We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue
Comments
-
Why is training one person over another a breach of equal opportunities? It is not implied in an equal opportunities policy that everyone is treated identically. If I have two employees (one black and one white) and I see more merit and career potential in the black guy and decide to invest in some training, is that discriminatory against the white guy? NO - it's a business decision I need to make based on the long-term sustainability of my business, and the employees' mutual progress within that business. If two people at the same level have different size offices, is that a breach of equal opportunities? Of course not, but the principle is the same.
I'm curious hedger. What is your endgame in all this? What is it that you actually want?
The job for your wife back? Compensation? Your day in court, boldly arguing your wife's case?
Either way, I suspect this is all going to end the same way . . .
I actually feel sorry for your wife. She obviously made a powerful enemy, not a smart thing to do in a small company, but what's done is done.
of course it is a denial of equal opportunities. if the company is paying for males in a equivalent role to develop themselves professionally, then denies a female the same training because "they cant afford it" and THEN shortly after pays for more training for other males it is obvious there is a problem. even more so if the company then tries to use (as you say they will) qualifications/training as a means of gettin rid of the female.
what do you think a tribunal would make of that if the company admits thats what happened?0 -
well said aj - some are showing the same anger and discriminatory behaviour that the employer has. like ive said its no wonder these things are still happenin in the workplace :rolleyes:
Good God!!!!
You really have no idea do you.of course it is a denial of equal opportunities. if the company is paying for males in a equivalent role to develop themselves professionally, then denies a female the same training because "they cant afford it" and THEN shortly after pays for more training for other males it is obvious there is a problem. even more so if the company then tries to use (as you say they will) qualifications/training as a means of gettin rid of the female.
what do you think a tribunal would make of that if the company admits thats what happened?
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Its not denial of equal opportunities.
Its training the people on site that the management believe are worth investing in.
There is no god given right to training in the workplace and if management see fit to give it out, they can pick and chose as they wish.
WHY CAN YOU NOT GRASP THIS?
You are so hung up on the 'female' aspect of this that you have lost total sight of your original post. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in anything you have told us to suggest there is sexual discrimination (or any discrimination for that matter going on).
The management have decided for whatever reason, that your wife is not going to be trained further as they DO NOT VALUE her as an employee. There is nothing illegal or contravening any employment law in that.
The ONLY way you have an incredibly slim chance of making a case is on the selection process for redundnacy. However,
if you use the female line you will fail.
If you use the training line you will fail.
If you use the wage structure line you will fail.
All three of those, from your information, are not discrimination in your case.
The way you are pushing this is probably making things far worse for your wife than they are already.0 -
1. You have already said she isn't. I also assume you know sweet FA about Nebosh and the different grades.
2. Its not unfair to prevent progression of someone if they are earmarked for the chop which your wife clearly is.
3. You assume Pete talsk the most sense because he is blowing sunshine up your !!!!! and telling you WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, as opposed to the stark facts.
4. You have actually convinced yourself now you have a strong case. This is going to be an expensive lesson for you.
She is may not be sheite at her job. Just not as good as her colleagues.
This wouldn't even get to the tribunal stage. Its a classic case of someone getting the chop and thinking of every excuse to fight back.
1. is that the NEBOSH qualification that she was prevented from obtaining (long before redundancies even were on the horizon)
2. ditto
3. i do think the facts are stark (in our favour)
4. how will it be expensive? it has cost us an initial small fee for a solicitors meeting. grievances and appeals are free as per the companys policies. IF (and its a big IF) it goes to tribunal then legal fees are free through household insurance or legal aid (remember she will be unemployed). We also have a top trade union guy to go along with her to the appeal
how on earth can you say it wont get to tribunal stage when you havent saw all the facts, letters, companys replies etc? the initial grievance was heard yday and was very interesting - HR seemed shocked to hear of some of the things going on, puttin it down to the director bein "confused" :rotfl:0 -
This thread has turned into a joke.
3. Pete is talking from his/her rectum, stating employment law that simply isn't fact. Then the only retort you get is sarcasm. (this person is 100% not in HR)
Morning Woody !
If you look back, my responses to your pathetic digs started out being rather balanced - sarcasm only crept in when I realised what a loathsome little troll you are. (yes yes Woody of course I don't work in HR, I'm a liar and an idiot, blah blah, yawn yawn....)
Tell you what old bean, why don't you toddle off and fire up the old 'Multinational business'. It's a nice day and I'm sure if you are quick you will have a chance to nip over to calais on the Eurotunnel to flog some overpriced cornettos to the booze crusiers. Thus maintaining your 'international impact' into 2009...
For what its worth I agree with Bendix (who though in disagreement with me on many points lays out his arguments well and rarely sinks to the level of abuse you seem to thrive on Woody). Hedgers wife is likely to get a payout to make it go away....as I have said all along.
As a final point, can I ask why are some people now openly abusing Hedgers wife? (whom none of us have even seen post on this forum for goodness sake!) That's getting pretty damned low guys...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Pete...so clever.
Assume as you will and continuing with your idiotic attitude.
Pathetic little man.0 -
Pete...so clever.
Assume as you will and continuing with your idiotic attitude.
Pathetic little man.
Not nice when people deride your experience/work achievements is it?
Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
of course it is a denial of equal opportunities. if the company is paying for males in a equivalent role to develop themselves professionally, then denies a female the same training because "they cant afford it" and THEN shortly after pays for more training for other males it is obvious there is a problem. even more so if the company then tries to use (as you say they will) qualifications/training as a means of gettin rid of the female.
what do you think a tribunal would make of that if the company admits thats what happened?
Again, you miss the point. You're hung up on the female thing. Just because she is a woman, u can't assume she is being treated differently (maybe even unfairly) JUST because of her sex. There could be any number of reasons. Unless you can categorically prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is being treated differently SOLELY because of her sex - something very very difficult to prove, by the way - there is no way of proving sexual discrimination or unequal opportunities.
Simply being a woman is not evidence of being discriminated against.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that, and I'm struggling to see why. I think you need to let that part go and focus on the redundancy issue, but I fear you won't.0 -
Again, you miss the point. You're hung up on the female thing. Just because she is a woman, u can't assume she is being treated differently (maybe even unfairly) JUST because of her sex. There could be any number of reasons. Unless you can categorically prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is being treated differently SOLELY because of her sex - something very very difficult to prove, by the way - there is no way of proving sexual discrimination or unequal opportunities.
Simply being a woman is not evidence of being discriminated against.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that, and I'm struggling to see why. I think you need to let that part go and focus on the redundancy issue, but I fear you won't.
im not hung up on anything. we are discussing on a forum the strengths/weaknesses of each partys arguments. my wife has approached her case/appeal from a few angles and simpy asked questions of the company. it is very simple - after the company hear her appeal and reply in writing we will ask once again for professional opinion on how to proceed (if at all). we know what has went on but of course proving it is the tricky part. despite wild assumptions bein made on here we are not running around like maniacs, we are simply raising concerns and the unfair nature of bein selected (in our opinion) and expect some answers. i dont see what is wrong with that.....0 -
Fair enough.
Good luck. I mean that genuinely.
I don't think you have a case based on sexual discrimination, but the law is a strange thing and is often applied in strange ways, and more often than not arbitration will find a solution without reverting to the law. However, as I've already said, I'm coming round to the view that the company will likely cough up something to shut you guys up.
I'm almost tempted to do that myself . . . ;-)
Tenacious little b****r, arent you?0 -
if you use the female line you will fail.
If you use the training line you will fail.
If you use the wage structure line you will fail.
All three of those, from your information, are not discrimination in your case.
The way you are pushing this is probably making things far worse for your wife than they are already.
the way i am pushing things? im not involved in the process in case you havent noticed - she is going thru the proper appeal procedures. how can it be made worse by the way? shes already been made redundant !!!!!!! what they gonna do now? start taking money off her? :rolleyes:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards