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.

It will be really interesting how shared parental leave affects these things over the next few years.

Perhaps companies like Windy's will find the measures they've put in place didn't protect in the way they thought.

I also can't help wondering what the implications are of posting illegal behaviour on mumsnet under the guise of anonymity. I realise MN view anonymity as really important but there's a definitely a conflict going on here in terms of public interest.

If you would discuss issues rather than go on the offensive it might help, but the overwhelming desire to asset your feminist credentials makes you as sexist as you pretend I am. Particularly the posts when there was a huge issue about me being male of not, you're fucking obsessed.

The decisions I make in my business are based on money. If that makes me a capitalist wanker then so what, I don't need your approval, and the staff appreciate it as they get profit share.

Strangely enough, other business owners don't seem to think I'm as bad as the people who are employees. I'm not pretending I'm the personification of diversity, because I'm not.

The problem isn't with me, I've explained the issues but if you won't accept them and engage in a constructive discussion you can hoik up your judgy pants but you still won't get the good jobs.

I still think it's funny that people who have never owned a business seem to think they know better than those of us that have. And by the way, meepduckingmeep "business manager" is shorthand for "the real fucking boss's bitch" and we all know it

Quick question, is there some points system when you talk about this thread in the FWR pub a.k.a "The Hairy Arms" ?

That was like, so two days ago, Windy. We're onto talking naked women posing with goats now.

Like it or not, your behaviour in your company is sexist, and the statement "I only hire men" contravenes employment law. Ranting about feminists and going on the ultra-defensive to other posters here won't change that one bit.

Oooooh Windy maybe whilst I hoist my judgy pants up you can pull up your big boy pants and stop throwing the equivalent to a toddler tantrum (legally, morally, financially stable enough that it can afford maternity pay/leave without crumbling).

You can call me a "boss's bitch", it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this is a term you use. The fact of the matter is this, there are two partners in the business I work for. One is a silent partner in the business and one partner who is co Business Manager with myself. Co-owner and Co-Business Manager. Obviously the business owner who I job share with would have the final say in a conflicting decision but that has never happened. In 2 years I will be partner in that firm. Why? Because I've proved myself to be capable and competent and running a business.

It's quite cute actually, you're like a little wind up toy.

On the one hand you have some bosses refusing to consider employing women of childbearing age, or when they return trying to make being a working mother as difficult as possible in the hope they will quit.

On the other hand you have some women trying to exploit the system as much as possible, accepting a new job then immediately taking multiple maternity leaves in a row leaving colleagues overworking to cover for them, or small companies in financial difficulties.

Both are just doing the same thing: looking out for number one and their own interests.

One is not in a position to criticise the other IMO.

I don't know what the solution is. I think the whole situation is depressing, it seems like there just isn't a fair way around it all.

Oh well that deleted a sentence... try and run a company successfully (legally, morally etc etc)

Both are just doing the same thing: looking out for number one and their own interests. One is not in a position to criticise the other IMO.

The difference is that discrimination is illegal, whereas taking maternity leave isn't. Both for good reason.

Any company, small or large, which employs a selection of people of all ages, is going to have a similar percentage of women taking maternity leave.

The decisions I make in my business are based on money. If that makes me a capitalist wanker then so what, I don't need your approval, and the staff appreciate it as they get profit share.

I think that if you are going to be a capitalist wanker it's best to be the kind of capitalist wanker that is up to speed with legislation and social trends.

Otherwise you are just a doughnut.

Windy I am a small business precisely because I've repeatedly been a victim of the illegal discrimination you boast about. So yes I do know what the pressures are, but I'm also very aware of Tyre human cost and the cost in terms of competition which comes from women of a certain age being unemployable.

True, newyear. I don't always think legality = morality, but I guess it's generally the best recourse in the question of maternity leave.

I was at lunch with a big group of male and female friends at the weekend, and there was practically unified agreement (excluding me) that companies couldn't be expected to employ women of childbearing age if they thought she was likely to go off in maternity leave. A lot of 'it's unfortunate but its just the reality of business'. And this in a country where most women only take 16 weeks then go back to work full time...

Windy, I had some sympathy for you until your last little rant, where I think you started to show your true colours. I don't have a problem with capitalism WITHIN THE LAW. Do you break other laws to make more money?

"The difference is that discrimination is illegal, whereas taking maternity leave isn't. Both for good reason"

This is pious crap.

I think this will come as a shock to many people on here, but a business actually has to make a profit to survive.

Small businesses are massively disproportionately hit by ML, so of course they are going to be vary wary.

Lazyjaney, I agree that an individual business can be disproportionately hit by ML and some people take the piss, but I think the idea that businesses in general suffer disproportionately because of maternity leave is wrong.

I think people's perception of the risk and likelihood of a woman going on maternity leave is out of step with reality (also based on some people on this thread being a little hazy about the legislation).

Is there any actual data that shows the impact of ml on business?

Lazy but from Tyre other side I was made redundant in my mid-twenties and no-one would employ me. As they will work with me as a separate business the only conclusion I can reach is that they didn't want to employ me due to risk of maternity leave.

There is a very real human cost to this discrimination. Or should we stop educating girls and expect them to give up work when they marry again?

I am very confused about this child-bearing age thing! Women can have babies from teens up to 40s. I even know one woman who had a baby in her 50s. You can also adopt in your 50s and therefore could get adoptiion leave. So are people honestly saying they would avoid employing all women aged from 16 to 50!! There might be a few men who end up adopting and being the main carer so they would take adoption leave, so businesses had better avoid employing men aged up to 50 as well!

I would also imagine that quite a lot of things that are law could put a strain on business. Doing things legally and ethically etc but that is required. Why do people think they have the right to flaunt the law just so they can make money?

And as other people have pointed out lots of people may leave jobs after a short time anyway for totally un-maternity related reasons.

Italian - I guess most companies would assume womenbetween say 28and 35 would be the highest risk of maternity leave these days. I guess that's about the average bracket in which most women have children?

Where I live (not UK) it is common practice to put marital status on CVs, and to try to gather info about family circumstances during interview.

Like Mines, I think I have suffered from discrimination in applying for jobs as a 30 year old woman. I had no problems getting interviews and offers in my early and mid twenties, but since I have been applying for jobs aged 28+ I have noticed a huge difference in the amount of positive responses. Could be for other reasons of course, but I am pretty sure my profile plays a part in it. The irony is I don't even know if I want children, and certainly not anytime soon.

what a depressing thread.

The guardian can shove that whole thing...

Greyhound, remember men are also entitled to 6 month's additional paternity leave and they can father children past retirement age.

Good grief.

Windy - you say your refusal to employ women is (at least partly) about limiting business risk. Very sensible. All businesses have to consider the risks that apply to their business and assess their likelihood and impact, and prepare contingency plans should the risks materialise. In other words, do proper risk management.

Trouble is, most people are very poor at assessing risk accurately.

So, tell us. How does your business manage the risk that by artificially limiting the pool from which you select employees, you are almost certainly missing out on some of the most talented people. Also, your teams' effectiveness is likely to be reduced, due to the lack of diversity of skills and viewpoints among their members.

Or are you just not bothered about any of this, as PHEW, at least you've dodged that dreaded maternity leave bullet?

businesses had better avoid employing men aged up to 50 as well!

DH is well over 50 and we're applying to adopt again. Oopsie! Shame his new (but not so new he can't take APL) employer didn't think about that!

Still, at least he can chat about nursery places and head-bump forms and going to the zoo at the weekend with all the 20- and 30-something women that they have also employed.

punt nail-head, good job!

There is a reason why we drive for diversity that isn't to do with morality, but to do with the fact that businesses do better when they employ the BEST candidate, and not merely the best candidate avec penis, they do better with diverse view points and not just the white middle aged male one....

expecting businesses to ignore the cost of ML is not going to change anything. bringing a sexual discrimination case is expensive and can be difficult to prove.

the easy fix is: men should use their rights to PL and APL which they have under existing legislation. these are easy rights to exercise and men need to use them.

Vegetarians

It's ok, I don't pay much attention to grown men throwing strops