Discrimination during maternity leave

[Ken Figenus]

It is staggering the personal nature of some posters attacks here - especially if the shoe was on the other foot and it was YOU unfairly marginalised or excluded from a std process as if you'd ceased to exist. I tend not to get involved though since how others conduct their lives and want to come across is up to them, and we all judge and select real world friends accordingly. In fact when we hook up for meets as we regularly do from my main (slightly niche) forum of interest you don't see the aggressive, contrary, mouthy types at all (not that you would seek them out to say hi and buy them a beer anyway). People just behave better when in the real world, but can still have strong opinions and different viewpoints. But as JustinP1 (who's calm non ranty tenacity I admired) says he too was hammered in another thread for being a good Samaritan and helping another PH'er in some bother (the law when used as a weapon works for both attacker AND defender equally - its never a cake and eat it time for anyone). They were both vindicated ultimately in this issue but the angry attackers will rarely concede as they are not men enough. I conclude its not really about a different opinion or having a differing view its about willy waving and relishing having a pop at someone for entertainment or challenging another human intellectually and hoping to WIN and destroy them, but with no real risk (other than real world social or reputational). And many just cant resist, sadly. I guess we all have different degrees of inner anger to express, and that defines many posters here.

Someone said that 80% of how good you are in ANY job is about how you deal with people. Well God help us here then as we have many David Brents here (but without the humour)!!!

[Ken Figenus]

RobinOakapple said:

Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

Does it have anything to do with the circle of life? The second biggest event in any human's life? A massive and key human being life moment that intrinsic to our being, society and existence? Or is it 3 months out surfing in Hawaii. dude?

[RobinOakapple]

Ken Figenus said:

RobinOakapple said:

Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

Does it have anything to do with the circle of life? The second biggest event in any human's life? A massive and key human being life moment that intrinsic to our being, society and existence? Or is it 3 months out surfing in Hawaii.

The important point is that if we are going to be fair to everybody, not just pregnant women, then we need to allow the person themselves to decide what is important to them, not make that decision for them.

If on the other hand we just want votes, then we must toe the popularity line.

It's one of the rather unsatisfactory things about a democracy that as long as the majority want it, it's ok. Too bad if you are in the 5%, or even the 49%.

[Richie Slow]

RobinOakapple said:

The important point is that if we are going to be fair to everybody, not just pregnant women, then we need to allow the person themselves to decide what is important to them, not make that decision for them.

If on the other hand we just want votes, then we must toe the popularity line.

It's one of the rather unsatisfactory things about a democracy that as long as the majority want it, it's ok. Too bad if you are in the 5%, or even the 49%.

I agree with all of that ^^^^

I think the first point strikes the loudest chord. "fair to everybody" would need to include employers. They may be evil, manipulative, profiteers who seek to use and abuse their payroll but if they are to continue to provide for their workforce financially (pay them) then their interests need to be considered too. Bleeding them dry won't generate long term employment for anyone, so there's a balance to be struck and the law doesn't provide a framework that generates an unequivocal 'fair for all' outcome in all cases. If somebody is made redundant because of financial constraints following some spurious claim against an employer by another employee, how fair is that?

There are two polarized views of where a balance should be [have been] struck. Agreement is therefore impossible.

[Devil2575]

RobinOakapple said:

Ken Figenus said:

RobinOakapple said:

Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

Does it have anything to do with the circle of life? The second biggest event in any human's life? A massive and key human being life moment that intrinsic to our being, society and existence? Or is it 3 months out surfing in Hawaii.

The important point is that if we are going to be fair to everybody, not just pregnant women, then we need to allow the person themselves to decide what is important to them, not make that decision for them.

IMHO this isn't about what is important to individuals. To one person 9 months off to tour the world may be as important to them as maternity leave to have a child is to another person. What it is about is what is important to society. If an employer doesn't let a member of staff take a career break to see the world that isn't going to have an overall detrimental effect on society. If employers refuse to let women take maternity leave then this will have that effect. What it will do is stop a proportion of educated and employed women from having children or educated women will leave the workplace to have children and their contribution will be lost.

Employers need society to function well in order to do business and if anyone thinks it is desirable that only uneducated or rich women have children or we return to a time when women left the work place and stopped working then they are misguided.

[RobinOakapple]

Devil2575 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Ken Figenus said:

RobinOakapple said:

Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

Does it have anything to do with the circle of life? The second biggest event in any human's life? A massive and key human being life moment that intrinsic to our being, society and existence? Or is it 3 months out surfing in Hawaii.

The important point is that if we are going to be fair to everybody, not just pregnant women, then we need to allow the person themselves to decide what is important to them, not make that decision for them.

IMHO this isn't about what is important to individuals. To one person 9 months off to tour the world may be as important to them as maternity leave to have a child is to another person. What it is about is what is important to society. If an employer doesn't let a member of staff take a career break to see the world that isn't going to have an overall detrimental effect on society. If employers refuse to let women take maternity leave then this will have that effect. What it will do is stop a proportion of educated and employed women from having children or educated women will leave the workplace to have children and their contribution will be lost.

Employers need society to function well in order to do business and if anyone thinks it is desirable that only uneducated or rich women have children or we return to a time when women left the work place and stopped working then they are misguided.

You've made a number of statements there, but haven't supported any of them.

[Actus Reus]

Thing is Richie, not discriminating against people is EASY - very very very easy. In the case at hand a two line email would have avoided all of this. Period.

So I'd contend that it is quite well balanced - sure, some jokers will always try it on - but they lose and get costs awarded against them hopefully.

Going back to PM's comments above - knowing full well he will ignore this question - if you are going to ask a woman to PROVE intention of going back to work and NOT accept her word for it, how much proof will you need? And in what form? Do you not see that asking a plaintiff to provide evidence like that will 1. shoot most complainants in the foot, because the burden of proof will be stupidly high and 2. utterly wreck the court system as suddenly statements under oath are no longer acceptable and you now need hard evidence for EVERYTHING? Totally unworkable from a public policy point of view.

[Ken Figenus]

Many good points guys, but if the law on maternity (a special case - really special...) is THE SAME for all employers then they can manage it knowing its implication upfront. I'm an employer myself and yes it is a PITA but its a valid PITA as its a bit bigger picture...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Actus Reus said:

Going back to PM's comments above - knowing full well he will ignore this question - if you are going to ask a woman to PROVE intention of going back to work and NOT accept her word for it, how much proof will you need? And in what form? Do you not see that asking a plaintiff to provide evidence like that will 1. shoot most complainants in the foot, because the burden of proof will be stupidly high and 2. utterly wreck the court system as suddenly statements under oath are no longer acceptable and you now need hard evidence for EVERYTHING? Totally unworkable from a public policy point of view.

Who said anything about them having to prove it.

You stated that I had to believe them if they claimed they were intending on returning to work. I said I didn't. I am a free individual and I can chose what to believe and what not to.

I fail to understand where a plaintiff or court system comes into it.

[Richie Slow]

Actus Reus said:

Thing is Richie, not discriminating against people is EASY - very very very easy. In the case at hand a two line email would have avoided all of this. Period.

So I'd contend that it is quite well balanced - sure, some jokers will always try it on - but they lose and get costs awarded against them hopefully.

Going back to PM's comments above - knowing full well he will ignore this question - if you are going to ask a woman to PROVE intention of going back to work and NOT accept her word for it, how much proof will you need? And in what form? Do you not see that asking a plaintiff to provide evidence like that will 1. shoot most complainants in the foot, because the burden of proof will be stupidly high and 2. utterly wreck the court system as suddenly statements under oath are no longer acceptable and you now need hard evidence for EVERYTHING? Totally unworkable from a public policy point of view.

Many, many, many pages ago we established that it only need to be proven that she 'could have been' disadvantaged in not knowing about the new role. I agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove her intentions whether she inteneded to return to work, but that's surely a red herring as the new role would mean not returning to work on the existing basis but in a new position and with perhaps a new salary to match. That decision was not within her consideration at that point in time.

I might not agree with the law, but that won't change what it is

[Devil2575]

RobinOakapple said:

Devil2575 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Ken Figenus said:

RobinOakapple said:

Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

Does it have anything to do with the circle of life? The second biggest event in any human's life? A massive and key human being life moment that intrinsic to our being, society and existence? Or is it 3 months out surfing in Hawaii.

The important point is that if we are going to be fair to everybody, not just pregnant women, then we need to allow the person themselves to decide what is important to them, not make that decision for them.

IMHO this isn't about what is important to individuals. To one person 9 months off to tour the world may be as important to them as maternity leave to have a child is to another person. What it is about is what is important to society. If an employer doesn't let a member of staff take a career break to see the world that isn't going to have an overall detrimental effect on society. If employers refuse to let women take maternity leave then this will have that effect. What it will do is stop a proportion of educated and employed women from having children or educated women will leave the workplace to have children and their contribution will be lost.

Employers need society to function well in order to do business and if anyone thinks it is desirable that only uneducated or rich women have children or we return to a time when women left the work place and stopped working then they are misguided.

You've made a number of statements there, but haven't supported any of them.

It's a difficult subject to get hard data on so as such it is my opinion based on what i have read.

I'm not the only person who thinks it though.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c869d0e-075d-11de-9294-...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-wojcicki-paid-ma...

This report does try to put a vlue on it...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...

Also if you disagree with the last statement then so be it, I'm sure there are some men out there who would love to go back to the days when the only women in the office where those cleaning it and the secretaries.

[Actus Reus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Who said anything about them having to prove it.

You stated that I had to believe them if they claimed they were intending on returning to work. I said I didn't. I am a free individual and I can chose what to believe and what not to.

I fail to understand where a plaintiff or court system comes into it.

Oh I see, I thought we were talking about actual courts here, not the court of PM.

Dealing with ACTUAL real life courts is easier than dealing with PH - who'd have thunk it?

[anonymous-user]

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.

You misunderstand the law. The law is about equality of opportunity. Note the word opportunity. The question is NOT was the claimant the best candidate. The question is was the claimant unlawfully deprived of an opportunity. The value of that opportunity will vary from case to case.

If your view of the law was correct, then an employer could advertise for a new recruit and stipulate "no blacks, no women", and unless a black and/or female claimant could prove that he/she was the best candidate for the job, he/she would have no claim. Think that one through. Is that what you want the law to be?

[Actus Reus]

You know that a good 10% at least of PH were nodding their heads whilst reading that, BV.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

You misunderstand the law. The law is about equality of opportunity. Note the word opportunity. The question is NOT was the claimant the best candidate. The question is was the claimant unlawfully deprived of an opportunity. The value of that opportunity will vary from case to case.

If your view of the law was correct, then an employer could advertise for a new recruit and stipulate "no blacks, no women", and unless a black and/or female claimant could prove that he/she was the best candidate for the job, he/she would have no claim. Think that one through. Is that what you want the law to be?

halle-fkung-lujah

[anonymous-user]

Actus Reus said:

You know that a good 10% at least of PH were nodding their heads whilst reading that, BV.

Rather more than ten percent over in N,P& L, I suspect. That sub-forum should be re-named "The Two Minutes Hate".

[JustinP1]

Actus Reus said:

You know that a good 10% at least of PH were nodding their heads whilst reading that, BV.

You beat me to it!

One thing I am thankful for for this thread remaining open, is before a couple of days ago I thought I was a bit 'traditional' in my thinking. I count myself very lucky in that since our daughter was born 4 years ago, my wife has not been forced to return to work, so has been able to bring her up in the home.

Additionally I thought my political/government viewpoint was probably slightly right of centre, being a businessman and employer. However, compared to some of the views on here, I think I'm closer to Jeremy Corbyn - and that's scary...


Seriously, I followed this thread because I was interested to know where the law lies and is interpreted because I am an employer myself and I like to keep abreast of things as I have a duty to treat my employees in a lawful way. Each page has comments that are a new 'wow' to me...!

[RobinOakapple]

Devil2575 said:

It's a difficult subject to get hard data on so as such it is my opinion based on what i have read.

I'm not the only person who thinks it though.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c869d0e-075d-11de-9294-...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-wojcicki-paid-ma...

This report does try to put a vlue on it...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...

Also if you disagree with the last statement then so be it, I'm sure there are some men out there who would love to go back to the days when the only women in the office where those cleaning it and the secretaries.

Thanks for providing the links. I had a look at the first two but they require subscription or sign up, and are I presume opinion pieces anyway. The last I haven't time to wade through in its entirety, and in any case I would want to know just who wrote it and what their politics might be.

[divetheworld]

Breadvan72 said:

You misunderstand the law. The law is about equality of opportunity. Note the word opportunity. The question is NOT was the claimant the best candidate. The question is was the claimant unlawfully deprived of an opportunity. The value of that opportunity will vary from case to case.

If your view of the law was correct, then an employer could advertise for a new recruit and stipulate "no blacks, no women", and unless a black and/or female claimant could prove that he/she was the best candidate for the job, he/she would have no claim. Think that one through. Is that what you want the law to be?

That's interesting and logical.
In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?

[Richie Slow]

divetheworld said:

That's interesting and logical.
In essence, an individual who was on ML and not intending to return at the very end of the maximum entitlement could miss out on a 'potential' job. They put in a claim and get some compo. Not ideal on balance, but the alternative you describe would be a complete travesty.
No one said the law was perfect, but its the best balance we have?

Ah but if she didn't intend on returning that might bother you, me and the bloke in the pub but it doesn't interfere with her claim.