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.

if I ran my own company I would be very hacked off for someone to join me and then get pregnant asap in all honesty.I think his advice is sound , stay put, get pregnant, enjoy the good mat leavelook we dont live in a perfect world, so a level of realism and pragmatism is necesssary sometimes

Out of interest Paris would your advice stand with someone who had fertility issues as in had been TTC for let's say 5 years with difficulty and multiple miscarriages?

I think that taking a job knowing you are likely to ttc soon is one thing - it's a fairly unsure business. Taking a job when you know you are pregnant is not really in the spirit of maternity leave provision.

There are some women who really tasks the piss with pregnancy and maternity leave and they make it hard for other women. Also makes people more likely to hire men.

Be thankful you don't own and run a business in Italy - five months full pay for all pg ladies funded by the company.

Grand statements and ideals regarding maternity are all well and good but there is an economic reality that must be considered.

LOL at monkeysea and the hair standing on end of employers.

Dh made an appointment with an employee to dismiss her. (She had already had warnings.) She walked in and before anything else was said announced she was pregnant. Dh held up the white flag.

I do think it was off when a teacher arrived pregnant to start a job at dd's school. I know the head was spitting feathers. She is currently on her third maternity leave and has managed to do less than a term's work in all that time.

f you want to pick up on windy for commenting on ML when he has not had any employees take ML, why are non business owners commenting of the effects on other people's businesses?surely they have no experience of owning and managing a business so should not comment? (applying the same logic as used above)

Commenting that something is illegal is stating a fact. Commenting that something would be crap while having no experience is stating an opinion.

He has an opinion based on not hiring women, (although he's changed his story a few times). The above posters have stated facts, that he is a sexist pig that he is acting illegally.

his actions would only be illegal if an employment tribunal found them so.

We all know a woman who took the piss with ML, I most certainly do. I have however worked with probably hundreds of women. I have also known people who took the piss with sick leave or family leave, or just didn't show up to work period.

The majority of women that are hired aren't attempting to get pregnant at that particular second and even if they were there is a very good chance that they will come back and want to support their family for a good few years and also be reliable because they need to feed their child. Like men do!

that's an interesting view favorite so if I walk up to a stranger and punch them in the face I have only committed an illegal act if I get caught?

Lovely. He has already admitted to sex discrimination whether he gets caught (and I really hope he does) doesn't change the fact that what he has done is illegal.

No, someone who is a victim of his actions which he disputed would only be awarded compensation if an employment tribunal found them so.

If I came on here and talked about how I shoplift and its not a crime because I've never been caught I'd be dead wrong. Same with sex discrimination legislation.

vege - you would be alleging someone punched you. ditto shop lifting

innocent until proven guilty and all that.

and might I suggest you know more about whether someone has punched you in the face than the detailed workings of someone else's business.

If someone does something illegal it is still illegal whether they get caught or not.

How do you even get dressed in the morning? Seriously. I have never heard something more stupid and ridiculous in my whole life.

Yes, but Windy has come on and said he doesn't employ women. Its not me going and claiming it, he's put it in writing way upthread. Admittedly that's not a legal standard of proof, but its good enough for an online debate and if it was something he'd put under his own name a woman being rejected at interview for his company could use it as evidence

No - he has admitted that he avoids employing women to get around maternity leave. That is illegal. He will be punished only if he gets caught, but he is doing something illegal. We haven't alleged it - he's admitted it!

OH MY GOD

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

His response was - Yup, we employ men

How many times.

he says he does not get sent women's CVs by recruiters.

quite a few posters seem to have a very naïve view of employment law. as some one who has taken a sexual discrimination case against a major City bank, I views are a little more realistic as to how the law works.

I've done nothing illegal or even immoral. Not that it should matter but the guys in the company are all ex-colleagues / contacts from a previous life that came into the company when we set ourselves up last year. We've only just started looking at getting a new load of folk and that's when I was told by the head hunters that they won't waste my time with women.

People seem so eager to label me as the devil that they can't see past their "judgy pants" and realise what I've been describing is extremely common and in some sectors is pretty much the norm. If you think it's limited to just me or a handful of dinosaurs you're so naive.

Many of you want to shout "sexist", "discrimination", "illegal" at the first chance you get but for a lot of business owners it's a business decision no different to "shall I open an office in Dublin or Doha" or "should I open a call center in London or Leeds". We want to have the best people for the company regardless of gender but at the same time have a responsibility to limit risk to the firm.

The truth is that women are increasingly being kept out of very well paid careers but from the views on here you'd rather call people names than accept its a real problem with legitimate causes.

Doing something illegal and being found guilty of doing something illegal..are not the same thing.

You've demonstrated the very real problems women face getting hired/promoted right here, windy, with your "I only hire men" statement.

We've only just started looking at getting a new load of folk and that's when I was told by the head hunters that they won't waste my time with women.

NOt your fault eh?

You didn't say, "actually that's disgusting, illegal and immoral and no I won't be working with you thanks"?

My judgey pants are hoiked because you have basically said sucks for you that you have a working uterus (OR NOT).. you're just not profitable. You wouldn't be upset if it were reversed? If you couldn't find work because you have the potentially to be a cost issue?

Men are more likely to commit suicide, and have heart attacks. Why employ them? It wouldn't upset you if you couldn't support your family, but someone said well.. it is more expensive.

To clarify, "waste your time" was their words not mine. I do get sent female CVs - with one I got last week the lady was apparently very keen to point out that the career gap on the CV was when she got a modelling job for a major cosmetics firm. She even put "very well presented" at the top of her CV.

How surprising she was keen to point out that she wasn't taking ML when it's such a fucking issue.

Chicken - I don't think that's what she was trying to point out.

Men only have to give 8 week's notice that they will take additional paternity leave. I don't think they even have to tell you they have any children before this point.

Enhanced parental leave is generally dependent on a minimum service period and can be withdrawn if the parent doesn't return to work for a minimum period afterwards. I'd like to see an example of the case law or legislation that says that it discriminates against women not to offer enhanced parental leave.

On the other hand, if you suffer from high staff turn over, recruitment fees are generally 20% of annual salary and non-refundable after 6 months.

extended paternity leave is theoretical until significant numbers of men actually take it.