Job offer received, contract signed now offer removed.

PaddyPaws

Bolt1977 wrote: »

I know what your saying makes sense and the childs health is the most important thing, but it is very difficult to take that less than two weeks ago she had a settled job of several years with no issues now she has no job, and no chance of getting one because she is pregnant (or so this episode would lead us to believe) money was tight before hence the change of jobs! She wont be able to claim jobseekers because she resigned! So now we have one income to support myself my 4 year old little boy and a pregnant wife! All because this company appear to be above employment law!
Rant over!! Sorry about that but the more I think about it the more angry I am becoming!

On a side note to the discrimination, can I suggest that your wife still makes a claim for JSA. Although she resigned from her job it was on the strength of a signed contract for a job therefore a justified resignation. Whilst her claim for JSA may be initially suspended whilst the facts are checked, if she provides all the info as you have provided here as to why the new job didn't start then her claim for JSA may well be allowed (provided she satisfies the usual conditions as to availability and actively seeking work). If finances are tight then this is worth doing.

I wish you both good luck in your endeavours to sort out this situation and with the on-going pregnancy
PP

Irn-Bru-Kid

Hi there,

Please don't shoot me down, but has anyone considered the new employers point of view?

I work for a small company and they have turned down several applicants over the years because they were pregnant. As a company, they just don't need the hassle of taking someone on, then six months down the line they are taking maternity leave and they need to find a replacement. They also have to take into consideration the 'sick' days, hospital appointments and so on.

For a smaller company, the financial implication of a pregnant employee alone is enough to put them off.

I believe they have been challenged a couple of times over this and they have merely said that the job offer was retracted due to poor references, inconsistencies on their CV etc. No company will admit they retracted because of pregnancy.

I am sorry that you are having problems and I truly hope you manage to sort it out. No doubt they will give the job to someone who is equally as qualified and not pregnant.

Uncertain

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

I work for a small company and they have turned down several applicants over the years because they were pregnant. As a company, they just don't need the hassle of taking someone on, then six months down the line they are taking maternity leave and they need to find a replacement. They also have to take into consideration the 'sick' days, hospital appointments and so on.

As an employer, just like anybody else, you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey. Sooner or later the sort of behaviour you describe will catch up with them and the penalties can be severe.

If you, as an employee, know this as a fact then presumably others do too. What do you suppose will happen when the firm falls out with an existing employee who knows what has been going on?

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

I believe they have been challenged a couple of times over this and they have merely said that the job offer was retracted due to poor references, inconsistencies on their CV etc. No company will admit they retracted because of pregnancy.

Now that is really silly as copies of references can be obtained and some applicants may have a 100% accurate CV.

One day they will try this with a young lady who's Husband, Mum or Dad is a lawyer!

Irn-Bru-Kid

Uncertain wrote: »

As an employer, just like anybody else, you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey. Sooner or later the sort of behaviour you describe will catch up with them and the penalties can be severe.

If you, as an employee, know this as a fact then presumably others do too. What do you suppose will happen when the firm falls out with an existing employee who knows what has been going on?

I appreciate they can't pick and choose the laws they obey, but they can choose who they employ and if the don't want to take on someone who is pregnant surely that is their prerogative?

As for knowing it goes on, its nothing to do with me and if they have a problem in the future they will need to deal with it. Do I think its right? No, but I choose not to get involved

Their attitude is they would rather not take someone on, retrain them, integrate them into the company and six months later they are gone and you have to go through the whole process again.

Please don't misunderstand me, I feel for the OP but for smaller employers it is a major hassle and one that they would rather avoid.

It stinks, but it is a fact.

Irn-Bru-Kid

Uncertain wrote: »

As an employer, just like anybody else, you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey. Sooner or later the sort of behaviour you describe will catch up with them and the penalties can be severe.

If you, as an employee, know this as a fact then presumably others do too. What do you suppose will happen when the firm falls out with an existing employee who knows what has been going on?



Now that is really silly as copies of references can be obtained and some applicants may have a 100% accurate CV.

One day they will try this with a young lady who's Husband, Mum or Dad is a lawyer!

I know that references can be obtained etc, but on the couple of occasions it has happened, they just picked holes in the CV, dug around and found something that they can use to retract the offer.

The other thing of course is, they mainly employ men and women of a 'certain age'. As far as they are concerned, problem avoided

Uncertain

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

........ but they can choose who they employ and if the don't want to take on someone who is pregnant surely that is their prerogative?

No it is not - sorry.

They can discriminate in any way they like EXCEPT for the ways prohibited by law - and pregnancy IS one of the protected areas.

Uncertain

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

The other thing of course is, they mainly employ men and women of a 'certain age'. As far as they are concerned, problem avoided

Just add race, religion and disability and they will have a full set!

They may think they are being clever and sadly they will often get away with it but this is one of the few areas where a successful claim could wipe them out.

Irn-Bru-Kid

Uncertain wrote: »

No it is not - sorry.

They can discriminate in any way they like EXCEPT for the ways prohibited by law - and pregnancy IS one of the protected areas.

I know that, but they choose not to employ women who are pregnant. It is their choice and if they choose to discriminate, that's up to them.

I'm not saying its right, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.

Uncertain

Irn-Bru-Kid wrote: »

I know that, but they choose not to employ women who are pregnant. It is their choice and if they choose to discriminate, that's up to them.

I'm not saying its right, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.

Name and shame??

Irn-Bru-Kid

Uncertain wrote: »

Just add race, religion and disability and they will have a full set!

They may think they are being clever and sadly they will often get away with it but this is one of the few areas where a successful claim could wipe them out.

And I am sure there are employers out there who wont take on someone because of their race, religion or disabaility.

I think it would be foolish to think that all employers adhere to the law religiously.