Is this sex discrimination?

skintchick

Idiophreak wrote: »

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.

Sure. But what's paying the bills while you do that?

I'm lucky, we can afford to live on OH's wage. BUT a lot of people are not in that position, and required their maternity pay and the promise of a job to return to to be able to afford their outgoings.

And what do they do?

There is no ideal answer, I know that, but as a man who I think may also be single, you're not in a great position to be pontificating on this, because the reality if YOU will never be in this situation.

I am, as my friend told me today, screwed, because I won;t be able to get a job once employers realise I'm pregnant, but I had a secure(ish) job with a company who pay great maternity and are family-friendly. It seemed the perfect time to start, and at my age (33) with a 41-year-old OH, we couldn't afford to wait long anyway.

Life isn't always as simple as 'make sure you're secure before trying for a baby and all will be well'.

Do you really think any employer would take on a pregnant woman? Honestly? So what are we supposed to do?

Debt_Free_Chick

This is a really difficult issue. To be honest, no employer would take on any new member of staff - male or female - if they knew that person was then going to be off for 6 or 12 months, within months of starting. It's not a feeling directed just at pregnant women - the same would apply to any new hire - male or female - if they were going to be off sick, take a long holiday or even leave!

Hiring staff is time consuming and expensive with no guarantee of getting the right person. In skilled positions, it takes around 6-12 months for a new hire to fully settle in and be 100% effective.

I don't think this is simply an issue that's directed towards pregnant women - employers have the same attitude towards hiring anyone who is going to be out of work for half of the year, immediately after starting. Adding in the time to familiarise yourself with a new company, the company is not going to get "payback" for the hire for about 2 years. For any company, that's a huge investment to make - added to which there's the cost of hiring and employing temporary cover for the period of absence.

One final thing that I think has irritated employers .... the list of Maternity improvements/protection piled on over the years - without consultation and with complex rules to follow.

AnnieM_3

What are women supposed to do then?

Do not forget our childbearing abilities are needed (until science alters matters) to produce the next generation of employees!

Most families today do not have the means to survive on only one income, so unless women stop having babies, I don't see what option they have.

Savvy_Sue

MOVING THREADS FOR BETTER RESPONSES

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to the Employment board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

I'm thinking I should have moved it days ago. Ho hum, better late than never.

Idiophreak

skintchick wrote: »

There is no ideal answer, I know that, but as a man who I think may also be single, you're not in a great position to be pontificating on this, because the reality if YOU will never be in this situation.

If you can't see the irony of that statement in this thread, I fear all's lost...

Employers won't let you have a job because you can get pregnant.

You won't let me have an opinion because I can't.

And which one's discriminating again?

Crumbs some people are small minded.

FWIW I, personally, would give a pregnant woman a job, provided she was honest and I felt her worth to the company outweighed the inconvenience...and we *do* have quite an evolved welfare system in this country, so it's not like pregnant women *need* to work or face starvation...

poet123

I agree,when I decided to start a family,I made the concessions to sort out childcare,shorter hours,uunpaid leave,career breaketc. Today the pendulum has swung the other way, and now employers are the ones who have to make the biggest concessions to accomodate staff. This may seem a good thing on the surface, but in reality it has an insidiuous undertone,which means that it is now probably much more difficult for women of child bearing age to get a job,get promotion etc.

skintchick

Idiophreak wrote: »

If you can't see the irony of that statement in this thread, I fear all's lost...

Employers won't let you have a job because you can get pregnant.

You won't let me have an opinion because I can't.

And which one's discriminating again?

Crumbs some people are small minded.

FWIW I, personally, would give a pregnant woman a job, provided she was honest and I felt her worth to the company outweighed the inconvenience...and we *do* have quite an evolved welfare system in this country, so it's not like pregnant women *need* to work or face starvation...

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I said you weren't in a great position to be pontificating:

pontificate verb DISAPPROVING
to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct

So I'm happy for you to have an opinion, but while forming it I'd like you to think about the other side of it - the side I'm on right now. What ARE women who are pregnant and jobseeking supposed to do?

It's interesting you think the state would provide for a PG woman. All I can get is JSA and obviously that requires me to seek work. I cannot get any other help, and if your partner has a job, and you own your own house, this government will not help, so despite what you refer to as our 'well evolved' welfare system, there is no support for an unemployed pregnant woman.

Equally, what about those pregnant women who WANT to work. It's not always about need, many women want a job and not to sit on the sofa for months waiting to give birth.

Sian_the_Green

So, going back to the original issue do we know what happened about the OP's complaint? I'd really like to know how she got on

newcook

Women who are pregnant could always consider temping and then when its time for baby to arrive there is the option of Statutory maternity pay.
Unfortunately a lot of women don’t think this is 'fair' as stat maternity pay doesn’t pay as much as a lot of company packages.

The company I work for only has what is stated in the legal requirements - 20 days holiday (although B/H's are on top) no sick days - if you are sick you have to claim SSP, stat maternity and paternity pay etc
The longer you are in employment with the company the more you get 'rewarded' with each year.

Idiophreak

skintchick wrote: »

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I said you weren't in a great position to be pontificating:

pontificate verb DISAPPROVING
to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct

So I'm happy for you to have an opinion, but while forming it I'd like you to think about the other side of it - the side I'm on right now. What ARE women who are pregnant and jobseeking supposed to do?

It's interesting you think the state would provide for a PG woman. All I can get is JSA and obviously that requires me to seek work. I cannot get any other help, and if your partner has a job, and you own your own house, this government will not help, so despite what you refer to as our 'well evolved' welfare system, there is no support for an unemployed pregnant woman.

Equally, what about those pregnant women who WANT to work. It's not always about need, many women want a job and not to sit on the sofa for months waiting to give birth.

And yet, as a woman, my pontificating would be acceptable?

If you have a problem with the way I'm expressing my opinion, that's one thing, but what it has to do with my gender is quite beyond me. Still, everyone knows positive discrimination's fine these days, eh. After all, positive means "good", doesn't it?

As for women wanting to work...I want a golden goose. Sadly, short of some pretty nifty genetic engineering, it ain't immediately forthcoming. "Want", sadly, falls squarely under the "hard cheese" category. Besides, they've already got the first of their "I wants" with the baby...

I said previously our welfare system ensured no pregnant women were starving. Are you, with your own home, and partner in a job, starving? If you didn't have these things, you'd be entitled to more help. Is this fair? Of course it isn't...but since when has the system ever been fair in this country?