Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
surveyor said:
I'm surprised at the opportunity for people on maternity leave. I get the protection that they have at their current status, and that they should be able to resume their career as it was when they return, but as an employer if I wanted to place someone in a new position I would not be recruiting someone who is off work for another 4 months and who has not committed to returning.
I was surprised too to be honest, but that's certainly correct.And she's on SMP.
Well SMP now - she had OMP previously. No obligation to repay it.
And yes - they're huge. One of the reasons for working there was the assumption that she would be well treated - a change in immediate management seems to have shot that theory down unfortunately. The previous manager left and sued for sex discrimination; they settled out of court.
And yes - they're huge. One of the reasons for working there was the assumption that she would be well treated - a change in immediate management seems to have shot that theory down unfortunately. The previous manager left and sued for sex discrimination; they settled out of court.
mph1977 said:
anyone can apply for any role , however if they don;t hold essential qualifications they will be sifted out at recipt of the application , if they don;t hold 'essential' skills other than qualification they could also be sifted out at that point or may be sifted out when long listing or short listing ....
returning to the OP - Does his OH hoild all the esential criteria for the new role and a fair slew of the desirables? if not there 's no assumption she'd be shortlisted ...
The lady who got the the job has been with the firm longer but she has no academic qualifications. My wife has less time in the firm, but has a degree and an MBA as well as relevant experience elsewhere. I wouldn't say it was a foregone conclusion but I'd expect her to be interviewed.returning to the OP - Does his OH hoild all the esential criteria for the new role and a fair slew of the desirables? if not there 's no assumption she'd be shortlisted ...
The point is that she wasn't even informed and she feels she should have been. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I agree with her - she deserved to be at least told of the opening.
Nigel Worc's said:
I don't think that is true, and I think you are being unkind.
I run a business to make money for me and my family, I pay my taxes, my business pays its taxes.
If society wants all this namby pamby s
te, then society can pay for it, not me directly.
Do you feel that is unreasonable ?
If women wish to be treated equally, then they can behave equally.
I presume you carried your kids for 4.5months, so as to share things equally with your wife?I run a business to make money for me and my family, I pay my taxes, my business pays its taxes.
If society wants all this namby pamby s
te, then society can pay for it, not me directly.Do you feel that is unreasonable ?
If women wish to be treated equally, then they can behave equally.
Nigel Worc's said:
Not at all, as you know nature has decreed they do that.
I did continue working though, and enabled my wife to be warm, dry, fed, and housed whilst she raised our children, because that is my role.
To be fair, Nige, it's probably best you don't hire any women - because you are definitely going to be sued if you do.I did continue working though, and enabled my wife to be warm, dry, fed, and housed whilst she raised our children, because that is my role.
jimmybobby said:
Well yes in fact. You and your wife refuse to accept that it was YOUR choice to have a child. You did not call the company and ask if it was OK or convenient or inconvenient for the company if your wife to got pregnant or started a family. YOUR DECISION. I dont know how to make that any clearer. As such I cannot see how you can hold the company liable or expect compensation brought about by your own actions.
The law and the weird modern ideals of fairness may be on your side but absolute common sense is not.
I'll tell you what though, some of the payouts in these cases are huge - I might be able to buy a Ferrari! FTW!The law and the weird modern ideals of fairness may be on your side but absolute common sense is not.
Mandat said:
What. That she did not know about an opportunity that she was apparently not interested in anyway?
How could she not be interested in something she didn't know about? My wife spent years obtaining an MBA - that wasn't to sit at home with baby. She'd have been very interested. Too late though - the job's gone.See above though - a Ferrari!!!! Maybe only an F430, but that'll do. The baby won't fit though so we'll have to put him up for adoption.
jimmybobby said:
Everyone on this thread knows that odds are if you sue you will win and you will get compensation. The law is on your side.
I really dont care if you get a payout of £1 or £1 trillion. Its a matter of principle and common sense.
Common sense says you are wrong. The law says you are right.
The law is an ass.
And I have a brand new Ferrari.I really dont care if you get a payout of £1 or £1 trillion. Its a matter of principle and common sense.
Common sense says you are wrong. The law says you are right.
The law is an ass.
The Liberal Commie Left Wing unelected Brussels Eurocrats didn't see that coming.
She was never told about the job - in any way. The internal system is an intranet we cannot access from home. I can't be more clear than that - she had no way of knowing. The role was a direct promotion for her or one other colleague - that's it. My view is that she should have been mailed or called. She wasn't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff