Employing women of 'baby-making' age

[plasticpig]

Griff Bitch said:

Don said:

Then there's the situation of the genuinely "little" firm. Just a few employees. These businesses can often barely afford to pay the wages - let alone pay benefits for an employee that isn't present.

The employers don't pay the maternity pay, the government does and they compensate the employers with 4.5% for their troubles.

I thought that was only if the Class 1 NIC was under 45K?

[NorthernBoy]

BliarOut said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. There is always one who is better, and I am happy to say that I have always chosen based on which one I think could do the job best.

There would be more risk with an older person, too, or someone who had previously had cancer, but, again, I would not let that affect my decision. I don't agree that it makes business sense to ever pass over the best candidate, and morally I could not agree with it either.

Frankly, if my business depended on employing only super-fit twenty something males, I would probably think that I should head back and re-do the numbers to find some extra margin, as it was too close to he wire to make it worthwhile.

Do you pay for maternity leave and the continued use of a company car etc out of your own pocket?

As I am paid based on the profits, yes, I do.

[BliarOut]

NorthernBoy said:

BliarOut said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. There is always one who is better, and I am happy to say that I have always chosen based on which one I think could do the job best.

There would be more risk with an older person, too, or someone who had previously had cancer, but, again, I would not let that affect my decision. I don't agree that it makes business sense to ever pass over the best candidate, and morally I could not agree with it either.

Frankly, if my business depended on employing only super-fit twenty something males, I would probably think that I should head back and re-do the numbers to find some extra margin, as it was too close to he wire to make it worthwhile.

Do you pay for maternity leave and the continued use of a company car etc out of your own pocket?

As I am paid based on the profits, yes, I do.

So you get 100% of the profit the company makes and all salaries come from your own pocket?

[Griff Bitch]

plasticpig said:

Griff Bitch said:

Don said:

Then there's the situation of the genuinely "little" firm. Just a few employees. These businesses can often barely afford to pay the wages - let alone pay benefits for an employee that isn't present.

The employers don't pay the maternity pay, the government does and they compensate the employers with 4.5% for their troubles.

I thought that was only if the Class 1 NIC was under 45K?

You are right, I didn't make myself clear, I was only talking about the "little" firms.

[JustinP1]

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. There is always one who is better, and I am happy to say that I have always chosen based on which one I think could do the job best.

There would be more risk with an older person, too, or someone who had previously had cancer, but, again, I would not let that affect my decision. I don't agree that it makes business sense to ever pass over the best candidate, and morally I could not agree with it either.

Frankly, if my business depended on employing only super-fit twenty something males, I would probably think that I should head back and re-do the numbers to find some extra margin, as it was too close to he wire to make it worthwhile.

This is all great, and I admire your attitude, but it is clear YOUR motivations are very different to a small business owner. How would your opinion change to the 'best employee' if whist they could be on maternity leave you would have to pay the additional cost of a temp and the leavers company car out of YOUR pocket!?

That is exactly what this comes down to, and whilst you mention you work as CERN which is a clue but some of your comments such as 'find some extra margin' or 'grow my business in the meantime' really do not add up - it doesn't work like that in the real world.

Let me give you an example:

Take a company with a single director and 3 employees. They work in a niche market marketing and selling industrial widgets. The new staff member which will make it 4 will be the Sales Director, responsible for bringing in all of the sales activity, client liaison with an office junior.

Now, the office junior is expendable, but what about the Sales Director?

Lets say a year into the job the plan to get a good Sales Director worked. After 3 months of product traning they really got flying and for their decent salary they bring in an extra 40% turnover for the business which has allowed it to not just struggle to break even but also make a profit to look to expand with, so you increase marking spending and things are going swimmingly...

Then 6 months later they announce that they are having a baby and when you discuss it with them they opt to take the 6 months statutory period. Hmm, we could live with that, although a six month temp may not be as good and will have to be trained we can go with it. So, we get one from an agency. Of course for a 6 month contract they are not of the same calibre and although including the agency fees it actually costs more to employ them turnover figures have suffered and are pretty much where they were before the new Sales Director started. Thats cool though as she is coming back next month...

We get a phone call and she tells us she is also going to opt for the optional extra 6 months. Sh1t. The temp we had was on a 6 month contract and they have a full time post coming up at the end somewhere else. we can't even look to poach as we can't afford to pay both them and the Sales Director when they come back.

So we get another temp, another 'finders fee' from the agency and a 6 month contract. A month later though we get a letter telling us the old sales Director has changed there mind and has gien the statutory 8 weeks notice to have their job back.

At least we would be back on track then though when she is back, though there is going to be a period where we are now under contract to fulfil the 6 month contract and there isnt enough work for both people...

So, total cost is two agency fees, higher cost of their staff and 3 months unproductive wages from them. Plus of course the first six weeks of amternity pay at 90%. Total real cost about £18k. The other hit was the two temps wernt that great and each took 3 months to get into the role and the 40% increase in turnover was back where it was before. So, in effect after we have looked to expand before and spend more on marketing our reasonable annual profit has turned to zero.

Sh1t... that means I have worked for a year for no wages... I got the mortgage paid though by getting out unsecured loans.

On the good side though the old/new Sales Director is back now and things are back on track, we are profitable again, I can get a wage and look to pay of the £20k debt I got myself in.

We had a good 6 months, then I got the letter that she was expecting her second child...



This may sound a far cry to what happens in big business, but this is the harsh reality for a small business. When your roof over your head is at risk and you also have to look at the security of the jobs of your current loyal staff, believe me you think a lot more seriously about things that can jeopardise it...

[tinman0]

srebbe64 said:

H_Kan said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

If you're a Manager in a large Multi-national business (like me), can you tolerate the inconvenience of losing an employee for 12 months?

Hard to tell, really. Reading that job description, it sounds like you have progressed to having all five stars on your badge, and are ready to step away from the deep fat fryer, and delegate this mission critical task. In which case, I can see that you can rotate the staff and thin them out a bit.

On the other hand, in a business like mine, I'd take on someone to cover the gap, and grow the business sufficiently in the year that there was a role waiting for the happy mother should she wish to return.

Clearly such an attitude sits poorly in the realms of some of the managers on here.

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

In some ways it's no easier for a larger company than a small one because the proportions are likely to be similar. If a small company employs four people, one of whom was "in the child bearing zone" so to speak, there's there's a chance that the company will be without 25% of its staff for a period of time at some future date. Equally, if a large company of, say, 1000 had the same breakdown then there's a chance that 250 people will leave for a period of time. It's called "running a business".

erm, hate to disagree with you....

the percentage risk maybe the same, but the probability of all 250 getting pregnant on the same day (company christmas party excluding which must be a worrying time) is pretty low. however, the risk is much greater if the company has 1 woman of breeding age, and 3 others.

the chance of 25% of your workforce being off is much much higher.


the other issue not mentioned here is that if the person is specialised the others will find it more difficult to take up the slack, as they don't have the skills. for instance, you have a specific PR/marketing person, she goes, so who does PR/marketing now? it could be something that no one knows anything about, so you are doubly stuffed.

[Don]

JustinP1 said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. There is always one who is better, and I am happy to say that I have always chosen based on which one I think could do the job best.

There would be more risk with an older person, too, or someone who had previously had cancer, but, again, I would not let that affect my decision. I don't agree that it makes business sense to ever pass over the best candidate, and morally I could not agree with it either.

Frankly, if my business depended on employing only super-fit twenty something males, I would probably think that I should head back and re-do the numbers to find some extra margin, as it was too close to he wire to make it worthwhile.

This is all great, and I admire your attitude, but it is clear YOUR motivations are very different to a small business owner. How would your opinion change to the 'best employee' if whist they could be on maternity leave you would have to pay the additional cost of a temp and the leavers company car out of YOUR pocket!?

That is exactly what this comes down to, and whilst you mention you work as CERN which is a clue but some of your comments such as 'find some extra margin' or 'grow my business in the meantime' really do not add up - it doesn't work like that in the real world.

Let me give you an example:

Take a company with a single director and 3 employees. They work in a niche market marketing and selling industrial widgets. The new staff member which will make it 4 will be the Sales Director, responsible for bringing in all of the sales activity, client liaison with an office junior.

Now, the office junior is expendable, but what about the Sales Director?

Lets say a year into the job the plan to get a good Sales Director worked. After 3 months of product traning they really got flying and for their decent salary they bring in an extra 40% turnover for the business which has allowed it to not just struggle to break even but also make a profit to look to expand with, so you increase marking spending and things are going swimmingly...

Then 6 months later they announce that they are having a baby and when you discuss it with them they opt to take the 6 months statutory period. Hmm, we could live with that, although a six month temp may not be as good and will have to be trained we can go with it. So, we get one from an agency. Of course for a 6 month contract they are not of the same calibre and although including the agency fees it actually costs more to employ them turnover figures have suffered and are pretty much where they were before the new Sales Director started. Thats cool though as she is coming back next month...

We get a phone call and she tells us she is also going to opt for the optional extra 6 months. Sh1t. The temp we had was on a 6 month contract and they have a full time post coming up at the end somewhere else. we can't even look to poach as we can't afford to pay both them and the Sales Director when they come back.

So we get another temp, another 'finders fee' from the agency and a 6 month contract. A month later though we get a letter telling us the old sales Director has changed there mind and has gien the statutory 8 weeks notice to have their job back.

At least we would be back on track then though when she is back, though there is going to be a period where we are now under contract to fulfil the 6 month contract and there isnt enough work for both people...

So, total cost is two agency fees, higher cost of their staff and 3 months unproductive wages from them. Plus of course the first six weeks of amternity pay at 90%. Total real cost about £18k. The other hit was the two temps wernt that great and each took 3 months to get into the role and the 40% increase in turnover was back where it was before. So, in effect after we have looked to expand before and spend more on marketing our reasonable annual profit has turned to zero.

Sh1t... that means I have worked for a year for no wages... I got the mortgage paid though by getting out unsecured loans.

On the good side though the old/new Sales Director is back now and things are back on track, we are profitable again, I can get a wage and look to pay of the £20k debt I got myself in.

We had a good 6 months, then I got the letter that she was expecting her second child...



This may sound a far cry to what happens in big business, but this is the harsh reality for a small business. When your roof over your head is at risk and you also have to look at the security of the jobs of your current loyal staff, believe me you think a lot more seriously about things that can jeopardise it...

:shudder: That is one tale of woe...

The same happened to a friend of mine who runs an opticians...

[JustinP1]

Don said:

:shudder: That is one tale of woe...

The same happened to a friend of mine who runs an opticians...

Luckily for me although the business position is very similar the taking on the 'woman of 'baby making' age' was a hypothetical and possible or probable outcome based on current legislation.

The simple fact is that for a small business if you take on a woman of say 30 years old who has not yet had a baby, the chances are that they will have their 2.4 or whatever in the next 8-10 years.

The statisticians can work out the exact chance, but it might be a 20% chance each year or more that she might want maternity leave. Now for a big company this is averaged out because they employ all ages and sexes.

But what for a small employer like me? If I put someone like that in a key role such as Sales Director I can't run the risk of catastrophic outcome I can't do a single legal thing about at around 20% a year!

In small business and running it is a day to day 'risk assessment' based on your knowledge and intuition and your understanding of potential risk - thats how you speculate to accumulate.

In the example about the direct employment cost was about £18k. If you take the fact that the company may have been providing a decent wage/divident of £60k a year for the director, in a year he could be £70 or £80k down on what he would have been.

For those in big business even those who run a department, if *they* had to make the decision that might cost them £80k of their salary - and any additional is clawed back from their personal funds or house then they may have a taste of the implications for a smaller business.

For those small business owners who don't take this into account - especially when hiring key staff - then more fool them.

[POORCARDEALER]

Unfortunatly many women of child bearing age totally take the piss regarding the employer.

[ATG]

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. ...

TYhen you are ducking the question.

[srebbe64]

ATG said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. ...

TYhen you are ducking the question.

I've never defended NB before, but I don't think he's ducking the question. It's a catagoric fact that no two people are identical, so the question is a naive one to ask in the first place.

[Golfman]

Slightly off subject, how about all the other modern day politically correct scenarios a small business has to consider:

Employing Eastern Europeans, because all the young English lads are lazy bastards who cant get out of bed in the morning!

Moving all manufacturing overseas due to extortionate raw material prices in the UK (eg steel)

Basing transport companies across the water to avoid rip off fuel…

Employing ladyboys as I don’t think they can get pregnant.

Also how about public service organizations that has to fill a quota of black, asian, women, all other flavours of weirdness rather than the best person for the job! Eg the fire services!

[ATG]

srebbe64 said:

ATG said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. ...

TYhen you are ducking the question.

I've never defended NB before, but I don't think he's ducking the question. It's a catagoric fact that no two people are identical, so the question is a naive one to ask in the first place.

Repetition won't make it any more convincing. It is clearly ducking a perfectly valid question.

It is blatantly obvious that the risk that a member of staff will take siginificant absences from their employment represents a risk to their employer. Denying that is just silly. The question is, is it a reasonable risk to require a business to carry for the sake of the greater good? And that's a matter of judgement. To claim that there is no problem, that the risk does not exist is nonsensical. Clearly the risk is real, clearly the risk is unevenly distributed in the case of businesses with a small head-count. The question is "do we care?", not "is there a problem?".

[tinman0]

uh oh, P&P spills over into Business...

[BliarOut]

tinman0 said:

uh oh, P&P spills over into Business...

Women eh... You give them the vote and look what happens

[srebbe64]

ATG said:

srebbe64 said:

ATG said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. ...

TYhen you are ducking the question.

I've never defended NB before, but I don't think he's ducking the question. It's a catagoric fact that no two people are identical, so the question is a naive one to ask in the first place.

Repetition won't make it any more convincing. It is clearly ducking a perfectly valid question.

It is blatantly obvious that the risk that a member of staff will take siginificant absences from their employment represents a risk to their employer. Denying that is just silly. The question is, is it a reasonable risk to require a business to carry for the sake of the greater good? And that's a matter of judgement. To claim that there is no problem, that the risk does not exist is nonsensical. Clearly the risk is real, clearly the risk is unevenly distributed in the case of businesses with a small head-count. The question is "do we care?", not "is there a problem?".

The reality is this for me:

1) No two people are identical (well, maybe identical twins are!)
2) So, two (or more, unidentical) people apply for a job.
3) Of the two (or more) people, one person is more suited than another.
4) The job goes to the most suitable person, regardless of gender or age.

Now other people may take a different view to the above - and that's absolutely fine. I'm merely quoting my own principle.

[ATG]

Good for you for taking that line. My view is that anti-discrimination laws are on balance for the greater good and that, although the burden on smaller businesses is disproportiantely large, there is no practical way of freeing them from that burden without creating a legal quagmire. Same rules for everyone; there's a lot to be said for simplicity.

[M400 NBL]

srebbe64 said:

ATG said:

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Meyrin, Ferney Voltaire, Saint Genis, lovely part of the world. I don't discriminate on the basis of sex or colour, I don't even mind particle physiscists but you have to admit if you have candidate a) Male or candidate b) Female of childbearing age then even a f^ckwit would associate a higher risk (read higher cost) with b)

Unless maths changed since I got my degree?

Accelerate THAT!

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Monday 19th November 00:40

I don't think it is sensible to talk about two candidates being identical, except for their sex, as they never are. ...

TYhen you are ducking the question.

I've never defended NB before, but I don't think he's ducking the question. It's a catagoric fact that no two people are identical, so the question is a naive one to ask in the first place.

But it is possible for 2 (or more) people to be competent at the job that their employers asks of them. For example, 2 people on a checkout can scan as many items as eachother.

IIRC there is spectulation that parents will be given the right to more flexible working hours, for children up to a certain age. I can't remember if it matters if the parent is male or single and/or a single parent.

IMO too many people on ML at once could cause a small business to suffer. In the best interest of all it's staff it may (in some circumstances) be wise to use employees that are less likely to take long term breaks, whatever the reason. Long term breaks can mean taking on somebody less experienced as well as it taking a while for them to get back up to speed when they return.

[NorthernBoy]

BliarOut said:

I'm sure that if you had to pay for someone to be on maternity leave directly from your own pocket you'd think twice about it. Either that or you're a fool.

Of course I pay for it out of my own pockets. It comes out of the bottom line, and the bottom line is shared between me and the others.

And it is funny that you call me a fool. I do things the right way, and it seems to have worked very well. You seem to have not exactly shot for the stars, yet seem to think you can sit there and give lessons on how to run a business.

[NorthernBoy]

ATG said:

Repetition won't make it any more convincing. It is clearly ducking a perfectly valid question..

Repeating a stupid question does not make it a valid one.

If you truly believe that a male and female candidate can be identical, then you are not thinking very well.

Hypotheticals like this are posed by people who cannot come up with a decent argument. It is along the lines of "Bt would you not think it was stupid to buy a bike when it started raining knives".