Modernising sex equality laws

[cymtriks]

From the BBC website on "have your say"

BBC said:

Should sex equality laws be modernised? Britain's Equal Opportunities Commission has warned that sex equality laws should be modernised in order to continue tackling discrimination. It is 30 years since legislation first came into place but the EOC says women are still sacked for being pregnant and a significant pay gap remains between the sexes.

Should they change?

Personally I think half of the problems over maternity are related to the state refusing to take responsibility for social issues and trying to off load them onto employers. Maternity pay in this case, though, off thread, I'd include employers pension and NI contributions as well. The other half are a portion of women who cannot accept that equaliy isn't about getting your own way all the time at someone elses expense.

So my change would be to remove employers from the maternity pay system rather than change the equality laws themselves.

Regarding pay I'm suspicious. Do women ask for a rise or just wait for one to come their way? Also the men I know who earn the most are also those who are prepared to work long after finishing time without recording the fact or telling anyone. I hardly ever see a woman working as late as these guys.

So my change would be no change over pay.

Over to you.

[Vesuvius996]

At the risk of getting a pasting, I am afraid that the female sex is reaping the "benefit" of insisting on positive discrimination all these years.

They have campaigned themlseves into unemployability.

Well done.


*coat*



>> Edited by Vesuvius996 on Thursday 29th December 19:42

[Petrol_noggin]

Not particularly laws, but equality- ive been shouted at 3 times for offering a pregnant woman a seat on the tube, and no she wasnt just fat!!!

[cymtriks]

Vesuvius996 said:

They have campaigned themlseves into unemployability.

I was listening to a radio phone-in on this some time ago. Several small business men rang in to say, bluntly, exactly what you said above!

Has any country either-

Gone much further in "equality" and seen unemployment among women increase...

Or

Reduced their equivalent of SMP etc and seen an increase in women in employment?

Or to put it another way, does it actually make any difference either way!

[Cotty]

Petrol_noggin said:

Not particularly laws, but equality- ive been shouted at 3 times for offering a pregnant woman a seat on the tube, and no she wasnt just fat!!!

Who shouted at you? why? what did they shout?

[Cotty]

An observation, in the 18 years I have been working I have noticed that women take more sick leave and holiday than the men I have worked with. There have been exceptions on both sides but that is what I have seen over the years.

I dont know if there was a pay difference between the two sexes but if one person is in the office working more than the other shouldnt their pay reflect that.

[blueyes]

Vesuvius996 said:

At the risk of getting a pasting, I am afraid that the female sex is reaping the "benefit" of insisting on positive discrimination all these years. They have campaigned themlseves into unemployability. Well done.

Aye, a friend of mine runs a small business.

Given the choice of employing a 20 something bird or a 40 something, he'll choose the latter, regardless if she's the poorer candidate, purely because it's almost guaranteed that the former will be claiming SMP within 18 months.


Birds.. you've only got yourselves to blame.

[Tyre Smoke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

With you all the way there.

[r988]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I agree, women seem to believe that men have always had it all easy and have a sort of paranoia or inferiority complex which makes them believe that men have it better than them, when it is usually the opposite. The simple fact these days is that women tend to choose the lower paying jobs so they can spend more time with the family and friends. Women are more sociable and family orientated and dont tend to go for the long hours at work, they have different priorities and are less likely to be upfront in asking for a pay rise. Men on the other hand will work long hours and generally aren't too afraid to ask for a pay rise. Men are also more likely to do the boring work like IT programming or accounting which is generally more suited to the 'male' brain which tend to be higher paid professions, mainly because everyone else hates doing it. This is why the stats always show that women are supposedly paid less than men. But who has the better quality of life in the end?

I think the opportunities these days are almost more in favour of women and certainly at least equal, but discrimination though I'm sure it occurs, has been abused so much that for me it has lost any meaning it might have had.

[Tyre Smoke]

Quite right. There are a few women who accept that they are more family minded and want/need the flexy hours,etc. There are the women who are (usually) boot ugly who have to get to the top job in a male dominated environment to prove something. There are those who are evenly balanced with a chip on each shoulder. and there are those that actually just get on a do the job - few and far between.

[Don]

blueyes said:

Birds.. you've only got yourselves to blame.

True - ish. I don't blame women. I *do* blame Government offloading its responsibility to its taxpayers onto Employers. Its a tax by the back door.

Employers should not contribute to NI. Employers should not pay Maternity or Sick pay. Its not an Employer's job to be a person's parents. Its certainly not an Employer's job to be a State Benefits Administrator - or worse - a State Benefits PAYER.

Government should pay benefits. Employers should pay for work done. Individual workers should see ALL the NI and tax they pay. A clear fair system. If Income tax had to go up to pay for the Benefits - tough shit. At least everyone would KNOW what it COST to have their "benefits". No bad thing in my view.

You'll note that nothing in the above says that Statutory "Parental" Pay is a bad idea. Just that taxing employees by the back door by making Employers pay NI on their behalf is wrong, wrong, wrong. It discriminates against smaller employers and hides the true cost of living from workers.