Is this sex discrimination?

vegankris

honeypop wrote: »

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? .

Yes, in many cases, they do.

AnnieM_3

honeypop wrote: »

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.

I suspect to this day I was rejected for a job (which would have been rubbish anyway, with hindsight) because I was engaged. The (female) interviewer asked me very pointedly if I was planning to get married soon, and didn't seem to want to drop the subject of family commitments - even at the time it didn't seem like sisterly interest, more like interrogation to see if I was going to be taking maternity leave any time soon...

The interview feedback cited something that didn't actually come up in the interview as the reason for rejection, so I'm fairly confident it was that issue that swung it!

liney

honeypop wrote: »

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.

Ladies in their 20's are likely to have babies if married/coupled, ladies in their 30's without children are likely to have babies as their clock is ticking by now, and ladies in their 40's are the least likely to have babies, but the odd one will go ahead as a late starter or have a happy accident. Drop in the 'lift conversation' ie waiting room/walking through corridor/using the lift together chats, prior or after the intererview which are not actually part of the interview and are often seen as 'idle' conversation, you can gleen an awful lot of information.

Some one will now say 'I'm in my 20's and i'm never going to have children" which is fine - but the fact remains my list does apply to the majority of women. It's not that difficult to predict.

nadnad

patchwork_cat wrote: »

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.

i dont think raising this issue could possibly make you out to be a troublemaker, i think that any hr team (which usually consists of women - not sexist but fact) would fully understand the issue and try to resolve it. I don't think raising any issue at work marks you as a troublemaker unless you are constantly complaining or arguing or campaigning against something. i think if you bring a reasoned argument to the table then it will be listened to and dealt with reasonably. i certainly dont think a company who is possibly going to make redundancies is going to say oh here this woman made a legitimate complaint, her work is fine and shes a valued team member but she complained about this one thing so lets give her the heave ho. if there was even an inkling of this then the OP would have a good case for a tribunal, if it was between her and another member of staff and this was the only thing differentiating the two, the company wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

i'm glad the OP has raised this, i agree you have to pick your battles Nikki but i think this is a worthy battle. if you don't fight the (seemingly) small stuff then it slips by unnoticed and who draws the line?

Spirit_2

The OP created the thread to get advice. No one died and made me Village Elder:o , but for the OP's sake I am going to say this......here goes.......

Many post contributions are now opinions, conjecture and speculation; and the tone between posters is a bit tetchy. Would it be sensible for the arguement to move to "the money savers arms ", leaving the thread for its original purpose.

Nicki

nadnad wrote: »

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.

Wise up yourself

If you read what I wrote (more than once), you'll see that I have always said it was legitimate to raise it calmly. Where I thought OP was running a greater risk was in her subsequent email to HR blowing the whole issue up, and basically inviting a disciplinary against her line manager. Now I appreciate that a great many people on this thread think he deserves one, and I don't condone his behaviour, but I stand by my position that a junior member of staff who is unpopular with the MD who challenges a senior colleague in this way is leaving themself vulnerable and therefore it is only worth doing it if the issue is a big one. If it was a sufficiently big one for the OP then fair enough, but none of her other female colleagues feel the same way, so I'm not a lone voice in the wind on this one (other than on this thread perhaps).

Now you may not think that taking on a male senior colleague as a woman in a male dominated environment, with a boss who doesn't like you, puts you at risk of being selected for redundancy when the opportunity presents itself, but I can tell you from first hand experience that I have seen this happen (not to me fortunately!) in more than one place which I have worked in.

poet123

Again I do agree with Nicki,some posters on here are very niave imo,in the current climate anything which marks you out as someone who is difficult to manage means you will be the first one in the firing line. The reasons for redundancy can be,and are fudged everyday. .

No one is advocating being walked all over in issues of great import,but if closely examined this is not such an issue. Make your point,in a controlled and measured way,then leave it,chances are it will be resolved. To equate this issue with issues which have arisen in the past on a world stage,is to overstate the case, and miss the point.

Idiophreak

nadnad wrote: »

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.

How someone can post something so utterly naive then add the words "wise up" is quite beyond me.

OP works in a smallish firm, where - as it's clear, they don't necessarily do things by the book. They're then forced to make redundancies. Doing one of the roles for the axe they have, say, 5 staff who are good, quiet workers and one that's been a complete pain in their bottom. They're not going to factor this in to their decision making? :rotfl:

FWIW, I was at no point suggesting that she shouldn't raise it with the manager or HR, just pointing out it's probably not worth kicking a fuss up over. As you did. Out of interest, then, why wouldn't you make a huge deal out of it? Clearly you think raising a "legitimate" concern can't hurt your career, so why bend on your principles?

nadnad

sure we'll all roll over.

stand up for nothing

i'm sure rosa parks should have stood up that day.

ghandhi should have never tried to get equal rights for muslims

elenor roosevelt should never have bothered in her quest for human rights.

john peter zenger shouldnt have fought for freedom of the press

emmeline pankhurst - well sure what did she achieve?

yeah yeah i know this issue isn't a major one, but it is nevertheless discrimination loud and clear. where do we draw the line when deciding not to fight for what we believe in? where do we draw the line when deciding what is worth fighting for? i think whenever someone feels strongly about something then go for it, do your best. if i sat back and took crap like that i couldnt look at myself in the mirror.

i'm aware that sounds all soap boxy but i really believe everyone should stand up for themselves, if more people did then we wouldnt have the same problems in the workplace and elsewhere. its people that sit back and let it happen that make life difficult, not the people who stick their necks out.

nadnad

Idiophreak wrote: »

How someone can post something so utterly naive then add the words "wise up" is quite beyond me.

OP works in a smallish firm, where - as it's clear, they don't necessarily do things by the book. They're then forced to make redundancies. Doing one of the roles for the axe they have, say, 5 staff who are good, quiet workers and one that's been a complete pain in their bottom. They're not going to factor this in to their decision making? :rotfl:

FWIW, I was at no point suggesting that she shouldn't raise it with the manager or HR, just pointing out it's probably not worth kicking a fuss up over. As you did. Out of interest, then, why wouldn't you make a huge deal out of it? Clearly you think raising a "legitimate" concern can't hurt your career, so why bend on your principles?

how small is the firm? can't be that small if its got a separate HR department.

and i would never bend my principles, when I said I wouldnt make a huge deal out of it I meant I wouldnt got kicking and screaming but I would make a calm and reasoned argument, raise my concerns, do what i could by involving the necessary peopl - union, HR whatever, and I would do it quietly, without making a fuss. when you have a problem its best to deal with it low key - you get better results that way, rather than crying about it.