Kicking me off

DorsetGirl_2

rotoguys wrote: »

Me too!!!

When I was working in a haulage company in London, I would not entertain any female for a job!!

Training costs etc only to find that a few months down the line she's a pregnant single girl. Then the fun starts!!

Sorry but in the world of business, you have to consider the business needs first.

If only one of the applicants had taken you to a discrimination tribunal!

sophiaw

Thank you clearing out. .MY partner has been looking for months on end.We never claimed benefits till he was made redundant so I am a bit shocked how people talk to people who dont work full time.I only went for a job at 16 hours because I have a chronic pain disorder that I have never clamied any benefits for and thought it would be enough with my disability until my partner found work ( with no so such luck)..I have even asked my boss for the hours but they dont have them even though it would proberbly make me ill to do more hours.Anyway I will look for another job at 24 plus hours and my partner will carry on looking too, but the goverment is making cuts to benefits when in my opnion if a skilled metal engineer can't find work then who can!:mad:

Cherry_Bomb

sophiaw wrote: »

Thank you clearing out. .MY partner has been looking for months on end.We never claimed benefits till he was made redundant so I am a bit shocked how people talk to people who dont work full time.I only went for a job at 16 hours because I have a chronic pain disorder that I have never clamied any benefits for and thought it would be enough with my disability until my partner found work ( with no so such luck)..I have even asked my boss for the hours but they dont have them even though it would proberbly make me ill to do more hours.Anyway I will look for another job at 24 plus hours and my partner will carry on looking too, but the goverment is making cuts to benefits when in my opnion if a skilled metal engineer can't find work then who can!:mad:

Don't make stupid comments like ''I'd be better off on benefits'' and you won't be ''shocked'' by the replies.

Why do you need to look for a new job? It's already been pointed out you don't need to leave your current job. Just find something else on the side to top up your hours.

rotoguys

Cherry_Bomb wrote: »

Don't make stupid comments like ''I'd be better off on benefits'' and you won't be ''shocked'' by the replies.

Why do you need to look for a new job? It's already been pointed out you don't need to leave your current job. Just find something else on the side to top up your hours.

Maybe it is a condition of her contract that she can't 'moonlight'.

I know a lot of firms that actually forbid an employee taking on another job.

rotoguys

DorsetGirl wrote: »

If only one of the applicants had taken you to a discrimination tribunal!

As if.

When will people realise that businesses are there to make profits and expect staff and workers to be profitable and attend work on a regular full time basis.
They are not there to provide a social service and employment for someone that will be considered a 'drain' on that company should they be taken on.

I have seen too many businesses go under over the years because of unprofitable employees. Pregnancy = time off = loss of business revenue.

That law is as daft now as it was when it was first drafted. Politicians don't live in the real world.

midnight_express

sophiaw wrote: »

Mara69 do you have a job? Have you looked for work in the past 2 years theres hardly anything going.Yeh my employers said they dont have the hours right now.All there staff are contracted to 16 hours a week, now and again they may give us a few more hours but they can't guarante it every week.So I cant tell tax credits some weeks I will get it and some I wont can I.You have to do 24 hours every week to get it.They are uping child tax but it wont cover how much I get now for working tax. I will be honest even finding a seperate job of 7 hours will be hard.So I think I will look for another job at 24 hours or above and leave this job that a I love and go into one I wont like hay and it might push me back on benefits.This country is a utter joke and tax credits isnt half a scam.You can't work over a certain amount as they will over pay you but now in the next tax year they want you to work more.It dont make sense to me that.

Which is why they should be abolished and why they cracking down on people like you.

fluffy70

rotoguys wrote: »

As if.

When will people realise that businesses are there to make profits and expect staff and workers to be profitable and attend work on a regular full time basis.
They are not there to provide a social service and employment for someone that will be considered a 'drain' on that company should they be taken on.

I have seen too many businesses go under over the years because of unprofitable employees. Pregnancy = time off = loss of business revenue.

That law is as daft now as it was when it was first drafted. Politicians don't live in the real world.

Ah yes - because of course EVERY woman in this world wants to have children and if they do want children and a career they certainly couldn't work for you, could they? Dear God....:o:T

clearingout

DorsetGirl wrote: »

If only one of the applicants had taken you to a discrimination tribunal!

the thing is, doesn't matter what laws there are, when trying to make a decision you do weigh up the pros and cons, based on what your own prejudices are. So, a young woman of, say, 20 might be unmarried but could be a 'risk' if she's a party girl and out on the town constantly (you spend money on training, she comes in late continually with a hangover and doesn't perform)...a woman of about 25, wearing a wedding ring will probably start a family sooner rather than later, a woman of 40 who hasn't worked for 10 years due to bringing up a family might need a ton of training and might not be as up to date with the IT system as one who has been working recently, anyone with regular gaps in their CVS ring alarm bells no matter how they come across at interview, people who have regularly worked with agencies ring alarm bells as potentially being people who don't settle well.....it depends what field you work in and what your business needs are and what 'risk' you perceive yourself to be taking. If you're a manager, you want to recruit someone to the job who is going to do it well for the longest period of time possible 'cos it costs a small fortune to recruit and train.

And if you've ever sat the 'right' side of an interview table, you'll know that it can be very, very difficult to choose between candidates - some businesses can tolerate the best possible candidate for a short time period, others can't.

rotoguys

fluffy70 wrote: »

Ah yes - because of course EVERY woman in this world wants to have children and if they do want children and a career they certainly couldn't work for you, could they? Dear God....:o:T

No they couldn't. They would have to find another employer that was willing to risk his business by taking on employees that could decide to have children AND expect the employer to cover the losses and expenses that it entails.

rotoguys

clearingout wrote: »

the thing is, doesn't matter what laws there are, when trying to make a decision you do weigh up the pros and cons, based on what your own prejudices are. So, a young woman of, say, 20 might be unmarried but could be a 'risk' if she's a party girl and out on the town constantly (you spend money on training, she comes in late continually with a hangover and doesn't perform)...a woman of about 25, wearing a wedding ring will probably start a family sooner rather than later, a woman of 40 who hasn't worked for 10 years due to bringing up a family might need a ton of training and might not be as up to date with the IT system as one who has been working recently, anyone with regular gaps in their CVS ring alarm bells no matter how they come across at interview, people who have regularly worked with agencies ring alarm bells as potentially being people who don't settle well.....it depends what field you work in and what your business needs are and what 'risk' you perceive yourself to be taking. If you're a manager, you want to recruit someone to the job who is going to do it well for the longest period of time possible 'cos it costs a small fortune to recruit and train.

And if you've ever sat the 'right' side of an interview table, you'll know that it can be very, very difficult to choose between candidates - some businesses can tolerate the best possible candidate for a short time period, others can't.

I could not have put it any better myself if I had tried.

Well said!!