Complaint/discrimination

Bantex_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

A friend of mine went for a promotion at work when she was 7 months pregnant so 4 weeks before going on maternity leave for a year.

Why would an employer hire someone for a job that they clearly want starting now and give it to someone who won't be able to start for a year and many women want to go back part time later for which the role may not be suitable?

It's all about human rights and equality, innit.

hardpressed

Until men can get pregnant and give birth there can't be equality.

FBaby

Do they need to have someone staying immediately? Maybe they will offer the job for 12 months only and then they protect themselves.

cazziebo

The best you can do is request feedback on why your application wasn't progressed. There might have been many applications and they chose interview candidates at random. There might be other criteria not advertised that meant that other applicants were better suited. You might be essential to your current department. And of course, it might be that you're pregnant. It's going to be very difficult to prove it was the latter.

I suspect a grievance would get you nowhere, and just cause a lot of bad feeling between you, the company, and the new appointee. Recruitment is subjective; having identical CVs doesn't make two candidates equal.

Would it have been better had they put forward for interview and rejected you at that stage? That's what most companies would do to try to steer clear of any accusations of discrimination. Just as underhand imo.

iclayt

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

A friend of mine went for a promotion at work when she was 7 months pregnant so 4 weeks before going on maternity leave for a year.

Take it she didn't get it..?

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

Why would an employer hire someone for a job that they clearly want starting now and give it to someone who won't be able to start for a year and many women want to go back part time later for which the role may not be suitable?

To use my employers as a positive example: Member of staff was on a grade 4, became pregnant, was seconded to a grade 5 position in the same department, then applied for a grade 6 post in another department, was successful, started two weeks ago, and today her maternity cover has been advertised as fixed term for a year starting in August.

Not a bad six months career wise for anyone, let alone for a pregnant woman.

So to answer your question I think some employers are capable of thinking ahead to having someone suitable in the role long term, not just the next 6-12 months.

OP I would wait and see how much experience this new person really has and then decide whether to take it any further. If it turns out they really do have more experience than you, this explains why you didn't get the job. If they have no experience, perhaps a chat about why you didn't get an interview is in order - what could you have done to improve your application and what can you do to progress from your current role. Don't make it about the new person's background compared to yours - it's not their fault they got the job and you didn't.

Bantex_2

iclayt wrote: »

Take it she didn't get it..?



To use my employers as a positive example: Member of staff was on a grade 4, became pregnant, was seconded to a grade 5 position in the same department, then applied for a grade 6 post in another department, was successful, started two weeks ago, and today her maternity cover has been advertised as fixed term for a year starting in August.



OP I would wait and see how much experience this new person really has and then decide whether to take it any further. If it turns out they really do have more experience than you, this explains why you didn't get the job. If they have no experience, perhaps a chat about why you didn't get an interview is in order - what could you have done to improve your application and what can you do to progress from your current role. Don't make it about the new person's background compared to yours - it's not their fault they got the job and you didn't.

I would guess your employer is either pretty large or more likely public sector.

amiehall

Bantex wrote: »

I would guess your employer is either pretty large or more likely public sector.

Or abiding by the law... Shocking idea I know.

tomtontom

amiehall wrote: »

Or abiding by the law... Shocking idea I know.

But who is to say that the law is right? As a woman of child bearing age I think that, if we choose to take time out of work to have children, we should not expect special accommodations as a result. It is our choice, no one forces us to have children. If an employer needs a job doing now why should they have to wait a year for the new person? It costs a disproportionate amount to get cover in the interim.

roonaldo

I think as you are only going to available to work for the near future then there is no descrimination. Where is the fairness for the employer here?

Sorry but if I put on a job application that I was only going to be in the 3 months before I leave why should I be given the job?

Bantex_2

amiehall wrote: »

Or abiding by the law... Shocking idea I know.

For many small companies it is a choice. Stick to the letter of the law or close down and sack everybody.

Suits the large corporations though as they have the resources to accomodate the legislation and they watch their small competitors go out of business.