Is this sex discrimination?

AnnieM_3

patchwork_cat wrote: »

To the poster who said the thread was getting tetchy - I think that we are all agreed on one thing this treatment is unfair. The only thing being DEBATED ( we must remember it is a debate and not take it personally) is how best to deal with it.

Like you said, it's a debate, which means it should be an exchange of opinions, rather than an argument. It's never good 'when threads go bad'

I think the OP has left the thread for dead anyway!

Idiophreak

poet123 wrote: »

I am a feminist,and quite combative

...you say that as though there's any other kind... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

*runs away quickly*

newcook

fay144 wrote: »

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...

I too work in a mainly male office (my MD often jokes that I will need to get permission from him if I want to get pregnant - mainly because he cant cope without me!)
Our company doesn’t have a problem with staff who plan on having a family or who already have one - what they would have a problem with (and the rest of the staff including myself) would be to train a member of staff for them to be able to work with the rest of the team only for 4 or 5 months later that person goes on maternity leave for 6 months. During this time we have to spend more time training a temp then when the person comes back from maternity leave we have to retrain them because they have forgotten what they learnt before they left.

honeypop

newcook wrote: »

Our company doesn’t have a problem with staff who plan on having a family or who already have one - what they would have a problem with (and the rest of the staff including myself) would be to train a member of staff for them to be able to work with the rest of the team only for 4 or 5 months later that person goes on maternity leave for 6 months. During this time we have to spend more time training a temp then when the person comes back from maternity leave we have to retrain them because they have forgotten what they learnt before they left.

I am expecting this sort of reaction from other staff when I start my new job in a few weeks time, I'm now 13 weeks pregnant and will be taking maternity leave after only being in the job for approx 5 months. I understand what you say, and how it can be annoying, but now I am in this position I wonder 'why shouldn't I start a new job just because I'm starting a family, I have as much right to do it when I like as someone already established in a role'. However, I am thinking that my feelings will be outweighed by the annoyance of the other staff and I'll still feel bad about it all! I'm not planning on taking 6 months leave though, more like 2 all being well with me and the baby (OH staying at home to care for the new arrival!).

AnnieM_3

newcook wrote: »

Our company doesn’t have a problem with staff who plan on having a family or who already have one - what they would have a problem with (and the rest of the staff including myself) would be to train a member of staff for them to be able to work with the rest of the team only for 4 or 5 months later that person goes on maternity leave for 6 months. During this time we have to spend more time training a temp then when the person comes back from maternity leave we have to retrain them because they have forgotten what they learnt before they left.

I don't think it'd be particularly fair or nice to make anyone feel they were a 'burden' for taking a job, knowing they were pregnant - babies cost a lot of money, so I hear! Imagine being in those shoes: you'd want to be sure you could provide your child with some security, wouldn't you?

I agree it's unfortunate when this happens, but there's not much you can do about it. It just really bugs me when people make out that women are being selfish, or that they are letting down their workmates because they go and have babies!

skintchick

AnnieM wrote: »

I don't think it'd be particularly fair or nice to make anyone feel they were a 'burden' for taking a job, knowing they were pregnant - babies cost a lot of money, so I hear! Imagine being in those shoes: you'd want to be sure you could provide your child with some security, wouldn't you?

I agree it's unfortunate when this happens, but there's not much you can do about it. It just really bugs me when people make out that women are being selfish, or that they are letting down their workmates because they go and have babies!

And what about those of us who had a job, but have been made redundant? Should I just sit on backside on JSA taking from you the taxpayer, as I would be such a burden to an employer? It's not my fault I am pregnant and unemployed. Apparently it also makes me unemployable.

Idiophreak

AnnieM wrote: »

I don't think it'd be particularly fair or nice to make anyone feel they were a 'burden' for taking a job, knowing they were pregnant - babies cost a lot of money, so I hear! Imagine being in those shoes: you'd want to be sure you could provide your child with some security, wouldn't you?

You would, yes, but at the same time companies aren't charities...and they're hiring someone, presumably, to do a job. I'm not sure how fair it is on a company that needs extra hands on deck to take a job knowing full well you're not going to be able to perform the job (by virtue of not being there) imminently.

Problem is, this whole "you can't ask that" culture, just means there's no chance for people to really be honest and talk frankly about things. If I were an employer and discovered an interviewee was pregnant, I'd ask how long they were going to take, when etc and if they were the best long-term person for the job, I'd offer them the gig and arrange cover asap. I guess not being able to ask these things causes a bunch of employers to "hedge their bets" and err on the side of caution...so I guess all women of a certain age suffer for the privacies of a few...

AnnieM_3

Idiophreak wrote: »

Problem is, this whole "you can't ask that" culture, just means there's no chance for people to really be honest and talk frankly about things. If I were an employer and discovered an interviewee was pregnant, I'd ask how long they were going to take, when etc and if they were the best long-term person for the job, I'd offer them the gig and arrange cover asap. I guess not being able to ask these things causes a bunch of employers to "hedge their bets" and err on the side of caution...so I guess all women of a certain age suffer for the privacies of a few...

I agree - it would be better if women felt able to let prospective employers know, and it would definitely be better if all women of childbearing age weren't looked at as a ticking bomb too!

skintchick

Of course, we CAN let employers know but that guarantees we won;t get the job!

So what's the answer idiophreak? BTW I assume you are a man?

Idiophreak

skintchick wrote: »

Of course, we CAN let employers know but that guarantees we won;t get the job!

So what's the answer idiophreak? BTW I assume you are a man?

Yeah, I'm a man. With an opinion on something that predominantly effects women. So sue me.

The answer, I'd have thought, as outlined, is to allow people to have a more open discussion about this stuff at interview.

I'd have thought employers don't like a) the feeling they've been lied to and b) not being given maximum warning as much as anything else.

So by telling them right at the start, you rule both of these things out. It also gives you a chance to talk on how you came to be in that position and get the employer to sympathise with you. The stigma's against those who say "I have to provide for my kids" - and the reply comes "shoulda thought of that before you got a bun in the oven". You get a chance to prove that you *did* think about that first, believed yourself to be in a secure place and so on. Talking to an employer, selling yourself as a hard working, responsible person really can't do you any harm.

Once all's said and done, if you don't get the job and believe it's purely down to the incoming sprogs, you have to deal with it in the same way you would any other kind of discrimination, whether that be sexual, ageist or whatever else.