We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Retail Banking Administration Act 2008
Comments
-
lostinrates wrote: »Rabbit mad, its not the organisational problems that maternity leave poses, its the financial ones.
Its not uncommon for women (I am a woman too bTW) to have several children, taking ..as is their right...maximum paid and unpaid periods of time, and then, immeadiately their last child is born and maiximum benefit received to hand in their notice. This is very, very costly to employers in good times, in bad times you can see how this might not just be offputting but fnancially terrifying for employers.
I am quite aware of the financial cost and all the rights associated with marternity leave and pay, but this isn't as high as you might think. I read an article where a HR person calculated the cost to his company as just £2,500 for a lady earning approximately £30K.
I do understand both sides of the argument but I think not interviewing any women under 40 is just wrong (Morally and in terms of good business sense).
Imagine that you hired a lady of 20-21 ish. You'd likely get 5 to 6 years out of her at least before babies. During that time she could be a major asset to the business and her contribution could more than offset the cost of couple of periods of martenity leave.0 -
I am quite aware of the financial cost and all the rights associated with marternity leave and pay, but this isn't as high as you might think. I read an article where a HR person calculated the cost to his company as just £2,500 for a lady earning approximately £30K.
I do understand both sides of the argument but I think not interviewing any women under 40 is just wrong (Morally and in terms of good business sense).
Imagine that you hired a lady of 20-21 ish. You'd likely get 5 to 6 years out of her at least before babies. During that time she could be a major asset to the business and her contribution could more than offset the cost of couple of periods of martenity leave.
I'm not saying its right, I'm saying I undertand why employers are concerned.
I have been told more than once at interview that the babies thing is why I'm not going to be offered a job,
0 -
It's illegal (and rightly) but try proving it's happening.
A company employing no women under 40 will be pretty obvious, ISTM....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »A company employing no women under 40 will be pretty obvious, ISTM.
Pretty easy to get away with if you've only a few employees. Tougher if you're, say, Indian Railways or the NHS.0 -
-
I have felt this thinking for most of my working life. In the early days they were allowed to ask me if I had kids/what my situation was.It's the problem with intervening in markets: you solve one problem and in doing so create another.
Take maternity rights. One company I worked for (which was not run by men!) took a decision not to interview any woman of childbearing age because it's a pain in the whatsit when someone you rely on goes on maternity leave. It's illegal (and rightly) but try proving it's happening.
As time's gone on they've not been able to ask, but they find other ways to ask indirectly.
You could always tell when they were thinking it and I'm sure I lost out on a lot of good jobs because I was of that age.
Now I am beyond that age, but now having to live with the "nobody wants to work with an older woman when that blond totty has also been interviewed". On top of being over 40, which is a big silent "no" whatever your sex.
In the past I've always been asked "how do you feel about working with/supervising a much younger team?". There's always something against you.
You really can't win as a female.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitMad
Come back tomorrow when I solve world piece.
When will you move onto solving literacy problems?
*peace
I spotted that little typo but couldn't be bothered to edit it. I must have been thinking of food at the time. Umm pie....0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »You really can't win as a female.
one reason I like being self-employed....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards