Is this sex discrimination?

skintchick

There was no such implication Nicki.

scotty1971

i think it's time everybody got down off there soap boxes,just let the OP make her own decision.

skintchick

scotty1971 wrote: »

i think it's time everybody got down off there soap boxes,just let the OP make her own decision.

We're just having a discussion. Of course the OP will make her own decision. But she started a thread on it and it has sparked debate.

nadnad

i've been reading this thread and wasnt going to post, but can't believe that some people would ignore this issue. i certainly wouldnt. i maybe wouldnt make a huge deal about it but would certainly bring it to the attention of HR. I also can't believe some people think that bringing a LEGITIMATE issue to the fore would increase your chances of being made redundant, thats absurd, many factors are taken into account when redundancies are made and this certainly isnt one of them, wise up.

patchwork_cat

I do agree with the person who was saying that women are no longer asked in interview if they are to be becoming pregnant in the near future, but it doesn't mean that the thought doesn't go through the interviewers head. It means that they can't say it, but you may well not get the job if the interviewer thinks it is likely (although that won't be the reason you are given).

Unfortunately there is injustice everywhere and some of the posters have, with their sexist comments, reminded me they are everywhere. It may be against the law to discrimate openly, but it still happens daily by people who really should know better.

We need to keep fighting, but don't make your position untenable. With all due respect nadnad it is being seen as a troublemaker that may well swing the axe in your direction. When all other things are equal, like productivity, things like this will get you a redundancy check.

moggylover

skintchick wrote: »

Principles always are, but if no-one fights then everyone loses. I'd be doing exactly the same thing as the OP because discrimination cannot be allowed to continue.

Well said skintchick! Sometimes we just have to go with our principles because to do so would make us feel bad about ourselves and our ethical and moral make-up!

What Companies like this always rely on is the fact that the majority will have their price/be scared to rock the boat: it is good that there are still a few out there who WILL put their neck on the line when something is morally wrong.

moggylover

Nicki wrote: »

In her circumstances, I would have raised it with the line manager, and with HR. I would have pointed out the discrimination. I would not necessarily have regarded the envelope situation as a "bribe" particularly without even opening it. I would have at least opened the envelope in front of the manager to see whether it was his way of backing down on the issue without losing face. For all sportsbeth knows the envelope contained a voucher for a local dress hire shop rather than cold hard cash.

I would not have emailed HR in the way she did accusing him (even indirectly) of offering a bribe. I would not be gunning so openly for his dismissal if I knew he had the confidence of the MD and I did not. I may or may not have refused the contents of the envelope, but I would certainly have gone to the do, wearing a suitable outfit, which I quite possibly would have hired rather than bought myself if I would have no further use for it.

I do think I'm afraid that sportsbeth was incited by some posts early in the thread which encouraged her to believe the manager could be sacked for his wrong decision, and that she went in gungho at the meeting last night as a result. And I think that some posters on here should bear some responsibility for this. It's one thing to agree that something is unfair and to give measured advice as to how to deal with it, but quite another to enflame the situation to the extent it now is. A dispute over payment or non-payment of dress hire is not damaging to sportsbeth's career, but a hysterical overreaction and serious allegation against a senior colleague is I'm afraid.

I don't think the manager was right, but I stand by my view (having been round the block a few times) that you choose your battles, and if the possible outcome of losing the battle is losing your job in a volatile economy, you don't fight the battle unless that is a price it is worth paying. And doubly so if it is your OH's job on the line too. Sexual discrimination is a problem and one I've come across time and again in my profession too, but my own experience is you don't get to change the culture from the bottom, and therefore it is better to play the company game at least well enough to get to a position of some power yourself, before you can effect a widespread change in attitudes.

I don't personally think this is an unreasonable or selfish view to take, just a realistic one which protects yourself.

She was asked to take the envelope and keep her mouth shut. How else could one "interpret" this other than as a bribe?

Whether the envelope contains a voucher or cash - it still constitutes a bribe in the way it was given to her.

moggylover

skintchick wrote: »

Slightly different, but I was encouraged to lie on my timesheets to secure my job (as my job is rective and I wasn't being given enough to do). I didn't, because I feel that lying is wrong and I won't do it, on principle. I got made redundant. I still feel I did the right thing - I live by my principles first and if I always do what is right then I know that whatever happens I haven't done the wrong thing (yes that is meant two ways).

:T :T :T :T :T :T

Bogof_Babe

More fool her employers, they have totally hamstrung themselves in the handling of this, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went all the way to a tribunal. It contravenes an important aspect of the Law of the land, so it has gone beyond the scope of a matter of principle.

For that reason I would encourage Sportsbeth to take proper advice, whether from a union rep or even a free half hour with a solicitor, all the more so if it starts to get sticky and looks like she might be victimised for standing up for her rights.

She strikes me as a gutsy lady who can more than hold her own, and I applaud her for tackling this gross misjustice head on. It might seem trivial, but is the thin end of what could be a very thick wedge. In due course she might have a baby, and goodness knows what obstacles to her maternity rights will be imposed if they think they can get away with it.

This firm is living in the dark ages, and if it takes a dress hire allowance to get them to realise it, well you have to start somewhere.

honeypop

patchwork_cat wrote: »

I do agree with the person who was saying that women are no longer asked in interview if they are to be becoming pregnant in the near future, but it doesn't mean that the thought doesn't go through the interviewers head. It means that they can't say it, but you may well not get the job if the interviewer thinks it is likely (although that won't be the reason you are given).

But how would they think it is likely to happen in the near future (or at all)? Without knowing someones personal circumstances, for example are they married/living with a partner, already have kids, want kids (all of which they also tend not to ask in an interview) etc, how would they be able to assess your inclination to have a baby soon? Do they just dis-count any woman of child bearing age, just in case?

It probably does go through an interviewers head but I don't see how they can guess someone is the type to want a baby soon so decide not to give someone the job.