Is this sex discrimination?

skintchick

Nicki wrote: »

Fair enough, but I personally wouldn't put the whole of my family's income on the line for the sake of £30 or whatever the going rate for a tux for a night is, particularly if I already knew the managing director already had it in for me, and would be unlikely to support me against my line manager when it came to the crunch.

Luckily, there are peole who will fight for rights, otherwise America would still have segregation and women would still not be allowed to work or vote, to name just a few rights people have had to fight for.

I know what you're saying, but if we all behaved selfishly then no-one would have any rights, and we'd soon be complaining then.

patchwork_cat

This whole thing is not on. It sounds a bit like a situation I was in about 18 years ago where I worked for the same small firm as my husband.

Your MD is a woman? and yet still thinks this is OK. Do you have any dress hire companies in your area. That would have been a solution and then this thing about taxable benefits ( if it exists) wouldn't be a problem.

It is sexist to assume that because a lot of women like clothes they will own and evening dress which is the term your manager should have used IMO.

The only question I would have is how far are you prepared to take this? If a small firm don't like you your days are numbered.

poet123

I agree that this is a case of discrimination but,in the circumstances described I think the OP is playing with fire. Principles are great but in the words off the song"You have to know when to hold them,know when to fold them,and know when to walk away." and tbh I am not sure fighting for £30 comes higher than a job or 2 jobs in this current economic climate.

It is a big disingenous to equate this isue with Apartheid,civil rights,votes for woman etc. Sometimes you need to assess the bigger picture,and irritating though this is,unfair as it is,is it worth losing jobs over?. Lots of companies have custom and practices which if analysed may well fall foul of discrimination laws but which employees accept because the issue is too trivial to lose a job over.

If the issue was that the OP was paid less,had to work more hours,was being abused,bullied etc then of course stand up and be vocal,but imo this issue is annoying, not untenable.

AnnieM_3

Nicki wrote: »

I think in those circumstances, no matter how narked you were by the manager's decision not to pay for dress hire, that you've been a bit reckless. It doesn't make it right or fair, but what are you going to do if both of you end up losing your jobs out of vindictiveness - if you both happen to be selected for redundancy as soon as the business's profits dip. Yes, you might have a claim for unfair dismissal but in this economic climate the compensation for this will be a poor exchange for two steady jobs. Had it just been one of you employed by the firm it would have been bad enough, but with both of you there, in my opionion your principles may well end up being very expensive.

So, do you think she should:
a) spend her own money (that might otherwise have gone on food/into savings) on a dress for the 'do'?
b) not go to the do and put herself at a potential disadvantage in terms of networking opportunities?
c) take the bribe and keep schtum?

poet123

She has bought a dress,and she should wear it,it cost £30. She can re sell on ebay before xmas and it will have cost her nothing. She has made her point but imo to take it further is unfair as it may be is asking for trouble.

AnnieM_3

poet123 wrote: »

She has bought a dress,and she should wear it,it cost £30. She can re sell on ebay before xmas and it will have cost her nothing. She has made her point but imo to take it further is unfair as it may be is asking for trouble.

Unfortunately, that fear is what perpetuates these kind of situations.

peachyprice

poet123 wrote: »

She has made her point but imo to take it further is unfair as it may be is asking for trouble.

Unfair to who exactly?

The whole situation has gone too far for her to ignore now, it's not just about the dress, it's also about her manager trying to bribe her to keep quiet. Standing down now would leave her in a very vulnerable situation.

Errata

Would the men be happy to pay the rent for their dinner suits themselves if management was funding the hire of "elegant ballgowns" for all the women ? Doubtful, but women are frequently treated less favourably than men and in recessions it just gets worse.

Idiophreak

This whole thing's just a bit weird...What are the HR dept up to? I'd have expected them to jump out of their skins, speak with the manager and get the women hire gowns for this and future events ASAP...This bloke's bending the company over for a potential lawsuit, it's not even funny...Why aren't they moving faster to try and stop him?

Nicki

AnnieM wrote: »

So, do you think she should:
a) spend her own money (that might otherwise have gone on food/into savings) on a dress for the 'do'?
b) not go to the do and put herself at a potential disadvantage in terms of networking opportunities?
c) take the bribe and keep schtum?

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.