Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
Strange that there's vitriol about this, it's not like it's comparable to whiplash claims or the like.
OP's missus suffered a clear loss, her company admitted this, and her rights & the processes that need to be followed for such things are well defined and enshrined in Law. The company made an offer to settle that is probably chickenfeed to them compared to the cost of litigation. The world keeps turning.
OP's missus suffered a clear loss, her company admitted this, and her rights & the processes that need to be followed for such things are well defined and enshrined in Law. The company made an offer to settle that is probably chickenfeed to them compared to the cost of litigation. The world keeps turning.
Breadvan72 said:
Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not.
No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)
To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12
Moonhawk said:
No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).
Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work. To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have demonstrated their performance.
Are you a human or one of them David Icke lizards?Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work. To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have demonstrated their performance.
Moonhawk said:
No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).
Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)
To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.
That's one rather cynical way of looking at it I suppose. The other - more empathetic, practical way that is backed up by the Law - is that couples having children is a fact of life that businesses have to work around, not stymie or illegally punish. Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)
To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12
Moonhawk said:
No - if there is an inequality - it is between people who choose to have kids and those who do not. A man on paternity leave is in exactly the same position to a woman on maternity leave (especially not the new SPL rules have come into force).
Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)
To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.
Oh god here we go again!!Having kids is a lifestyle choice. Part of planning to have a kid should take into account that in taking a significant break from your career - you will be disadvantaged relative to peers who don't take such a break.
This is IMO as it should be. In most areas of the private sector - pay, bonuses and promotions are performance related. You cannot expect a performance related pay rise, bonus or promotion if you haven't been able to demonstrate performance due to absence from work (for whatever reason, maternity, paternity, sabbatical etc)
To do so would be discriminatory against those people (both men and women) who have remained in work and who have demonstrated their performance.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 8th October 12:12
Actus Reus said:
And sorry Richie - but find me a post where I have baited anybody.
I wasn't specific about who was baiting, but if you had suggested that you might be off to order a new car/ yacht/ whatever with the proceeds of your claim then that might, in some circles, bring an expectation of indignation amongst those who didn't share your view. 
I was happy to offer some ideas about possible defences that might have been relied on by the employer, if only to offer a bit of balance in an uncertain situation. The employer choosing not to fight is probably based on the fact that they don't have the appetite for a battle and would rather move on. I don't think we can take anything conclusive [in law] from any of this.
Interesting discussion though, at times.
Taking the piss rather than baiting - call my wife a 
is on a whole other level I would suggest.
As to concluding nothing in law, true enough, it's not been tested in court, but I would suggest that the lawyers involved all agreed that my wife had a claim, both in this thread and in 'real life'. I can't be bothered to rehash the comments above, but for any employers reading, it's this simple:
If you have a member of staff on maternity leave, and a promotion opportunity opens up (that they could reasonably be expected to be interested in), then you should take steps to inform her. This will take about 5 minutes and is best done by an email or quick letter. If she applies she should be considered for the role just as she would be were she at work. Whatever you may or may not think about lifestyle choices this is the law.
That's it. It's not hard, nor onerous - large companies should set up systems for doing this, whereas smaller businesses can do it on a more ad hoc basis. QED.
is on a whole other level I would suggest. As to concluding nothing in law, true enough, it's not been tested in court, but I would suggest that the lawyers involved all agreed that my wife had a claim, both in this thread and in 'real life'. I can't be bothered to rehash the comments above, but for any employers reading, it's this simple:
If you have a member of staff on maternity leave, and a promotion opportunity opens up (that they could reasonably be expected to be interested in), then you should take steps to inform her. This will take about 5 minutes and is best done by an email or quick letter. If she applies she should be considered for the role just as she would be were she at work. Whatever you may or may not think about lifestyle choices this is the law.
That's it. It's not hard, nor onerous - large companies should set up systems for doing this, whereas smaller businesses can do it on a more ad hoc basis. QED.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Claiming something for nothing because you can get away with it. Sounds remarkably like a whiplash claim to me.
I keep asking questions that you ignore, but I'll try again - what if somebody WAS hurt. Like genuinely hurt. Would a claim then be fair enough? Yes or no.Maternity leave is utterly absurd and completely unfair to those who don't have children. Women should choose career or children, not both. I understand why it exists, but the simple fact is people game the system just like they do benefits, and in creating a system to not penalise them, they have penalised the rest of the working world.
If the argument is that both parents need to work to afford the children, then you can't afford to have children.
FWIW I'm married with a mini-me on the way.
If the argument is that both parents need to work to afford the children, then you can't afford to have children.
FWIW I'm married with a mini-me on the way.
BaronVonVaderham said:
Maternity leave is utterly absurd and completely unfair to those who don't have children. Women should choose career or children, not both. I understand why it exists, but the simple fact is people game the system just like they do benefits, and in creating a system to not penalise them, they have penalised the rest of the working world.
If the argument is that both parents need to work to afford the children, then you can't afford to have children.
FWIW I'm married with a mini-me on the way.
You realise maternity leave doesn't exist to benefit the individual - it exists to benefit society as a whole, including you?If the argument is that both parents need to work to afford the children, then you can't afford to have children.
FWIW I'm married with a mini-me on the way.
Think about it - if huge numbers of people in employment stopped having children because they couldn't afford it, or it impacted their career prospects, or lost them their jobs, what would happen? Clue: nothing good.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff