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 :(

Ps- to clarify - the point about partners presumed earnings of at least as much as hers, is to show that on at least 60k, childcare should have been financially an option. If he is earning less than op, then it was a strange decision for her to be the one to stop work

Loads of couples where the woman earns more decide that it's her who will stop working / go part-time / take a more local job.

Happens all the time so I don't think it can be called "strange". There are loads of factors that families take into account when making these decisions which aren't just money, and there is a certain pressure to go along with the "norm".

I do think that some families do not look at the full long term picture when they make these decisions, and that some come to regret them. But it's not "strange", I can understand easily why at the time that is the decision made.

But it's a CHOICE that's my point. Someone up thread said maybe she couldn't afford childcare and I am pointing out that it's not a financially driven decision in this case but a choice

It's not strange.

Would you also do away with the NI protection and state pension equalisation then.

Given that it's a choice.

Bit of a hijack, but I would be interested in the point of view of employment lawyers on the following question.

In the area I work in, there are two main grades of worker- juniors and seniors - each of which is divided into subgrades. Candidates for passing from Junior to Senior level will be at a disadvantage if they're much over forty.

It is in most institutions official policy not to hire their own juniors at senior level, for a variety of reasons. The nearest alternative institutions is often hundreds of miles away, so progressing from junior to senior level de facto requires you to move several hundred miles when you're in your mid to late thirties. In practice, this is much more difficult for women than for men - most of the women have partners in the same sector who cannot move easily, many of the men do not, typically men are a bit older than their partners so have a chance to get a promotion in before they start a family, etc.

The requirement to move for promotion being not obviously necessary, could this be considered to be indirect sex discrimination ?

callmemrs your points are not how the law sees it. The law is very clear. In the case I linked to the tribunal looked at the labour market statistics. Ie they looked at what actually happens. They don't care about why it happens, jus that it does.

In a world where women have to take some sort of maternity leave and men do not the "it's a choice" argument is a very tenuous one. Until there is equality and people exercise their equal rights there will continue to be indirect sex discrimination. Just being out of the workplace has repercussions. We may not like that (I don't like it) but that is the reality at the moment. It would be naive to ignore it.

Plus the fact that in some bits of the country one partner's salary (usually the man, they earn MORE for the same job - it's called the gender pay gap) probably covers the mortgage, utilities and day to day living costs. The other salary to cover just the cost of childcare and travel where i live, would need to be £40,000 before tax. That's a lot of money. Taking a job that makes a loss and eats into your other household income might be not be financially visable.

I believe they have enough English teachers, now if your skillset was maths I think you'd find there was not so much an open door as hands pulling you in.

Katiemiddleton- I would be very interested to see what happened if the op tried to sue, as someone suggested! Not even sure who she would sue tbh. She really doesn't write anything which suggests she has a case of sex discrimination. The maternity leave issue is a red herring as statutory ML means the woman retains full employment rights and can walk back into her post when it's finished.

Kirsty your example would be both age and sex discrimination.

Did you not read what I wrote callmemrs? I gave an example (with other examples cited on the same page) where a woman made a successful claim to an employment tribunal regarding job requirements that were indirect sex discrimination.

Just because you can't imagine or don't agree doesn't mean it isn't legislated for and people don't successfully claim.

Btw I am not saying the op should make a claim or has a case (we don't know enough information) I am stating what the law is and citing one case as an example.

There is an over supply of teachers at present so employers can pick and choose.

Kumquats, one of the ways back in might be to take a maternity cover. Many schools really struggle to find someone who will pitch in wholeheartedly (my 3 were so awful they've gone down into school legend!), and it would give you the necessary recent experience you need. Ok, it doesn't give you the contractual security a ft post would give you, but it means you can look around for another post from a more informed and stronger position than currently.

I don't think you would win a court case, but I agree it is sex discrimination. More than indirect discrimination this is structural discrimination built into pretty much our entire professional working world. It is exceedingly difficult to go back into skilled positions after time out for any reason and this hits women harder than it hits men, it can also be a huge burden on those who have serious illnesses that take then years to recover from. There is virtually no structural support for going back to skilled jobs - few retraining or updater courses, few incentives to businesses, and little in the way of funding.

It is a tragic waste of many women's skill sets and yet another way that women are marginalized in the work place.

If you take the TA role, would that count as classroom experience (and provide you with a reference) so that you could then move onto full teaching roles?

I don't think it's discrimination as such, it's just a fact that if you take a long career break it can be difficult to pick up where you left off. I do agree it affects women more than men though, so it is a women's/feminist issue in that sense, and it shouldn't be too difficult for many professions to have a route for SAHPs to get back into work where their skills can be put to good use. Unfortunately if there's already an over-supply of good applicants with recent experience, I suppose the employer has little incentive to do that...

At the end of the day, it is NOT discriminatory for an employer to pick the best candidate for the job. If the agency in question were at risk of losing at tribunal over this, they would simply waive the 'experience within 2 years' criteria BUT in reality a candidate with recent experience, all other things being equal, is still more likely to be successful at getting the job.

Ultimately if recent experience is part of the required skills set, then employers are more Likely to go for someone who offers it.

They may be more likely to employ someone with more recent experience. Possibly. However, if the recent experience is not essential then it shouldn't be in the job advert or requirements. Equality is about having as much of a level playing field as possible. If protected groups are excluded even before applying that is unlawful.

It may be that a practising Catholic is more likely to be offered the headship of a Catholic school. Is it ok to make being a practising Catholic a requirement of the job? No. If the job were for a Catholic priest then it would be because it is essential to the role.

It's too late to waive the criteria when you get to a tribunal! It should never have been there in the first place. The discrimination has already happened.

Would we accept adverts that for French teachers where only French candidates were allowed? No. The requirement is French speaking and teaching qualifications. They could be born and bred in Wigan to Japanese parents but so long as they can do the job that is all that matters.

The only question we should be asking of the OP is "can she do the job?". At the moment she isn't even being allowed to get to that stage.

A lot of jobs though have requirements that aren't strictly necessary for the person to do the job, e.g. a 2:1 or first class degree. It's a shame for the person who had a bad day in one of their final exams and ended up with a 59% average, but from the employer's point of view if they have a large number of good applicants for every place, then it's a good-enough sorting mechanism despite its flaws.

I have seen this requirement waived in individual cases where the applicant was very very good though, so it's not always set in stone.

Yes of course it's too late to waive the criteria at tribunal!! I meant the Agency (and any others who might use such criteria ) will waive it as a 'requirement'. It won't, however, change the fact that if the employer has a bank of equally well qualified candidates to choose from, they may well choose the person who has stayed in the job market and kept their skills up to date

The Equalities and Human Rights commission seems to think this situation is unlawful indirect discrimination

Unless the employer can objectively justify the requirement for the successful applicant not to have had a career break

which they nearly always can

Exactly. Many industries and professions are very fast moving these days. Someone with up to date knowledge, skills and a recent proven track record is likely to prove the better candidate against someone without these things (all other things being equal)

Of course, where other aspects arent equal, eg where someone has been out of the workplace a while but has exceptional skills or qualities which outweigh what the other candidates have to offer, then the less experiences candidate may well get the job.

Contrary to what some people believe on here, employers want the best person for the job. Recruitment is costly! Many people on here no doubt are experienced in interviewing and appointing. I am fairly sure they are driven first and foremost by getting someone who can do the job best.

Just a question to see if I've understood the legal position: is it the case that a condition of this kind, desirable but not essential, and applying overwhelmingly to women, may be taken into consideration but cannot be an eliminatory criterion?