Discrimination during maternity leave

[Nigel Worc's]

OldGermanHeaps said:

I'm in the same boat, was just about to advertise for an engineer and labourer but the more i read about employing people and all the whinging and ste that goes with it i'm sticking to subbies for the forseeable.

You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I'm finding out, it is mind boggling.

It isn't about running a business and actually keeping them in a job, it is all about them, what they are entitled to, what you can expect them to do (which isn't much).

If I and my business partner don't take it over, they're out of a job anyway as the company will close.

My wife works in the public sector, and the consideration that has to be given to gender, pregnancy, and even bloody religion is amazing.

[Mandat]

Actus Reus said:

She never made any agreement about returning - nobody does (or doesn't have to anyway). She'll hand her notice in, if she chooses to, and serve her notice like anybody else.

As to compo seeking - would you, honestly, not do the same? Really, genuinely, you'd say 'no, the law is wrong - my woman is a wench and should be treated as such - keep your money, sir, and I will discipline my woman once I get he home'.

If she had no intention or returning back, why the fuss about the position, which she may not have got, even if she knew about it and wanted to apply for the promotion.

[Actus Reus]

Have you even read what I wrote? She intended to go back at least part time and then go from there.

Anyway, I'm off to sue somebody. I'll post photos of my new Porsche once the payout comes through.

[Kiwi79]

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.

I doubt your Hampster will ever be a future tax payer/contributor to society. I could well be wrong though.

[Nigel Worc's]

Actus Reus said:

Have you even read what I wrote? She intended to go back at least part time and then go from there.

Anyway, I'm off to sue somebody. I'll post photos of my new Porsche once the payout comes through.

Maybe they didn't want somebody on the new position that was on maternity leave.


Maybe they didn't want somebody in the new position that has just given birth to a child she'll need to care for, for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps she's been a pain in the arse before and they didn't want to promote her ?

Who knows, but if she is that bloody good that she should be promoted whilst on maternity leave perhaps she should cut out the middle man and run her own business ?

[Mandat]

Actus Reus said:

Have you even read what I wrote? She intended to go back at least part time and then go from there.

Anyway, I'm off to sue somebody. I'll post photos of my new Porsche once the payout comes through.

Yes, I've been reading from the beginning, and I still don't fully understand why the fuss and the potential compensation lawsuit.

You said that she wasn't sure that she wanted to go back at all, and even if she did go back, she had hoped to do so on a part time basis. That doesn't really indicate a desire to commit to the job fully, let alone a promoted position. I therefore find the apparent indignation and talk of compensation claims over something that she didn't want, somewhat strange.

Edited by Mandat on Saturday 18th July 21:57

[anonymous-user]

Mandat said:

If she had no intention or returning back, why the fuss about the position, which she may not have got, even if she knew about it and wanted to apply for the promotion.

It's all about the compo and money nowadays, nothing else ftom what i can see.

We have the lawywrs and Gov to thank for that

[Countdown]

Mandat said:

Yes, I've been reading from the beginning, and I still don't fully understand why the fuss and the potential compensation lawsuit.

You said that she wasn't sure that she wanted to go back at all, and even if she did go back, she had hoped to do so on a part time basis. That doesn't really indicate a desire to commit to the job fully, let alone a promoted position.

Edited by Mandat on Saturday 18th July 21:49

I think OP's view is that, just because she wasn't sure about going back, it doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been notified that there was a more senior position.

[jimmybobby]

Actus Reus said:

justanother5tar said:

Have you ever thought that maybe they wanted to know if/when she was coming back because they wanted to offer her the promotion?

Sounds very much to me like she's miffed at the company and is now seeking to get a payout. Just my view.

Well that's a funny fking way of doing it isn't it?

In any case the job was gone long before she went in.

and THERE^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the reason they never offered it to her. Long gone. ie she was already on maternity leave, the post was most likely advertised shortly after she went on leave with the intent of filling it fairly soon and from what you are posting made it clear as mud to the company she intended to take her full entitlement of 1 year. As such there was no point in the company getting in touch to ask her in the first place.

Tough st as far as i am concerned. She wants to have her cake and eat. Suck it up and accept it was her choice to take a year out of work for personal reasons AKA having a baby and the world does not revolve around her, you, or your family nor does it owe either of you anything.

If she now finds she is out of a job then she can most likely sue for that side of things and i suppose rightly so but suing for not having been offered promotion??? let me offer you and her the opportunity to join the rest of us here in the real world where we are responsible for our actions and personal life decisions.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 18th July 22:10

[Nigel Worc's]

jimmybobby said:

and THERE^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the reason they never offered it to her. Long gone. ie she was already on maternity leave, the post was most likely advertised shortly after she went on leave with the intent of filling it fairly soon and from what you are posting she made it clear to the compay she intended to take her full entitlement of 1 year. As such there was no point in the company getting in touch to ask her in the first place.

Tough st as far as i am concerned. She wants to have her cake and eat. Suck it up and accept it was her choice to take a year out of work for personal reasons AKA having a baby and the world does not revolve around her you, or your family nor does it owe either of you anything.

If she now finds she is out of a job then she can most likely sue for that side of things and i suppose rightly so but suing for not having been offered promotion??? let me offer you and her the opportunity to join the rest of us here in the real world where we are responsible for our actions and personal life decisions.

..... whatever the poxy bloody liberal law says !

[Mandat]

Countdown said:

Mandat said:

Yes, I've been reading from the beginning, and I still don't fully understand why the fuss and the potential compensation lawsuit.

You said that she wasn't sure that she wanted to go back at all, and even if she did go back, she had hoped to do so on a part time basis. That doesn't really indicate a desire to commit to the job fully, let alone a promoted position.

Edited by Mandat on Saturday 18th July 21:49

I think OP's view is that, just because she wasn't sure about going back, it doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been notified that there was a more senior position.

I understand why the OP may think that, but I don'g get why the talk of legal action for potentially missing out something that they didn't even want in the first place.

[jimmybobby]

SpeedMattersNot said:

I'm a little bit disappointed by those who have laid into the OP, but that is the nature of this forum, I suppose. Out of seven pages there have perhaps been only a dozen helpful and constructive posts!

One question, for the several posters who mentioned that the staff who haven't gone on maternity leave, who get burdened with extra work. What jobs have you worked at where this occurs? I've only worked as a mechanic and my wife is a teacher, in each case where maternity and paternity took place, it didn't leave others with more work to do.

The workshops I worked at would just book an appropriate level of work, same as if someone is ill/on holiday and when my wife went on maternity they employed a temporary replacement for the period of time she was off.

My clients are public sector. I work with many many female staff and every time one of them gets pregnant the other staff have to take up the work they are meant to be doing.

In the companies i work for when a member of staff goes on leave maternity or otherwise other staff are expected to pick up the slack. This has been the case with most most businesses I have come into contact with.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 18th July 22:11

[Mikeyjae]

I work for a rather large company and every job that becomes available internally (as of yesterday over 100 I have just looked) is advertised on the internal job board on the companies intranet. It may be just the way my company works but I have never heard of job opportunities being sent to employee's via email as its just to many.

I only find out about new positions if I look at the job board (rarely) or a colleague mentions it (often lol). OP does your wife's company email or do they have a job board? Word of mouth tends to get around.

[Jasandjules]

Mikeyjae said:

I only find out about new positions if I look at the job board (rarely) or a colleague mentions it (often lol). OP does your wife's company email or do they have a job board? Word of mouth tends to get around.

And there you set down just one reason why the company should contact her about any such role.

IF she was in the office she would find out about it, however she is not. She therefore is at a disadvantage compared to those in the office.

[jimmybobby]

Actus Reus said:

tapereel said:

I'm all for equal opportunities for women and men and if they want maternity leave fair enough.

I really think that those who take 12 months leave, putting a strain on their employers who willingly or otherwise support them to have that leave, but then quit after that 12 months leave should be locked up then when released get a marker put on them to warn employers what they have done.

Wow.

You do know that you're not necessarily paid by your employer for most of those 12 months, don't you?

The employer in this case made a £660m profit last year and employs over 70,000 people. They can probably handle the strain even if they were to pay full whack for the whole year (which they don't).

WOw really?? You CANNOT be that naive. The company employs over 70000 people so can afford to have your wife go on maternity leave as they made 660m profit.

Its amazing that the company doesnt get sued for sex discrimination more since it appears that of those over 70000 staff your wife is the only female working there.

Lets assume that 1 in 7 staff are female that means around 10000 females in the company. Lets assume that at any given point around 1% or 100 of those staff are on maternity leave at any given time. That is a huge cost to the business. It is not simply a case of hiring a temp. Hiring a temp has associated administrative costs in sourcing and retaining the temp. It causes all sorts of costs in terms of service delivery as a temp will need a period of settling in to understand the role which has a cost to the company indirectly.

To give you an idea.
My father used to run his own businesses. Whenever he brought someone new into the company it cost him money. It cost him money because he had to get that person familiarised with the role even if they were experienced. It meant that initially they were not as efficient which meant he was not getting value for money per hour he was paying them. It meant he had to have other staff assisting the new person meaning they were in turn not working as efficiently as needed costing him money.

[Nigel Worc's]

Jasandjules said:

Mikeyjae said:

I only find out about new positions if I look at the job board (rarely) or a colleague mentions it (often lol). OP does your wife's company email or do they have a job board? Word of mouth tends to get around.

And there you set down just one reason why the company should contact her about any such role.

IF she was in the office she would find out about it, however she is not. She therefore is at a disadvantage compared to those in the office.

A disadvantage, if it must be called that, of her own making, and one that is going to hopefully last about 16 years of being a disadvantage.

[anonymous-user]

jimmybobby said:

My clients are public sector. I work with many many female staff and every time one of them gets pregnant the other staff have to take up the work they are meant to be doing.

In the companies i work for when a member of staff goes on leave maternity or otherwise other staff are expected to pick up the slack. This has been the case with most most businesses I have come into contact with.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th July 22:11

Loving your work jimmybobby,

Keep it up.

[jimmybobby]

Jasandjules said:

Mikeyjae said:

I only find out about new positions if I look at the job board (rarely) or a colleague mentions it (often lol). OP does your wife's company email or do they have a job board? Word of mouth tends to get around.

And there you set down just one reason why the company should contact her about any such role.

IF she was in the office she would find out about it, however she is not. She therefore is at a disadvantage compared to those in the office.

On the flip side I suspect there will be case law meaning that if they did contact her while on maternity law she could probably raise a case against the company for contacting her whilst on maternity leave. Therefore damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Are you also implying that if a company such as hers which has 70000 employees has a position open internally they are obligated to have someone waste days calling eeryone in the company who is on leave to advise them of the post?

[anonymous-user]

It is apparent from this and many threads that many PH'ers don't much care for women, but quite a few also don't seem to care much for humans. Babies, eh? Yuk!

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th July 22:46

[Nigel Worc's]

Breadvan72 said:

It is apparent from this and many threads that many PH'ers don't much care for women, but quite a few also don't seem to care much for humans. Babys, eh? Yuk!

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 ste, 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.