Joyless feminism

[xjay1337]

Du1point8 said:

I know a few business owners who do the same after one small business owner got stung, as the women applying for the job was already pregnant, but as he was not allowed to ask he didn't find out until after the hiring of her... turned his opinion over night and never again did he hire women of child baring age after going almost to the wall having to pay her maternity leave and hire someone else, did she come back afterwards... did she fk!!

He was only a small company looking to expand and she almost screwed it up for him and his other employees as he was running very fine to the wire in the expansion whilst buying lots of new equipment, etc and was not expecting to pay this on top after only a few months.

Wait, are you not allowed to ask if someone is pregnant?
I think that would effect suitability for a job, surely..........

[Rovinghawk]

xjay1337 said:

Wait, are you not allowed to ask if someone is pregnant?
I think that would effect suitability for a job, surely..........

You're not allowed- suitability for the job isn't as important as not discriminating.

I remember a case of a pregnant woman getting a job to cover someone else's maternity leave. 2 minutes after being given the job she mentioned she was pregnant. On having the job offer withdrawn she sued & won thousands. The employer was somewhat miffed.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There may have been some confusion with da younger yoof over half-term.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/03/one-in-five-children...

[xjay1337]

Rovinghawk said:

You're not allowed- suitability for the job isn't as important as not discriminating.

I remember a case of a pregnant woman getting a job to cover someone else's maternity leave. 2 minutes after being given the job she mentioned she was pregnant. On having the job offer withdrawn she sued & won thousands. The employer was somewhat miffed.

For **** sake.
That's utterly stupid.

Can you not put something like

"Maternity leave cover, need someone who is able to work full time, Mon-Fri, 9-5, contracted for 8 months" ?

Would that not sort of weed out pregnant women?

[Rovinghawk]

xjay1337 said:

For **** sake.
That's utterly stupid.

Can you not put something like

"Maternity leave cover, need someone who is able to work full time, Mon-Fri, 9-5, contracted for 8 months" ?

Would that not sort of weed out pregnant women?

The only time I've seen common sense prevail was when a woman of child-bearing age was refused a job at a thalidomide factory. The judge accepted that the discrimination was unlawful but under the very specific circumstances awarded damages of tuppence ha'penny.

I think it was on Panorama or similar.

[irocfan]

seem to recall a small garden centre needed a worker which did require heavy lifting - preggers woman sued for not getting the job (employer was worried about potential miscarriage etc) and won!! Seriously fked up thinking there

[williamp]

irocfan said:

seem to recall a small garden centre needed a worker which did require heavy lifting - preggers woman sued for not getting the job (employer was worried about potential miscarriage etc) and won!! Seriously fked up thinking there

Got a link? I seriously doubt that happened. Yes its true you cannot say certain things in a job advert, and you have to be careful what you ask in interview. But you can employ someone on their suitability for the role. If someone was more suitable, then that's fine. It the company felt nobody was suitable, then nobody gets employed. (although under labour they wanted to force businesses to employ more staff, which is another issue entirely. Come back Ed, etc etc)

[Negative Creep]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[irocfan]

williamp said:

irocfan said:

seem to recall a small garden centre needed a worker which did require heavy lifting - preggers woman sued for not getting the job (employer was worried about potential miscarriage etc) and won!! Seriously fked up thinking there

Got a link? I seriously doubt that happened. Yes its true you cannot say certain things in a job advert, and you have to be careful what you ask in interview. But you can employ someone on their suitability for the role. If someone was more suitable, then that's fine. It the company felt nobody was suitable, then nobody gets employed. (although under labour they wanted to force businesses to employ more staff, which is another issue entirely. Come back Ed, etc etc)

'fraid not - as I said it was a hazy recollection from several years back

[Martin4x4]

Looks like the campus crazy has been forced to resign over bullying and abusive emails.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/legal-threat...

[Pesty]

Feminist makes bread


http://distractify.com/fyi/2015/11/24/mark-sourdou...

[Type R Tom]

Derek Smith said:

The reason I got to know about this was that my wife felt uncomfortable with the atmospher after the chat and came out to the hut. She said nothing (I videod the matches and the audio was always on) and then when we left she made a point of going over the to woman and had a few minutes chatting with her. In the car she told me of the conversation.

Being police minded I mentioned it being against the law and then my wife told me that the woman had said during the latter chat that her business was highly competitive and that with the costs of training the staff, then the cost of having to replace them, again with untrained staff, meant that it cost the firm a considerable amount of profit.

Sensing a little criticism, my wife asked me: What would you do in her place?

Good question.

I once worked in a place where we had a women on a 1 year fixed term contract that was reviewed yearly, when it came to be renewed again the funding had ended but she begged for an extension and my boss moved heaven and earth to find the money. A few days after it was signed she announced she was pregnant (she was a big girl and it didn’t really show).

She then proceeded to milk the system for all it was worth with doctor/hospital appointments and sickness linked to her pregnancy to the point that we rarely saw her before her maternity leave started. My boss vowed never to employ a woman of that age again (don’t know if he did or not) and she alienated most of the other women in the office too.

[superlightr]

that pretty, butter wouldnt melt in her mouth but dont smile at me woman was on the radio this morning Radio 4? about cosmetic surgery and make up - hid the mental quite well.

[eldar]

Type R Tom said:

I once worked in a place where we had a women on a 1 year fixed term contract that was reviewed yearly, when it came to be renewed again the funding had ended but she begged for an extension and my boss moved heaven and earth to find the money. A few days after it was signed she announced she was pregnant (she was a big girl and it didn’t really show).

She then proceeded to milk the system for all it was worth with doctor/hospital appointments and sickness linked to her pregnancy to the point that we rarely saw her before her maternity leave started. My boss vowed never to employ a woman of that age again (don’t know if he did or not) and she alienated most of the other women in the office too.

Can't men now use some of the maternity leave?

[Type R Tom]

eldar said:

Can't men now use some of the maternity leave?

That's an interesting point, imagine a man on a fix term contract taking the majority of the couples allocation might cause a few issues.

[Du1point8]

Type R Tom said:

Derek Smith said:

The reason I got to know about this was that my wife felt uncomfortable with the atmospher after the chat and came out to the hut. She said nothing (I videod the matches and the audio was always on) and then when we left she made a point of going over the to woman and had a few minutes chatting with her. In the car she told me of the conversation.

Being police minded I mentioned it being against the law and then my wife told me that the woman had said during the latter chat that her business was highly competitive and that with the costs of training the staff, then the cost of having to replace them, again with untrained staff, meant that it cost the firm a considerable amount of profit.

Sensing a little criticism, my wife asked me: What would you do in her place?

Good question.

I once worked in a place where we had a women on a 1 year fixed term contract that was reviewed yearly, when it came to be renewed again the funding had ended but she begged for an extension and my boss moved heaven and earth to find the money. A few days after it was signed she announced she was pregnant (she was a big girl and it didn’t really show).

She then proceeded to milk the system for all it was worth with doctor/hospital appointments and sickness linked to her pregnancy to the point that we rarely saw her before her maternity leave started. My boss vowed never to employ a woman of that age again (don’t know if he did or not) and she alienated most of the other women in the office too.

Just a point but if the company can prove that she was pregnant before the she joined they don't have to pay for maternity leave... not an issue in big companies but in smaller companies it could be a life saver.

[ChemicalChaos]

Another good article here on how out of touch the vocal shouty ones are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12045740/Todays-f...

[steveatesh]

ChemicalChaos said:

Another good article here on how out of touch the vocal shouty ones are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12045740/Todays-f...

I opened it with trepidation but was pleasantly surprised by the authors approach.
I wonder when the Women's Equality Party will campaign for equality of the suicide rate, equality of homelessness, equality of the death rate in the workplace, equality of health care and research for men and women, equality of education at school, equality of the justice system and equality of the family courts, to name just a few?

[irocfan]

steveatesh said:

ChemicalChaos said:

Another good article here on how out of touch the vocal shouty ones are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12045740/Todays-f...

I opened it with trepidation but was pleasantly surprised by the authors approach.
I wonder when the Women's Equality Party will campaign for equality of the suicide rate, equality of homelessness, equality of the death rate in the workplace, equality of health care and research for men and women, equality of education at school, equality of the justice system and equality of the family courts, to name just a few?

but that's different!!

[Moonhawk]

irocfan said:

steveatesh said:

ChemicalChaos said:

Another good article here on how out of touch the vocal shouty ones are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/12045740/Todays-f...

I opened it with trepidation but was pleasantly surprised by the authors approach.
I wonder when the Women's Equality Party will campaign for equality of the suicide rate, equality of homelessness, equality of the death rate in the workplace, equality of health care and research for men and women, equality of education at school, equality of the justice system and equality of the family courts, to name just a few?

but that's different!!

Indeed.

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/women-seeking-...

Interestingly the page states:

"The Turner Commission recommended 15 years notice, and Saga recommended 10 years. Yet many women report receiving little or no notice."

But then goes on to state:

"......many women were not aware at the time of these changes (1995). Although there was – not surprisingly – widespread media coverage of the issue, for women in their mid 40s at the time, pensions might not have been a subject of great interest."

So basically - it was widely reported 20 years before these women were due to reach retirement age (i.e. longer than both the Turner Commission and SAGA recommend)......yet they just didn't bother to take notice......erm.....