Lifestyle choice to kill small businesses a little more...
Discussion
Mothers will be able to bring their babies to work and businesses will be asked to provide them with special breastfeeding facilities under Government plans to be announced this week.
The controversial proposal set out in a White Paper could cost employers thousands a year and business leaders warned last night the move could threaten jobs.
It comes just weeks after the European Parliament voted in favour of the Pregnant Workers Directive, which would introduce mandatory paid breastfeeding breaks for new mothers.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333730/Br...
I don't give a damn what people choose to get up to at home, hell I am even forced to tolerate the lifestyle choice of others in public places, when the bad parents can't keep their lifestyle choice under control.
But FFS - unless you are in childcare, KEEP THEM OUT OF THE OFFICE!
Assuming it is anything like the article says, (big assumption based on source, but possible - I have seen more ridiculous ideas than this before...) this will kill pretty much all prospects of employing woman of childbearing age as a small or possibly even medium / large business. I know that I certainly would not.
The controversial proposal set out in a White Paper could cost employers thousands a year and business leaders warned last night the move could threaten jobs.
It comes just weeks after the European Parliament voted in favour of the Pregnant Workers Directive, which would introduce mandatory paid breastfeeding breaks for new mothers.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333730/Br...
I don't give a damn what people choose to get up to at home, hell I am even forced to tolerate the lifestyle choice of others in public places, when the bad parents can't keep their lifestyle choice under control.
But FFS - unless you are in childcare, KEEP THEM OUT OF THE OFFICE!
Assuming it is anything like the article says, (big assumption based on source, but possible - I have seen more ridiculous ideas than this before...) this will kill pretty much all prospects of employing woman of childbearing age as a small or possibly even medium / large business. I know that I certainly would not.
Carrot said:
Jon C said:
Story in the Daily Mail?
I think I see your problem...
Newspaper snob?I think I see your problem...
You have a bigger problem than me...
The EU also says fathers are entitled to breastfeeding leave and not just those with moobs.
http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
From another thread
Carrot said:
If the reader is not intelligent enough to be able to read through what is true, and what is not, then the reader should not be reading ANY paper to be honest.
Newspaper snobbery is more pathetic than supermarket snobbery IMO.
Judging by some of the comments on this forum, there are a lot of really, really dumb people who cannot distinguish fiction from reality and therefore should stay out of all newspapers for their own safety.
It is a newspaper. Get over yourself.
http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=924580&r=16030149&hm=88615&mid=88615#16030149Newspaper snobbery is more pathetic than supermarket snobbery IMO.
Judging by some of the comments on this forum, there are a lot of really, really dumb people who cannot distinguish fiction from reality and therefore should stay out of all newspapers for their own safety.
It is a newspaper. Get over yourself.
Jon C said:
From another thread
I am not sure what you are trying to prove? I totally agree with my own statement above. I don't "base my life" on any newspaper.Carrot said:
If the reader is not intelligent enough to be able to read through what is true, and what is not, then the reader should not be reading ANY paper to be honest.
Newspaper snobbery is more pathetic than supermarket snobbery IMO.
Judging by some of the comments on this forum, there are a lot of really, really dumb people who cannot distinguish fiction from reality and therefore should stay out of all newspapers for their own safety.
It is a newspaper. Get over yourself.
http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=924580&r=16030149&hm=88615&mid=88615#16030149Newspaper snobbery is more pathetic than supermarket snobbery IMO.
Judging by some of the comments on this forum, there are a lot of really, really dumb people who cannot distinguish fiction from reality and therefore should stay out of all newspapers for their own safety.
It is a newspaper. Get over yourself.
The article is not fiction, it has a basis in truth and the white paper exists.
Please take your newspaper snobbery to another thread, I will not be replying to you again about it on this one.
turbobloke said:
The EU also says fathers are entitled to breastfeeding leave and not just those with moobs.
http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
To be fair, all they seem to be doing in that case is removing the sexism from a law that dates back to 1900. If you've read the full article, you'll know that the law has been extended to bottle feeding, so there is no biological difference between parents in terms of ability to provide. If you're going to have daft laws like this, at least make sure they're not sexist in their implementation.http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
Personally, getting back to the OP, I blame my mother's generation for all this sort of b
ks.Traditionally, blokes went to work, and women stayed at home and raised the kids. Families were viewed as families, and each member contributed to the family.
Then along comes the utterly deluded "we can have it all" women's lib brigade demanding the right for maternity leave and other such legislation allow women with children to continue their careers.
Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? A situation where the resultant rise in overall household income has struggled to keep pace with the resultant increase in housing prices, and a world where the vast majority of families can't afford to not have both parents back to work as quickly as possible.
So these days we get a steady flow of legislation attempting to paper over the cracks left by the impracticalities of this absurd "women can have their cake and eat it" illusion, and any SMB in their right mind doing everything they can to avoid hiring women in anything other than replaceable commodity positions.
I would be all in favour of legislation to say that you can't discriminate against a person in the workplace because of their race, gender or sexuality, but that would include scrapping all the legislation that discriminates against men for not being mothers. If women do want to return to work after having babies, that's fine, but it should be something for their family to accommodate, not their employer.
As far as I can see, the women's lib generation have managed to get from a position where pregnant women were potentially discriminated against to one where all women of childbearing age are discriminated against. Well done dears, you must be so proud!
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
The EU also says fathers are entitled to breastfeeding leave and not just those with moobs.
http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
To be fair, all they seem to be doing in that case is removing the sexism from a law that dates back to 1900. If you've read the full article, you'll know that the law has been extended to bottle feeding, so there is no biological difference between parents in terms of ability to provide. If you're going to have daft laws like this, at least make sure they're not sexist in their implementation.http://www.canada.com/life/parenting/Working+dads+...
Even before then, the EU is a joke and a dangerously incompetent joke. Its actions will not improve the cause of women at work. Or that of men as it happens. If that's what they set out to do and others think will happen, both are in for some disappointment.
Kermit power said:
To be fair, all they seem to be doing in that case is removing the sexism from a law that dates back to 1900. If you've read the full article, you'll know that the law has been extended to bottle feeding, so there is no biological difference between parents in terms of ability to provide. If you're going to have daft laws like this, at least make sure they're not sexist in their implementation.
Personally, getting back to the OP, I blame my mother's generation for all this sort of bks.
Traditionally, blokes went to work, and women stayed at home and raised the kids. Families were viewed as families, and each member contributed to the family.
Then along comes the utterly deluded "we can have it all" women's lib brigade demanding the right for maternity leave and other such legislation allow women with children to continue their careers.
Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? A situation where the resultant rise in overall household income has struggled to keep pace with the resultant increase in housing prices, and a world where the vast majority of families can't afford to not have both parents back to work as quickly as possible.
So these days we get a steady flow of legislation attempting to paper over the cracks left by the impracticalities of this absurd "women can have their cake and eat it" illusion, and any SMB in their right mind doing everything they can to avoid hiring women in anything other than replaceable commodity positions.
I would be all in favour of legislation to say that you can't discriminate against a person in the workplace because of their race, gender or sexuality, but that would include scrapping all the legislation that discriminates against men for not being mothers. If women do want to return to work after having babies, that's fine, but it should be something for their family to accommodate, not their employer.
As far as I can see, the women's lib generation have managed to get from a position where pregnant women were potentially discriminated against to one where all women of childbearing age are discriminated against. Well done dears, you must be so proud!
Personally, getting back to the OP, I blame my mother's generation for all this sort of b
ks.Traditionally, blokes went to work, and women stayed at home and raised the kids. Families were viewed as families, and each member contributed to the family.
Then along comes the utterly deluded "we can have it all" women's lib brigade demanding the right for maternity leave and other such legislation allow women with children to continue their careers.
Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? A situation where the resultant rise in overall household income has struggled to keep pace with the resultant increase in housing prices, and a world where the vast majority of families can't afford to not have both parents back to work as quickly as possible.
So these days we get a steady flow of legislation attempting to paper over the cracks left by the impracticalities of this absurd "women can have their cake and eat it" illusion, and any SMB in their right mind doing everything they can to avoid hiring women in anything other than replaceable commodity positions.
I would be all in favour of legislation to say that you can't discriminate against a person in the workplace because of their race, gender or sexuality, but that would include scrapping all the legislation that discriminates against men for not being mothers. If women do want to return to work after having babies, that's fine, but it should be something for their family to accommodate, not their employer.
As far as I can see, the women's lib generation have managed to get from a position where pregnant women were potentially discriminated against to one where all women of childbearing age are discriminated against. Well done dears, you must be so proud!
Bravo. Especially the last 2 paragraphs.
If a women brings a child into the office will all of her co-workers need to be crb checked, as is the case with schools, scouts etc? And what will happen if one of her co-workers fails the crb check and isn't allowed to be around children?
Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 28th November 11:46
RYH64E said:
If a women brings a child into the office will all of her co-workers need to be crb checked, as is the case with schools, scouts etc? And what will happen if one of her co-workers fails the crb check and isn't allowed to be around children?
If it's a bloke you'll be able to fire him. It'll all work out! Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 28th November 11:46
Kermit power said:
To be fair, all they seem to be doing in that case is removing the sexism from a law that dates back to 1900. If you've read the full article, you'll know that the law has been extended to bottle feeding, so there is no biological difference between parents in terms of ability to provide. If you're going to have daft laws like this, at least make sure they're not sexist in their implementation.
Personally, getting back to the OP, I blame my mother's generation for all this sort of bks.
Traditionally, blokes went to work, and women stayed at home and raised the kids. Families were viewed as families, and each member contributed to the family.
Then along comes the utterly deluded "we can have it all" women's lib brigade demanding the right for maternity leave and other such legislation allow women with children to continue their careers.
Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? A situation where the resultant rise in overall household income has struggled to keep pace with the resultant increase in housing prices, and a world where the vast majority of families can't afford to not have both parents back to work as quickly as possible.
So these days we get a steady flow of legislation attempting to paper over the cracks left by the impracticalities of this absurd "women can have their cake and eat it" illusion, and any SMB in their right mind doing everything they can to avoid hiring women in anything other than replaceable commodity positions.
I would be all in favour of legislation to say that you can't discriminate against a person in the workplace because of their race, gender or sexuality, but that would include scrapping all the legislation that discriminates against men for not being mothers. If women do want to return to work after having babies, that's fine, but it should be something for their family to accommodate, not their employer.
As far as I can see, the women's lib generation have managed to get from a position where pregnant women were potentially discriminated against to one where all women of childbearing age are discriminated against. Well done dears, you must be so proud!
Couldn't have put it better myself.Personally, getting back to the OP, I blame my mother's generation for all this sort of b
ks.Traditionally, blokes went to work, and women stayed at home and raised the kids. Families were viewed as families, and each member contributed to the family.
Then along comes the utterly deluded "we can have it all" women's lib brigade demanding the right for maternity leave and other such legislation allow women with children to continue their careers.
Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? A situation where the resultant rise in overall household income has struggled to keep pace with the resultant increase in housing prices, and a world where the vast majority of families can't afford to not have both parents back to work as quickly as possible.
So these days we get a steady flow of legislation attempting to paper over the cracks left by the impracticalities of this absurd "women can have their cake and eat it" illusion, and any SMB in their right mind doing everything they can to avoid hiring women in anything other than replaceable commodity positions.
I would be all in favour of legislation to say that you can't discriminate against a person in the workplace because of their race, gender or sexuality, but that would include scrapping all the legislation that discriminates against men for not being mothers. If women do want to return to work after having babies, that's fine, but it should be something for their family to accommodate, not their employer.
As far as I can see, the women's lib generation have managed to get from a position where pregnant women were potentially discriminated against to one where all women of childbearing age are discriminated against. Well done dears, you must be so proud!
What a great idea 
MP emailed to get her perspective on this crap . . . . . . As per others, I can see the net result of this, being more discrimination, as when recruiting , small business owners if given two candidates of equal skill and experience, will naturally give the job to the person who will cause the least disruption and expense.
MP emailed to get her perspective on this crap . . . . . . As per others, I can see the net result of this, being more discrimination, as when recruiting , small business owners if given two candidates of equal skill and experience, will naturally give the job to the person who will cause the least disruption and expense.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff