Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
Assuming that you are not trolling, maternity disadvantages have already been factored in, in the point I was replying too.
As for being treated like a note taker etc, that might be irritating but in no way affects opportunities for advancement.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.As for being treated like a note taker etc, that might be irritating but in no way affects opportunities for advancement.
IanA2 said:
RobinOakapple said:
IanA2 said:
Carefully chosen words, and rightly so as we know women still face considerable hurdles in the workplace.
Perhaps the White Knights here would like to have a look at this thread-
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Misogynist fantasies? An indication of widely held appalling male attitudes towards women? Grain of truth here and there?
Whatever, they should certainly be on that thread and providing some balance.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Misogynist fantasies? An indication of widely held appalling male attitudes towards women? Grain of truth here and there?
Whatever, they should certainly be on that thread and providing some balance.
RobinOakapple said:
Perhaps the White Knights here would like to have a look at this thread-
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Misogynist fantasies? An indication of widely held appalling male attitudes towards women? Grain of truth here and there?
Whatever, they should certainly be on that thread and providing some balance.
It's a light hearted thread in the lounge - so a completely different kettle of fish than this thread.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Misogynist fantasies? An indication of widely held appalling male attitudes towards women? Grain of truth here and there?
Whatever, they should certainly be on that thread and providing some balance.
This isn't about "male attitudes" - it's about discrimination against women due to the fact that only they can get pregnant. This discrimination comes from both men and women.
It is unarguable that it does happen as posters on this thread have openly admitted they wouldn't employ women of child bearing age and I have come across such an attitude on a regular basis out in the real world.
RobinOakapple said:
IanA2 said:
RobinOakapple said:
IanA2 said:
Carefully chosen words, and rightly so as we know women still face considerable hurdles in the workplace.
desolate said:
It is unarguable that it does happen as posters on this thread have openly admitted they wouldn't employ women of child bearing age and I have come across such an attitude on a regular basis out in the real world.
Damn right.They are running businesses not charities. They want employees that will turn up for work not have a year off, or several, not call in unable to attend when little Tommy has the squits, and have their mind on their work and not what little Tommy needs to take to school the next day.
PurpleMoonlight said:
desolate said:
It is unarguable that it does happen as posters on this thread have openly admitted they wouldn't employ women of child bearing age and I have come across such an attitude on a regular basis out in the real world.
Damn right.They are running businesses not charities. They want employees that will turn up for work not have a year off, or several, not call in unable to attend when little Tommy has the squits, and have their mind on their work and not what little Tommy needs to take to school the next day.
So that is that but to bed.
Could we let this thread rest now?
Maybe the brave entrepreneurs and business managers could start a new thread pissing and whinging about the legislation?
desolate said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
desolate said:
It is unarguable that it does happen as posters on this thread have openly admitted they wouldn't employ women of child bearing age and I have come across such an attitude on a regular basis out in the real world.
Damn right.They are running businesses not charities. They want employees that will turn up for work not have a year off, or several, not call in unable to attend when little Tommy has the squits, and have their mind on their work and not what little Tommy needs to take to school the next day.
So that is that but to bed.
Could we let this thread rest now?
Maybe the brave entrepreneurs and business managers could start a new thread pissing and whinging about the legislation?
RobinOakapple said:
Why would they need to complain about the legislation. AIUI, PM is saying that they are avoiding the worst aspects of the legislation by not employing the people the legislation is designed to advantage.
And by doing so they are breaking the law. Which has consequences if they get caught.IanA2 said:
RobinOakapple said:
IanA2 said:
Carefully chosen words, and rightly so as we know women still face considerable hurdles in the workplace.
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
Why would they need to complain about the legislation. AIUI, PM is saying that they are avoiding the worst aspects of the legislation by not employing the people the legislation is designed to advantage.
And by doing so they are breaking the law. Which has consequences if they get caught.RobinOakapple said:
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
Why would they need to complain about the legislation. AIUI, PM is saying that they are avoiding the worst aspects of the legislation by not employing the people the legislation is designed to advantage.
And by doing so they are breaking the law. Which has consequences if they get caught.He may well get away with it, as lots of employers do.
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
desolate said:
RobinOakapple said:
Why would they need to complain about the legislation. AIUI, PM is saying that they are avoiding the worst aspects of the legislation by not employing the people the legislation is designed to advantage.
And by doing so they are breaking the law. Which has consequences if they get caught.He may well get away with it, as lots of employers do.
Ar you an employer?
If the best person for the job is someone that will not be off for 1 year due to getting pregnant then whether that be male or female so be it!
The best person for a job has many parameters not just qualifications.
Granfondo said:
Get away with what?
Ar you an employer?
If the best person for the job is someone that will not be off for 1 year due to getting pregnant then whether that be male or female so be it!
The best person for a job has many parameters not just qualifications.
Get away with what?Ar you an employer?
If the best person for the job is someone that will not be off for 1 year due to getting pregnant then whether that be male or female so be it!
The best person for a job has many parameters not just qualifications.
Discriminating against women, on the grounds of them being of child bearing age.
Are you an employer?
Yes - have been a significant shareholder and senior management in a number of businesses since 2003. At peak employed around 300 people currently have around 60 employees across a few smaller businesses.
As said - this argument will go nowhere, but I hope my credentials at least allow me to comment without being dismissed by the hard done by business owners and valiant entrepreneurs.
It's also somewhat galling - as a woman - to be subjected to the assumption that you will (at some point) have children. Not all of us do....
I have been asked outright at an interview whether I was in a relationship and whether I intended to have children. The reason behind the question was made clear, too. I was too young, naive and intimidated to challenge it at the time, but the interviewer had all sorts of other objectionable opinions (racist, misogynist, etc, etc). I wasn't too disappointed when I didn't get the job.
I have been asked outright at an interview whether I was in a relationship and whether I intended to have children. The reason behind the question was made clear, too. I was too young, naive and intimidated to challenge it at the time, but the interviewer had all sorts of other objectionable opinions (racist, misogynist, etc, etc). I wasn't too disappointed when I didn't get the job.
desolate said:
Yes - have been a significant shareholder and senior management in a number of businesses since 2003. At peak employed around 300 people currently have around 60 employees across a few smaller businesses.
The dynamics of a business employing 300 are vastly different to one employing 3.I posted much earlier in the thread about an associate that had two of four on maternity leave at the same time. It crippled his business for several months.
I would never blame any small business seeking to employ only people that will not be potentially detrimental to their livelihood. The law is well meaning but overly burdensome to small businesses and therefor has unintended consequences.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff