Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
JustinP1 said:
OK, you create a new role and ideally want to fill from within.
Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
Yes, that ^^^ and many other scenarios offered illustrations of how an effective defence 'might' have been put together should they have been up for a fight.Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
None of this matters in the current case, but should we still be discussing this subject [in general] or do we run the risk of it being Groundhog Day again?
Has anybody got anything new?
_dobbo_ said:
JustinP1 said:
OK, you create a new role and ideally want to fill from within.
Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
No no no that's different see - because being sick is not a choice, and being pregnant is a choice, and women who get pregnant don't deserve anything except to be at home cooking and cleaning and breastfeeding and basically doing as they are told.Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
JustinP1 said:
OK, you create a new role and ideally want to fill from within.
Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
If I was at home sick and likely to be so for a further 8 months, would I feel aggrieved that I was not given the opportunity to apply?Is the job open to everyone fairly if you don't tell the staff who are away training or sick that day and not in work?
Hell no.
I would accept that as I was not in a position to take up the employment I am therefore not an appropriate candidate at the current time.
PurpleMoonlight said:
jimbobs said:
So, smart businesses should work to ensure that their prospective parents are supported. Otherwise you're just left with a bunch of stupid men working for you...
jimbobs said:
Of course I'm not. I'm just saying that it's sensible business to encourage your good employees to hang around, whether they're parents or not. But you knew that really so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply...
No, I was struggling to understand what you were meaning.The maternity laws aren't there to offer protection to the talented and in demand employees though, they are there to protect the drones which comprise the vast majority of employees and could easily be replaced if they could be sacked once they became knocked up.
PurpleMoonlight said:
No, I was struggling to understand what you were meaning.
The maternity laws aren't there to offer protection to the talented and in demand employees though, they are there to protect the drones which comprise the vast majority of employees and could easily be replaced if they could be sacked once they became knocked up.
Lizard or human?The maternity laws aren't there to offer protection to the talented and in demand employees though, they are there to protect the drones which comprise the vast majority of employees and could easily be replaced if they could be sacked once they became knocked up.
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
desolate said:
Lizard or human?
Intellectual stuff there.However, I really cannot be arsed arguing so thought I would make a throwaway comment.
_dobbo_ said:
Try this - if only the very rich and very poor are having children, and all the people in the middle are not because they make a reasoned judgement that they can't afford it, what happens?
Why would you think that might happen, do you think these people in the middle didn't have kids before maternity leave was introduced ?_dobbo_ said:
If you can't get it from what I wrote, then you won't get it. Sorry.
EDIT: actually sorry no, that's not helpful as a reply.
Try this - if only the very rich and very poor are having children, and all the people in the middle are not because they make a reasoned judgement that they can't afford it, what happens?
Surely our migration "crisis" will make up any shortfall in productive workers.EDIT: actually sorry no, that's not helpful as a reply.
Try this - if only the very rich and very poor are having children, and all the people in the middle are not because they make a reasoned judgement that they can't afford it, what happens?
Hol said:
Did the settlement fully reflect the fact that your wife would have 100% gotten the job, if she had NOT been on maternity and therefore able to apply for it?
If not, why does it not?
How do you mean - did it reflect it financially or reflect it by writing to my wife and saying 'yes, you'd have got the job'?If not, why does it not?
Corpulent Tosser said:
Why would you think that might happen, do you think these people in the middle didn't have kids before maternity leave was introduced ?
Obviously I was describing an extreme scenario, but if even some people decide not to have children because of this, the cost is far higher than the cost of maternity leave. Which is not at all onerous on employers in the first place, nor on the government. It's only a bit more than JSA for f
ks sake.It is so easy for employers to stick to the law and still get what they want, which may or may not include promoting a mother returning to work, or allowing her to work reduced hours, or whatever.
All we have in this thread is people thinking working mums get a golden throne and a promotion the moment they arrive back at work.
_dobbo_ said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Why would you think that might happen, do you think these people in the middle didn't have kids before maternity leave was introduced ?
Obviously I was describing an extreme scenario, but if even some people decide not to have children because of this, the cost is far higher than the cost of maternity leave. Which is not at all onerous on employers in the first place, nor on the government. It's only a bit more than JSA for fks sake.It is so easy for employers to stick to the law and still get what they want, which may or may not include promoting a mother returning to work, or allowing her to work reduced hours, or whatever.
All we have in this thread is people thinking working mums get a golden throne and a promotion the moment they arrive back at work.
_dobbo_ said:
Which is not at all onerous on employers in the first place, nor on the government.
It is so easy for employers to stick to the law and still get what they want, which may or may not include promoting a mother returning to work, or allowing her to work reduced hours, or whatever.
Yes, complying with the law isn't that difficult.It is so easy for employers to stick to the law and still get what they want, which may or may not include promoting a mother returning to work, or allowing her to work reduced hours, or whatever.
The costs to the business of doing so however are significant, especially for a small business.
Actus Reus said:
He won't be getting it at home either if the Baroness reads his posts.
Quite the contrary, she's as old-fashioned as me, hence why we just got married 
Our plan is divide and conquer.
She works currently but will be stopping soon to be a mother and raise our children whilst I remain at work and ensure we have what we need. Sounds crazy I know, but it worked for both our sets of parents and theirs too.
I remember an acquaintance of my mother once saying that the job she had only just covered the childcare but that she preferred office work to raising her children. I found that pretty sad.
BaronVonVaderham said:
Quite the contrary, she's as old-fashioned as me, hence why we just got married
Our plan is divide and conquer.
She works currently but will be stopping soon to be a mother and raise our children whilst I remain at work and ensure we have what we need. Sounds crazy I know, but it worked for both our sets of parents and theirs too.
I remember an acquaintance of my mother once saying that the job she had only just covered the childcare but that she preferred office work to raising her children. I found that pretty sad.
On a serious note congrats - it is really great fun. And in the end that is exactly how we will be working now - but be honest, is your wife quitting now or claiming any MP first? Fair play if you turn your backs on a legal entitlement as a point of principle, but babies are awfully expensive. I was very glad of the safety net MP provided - all agreed by her employer as part of her contract. I also understand that it's expensive for a small business - difficult to legislate an exemption though and not judged to be in the common good I imagine. SMP for a woman on about £25k is only about £7k over 12 months though so it's not THAT onerous I'd suggest.Our plan is divide and conquer.
She works currently but will be stopping soon to be a mother and raise our children whilst I remain at work and ensure we have what we need. Sounds crazy I know, but it worked for both our sets of parents and theirs too.
I remember an acquaintance of my mother once saying that the job she had only just covered the childcare but that she preferred office work to raising her children. I found that pretty sad.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff