To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

[Aliama]

I'm fuming at this and wondering if I'm overreacting?

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/01/dear-jeremy-work-issues-solved

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Ugh.

I agree with you Favourite. It is good to see quite a balanced debate on here

Depends how often you have to replace staff - recruitment and retraining costs can really add up if people keep leaving every 6 months to a year.

I don't have particular feelings either way as do not have kids but I do know that aged 32 and self employed I simply couldn't afford to have kids myself and were I to try to find employment I might struggle as would be seen as prime TTC material.

I do know 2 people who really annoyed me though. The first when I worked in a very small business (4 FT employees) who aged 19 became pregnant (after 3 weeks of signing her permanent contract) and impacted hugely on the rest of us as the company couldn't afford extra cover when she left. Then when they realised that we could all work longer/harder/unpaid overtime they never recreated this job (after the 19 year old never returned after maternity) thus losing a position somebody else could have benefitted from.

The second person used to live with me. She became pregnant very quickly (by a guy she initially turned her nose up at until she realised he was ultra reliable/had money and she told him she was infertile which is another story) and before her bump became noticeable went looking for a job where she would be able to claim maternity. I think she was there for 3 or 4 months then never went back after her leave either.

I just don't know how small businesses can keep up really. I don't agree with it but I can see how small businesses err towards choosing men in certain situations after they have things like the above happen to them.

'If you think gender discrimination is the only way to run a business then honestly, you are running your business poorly anyway. I wonder if more business owners should be forced to educate themselves about these laws and the consequences of not following them.'

Consequences, Meep? What consequences? Shit like this is very, very hard to prove, and this thread has made it all too clear that some businesses get away with it with impunity.

And I wonder how widespread it is. Wasn't there an experiment a while back comparing how companies responded to 'white' sounding names on CVs vs foreign or typically black names? I wonder what the result would be if a similar experiment was done with age or gender. I suspect he answer would be interesting. And by 'interesting' I mean incredibly depressing.

I'll try once more, but please read and try to understand (I'm not expecting you to agree) before you go on the attack again.

All I was trying to get across were some of the reasons why the current maternity benefit structure can cause real problems in some businesses. No two companies are the same so what is an issue for one might be no problem for another but to generalise and say it's always a problem with the management is poor.

For some companies the issue is finding suitable cover, for some (especially in industries where SMP is unacceptable) it's paying for the maternity leave, for others it's adapting to flexible working patterns when the employee returns. Often, in small companies especially, it can be all of these. Sometimes it's none of the above and for those companies it's great.

The core issue is that as it stands, legislation has made one part of the workforce (women) potentially more expensive than another equally capable sector (men). Furthermore, being pragmatic, it is pretty easy for companies worried about this to get round the rules and preferentially hire men.

Don't think that I'm defending the morality of this or even that I apply it to my own firm (because I don't but I know you won't believe me) but speaking to other business owners it's surprisingly common.

Now, we can go after the symptoms of this imbalance: criticise business owners; call people names; hope they go bust etc but that's not going to get more women into jobs, which I guess the majority of people here would like to see.

As I see it there are two ways of addressing this, firstly look at the imbalance and secondly can the overall impact on businesses be reduced.

Shared parental leave is a step towards removing the imbalance, although how high the takeup is will be key. In my experience it's fairly rare to take the full 2 weeks paternity as it is (perhaps it's our caveman thinking of "I've got a family now, I need to get back to work to make some money and support them"). So again being pragmatic I feel it's not going to make much of a difference, certainly in the short term.

Reducing the impact is harder. While a carve out from at least part of the regulation for small businesses might be nice, it's obviously unthinkable. A few people have drawn parallels with staff being on long term sick and they could be onto something.

My staff only get sick pay for up to a month at a go before they end up on SSP (contractually they only get SSP from the start), but I also pay for illness cover which tops up their salaries. This way my staff are happy and I know what my costs are going to be, and if I have to get temp cover I'm not paying two salaries. I hear you can get similar insurance for maternity cover in the states - could be wrong though. Business tax and NI breaks on staff hired to act as cover would be a nice touch too.

Another massive thing would be to ask before they go and while they're on leave if they're planning to return and when. As I understand it you're not supposed to ask (probably meaning it's illegal) but it could make a huge difference If it was non binding and with no requirement to answer if you didn't want to would it be so bad? The impact on the employer would be huge.

Hope this helps, I'm sure some of you will keep on shouting though

I actually think the AL carryover is silly, both for mat and sickness leave. It's leave from leave - doesn't make any sense.

Other than that, though, as an employer who has employed multiple people in lots of situations (from a start up through to a big company) I can't say I've ever been too grumpy about mat leave. You have LOTS of time to plan for it, and in my experience there are lots of people who are interested in contract work for a variety of different reasons - you just need to find one.

That said, there are clearly lots of sexist people out there - this is why when interviewing I always remove my wedding ring & refer (if asked) to my "partner" as the same sexist people always interpret this as me being a lesbian, more fool them

some of the reasons why the current maternity benefit structure can cause real problems in some businesses.

--

I'm sure that's true, but it's irrelevant to the practical question at hand - women shouldn't be advised to sacrifice their legal rights so as to not (possibly) cause problems for their company.

merry - I am not saying so much what the fix is, more that the current situation is just a fudge and will always result in women being discriminated against, until men take leave as well.

I think thinking that the sex discrimination law is the fix is very naïve. I have never interviewed two people suitable for a job who were remotely similar so how could anyone prove they were the 'better' candidate?

I ensure in my contracts that sick pay, beyond the statutory, is discretionary. and of course I pay it for a staff member who works well for clients. it would be unwise to do anything else. but this means the ML comparison does not hold up.

Windy, most people here have never run a small business so don't have a clue about the impact of ML on small company economics and resources.

Neither btw do most of the legislaters, who tyoically have safe public service jobs. I think some believe that someone just hands small companies a lump of money to pay people with (as do some on here IMO)

The whole system works OK with medium size and larger companies, but not for small ones (not just ML, but all the "worthy" social legislation that global competitors don't have. - also doesnt help either that many small businesses are competing with untaxed giants like Amazon).

The reason for the massive growth in various temporary employment contracts is because it takes the risk of these rules away from a small company. Its an unintended but very predictable consequence as ultimately businesses will make economic decisions.

Unfortunately, it dumps the problem onto the temp employee rather than back up to the government that legislated it without creating the conditions that make it attractive.

Oh Alimama I know how easily these things slip through the net.

The consequences don't come often enough resulting in ignorance. I would hope (quite possibly in vain) that if people knew what could happen it would be a different. It would be unlikely to work on most however, I do accept that.

Aliama* bloody phone.

Windy you don't have to agree to flexible working proposals if they are detrimental to your business, the law is that you can't discriminate against a parent because they asked for it to be considered

But I suspect your business culture is rather demanding if its rare to take a full two Weeks paternity leave. DH would have been considered to be neglecting his family if he'd not taken it.

Don't think that I'm defending the morality of this or even that I apply it to my own firm (because I don't but I know you won't believe me) but speaking to other business owners it's surprisingly common.

Oh Windy I beg to differ. That's the pesky thing about these forums, your comments stick. Let me draw your attention to a direct response to a point I made yesterday.

Meep - Any employer with the tiniest amount of HR knowledge knows how to safeguard themselves against these situations.

Windy - Yup, we employ men.

Your words Windy.

Beg to differ all you want meepmeep.

As I mentioned in the quote I don't expect you to believe me and you can probably guess how little that bothers me.
).

Lazyjaney

I have headed up both Finance and HR departments in two different start up companies. In one company's first year we had two people go on maternity leave (myself and another employee). If you run your business in a financially savvy way it is do-able. Both businesses are thriving and between the two employ over 30 people now. We have had a further 3 people go on maternity leave and multiple on long-term sick due to illness. To say the people posting do not know how to run a small business is wrong, you just don't know how to do it properly, or legally apparently.

It's interesting that quite a few seem to think it's OK to ignore a law just because it is Employment Law.

The mind boggles

You do not need to tell anyone at an interview that you would like to have a baby. Not everyone who wants to have a baby gets pregnant, not necessarily in the time they work in that particular job or ever!

It is my understanding that the employer gets most of the maternity pay from the government.

I know of someone who was interviewed and announced at interview she was pregnant. She had already shown that she was not suitable for the role and so she was not going to get the job, saying she was pregnant was unhelpful, I feel, because it might have clouded the issue! If she had been the best candidate she should have got the job, regardless of the pregnancy, and if she was not the right person, she should not have got the job, regardless of pregnancy.

The rules are there to protect everyone from discrimination!

Just to say that someone who did get the job left after a matter or weeks! Totally un-pregnancy related! People will give good or bad service in a job, it's not a matter or being pregnant/wanting to be pregnant or not.

There is more info at:

www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave

You have to have been in work for a certain amount of time before you qualify for maternity pay.

'employed by the same employer continuously for at least 26 weeks into the 15th week before the week your baby is due (the qualifying week)'

www.nidirect.gov.uk/statutory-maternity-pay

There is something called maternity allowance, which is a benefit usually awarded if you've changed jobs during pregnancy, are self-employed or have been unemployed during pregnancy.

www.babycentre.co.uk/a537568/your-maternity-rights#section2

I cannot vouch for the information in these sites but it seems to agree with what I have been told.

Windy - re: "Another massive thing would be to ask before they go and while they're on leave if they're planning to return and when. As I understand it you're not supposed to ask (probably meaning it's illegal) but it could make a huge difference If it was non binding and with no requirement to answer if you didn't want to would it be so bad? The impact on the employer would be huge. "

Actually, that is precisely the current legal situation. There is no prohibition on asking women what their plans are, provided there is no pressure, it is clear that there is no pressure and everyone concerned is clear that employees can change their mind.

You have said quite a number of things on this thread which indicate that your grasp of equality law is shaky at best. I would suggest that some refresher training from your HR advisers might be due.

I have spent years advising small businesses, I actually get a lot of the pressures that fall on these businesses around maternity leave. I agree that it can be very hard (though I don't think that's a reason to scale back women's protection). I think tax breaks on maternity cover, etc would be a great idea. However, some of your earlier comments (which yes, we can all read back however much you finesse things now) mean my sympathy for your position is somewhat less than it might otherwise have been.

But it was exactly what you said. Of course I don't believe you because within one statement you have lied already. As soon as people said you were sexist, had corrupt business policies and were morally bankrupt you conveniently tried to back-track. Failing spectacularly I might add.

You have admitted name changing as you were pre-empting a flaming for your comments and proceeded to refer to the women posting as "The Feminsita Sisterhood" because the women dared to call you out on your sexist remarks. If you truly believed in and were proud of what you were saying you wouldn't feel the need to name change surely? Would you not proudly stand by your views?

It's fairly common for bigots to actually be quite cowardly. You certainly have managed to fit the mold Windy. Congratulations.

"To say the people posting do not know how to run a small business is wrong, you just don't know how to do it properly, or legally apparently"

And judging by the huge growth in all non permanent contracts, neither do most other small businesses except yours. But your anecdotes are not data, as they say.

Temp contracts are absolutely legal.

Until there is some form of (clearly reluctant) admission that small businesses are hit much harder, more will go this route.

meepmeep In one company's first year we had two people go on maternity leave (myself and another employee). If you run your business in a financially savvy way it is do-able

that's blimmin marvellous, but my company, though very profitable and with a very good client base, could not survive minus 2 staff, who may/may not come back.

surely you don't think all businesses are the same?

favourite maybe she does think all businesses are the same. When you're just an employee spending someone else's money nothing's very hard.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that the most likely demographic to leave a job after a short period of time is not women of childbearing age, but men of about the same age?

Has anyone suggested not employing young, potentially ambitious men "because they only leave to take up a better job"?

Thought not. But honestly, if you're going to make sweeping statements about 20- or 30-something women you should do the same about 20-something men.

When I announced that we were on the track to having a family, my (previous, same role, just a different person) boss said "Great! We like people who have families. They stick around!"

surely you don't think all businesses are the same?

Of course I don't. And I can fully see how businesses can get into this position but can you not see that it is not very business savvy or financial secure to get yourself into a position where you cannot fulfill contractual obligations to staff?

Windy Just an employee who has helped to build a financially sound company with the correct legal policies in place.

More than you have done with your own company given your past comments.

I haven't read the thread, but isn't the whole point of Dear Jeremy that he's a bit of a dinosaur? He does not even pretend to give advice in line with employment law - he gives you advice as a dinosaur employer - thus letting you into what a dinosaur employer really thinks and that is very helpful.

His practical advice here was stupid ("tell them you're ttc" - yeah right), but where he's coming from is where many employers are coming from. I think that's the point.