Discrimination Against Pregnant Women?

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by robbie

yeh but if two people are equally as good at their job but if one has had a year out for whatever reason I would always employ the one who has been constabtly working.

 

Especially with pregnancy. Injury is a slightly different matter.

 

But if you are going for a promotion then it's for a different job than the one you are doing now. You would have to prove during the selection process that you are capable of doing the new job. Any good manager with any kind of morals would not take account of the fact that one person has taken time away from work to have a baby, because it has absolutely nothing to do with actual work performance. I hope you are never a manager in this position, because you may find yourself getting taken to tribunal and putting your company out of business from the damages that can be awarded to a woman who has been so blatently discriminated against.

 

And the whole idea that someone gets promoted simply because they have been around longer than someone else is a HUGE flaw in British organisations - it often leads to highly unsuitable people being put into jobs they are not capable of.

 

I really don't understand why it's so hard for some men to understand - what exactly do they expect women to do? - either have children and always be stuck in the same job (or no job at all by the sound of some men!), being passed over for jobs they are more than capable of excelling in; or not having children and living for work? Why should it be only men who can have a career AND children, just because they are not the ones who have to physically have those children? Why should women be over-looked and underpaid for the rest of their lives just for being a woman?!?

[Guest]

sorry, the promotion thing was an example.

 

I meant same ability to do the job that they were going for.

 

All I want is a fair playing field.

 

if you have time off work that should be able to count against you.

[Kthebean 10]

Its not just about maternity leave tho - women who are pregnant are likely to be the primary care givers for a pre-school child for the next 5 years, and will need time off for illnesses, when the childminder is ill, etc.

[Guest]

don't get me started on parents taking time off work for kid's illnesses.

 

some of it goes beyond a joke.

 

14-15 year old kids with colds.

 

wtf?

[Kthebean 10]

Take it you've not got kids then robbie!

 

I don't understand your point about saying having a family is a choice - it is, individually, but not collectively, we can't all stop having families there would be disaster! So you're condemning loads of women to a life of little job prospect and low wages cos they made the mistake of choosing a family over a merc!

[Guest]

no I'm saying that if someone (male or female) decides to have a long period of time off of work in order to start a family they should expect it to effect their career prospects.

 

No I haven't and won't have children.

 

I'd don't begrudge my taxes going towards child tax credit etc (as I got child benefits myself) but I do begrudge people taking time off work for minor child illnesses.

 

And if people cannot afford the childcare then you shouldn't have had the child in the first place. It is called responsible planning which a lot of people seem incapable of doing nowardays

[lizzmobile 11]

Robbie wrote" If you have time off that should be able to count against you" (Sorry I don't know how to do that insert thing)

 

If you are skiving then of course, but I cannot think of any better reason to stay home from work than to bring up children.

 

Babies and toddlers up until the age of 3 NEED their mothers with them, not nursery workers, baby sitters or childcarers, however gorgeous they may be, as many of them are, and full of love and good experience, but they are not the mother. I have just done a course in York about the care of children up to three years old and believe me, the rightful place of the child is with the mother.

 

We learned about the effects on the young child of not being with the mother and believe me there are plenty of delinquents and dysfunctional people around who either know or don't know that this is a result of their needs not being properly met when they were in a key developmental stage.

 

We have a baby sitter we use sometimes for various occasions, though not frequently and the children LOVE her to pieces. She is gorgeous, lively, fun and she makes them laugh the whole and she's a blonde babe (!!!) but when I am here, right next to her, but doing something, they want ME not her.

 

Mothers are bringing up the next generation, whichever that generation may be and if they are not allowed to do their job properly, the effects will be far reaching.

[lizzmobile 11]

Yes, I completely take your point about the older kids with colds. WTF is right (LOL)! A few herbs, bit of lemon honey and hot water and off you go. Sheesh.

[Hels 10]

It a 'Parents' responsibility to bring up their children. Another one of the reasons women don't progress as they should in the workplace is they often (though this is changing) have to take the primary care role, taking children to the Doc's, Dentist or whatever.

 

My brother-in-law is a house husband. He was the one who particularly wanted children and gave up his job to look after them (the oldest in now 11). My sister wasn't as keen to have children and did not want to give up her career - she'd trained for many years and worked hard to get where she was. As she was the one with a secure regular income, they decided that she would remain working. She had to take maternity leave (couldn't avoid that bit)! and she loves her children to bits. However, having their dad look after them has, I think, been a great success and better for the children as he seems to have more patience.

 

My sisters three children have good manners, they are polite, friendly and well-adjusted. They don't need a mother full-time, children need a caring parent - whether that is the mother or the father. Strangely, when I was at work, people commented less when a father took time off to care for the children, most people thought it was really good of him?!

 

PS: how come fathers 'babysit' their own children? Never could quite figure that one out! It's about time both mothers and fathers had equal rights and responsibilities for their children.

 

Sorry - this seems to have gone off thread a bit

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by robbie

no I'm saying that if someone (male or female) decides to have a long period of time off of work in order to start a family they should expect it to effect their career prospects.

 

 

But that attitude affects more women than men, and therefore it is the very essence of indirect discrimination.

 

And for any new job you go for (promotion or not) you still have to prove that you can do the job - if two people are both equally matched to a job (never happens by the way, no two people are identical - you might have two people who are equally strong, but those strengths will be different and that is how you make the selection decision) then absence from work for having a child is nothing to do with anything.

 

Let me ask you Robbie - if you were a woman, who had worked hard for her career, just as hard as any man, but you were passed over for a job you were perfectly capable of doing because you had taken 6-12 months away to have a baby - would you really accept that as being fair enough? If you think you would see that as fair then I don't believe you are being completely honest with yourself.

 

What message does this discrimination you are condoning send out to young women? For example, you're telling me, as a young childless woman, that all my hard work so far should count for nothing if one day I decide to have a family. Why should I have bothered trying hard at school? Why should I have gone to university? Why should I have funded myself through an expensive postgraduate course in order to enhance my career prospects? Why should I bother doing the best I can in my present job? Why should I do any of these things if the moment I become pregnant it all goes out of the window and some equally qualified man gets preference for everything (whilst no doubt at the same time starting his own family)? Can you imagine what sort of potential is lost through this kind of discrimination?

[Guest]

Originally posted by banesmabes

But that attitude affects more women than men, and therefore it is the very essence of indirect discrimination.

 

And for any new job you go for (promotion or not) you still have to prove that you can do the job - if two people are both equally matched to a job (never happens by the way, no two people are identical - you might have two people who are equally strong, but those strengths will be different and that is how you make the selection decision) then absence from work for having a child is nothing to do with anything.

 

Let me ask you Robbie - if you were a woman, who had worked hard for her career, just as hard as any man, but you were passed over for a job you were perfectly capable of doing because you had taken 6-12 months away to have a baby - would you really accept that as being fair enough? If you think you would see that as fair then I don't believe you are being completely honest with yourself.

 

What message does this discrimination you are condoning send out to young women? For example, you're telling me, as a young childless woman, that all my hard work so far should count for nothing if one day I decide to have a family. Why should I have bothered trying hard at school? Why should I have gone to university? Why should I have funded myself through an expensive postgraduate course in order to enhance my career prospects? Why should I bother doing the best I can in my present job? Why should I do any of these things if the moment I become pregnant it all goes out of the window and some equally qualified man gets preference for everything (whilst no doubt at the same time starting his own family)? Can you imagine what sort of potential is lost through this kind of discrimination?

 

it shouldn't count for nothing but if 2 people of the same ability go for the same job and one has been off of work for a period of time (maternity or paternity) the person who has spent the extra time working for the company should get the job.

 

Remember I'm comparing 2 people of equal workrate, ability, etc etc.

 

Just trying to say that if you have time off to have a kid you should expect to fall back in the pecking order for promotions.

[banesmabes 10]

Originally posted by robbie

it shouldn't count for nothing but if 2 people of the same ability go for the same job and one has been off of work for a period of time (maternity or paternity) the person who has spent the extra time working for the company should get the job.

 

Remember I'm comparing 2 people of equal workrate, ability, etc etc.

 

Just trying to say that if you have time off to have a kid you should expect to fall back in the pecking order for promotions.

 

And what I'm saying is that is blatent discrimination and hence is illegal and, in my book, immoral. Just because you have had time off work doesn't mean you are unsuitable for a job and should not come into a selection decision - it should not be the deciding factor in who gets a job - it should not even be a factor! And as I said, no two people are identical, therefore it never happens that you have two people of equal workrate, ability etc - different people have different strengths and that is what should decide who gets the job!

 

Why shouldn't a woman expect the same treatment when going back to work after maternity leave? Why has her capacity to do the job diminished in the meantime? She hasn't lost her brains and ability whilst she's been away, therefore she should not be patronised in this way.

 

I notice you didn't answer my questions about how you would feel if you were a woman and you were passed over for a job for this reason, or about why women should even both trying if this sort of attitude is allowed to prevail?!?