Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
desolate said:
Get away with what?
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.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but where do you stand on the opinion if the best person for the job is someone that won't be taking a year of work then surely that is part of the vetting process of the employer!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.
If there was a job advertised for a surrogate mother and the applicants included a man and a 90 year old woman would they be discriminated against because they couldn't fulfil the job?
Anyhoo us employers have to get back the sweatshop and make sure the girlys skirts are short enough and their tops are unbuttoned to the waist!
Granfondo said:
Anyhoo us employers have to get back the sweatshop and make sure the girlys skirts are short enough and their tops are unbuttoned to the waist!
What are you playing at man? The only way you can trust they are not thieving from you is confiscating clothes at the start of the shift.
Granfondo said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but where do you stand on the opinion if the best person for the job is someone that won't be taking a year of work then surely that is part of the vetting process of the employer!
These employers must have incredible clairvoyant powers if they know who will/won't 'be taking a year of(sic) work'.How would you know that of anyone (male or female)?
moorx said:
These employers must have incredible clairvoyant powers if they know who will/won't 'be taking a year of(sic) work'.
How would you know that of anyone (male or female)?
That's why employers get the big bucks! How would you know that of anyone (male or female)?
Seriously if the applicants are between the ages of 16-45 then ....
Edited by Granfondo on Wednesday 14th October 12:56
P.S. don't employ vegetarians either,they always have the cold!
Edited by Granfondo on Wednesday 14th October 12:59
moorx said:
These employers must have incredible clairvoyant powers if they know who will/won't 'be taking a year of(sic) work'.
How would you know that of anyone (male or female)?
To a certain extent that's true now that maternity leave can be transferred to paternity leave.How would you know that of anyone (male or female)?
However, women don't give up their advantages easily and by and large men don't want months off to look after a baby so I don't see huge take up.
Granfondo said:
Seriously if the applicants are between the ages of 16-45 then ....
P.S. don't employ vegetarians either,they always have the cold!
Or smokers, they keep nipping out for a fag.P.S. don't employ vegetarians either,they always have the cold!
Or fatties, they keep nipping out to the fridge.
Or old people, they keep nipping out to the loo.
Come to think of it, I think I would be better off on my own
PurpleMoonlight said:
Granfondo said:
Seriously if the applicants are between the ages of 16-45 then ....
P.S. don't employ vegetarians either,they always have the cold!
Or smokers, they keep nipping out for a fag.P.S. don't employ vegetarians either,they always have the cold!
Or fatties, they keep nipping out to the fridge.
Or old people, they keep nipping out to the loo.
Come to think of it, I think I would be better off on my own
moorx said:
Granfondo said:
That's why employers get the big bucks!
Seriously if the applicants are between the ages of 16-45 then ....
Oh, that's okay then - so you're applying this to both men and women between those ages....Seriously if the applicants are between the ages of 16-45 then ....
Edited by Granfondo on Wednesday 14th October 12:59
Staying at home with kids is woman's work!!!
mph1977 said:
IanA2 said:
RobinOakapple said:
IanA2 said:
Carefully chosen words, and rightly so as we know women still face considerable hurdles in the workplace.
PurpleMoonlight said:
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.
What I want is good, capable, talented staff. Whether they have children, will have children, or are a forever alone fedora wearer, doesn't bother me a bit. I'll recruit the right person for the role.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.
Unless all your child free employees never take a sick day because they are hungover? Looking back at the history of staff in my team, those with children take far, far less sick days than those without.
PurpleMoonlight said:
...
I don't buy the glass ceiling argument. The best person for the job should get it. To have criteria that require a certain percentage of a gender in a particular role by definition discriminates against the other gender.
..
It appears that you do not understand what a glass ceiling is. It is nothing to do with selection on merit. It is about an invisible barrier to advancement based on gender. I don't buy the glass ceiling argument. The best person for the job should get it. To have criteria that require a certain percentage of a gender in a particular role by definition discriminates against the other gender.
..
PurpleMoonlight said:
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.
I said 300 over a number of businesses.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.
I currently have one with 6 staff, 2 of whom are pregnant or recently with child.
I can confirm it's a bit of a challenge.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff