you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

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?

You are now contradicting yourself, earlier you said it was OK to dismiss someone for not achieving set targets, now you are saying this only applies in some cases.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Oohh , I never thought of that. .

good you`re learning

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

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

Aren't the govt legislating to make maternity leave transferrable to the father? If so, then many small businesses are going to find that this tactic doesn't eliminate the risk.

If a small business was to not employ a woman who was better qualified for the job just because she might get pregnant, then they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face really as they would be deliberately choosing an inferior member of staff who would not contribute as much to the business (as well as technically breaking the law although obviously it would be pretty diffcult to prove that's what had happened).

discoass

ILW wrote: »

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

my missus was employed by a small buisiness, she became pregnant...she increased their turnover from £60k to £ 400k in the year leading up to that ...bet they wish they`d never employed her ..:)

ILW

discoass wrote: »

my missus was employed by a small buisiness, she became pregnant...she increased their turnover from £60k to £ 400k in the year leading up to that ...bet they wish they`d never employed her ..:)

They made a good choice and profited from it, I would guess that they will happily take her back and probably on a higher salary. My point is that it should be their choice and not some catch all legislation.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

They made a good choice and profited from it, I would guess that they will happily take her back and probably on a higher salary. My point is that it should be their choice and not some catch all legislation.

no actually they had the same mentality as you ,so she left .
more fool them eh

ILW

discoass wrote: »

no actually they had the same mentality as you ,so she left .
more fool them eh

And she had a perfect right to do so, it should be the same on both sides.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

And she had a perfect right to do so, it should be the same on both sides.

if she hadnt done her job they could have.
they would have just had to follow the correct procedure

ILW

discoass wrote: »

if she hadnt done her job they could have.
they would have just had to follow the correct procedure

Not once she had told them she was pregnant, at that point the rules change.

The problem is that the effects of the legislation fall much harder on small companies. Which taken to extreme means we end up with only large corporations running everything. Not a situation most would welcome.

discoass

ILW wrote: »

Not once she had told them she was pregnant, at that point the rules change.

But if there had been a problem it would have been identified before hand,u dont get pregnant then fold your arms and say "i`m now pregnant ;I`m not working until i`ve had it".