you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

discoass

ILW wrote: »

. meanwhile your competition is taking your clients.

think there maybe other factors involved here .

ILW

discoass wrote: »

explain to me then.
why is having somebody pregnant such a burden?
whats the difference in getting a temp to hiring and firing at will which is what u want,both need training .?

Most new employees take a least 3 months to get up to speed, you need to keep the position open for someone on maternity leave for around a year in all, whilst you are commited to let them return to their original position, the employee on the other hand has to give no commitment in return. It is a nightmare for a company with only two or three employees.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

For example, cannot drive long distances, cannot carry displays, demo kit etc. We were advised that pregnancy needs to be taken into account and targets adjusted accordingly.

You cannot just say "targets missed, heres the door" without taking mitigating factors into account. meanwhile your competition is taking your clients.

No, you can't. And that's a good thing. If someone is pregnant, or disabled, or has other legitimate issues it means you need to adjust the workplace accordingly. Performance is not related to what people can't do whilst pregnant that they could do before. It's about a continual monitoring of performance against objectives over a long period of time. It's not about whether someone is able to lift a box or not. Seriously now, this is people management class 101. Have you honestly, really, emlpoyed people in the past?

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Most new employees take a least 3 months to get up to speed, you need to keep the position open for someone on maternity leave for around a year in all, whilst you are commited to let them return to their original position, the employee on the other hand has to give no commitment in return. It is a nightmare for a company with only two or three employees.

you can still get maternity cover until they comeback using a temp
then you hire somebody like you would if you had fired them,cant see the difference .

ILW

discoass wrote: »

think there maybe other factors involved here .

Most buyers couldn't care less how you treat your employees. They just want service as and when they demand.
If a retailer let you down on a delivery and said it's due to lack of staff, would you recommend them to others on the basis that they are nice to their people or would you go to a firm that delivers as promised the next time?

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Most buyers couldn't care less how you treat your employees. They just want service as and when they demand.
If a retailer let you down on a delivery and said it's due to lack of staff, would you recommend them to others on the basis that they are nice to their people or would you go to a firm that delivers as promised the next time?

if its that busy you should have hired more staff.
oh wait you dont like staff because they are a burden .

chewmylegoff

i do personally have some sympathy with the small businessman where pregnancy is involved - it can have a huge impact on a small business, especially if a woman has 2 or 3 children in a relatively short space of time. it's not just the maternity leave, but the increased absence during pregnancy, the disruption to the operation of the business due to the loss of key knowledge, etc. however, that's just life, and is just a cost of running a business. it's inconvenient and it is much more of a problem for the small business than for a large operation which can adsorb the costs and burden much better. however, there's no magic solution. you can't exactly just demand that people stop having children. it's not like anyone goes into business not knowing where babies come from.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i do personally have some sympathy with the small businessman where pregnancy is involved - it can have a huge impact on a small business, especially if a woman has 2 or 3 children in a relatively short space of time. it's not just the maternity leave, but the increased absence during pregnancy, the disruption to the operation of the business due to the loss of key knowledge, etc. however, that's just life, and is just a cost of running a business. it's inconvenient and it is much more of a problem for the small business than for a large operation which can adsorb the costs and burden much better. however, there's no magic solution. you can't exactly just demand that people stop having children. it's not like anyone goes into business not knowing where babies come from.

Many small businesses just reduce the odds by not taking on women who are likely to get pregnant. Everybody loses.

ILW

discoass wrote: »

if its that busy you should have hired more staff.
oh wait you dont like staff because they are a burden .

Oohh , I never thought of that. If only it were that simple.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Many small businesses just reduce the odds by not taking on women who are likely to get pregnant. Everybody loses.

translated to...Thats what I do.
Bet you are a hoot to work for.
and i bet you have a high staff turn over .