Is this sex discrimination?

Bogof_Babe

nadnad wrote: »

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.

Isn't that exactly what the OP is doing?

nadnad

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the OP is doing?

i know thats what shes doing i'm saying in these circumstances thats whats best. and not to go all guns blazing.

hulagirl79

Hi
i have read all the post's on here, i am not going to comment on the situation as i can say nothing more of any benefit.
The one thing i did want to comment on was the fact that when you get interviewed they cannot ask you if you are planning on getting pregnant anytime soon.

Every time i go for a job i get asked this question and every time i say i am not prepared to answer it, they go back to the agency and moan that i wont answer the question and the response of the agency is......
"Legally they cant ask you it but if you dont answer you wont get a job"

My job is a nanny and two of the interviews i have had, the parents have been solicitors.
so they can ask you and they will and when the agency wont back you up where do you go then?

mymatebob

This has been an interesting thread for many reasons.

I understand that no issues are "black and white" and that the world is varying shades of grey.
The OP is the only one who can do what they feel is right for their situation, however the wider debate has thrown up some diverse opinions.

Just to chuck in another tuppence worth....

I was invited onto an interview panel by a colleague.
One of the people we interviewed was in a wheelchair.
He was not the most suitable candidate and we ended up with someone else.
My colleague gave him some feedback and all was well.

Until her boss asked why we had wasted our time in interviewing a disabled person.
The disability in no way impaired his ability to do the job, in fact he was doing a similar one in another company.
The boss was adamant that we were all wasting our time interviewing this person as they would be nothing but trouble and we would have to adapt everything to suit them.

None of these statements were true. The work would have involved no special
adjustments at all.
My colleagues boss was a woman and an ex HR manager.
Odd then that she would not tolerate us recruiting a disabled person.

Could we do anything about it?
No - because it was on this occasion only an attitude which had no effect on the outcome of the interview.

If there had been a chance to challenge her then we both would have.
That sort of stupid, and I can think of no better word for it, discrimination in life, never mind the workplace, needs to be challenged. At every opportunity.

fay144

hulagirl79 wrote: »

The one thing i did want to comment on was the fact that when you get interviewed they cannot ask you if you are planning on getting pregnant anytime soon.

Every time i go for a job i get asked this question and every time i say i am not prepared to answer it, they go back to the agency and moan that i wont answer the question and the response of the agency is......
"Legally they cant ask you it but if you dont answer you wont get a job"

That's really surprising. If that happened to me, I'd like to think I would leave the interview there and then. I'd explain that I had no intention of having a baby for the next 5 years, but equally have no intention of working for a company that's so unstable that they are worried about having to pay out what their staff are legally entitled to... (unless I was out of a job at the time, when all principles would be out of the window, and I'd sell my soul for another one)

I think it's more likely that they would just assume I was planning to have kids soon, being in late 20's and recently married (even if I didn't wear my ring, it's obvious I'm married due to my name... if my parents had given me this name at birth they'd have been done for child cruelty).

I'm shocked that everyone else in the OP's office can't see how unfair it is. I also work in a fairly male dominated industry, and no one here would consider that acceptable.

I'm also surprised that so many people think it would affect her husband too. I work with my husband, and have done for 5 years, though often in different offices in the same city. I went to work on a project he had worked on previously and had left after having real problems with team leaders. I instantly got on really well with everyone, and there has never been any hint of people judging me based on his actions. Similarly, he has had people working for him that he though were great/rubbish and they've came to work for me and I've thought the opposite.

skintchick

poet123 wrote: »

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.

You think? (Well, obviously you do, or you wouldn;t have said it but I have to disagree). THe problem, as someone else has pointed out, is that major discrimination does not happen overnight.

It starts from small things that perople don;t challenge because it's not a major issue/no-one else seems that bothered/it will mark me out as a troublemaker/I might lose my job and then escalates into full-scale discrimination which by then is so ingrained it is almost impossible to turn the tide.

Women have fought hard for the rights which we now enjoy as a matter of course - votes, jobs, etc. - and we should not dishonour them by allowing such blatent and ILLEGAL discrimination to continue.

Often challenging such behavior does come at a personal cost, and I understand that some people feel that cost is too high for them (although I also wonder what they'd feel if everyone felt that way and they didn't have the right to vote or work etc.) but that doesn;t make it wrong the fight the issue - some people put principles and morals before their own personal comfort and that should be respected.

Personally, I think not 'rocking the boat' and putting up with such shoddy and may I say it again ILLEGAL behaviour is cowardly and reprehensible.

I will fight for my rights AND for yours, and if everyone did the same this world would be a much better place.

The selfish 'me first' attitude so prevalent in today's society means we begin to lose the ground gained in terms of human rights, and the erosion of what makes a good society good.

Personally, I mourn that and I will do everything I can to fight it.

For want of a nail, the war was lost - know that rhyme? It means that the major battle was lost because something small was ignored at the beginning because it was felt to be insignificant.

From small acorns do mighty oaks grow, and from small infringments of rights do major injustices grow.

patchwork_cat

This is my point - the law says one thing, but it doesn't change attitudes. Contacting your union could well be seen as subversive by some bosses. I AM NOT SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T, just you need to be discreet.

Don't get me wrong I am one of the stroppiest people out there and possibly I would be kicking off, but with the benefit of distance I see it isn't always the best way to handle yourself.

Example - in my v early 20's in the firm I have mentioned, I was being paid a pittance and expected to travel distances and stay over. I didn't want to, it wasn't part of the admin job I had been recruited for, I kicked off, got my name blackened and they made life difficult. I had a colleague, who said, yeah, yeah every time she was asked in principle would she stay over, until she was actually asked do it on the day and every time it was 'oh dear I have an important choral comp that day, oh my mum isn't well and needs me, oh dear my mum won't let me' (she was only a year younger than me!) every time she got away with it and was considered wonderful. To this day me and my OH call it 'doing a Paulette' and it is often a very succesful way of dealing with a situation like that.

With the benfit of distance I am wondering if there is a Paulette way if dealing with this and living to fight another battle and continue to change attitudes.

mymatebob

I wonder how it is all going with the OP?

Zazen999

hulagirl79 wrote: »

Hi
i have read all the post's on here, i am not going to comment on the situation as i can say nothing more of any benefit.
The one thing i did want to comment on was the fact that when you get interviewed they cannot ask you if you are planning on getting pregnant anytime soon.

Q "are you thinking of getting pregnant anytime soon?'
A "why, do you want to impregnate me?"

galvanizersbaby

fay144 wrote: »

That's really surprising. If that happened to me, I'd like to think I would leave the interview there and then. I'd explain that I had no intention of having a baby for the next 5 years, but equally have no intention of working for a company that's so unstable that they are worried about having to pay out what their staff are legally entitled to... (unless I was out of a job at the time, when all principles would be out of the window, and I'd sell my soul for another one)

I think it's more likely that they would just assume I was planning to have kids soon, being in late 20's and recently married (even if I didn't wear my ring, it's obvious I'm married due to my name... if my parents had given me this name at birth they'd have been done for child cruelty).

I think the poster in this case is a nanny so I am hoping that the interviewers (i.e.parents of prospective child she would be nannying) are thinking more of their child's consistency of care here as opposed to paying out what staff are legally entitled to? of course I could be wrong here!
I realise that legally they aren't allowed to ask but (at the risk of getting shot down in flames) I guess it's a little understandable that they might want to know in advance if the nanny they are employing is likely to be a short term thing - though I'm not saying in any way that they have a right to know this - just that I can understand it from a parent's point of view.
Though Hulagirl I can appreciate why you shouldn't be asked this question!