Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
I fancy getting a hamster.
I will let my employer know that I will be taking a year off work to care for my hamster. Money will be tight so I expect my employer to continue to pay me for some of my time off, and thereafter the Government can pay me. I will not decide until the end of the year whether or not I wish to return to work for my employer, but I expect them to keep my job open for all this time just in case I do. If a possible promotion should arise during this year I expect to be give exactly the same consideration for that as my colleagues that have chosen not to have a hamster, even though I would be unwilling to take up the new position until the end of my year (if at all). Oh, and one final thing, if I should return to work I expect my employer to accommodate my request for flexible working hours as I will miss my hamster, and should my hamster be ill at any time I expect my employer to give me paid time off to care for it.
You are Nigel Farage and I claim my free prize.I will let my employer know that I will be taking a year off work to care for my hamster. Money will be tight so I expect my employer to continue to pay me for some of my time off, and thereafter the Government can pay me. I will not decide until the end of the year whether or not I wish to return to work for my employer, but I expect them to keep my job open for all this time just in case I do. If a possible promotion should arise during this year I expect to be give exactly the same consideration for that as my colleagues that have chosen not to have a hamster, even though I would be unwilling to take up the new position until the end of my year (if at all). Oh, and one final thing, if I should return to work I expect my employer to accommodate my request for flexible working hours as I will miss my hamster, and should my hamster be ill at any time I expect my employer to give me paid time off to care for it.
allergictocheese said:
Ah here were go. The usual PH, having a baby is all about lifestyle, nonsense.
All you hairy directors would have nobody to help your buy-to-let and equity portfolios grow for your retirement if all these awful, manipulative women didn't keep 'pushing babies out'.
Of course, the OP's wife is purely In this to f
k her employer and in no way do those unfortunate employers ever gleefully screw their employees.
Hint- if the balance hadn't been in the wrong direction and employers not historically taken advantage, there would been no need (or support) to specifically outlaw such discrimination.
For me the point is more that she's put her career on hold for a year while she has a baby. No problem with that. But I do have an issue not telling her employer if she's coming back to work or not and to even think she might be eligible for promotion during her period of absence. She's be afforded the right to return to work and it feels like that's already being abused by her. All you hairy directors would have nobody to help your buy-to-let and equity portfolios grow for your retirement if all these awful, manipulative women didn't keep 'pushing babies out'.
Of course, the OP's wife is purely In this to f
k her employer and in no way do those unfortunate employers ever gleefully screw their employees.Hint- if the balance hadn't been in the wrong direction and employers not historically taken advantage, there would been no need (or support) to specifically outlaw such discrimination.
JonV8V said:
For me the point is more that she's put her career on hold for a year while she has a baby. No problem with that. But I do have an issue not telling her employer if she's coming back to work or not and to even think she might be eligible for promotion during her period of absence. She's be afforded the right to return to work and it feels like that's already being abused by her.
That's very 19th century though and not what the law says.She's entitled to take a year. Simple as that.
Actus Reus said:
JonV8V said:
For me the point is more that she's put her career on hold for a year while she has a baby. No problem with that. But I do have an issue not telling her employer if she's coming back to work or not and to even think she might be eligible for promotion during her period of absence. She's be afforded the right to return to work and it feels like that's already being abused by her.
That's very 19th century though and not what the law says.She's entitled to take a year. Simple as that.
Actus Reus said:
In 3 months - that's why she went back in; to discuss her return to work.
So did you get the charger and check the BB?You know there is this thing called a search and its not exactly a hassle to search for Job opportunities every week or two.
If she was not reading emails, how did you want them to contact her about a job, that she may or may not be able to put herself forward for.
Breadvan72 said:
The responses above are typically PH, but also wrong. The OP's wife may well have a claim that she has been subjected to a form of detriment for a reason connected with her maternity status. It is not reasonable to expect someone on maternity leave to monitor company emails.
Those of you cry foul please think about it for a minute. The OP's wife has possibly been disadvantaged at the work place because of her pregnancy/maternity. Note that there is no need to find a male comparator, because there cannot be a male comparator so long as only women can become pregnant. Maternity has a special protected status in employment law. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It attempts to redress the career imbalances that flow from women taking time off to have children.
Not that it matters a jot, compared to the legal standing BV has given us, but this was also my understanding of the law.Those of you cry foul please think about it for a minute. The OP's wife has possibly been disadvantaged at the work place because of her pregnancy/maternity. Note that there is no need to find a male comparator, because there cannot be a male comparator so long as only women can become pregnant. Maternity has a special protected status in employment law. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It attempts to redress the career imbalances that flow from women taking time off to have children.
If someone is off on maternity leave they should be made aware of any possible promotion opportunities, etc, that exist. Its not up to anyone else to "decide", deliberately or otherwise whether or not shes suitable and thus not inform her.
Corpulent Tosser said:
I have no doubt BV is correct regarding the law, I have serious doubts whether the law was intended to be used in quite this way.
So people off on maternity shouldnt be told about promotion or other job opportunities? Because that IS what the law says needs to happen.Du1point8 said:
Actus Reus said:
In 3 months - that's why she went back in; to discuss her return to work.
So did you get the charger and check the BB?You know there is this thing called a search and its not exactly a hassle to search for Job opportunities every week or two.
If she was not reading emails, how did you want them to contact her about a job, that she may or may not be able to put herself forward for.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:daemon said:
Legally - not up to her to log on to work email and check. They would need to have told her.
Goes back to a question I asked earlier - would they have to have told her of every vacancy that came up within the company?Spoke to my wife there whos a senior contact centre manager, and deals with this stuff with her HR people all the time, but yes, she said it would be a requirement that she was informed of any possible opportunities.
In fact there was a case in her company recently (not in her division but a person known to her) were a manager was off on maternity, wasnt told of an opportunity, took the company to a tribunal and won.
Edited by daemon on Saturday 18th July 16:15
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:daemon said:
Legally - not up to her to log on to work email and check. They would need to have told her.
Goes back to a question I asked earlier - would they have to have told her of every vacancy that came up within the company?Edited by JonV8V on Saturday 18th July 16:18
JonV8V said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:daemon said:
Legally - not up to her to log on to work email and check. They would need to have told her.
Goes back to a question I asked earlier - would they have to have told her of every vacancy that came up within the company?Du1point8 said:
If she was not reading emails, how did you want them to contact her about a job, that she may or may not be able to put herself forward for.
There is a wonderful invention that some people use called a phone. There is also a postal service who could deliver a copy of any such job...daemon said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I have no doubt BV is correct regarding the law, I have serious doubts whether the law was intended to be used in quite this way.
So people off on maternity shouldnt be told about promotion or other job opportunities? Because that IS what the law says needs to happen.daemon said:
JonV8V said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:daemon said:
Legally - not up to her to log on to work email and check. They would need to have told her.
Goes back to a question I asked earlier - would they have to have told her of every vacancy that came up within the company?Corpulent Tosser said:
Perhaps I am wrong on this and I accept I am a dinosaur regarding this aspect of employment law, but if an employee who is on maternity leave for a year (which in my opinion is far too long but that is for another thread) and the employer requires someone for a new position or higher grade/promoted position why would they want to leave it open or employ a short term contractor to cover until the person on leave returns ? Just sounds crazy to me.
The law is as it stands. And maternity leave has a large number of protections.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff