to think that this is sexual discrimination?

[kumquatsarethelonelyfruit]

The vast majority of SAHP are women. Like me. I have been at home, raised my kids and 5 years later NEED to go back to work (pressing financial reasons) but apparently I am no longer employable as a teacher because I have forgotten everything I have ever learned. I can't even do supply as the agencies require you to have classroom experience within the last 2 years. One supply agency said they would consider taking me on as a TA (would only break even on childcare costs). This is despite me continuously working as a tutor and GCSE examiner! I am so pissed off. I have a good degree from a good university and got top grades in my PGCE. What the frig was the point in any of it? AND I still owe 7k in loans! To make matters worse they will employ cover supervisors with any degree and no teaching qualification but not take me on their books as I have no reference from the last two years. I feel so angry. I will never regret being at home with my kids but I know from here that there are so many women in my position and it is wrong and unfair both on SAHP and their children.
OH, and I can't even take a return to teaching course as the Tories have axed them :(

Because it is logical that if it applies to one it applies to the other - if people make choices and have to bear the consequences of those choices.

Oh, and I did do another degree and mark exams in those 5 years as well, so not completely out of the education loop. Still, it was hellish to start with.

There you go catgirl at least one person thinks that SAHP should not have their NI continued by the state so it was a perfectly valid question

But losing NI is not a consequence of taking a career break to care

Losing your footing in the jobs market is

I don't think arbitary extra consequences should be brought to bear

Tidy, plump and cat- no, it is not my 'opinion' it is a fact of law. I used to represent sex discrimination cases at employment tribunals so I should know.

I'm not denying that is is a complicated area though and does take some thinking to 'get your head around' if you are used to only thinking that direct discrimination is illegal. This is one of many examples where European Courts are light years ahead of the British in terms of using the law to help 'the little person'.

I think many people are perfectly aware of what indirect sexual discrimination means. We just don't agree that the op would have a leg to stand on if she tried to sue. Or indeed, that she has reason to feel personally aggrieved. English teaching is massively difficult to get into right now, with many more applicants than posts and ANYONE who does not have recent experience is at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

Would people prefer that eg a mother who has remained in the workplace to keep her skills up to date, or a young recent graduate who has just qualified as a teacher and has up to date knowledge and skills, would be sidelined just so that a person who has chosen to take 5 years out of the workplace can have positive discrimination applied instead???!!

Barmy!

Wasnt questioning its validity SQ, just wasnt following you - have a wriggling baby atm so hard to keep up

I think all this discrimination stuff is hiding a few points here.

I think a key point you are missing is you don't have a reference from the last two years so you are an unknown quantity in how you would cope with a workplace situation or with stress at this point in your life. Its a position of responsibility, so references are important. It wouldn't be fair to the kids you were teaching to put someone without good references in a classroom.

If you have been working as a tutor and a GCSE examiner you have been employed by someone - if you can't provide references from them, then an employer would be well within their rights to raise an eyebrow here.

You will have to find someway to get experience again and update your skills. You have got the option of becoming a TA but don't like the idea of that, partly for financial reasons but also because you seem to be suggesting its somehow beneath you as you are fully trained. You aren't. Your skills are outdated. You can not just walk straight back into a classroom after a 5 year break and its a bit unrealistic to suggest you should be able to.

The fact that agencies are offering you TA posts definitely means you are not being discriminated against; they are saying you are unsuitable to put you forward as a candidate for a teaching position at the moment due to your current skill level.

It is your opinion that this particular scenario is discrimination. I'm not debating the definition (etc) of what discrimination is, but as you can plainly see, this is not a black and white issue and you being pushy about it will not make people agree with you.

FWIW, I don't necessarily believe that the agency's view is correct, but I do not believe that this is discrimination because, as I said before, I also do not believe the decision to 'require' recent experience is arbitrary.

Millions of retiring women have only qualified for lower state pensions for years because of their time out to raise children. It has only recently been changed.

If people think that people should face the consequences of their actions then women generally getting less state pension than men is the logical conclusion.

The reason it was changed recently was because it was realised that it was a policy that indirectly discriminated against women.

So it has already been accepted that indirect discrimination against women due to time out of the workplace raising children exists.

Oh the reason the agency probably have the rule is that they want people on their books who will be easy to place, who they don't have to do a sales pitch about.

It is possibly indirect sex discrimination but I don't know enough about the requirements for teachers to be able to say with confidence.

Btw gender is a social construct and the term in discrimination cases is sex. Not sexual - that's something else entirely.

Can you not get a reference from the work you have been doing or must it be recent teaching experience?

You can just walk back into the classroom after 5 years. I did. You do need to be prepared to work harder than you did as an NQT though.

return to teaching

Okay, so genuine question Darlene - if there was a male English teacher who had 5 years out the workplace to care for children as a stay at home dad who had trouble getting work because he was a SAHP, could you claim indirect sex discrimination for that?

And if not, isn't the fact that you could for a woman but not for a man despite being in exactly the same situation discrimination in its own right?

And I have no axe to grind, I am a SAHP so bang goes that theory "attacks on the op are just thinly veiled wohm vs samh resentments" - it is possible we just interperet things in our own way regardless of our own personal circumstances..

I guess that he would need to prove indirect discrimination against people with caring responsibilities (the majority of whom are women) and get the rule changed which would have the happy consequence of solving his problem.

Seems a bit convoluted but I think that would be the approach to take.

That is a guess though! I'm not a lawyer or anything.

If people think that people should face the consequences of their actions then women generally getting less state pension than men is the logical conclusion.

Our system is contributions based. Being a sahp is a choice. Logical, therefore that if you contribute less, you get a smaller pension.

Those who use the "value to society of being a sahp" argument are way off the Mark IMHO. Sahp are of value to their children and their families in a particular way - as are wothp of value to their children and families in a particular way.

But being a sahp is a personal, grown up choice with personal, grown up consequences. If people choose to do it that's their right and choice, but society should not have to compensate or subsidise that choice.

It would have been direct discrimination if it had of been less than the maximin amount of maternity leave, that is why they have set it as two years and not one. One year wouldn't have been lawful.

That is why women on maternity leave cannot be made redundant etc, to protect their 'working' status whilst on ML.

If you leave your job through choice then that is your choice. Where as MLor sickleave is stillcounted as working.

should be "indirect"

That would be direct birds, you were right the first time.

That is why women are told to claim CB, whoever CB is paid to, there NI are protected to a degree.

Staying at home with your child after two, is a choice, in biological terms.

Ideally we should be looking at more part time work for parents, so neither are in this position, but in the current climate, you take what you can.

Yes there is a question mark over how they are going to continue with it now that CB will not be universal.

I wonder if they are going to scrap it.

No, if work agencies made the period of employment required, less than women need for maternity leave, then indirectly they are discriminating against mothers, so, one gender, is affected.

As it stands it affects both genders, because the time period is two years.

Actually with cost of childcare what it is, being at home is not always a choice. Sometimes going back to work is not financially viable. No choice in that.