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
-
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »1) You seem to think your wife is entitled to more rights than a man simply because she is a woman.
2) You asked for the company to spend a great deal of money & drop available headcount in a recession & in an industry heavily effected by it.
3) Your probably right BUT we only hear your side of the story on it & to be honest she is better off out of the company & the comany is better off getting rid of her as you were already talking of legal action before she was in for redundancy.
4) Lets be honest, did she really want her job back? or was it just an appeal for the sake of the IT which you have already stated?
5) That depends on the capacity of the phone call & whether any lies were told & what information the new employer requested & what information the old employer volunteered without being asked & in what capacity he said it. Also it requires the new employer to get involved & in most cases they wont.
& by the way if your union guy really did say "this is the worst case" he is either telling porkies or isnt very experienced at all (I have been waiting to say that for ages!!).
1) You seem to think your wife is entitled to more rights than a man simply because she is a woman. - not at all. all she wanted was the query to be looked in to and not held against her
2) You asked for the company to spend a great deal of money & drop - available headcount in a recession & in an industry heavily effected by it. - strange then that the company spent a great deal on training male colleagues. again this was one man who prevented her
3) Your probably right BUT we only hear your side of the story on it & to be honest she is better off out of the company & the comany is better off getting rid of her as you were already talking of legal action before she was in for redundancy. - dont know where u got this from?
4) Lets be honest, did she really want her job back? or was it just an appeal for the sake of the IT which you have already stated?- she did want her job back. even if she didnt are u saying there shouldnt be a proper appeals procedure in place for employees who have been made redundant? :eek:
5) That depends on the capacity of the phone call & whether any lies were told & what information the new employer requested & what information the old employer volunteered without being asked & in what capacity he said it. Also it requires the new employer to get involved & in most cases they wont.- the phonecall was damning and full of lies to prevent her from gettin a job. im afraid you are wrong about the new employer not gettin involved. he may not wantt to (understandably) but a tribunal can make an order for him to attend if they think he can be used to provide evidence. his HR consultant may also be called. of course they could lie but i dont see why they would
& by the way if your union guy really did say "this is the worst case" he is either telling porkies or isnt very experienced at all (I have been waiting to say that for ages!! - he said the criterion produced was one of the worst hes seen. you havent seen it so dont know how u can make a judgement on his honestky or experience.0 -
Hi Hedger
If I were you I would reserve any decision on whether or not to go ahead with your ET until you have seen if an offer is forthcoming and if so, what level it is at.
Keep your options open, ET's are almost never a sure thing.
P
of course pete we will look at all options and be guided by the people who know best0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »Then Hedger, you are in for a game of Russian roulette.
its hardly russian roulette, no-one is gonna die! if my wife tells the truth and doesnt win her case then we just get on with life. what we will def ensure very shortly is that no more bad references will be produced from the halfwit director0 -
1) You seem to think your wife is entitled to more rights than a man simply because she is a woman. - not at all. all she wanted was the query to be looked in to and not held against her.
It wasnt held against her. In your own words you said that they acknowledged it needed addressing.
2) You asked for the company to spend a great deal of money & drop - available headcount in a recession & in an industry heavily effected by it. - strange then that the company spent a great deal on training male colleagues. again this was one man who prevented her. We have been there before. Your wifes course was £000's & weeks out of active duties.
3) Your probably right BUT we only hear your side of the story on it & to be honest she is better off out of the company & the comany is better off getting rid of her as you were already talking of legal action before she was in for redundancy. - dont know where u got this from? Your own thread.
4) Lets be honest, did she really want her job back? or was it just an appeal for the sake of the IT which you have already stated?- she did want her job back. even if she didnt are u saying there shouldnt be a proper appeals procedure in place for employees who have been made redundant? :eek: No. But I am saying is any company would of manufactured a procedure to fit around your wife to get her out the door by this time, so what real dfference does it make other than they have left themselves open to a claim for more money?
5) That depends on the capacity of the phone call & whether any lies were told & what information the new employer requested & what information the old employer volunteered without being asked & in what capacity he said it. Also it requires the new employer to get involved & in most cases they wont.- the phonecall was damning and full of lies to prevent her from gettin a job. im afraid you are wrong about the new employer not gettin involved. he may not wantt to (understandably) but a tribunal can make an order for him to attend if they think he can be used to provide evidence. his HR consultant may also be called. of course they could lie but i dont see why they would. I think you will find once again you have the wrong perception on how things will or wont work.
& by the way if your union guy really did say "this is the worst case" he is either telling porkies or isnt very experienced at all (I have been waiting to say that for ages!! - he said the criterion produced was one of the worst hes seen. you havent seen it so dont know how u can make a judgement on his honestky or experience. Sorry Hedger anyone with any amount of substantial experience can tell you this is definately not an unusual case or an extreme example.
Your wife has been treated unfairly like hundreds of people everyday.
Nothing to do wife sex, nothing to do with equal pay.
They got rid of her for either, all or a combination of:
1) They regarded her as a bad employee
2) They favoured another person
3) To limit a future claim
4) To save the office from months of upset
5) Because they didnt like her attitude
6) Because they knew that you were intent on taking action.
Now its just a matter of what they will offer & you will accept.
You angle is plain.Not Again0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »Your wife has been treated unfairly like hundreds of people everyday.
Nothing to do wife sex, nothing to do with equal pay.
They got rid of her for either, all or a combination of:
1) They regarded her as a bad employee
2) They favoured another person
3) To limit a future claim
4) To save the office from months of upset
5) Because they didnt like her attitude
6) Because they knew that you were intent on taking action.
Now its just a matter of what they will offer & you will accept.
You angle is plain.
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they
0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »Your wife has been treated unfairly like hundreds of people everyday.
Nothing to do wife sex, nothing to do with equal pay.
They got rid of her for either, all or a combination of:
1) They regarded her as a bad employee
2) They favoured another person
3) To limit a future claim
4) To save the office from months of upset
5) Because they didnt like her attitude
6) Because they knew that you were intent on taking action.
Now its just a matter of what they will offer & you will accept.
You angle is plain.
im glad we can agree on that. i just hope they use the reasons youve gave above to justify their actions0 -
-
-
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »To a certain extent they will.
well i hope they have the evidence to substantiate it. u know like poor appraisals, proper and fair redundancy process etc0 -
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