Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
Actus Reus said:
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?
Gotcha.
Hard to quantify as my wife will now leave her job as part of the settlement - we could possibly squeeze more from them, but contrary to many on here's view money was and is not really the motivating factor. It is nevertheless a decent sum of money and I think most people would consider it 'quite a lot'. Is that adequate? Dunno - it'll do me. My wife has found the whole thing quite upsetting and stressful so I'll be glad to see the end of it all.
Hard to quantify as my wife will now leave her job as part of the settlement - we could possibly squeeze more from them, but contrary to many on here's view money was and is not really the motivating factor. It is nevertheless a decent sum of money and I think most people would consider it 'quite a lot'. Is that adequate? Dunno - it'll do me. My wife has found the whole thing quite upsetting and stressful so I'll be glad to see the end of it all.
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.
How can it be unfair if those that are done over.....don't have kids? Those who don't have kids don't need the time off to get torn open by a crying sIf 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.
tting machine that keeps you up at 2, 3 , 4 and 5am. That's your fairness right there! Fact remains that as a economy, society and species we need women to have children. By putting up barriers, such as having to quit work to have one, with huge uncertainty that they can get another to support the new family just means you'll get less kids. We can't afford that in our already ageing population. Or should only dole scroungers have the kids? I'm sure PH wants that.
Suck it up women haters and business-comes-first nutters, out #1 purpose on this planet is to reproduce and it needs to be given special attention. And the law rightly allows it. There is no parallel.
Actus Reus said:
On a serious note congrats - it is really great fun. And in the end that is exactly how we will be working now
As if it was going to be anything but.But hey, you saw an opportunity to screw her employer for some dosh and you jumped at it. After all they can easily afford it. I'm sure most people in your position would too.
I think the negative feedback here is that the 'rules' are intended to make sure that women on maternity are allowed to compete for on merit and if that merit is just successfully obtain a promotion, whilst on leave.
If the OP's wife was truly the leading candidate, then she is due her compensation and good luck to her.
What is hugely disappointing are the number of people, who really don't care if she was/wasn't the best candidate and are more concerned that because the company didn't 'cross a T' or 'dot an I' during the process - that they pay for that mistake!
Not for the loss of an valid promotional opportunity - for the mistake itself
That type of compensation attitude and the concern it gives people who are genuine - is why this thread went off track.
If the OP's wife was truly the leading candidate, then she is due her compensation and good luck to her.
What is hugely disappointing are the number of people, who really don't care if she was/wasn't the best candidate and are more concerned that because the company didn't 'cross a T' or 'dot an I' during the process - that they pay for that mistake!
Not for the loss of an valid promotional opportunity - for the mistake itself
That type of compensation attitude and the concern it gives people who are genuine - is why this thread went off track.
Actus Reus said:
Of course you know better than I do what my wife's plans were.
PH - telling other people how clever you are matters.
Just able to read between the lines.PH - telling other people how clever you are matters.
Actus Reus said:
SWMBO is currently 9 months into her maternity leave and so we're considering whether or not she'll be going back to work after her maternity leave.
It's been clear from your initial post that your whole aim in this matter has been compo, not justice or principle.Thats not really reading between the lines is it? Thats telling me that we had a made a decision when i clearly stated that we had not. Your reading of it fits your narrative though. Anyway - I asked you several questions over the last few pages. How about you have a go at answering them?
Actus Reus said:
Thats not really reading between the lines is it? Thats telling me that we had a made a decision when i clearly stated that we had not. Your reading of it fits your narrative though. Anyway - I asked you several questions over the last few pages. How about you have a go at answering them?
I really do take my hat off to you, but why bother trying to have a rational argument?I can accept people having entrenched positions on the rights and wrongs of Mat leave - but the attacks on you and your Mrs are a disgrace and have no place here.
Thanks Desolate - and yes, i wonder too - the honest answer is that I'm on a train and bored. The attacks are personal, but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore. Overall though PH has helped me on two really quite important matters over the last two years, so I stick with it. Karma innit?
desolate said:
Actus Reus said:
Thats not really reading between the lines is it? Thats telling me that we had a made a decision when i clearly stated that we had not. Your reading of it fits your narrative though. Anyway - I asked you several questions over the last few pages. How about you have a go at answering them?
I really do take my hat off to you, but why bother trying to have a rational argument?I can accept people having entrenched positions on the rights and wrongs of Mat leave - but the attacks on you and your Mrs are a disgrace and have no place here.
It's one thing where posters rant about an event in the news and get entrenched with ideologies. It's very much another when a poster has quite legitimately used this forum to ask a serious legal question about his own situation.
If people are made a personal target when they post, they are dissuaded from posting.
Further to that, if by starting a thread about their own personal situation they think they will be putting themselves up on a stand to be stoned, they just won't bother, which is not only sad, but it's the loss of this forum.
JustinP1 said:
Totally agreed. It's a very nasty trend that seems to have emerged on this forum in the last few weeks and months.
It's one thing where posters rant about an event in the news and get entrenched with ideologies. It's very much another when a poster has quite legitimately used this forum to ask a serious legal question about his own situation.
If people are made a personal target when they post, they are dissuaded from posting.
Further to that, if by starting a thread about their own personal situation they think they will be putting themselves up on a stand to be stoned, they just won't bother, which is not only sad, but it's the loss of this forum.
Surely members should be able to state their disagreement to the OP's chosen course of action, or are only those that support and encourage to be permitted to respond? Because that's never going to happen It's one thing where posters rant about an event in the news and get entrenched with ideologies. It's very much another when a poster has quite legitimately used this forum to ask a serious legal question about his own situation.
If people are made a personal target when they post, they are dissuaded from posting.
Further to that, if by starting a thread about their own personal situation they think they will be putting themselves up on a stand to be stoned, they just won't bother, which is not only sad, but it's the loss of this forum.
As for rude and personal attacks, well the OP is hardly a paragon of virtue ....
Actus Reus said:
but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.
Hol said:
I think the negative feedback here is that the 'rules' are intended to make sure that women on maternity are allowed to compete for on merit and if that merit is just successfully obtain a promotion, whilst on leave.
If the OP's wife was truly the leading candidate, then she is due her compensation and good luck to her.
What is hugely disappointing are the number of people, who really don't care if she was/wasn't the best candidate and are more concerned that because the company didn't 'cross a T' or 'dot an I' during the process - that they pay for that mistake!
Not for the loss of an valid promotional opportunity - for the mistake itself
That type of compensation attitude and the concern it gives people who are genuine - is why this thread went off track.
This. ^^^If the OP's wife was truly the leading candidate, then she is due her compensation and good luck to her.
What is hugely disappointing are the number of people, who really don't care if she was/wasn't the best candidate and are more concerned that because the company didn't 'cross a T' or 'dot an I' during the process - that they pay for that mistake!
Not for the loss of an valid promotional opportunity - for the mistake itself
That type of compensation attitude and the concern it gives people who are genuine - is why this thread went off track.
There have been a few posters that wanted to 'thrash out' the nuts and bolts of the matter both from legal and moral perpectives without offence intended. And there have been some strongly worded views too.
But I do agree with Justin ^^^^. If we wish to analyze the pertinent points in any situation like this, then that needs to be done in a non-judgmental manner so that it doesn't become inflammatory. Debate is healthy, so is the exchange of views but sometimes the odd tongue-in-cheek remark gets taken the wrong way and the threads get derailed. PH is certainly not somewhere for the thin-skinned to frequent these days!
PurpleMoonlight said:
As for rude and personal attacks, well the OP is hardly a paragon of virtue ....
You've quote the most offense, rude and disgusting personal attack I've ever read.Actus Reus said:
but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.
As for the OP, read this thread when I first kicked off. Glad it seems to be almost resolved now, shame it caused so much heartache!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff