We're debating it - I think she feels she can't go back to the same company, so it looks like she'll resign now, no matter what. We had been shooting for a part time return to work, but that's pretty well dead and buried. If there's a case against these guys I daresay she'll pursue it - as I said earlier they have been sued 3 times in recent months for sex discrimination and lost each time so seems like they have form for it.
We'll see though - need to sleep on it I think.
Not surprised by the PH responses, though they seem to have doubled my wife's resolve to prosecute this if she can.
I thought they had to hold open the SAME job after maternity leave, not I fancy going back a couple of days, so fit me in.We'll see though - need to sleep on it I think.
Not surprised by the PH responses, though they seem to have doubled my wife's resolve to prosecute this if she can.
Actus Reus said:
voyds9 said:
I thought they had to hold open the SAME job after maternity leave, not I fancy going back a couple of days, so fit me in.
Bit of both - you can request flexible working and an employer must consider the request. They don't have to grant it though.And applies to any employees, not just those returning from maternity leave.
Actus Reus said:
She never made any agreement about returning - nobody does (or doesn't have to anyway)[/b]. She'll hand her notice in, if she chooses to, and serve her notice like anybody else.
Just to clarify - I think that applies if she's only getting SMP. If she's getting OMP then usually she would have to go back for a certain period of time OR have to repay the OMP.I'm surprised at the opportunity for people on maternity leave. I get the protection that they have at their current status, and that they should be able to resume their career as it was when they return, but as an employer if I wanted to place someone in a new position I would not be recruiting someone who is off work for another 4 months and who has not committed to returning.
surveyor said:
I'm surprised at the opportunity for people on maternity leave. I get the protection that they have at their current status, and that they should be able to resume their career as it was when they return, but as an employer if I wanted to place someone in a new position I would not be recruiting someone who is off work for another 4 months and who has not committed to returning.
I was surprised too to be honest, but that's certainly correct.And she's on SMP.
Well SMP now - she had OMP previously. No obligation to repay it.
And yes - they're huge. One of the reasons for working there was the assumption that she would be well treated - a change in immediate management seems to have shot that theory down unfortunately. The previous manager left and sued for sex discrimination; they settled out of court.
And yes - they're huge. One of the reasons for working there was the assumption that she would be well treated - a change in immediate management seems to have shot that theory down unfortunately. The previous manager left and sued for sex discrimination; they settled out of court.
PurpleMoonlight said:
daemon said:
Really? Hardly difficult to even deduce what you might fall foul of by not giving everyone equal opportunities for staff recruitment for a specifc job role?
Where is the law that requires an employer to treat all staff equally?Discrimination is different to equal opportunities.
Should a cleaner have the opportunity to apply for a chief executive position?
returning to the OP - Does his OH hoild all the esential criteria for the new role and a fair slew of the desirables? if not there 's no assumption she'd be shortlisted ...
mph1977 said:
anyone can apply for any role , however if they don;t hold essential qualifications they will be sifted out at recipt of the application , if they don;t hold 'essential' skills other than qualification they could also be sifted out at that point or may be sifted out when long listing or short listing ....
returning to the OP - Does his OH hoild all the esential criteria for the new role and a fair slew of the desirables? if not there 's no assumption she'd be shortlisted ...
The lady who got the the job has been with the firm longer but she has no academic qualifications. My wife has less time in the firm, but has a degree and an MBA as well as relevant experience elsewhere. I wouldn't say it was a foregone conclusion but I'd expect her to be interviewed.returning to the OP - Does his OH hoild all the esential criteria for the new role and a fair slew of the desirables? if not there 's no assumption she'd be shortlisted ...
The point is that she wasn't even informed and she feels she should have been. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I agree with her - she deserved to be at least told of the opening.
Actus Reus said:
We're debating it - I think she feels she can't go back to the same company, so it looks my wife's resolve to prosecute this if she can.
daemon said:
One is more suggestive of compensation than the other.
To save 8 pages of sh!t why didn't you just ask "Can my wife make a compo claim if she can't be ar$ed going back to work for foooks sake 
This thread is both unreal and frightening to people like myself who run small businesses.
I, along with my business partner, am looking at taking over an existing company complete with employees.
I've laughed in the past at companies I've worked for not wanting to employ women of child bearing age because of all this crap, I'm not laughing now though.
I, along with my business partner, am looking at taking over an existing company complete with employees.
I've laughed in the past at companies I've worked for not wanting to employ women of child bearing age because of all this crap, I'm not laughing now though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff