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 "work" beside someone who has had 4 children in 8 years....The reality is she is never at work and someone else has to pick up the slack. And then when the kids are ill......
If you decide to have 4 children in 8 years do your colleagues a favour and resign.

No, of course it isn't sexist to discriminate against women. Despite women having fewer opportunities, making less money then men. . More likely to be in a position of bing financely abused, and abuse tend to gets worse during pregnancy.

But its just business eh? We little women wouldn't understand. Honestly windy in the nicest possible way I hope your business goes under and karma bites you in your sexist ass. Loser.

oneLittleToddleTerror hope things go well for you. very hard.

I can understand why maternity leave, particularly just after someone joins a company, is hard for small employers.

All this thread serves to illustrate though is that we need to pushing on with encouraging a society where women and men share leave, where a man is just as much of a 'risk' as a woman (probably more, since he is biologically more able to have a family for longer). Because for as long as women are viewed in the way so many posters on this thread clearly view them, we are never going to achieve real change.

And Jeremy is an arse. Stay in an unfulfilling job until you've had the kids and that's that. When your career might be irreparably stalled because you didn't take opportunities when they came your way. Yes, it's hard if someone goes off soon after joining, but if they stay with you 25 years, where is the difference in the long run?

pleaseleaveyourbrotheralone Why so personal? This isn't about me or my company, it's a very common sentiment among small companies with highly skilled, well paid staff, and explains some of the thinking behind the answer in the guardian article referenced in the OP.

I resent being called sexist. If I hired someone in Ireland because they were cheaper than an equivalent based in the UK (because of legislation adding costs here) would that make me racist?

Surely the standard caveats to enhanced maternity leave safeguard against people taking the piss:

1. You only get enhanced pay after 2 years with a company. Before that it is SMP only - which is reimbursed by the government.
2. If you don't return to work after mat leave or return for less than 3 months then you have to pay back the enhanced portion of your maternity salary.

I work for a small company, there are ten of us. We average 6 figure salaries and are client facing. We are 90% female. My company grew 25% last year and is likely to do the same this year. Despite having to manage the disaster that (isn't) team members taking maternity leave and flexible working. It can be done. We re thriving (if absolutely knackered ) proof.

So watch those dinosaurs die out

Why so personal?

You've just said you won't employ any members of my sex. That is personal

Swap woman for black person/muslim see if that particular group would find it acceptable.

You are a sexist and you haven't even got the guts to admit it under your normal name because you know it's pathetic and shitty.

The average woman has how many children? 2.5?

THat's 2 years out of her working life time for ML. Out of 45 years she will have 2 years off. I think anyone who isn't a sexist would see that as fairly fucking reasonable actually.

I know women who own businesses that feel the same way. It's not comparable to not employing black people or Muslims IMO. Like I say, there really isn't a solution, and whatever legislation is there will be exploited by people on both sides of the equation. Business owners will always want to look out for their own interests first and foremost, just as mothers and prospective mothers will. There has to be give and take on both sides.

Windymiller, how on earth can you think you're not being sexist going by what you've posted?

Saying "I won't employ women of a certain age in case they go off and get pregnant" is sexism. It's also illegal.

I dunno ... I have been in a group of women where one was telling us how she was planning on becoming pregnant immediately, not telling her new employer that, and going on maternity as soon as legally possible. She was asking us how much pay she should be able to claim, and how she could minimise time back at work before having child number 2.

It was a 3 year contract she was going for. My view was that if she was in a permanent job - sure, go ahead. But being paid for a 3-year contract when you actively plant to be off work for 2/3 of it - I could not agree that this was right. All the other women were telling her good for you, claim your rights, this is what feminists fight for. But to me, what she was doing was in fact ensuring that her company will never employ another woman after her.

I still don't know if I was right to disagree, but I was the lone voice.

flouting employment law and basic morality is not "give an take" .

Totally agree than men need to start taking their share of leave. In fact, we should just have "parental leave".

I haven't said we won't employ women, we haven't got any in the team at the moment but that's different

The arguments I've put forward are all based on economics not sex. I haven't said "women aren't clever enough" or "men are better", I've just been saying that for some small companies (mine included) the potential costs of maternity leave currently don't work in women's favour

BTW - I think I'll c&p windymiller's posts above (and possibly others) as evidence for the MRA trolls who come on here regularly to tell women they are not discriminated against in the workplace, and that we're all equal now.

Mansplaining. I was missing that bit of the sexisim/ not sexism debate

What are you going to do if the next person (man) you hire actually expects to be able to take care of his children?

Recruitment agents / headhunters know not to send female CVs to small companies (and they're very open about this, unofficially of course) unless the kids have flown the roost and there's no chance of more

This is untrue and illegal! I used to be a recruiter and clients would occasionally hint that they wanted young/female/male candidates only, at which point we'd suggest they read up on discrimination before reading the varied cvs we were gonna send.

alon what do you mean? If they wanted to go part time or do flexible working or something along those lines? Depends on what role they're in but it's unlikely to be workable.

Really thanks to sexism women not working hard enough... we make 20% less than men for the same work anyway.

Surely we're a fucking bargain over a few years?

I bet no man employed in Windy's business would dare ask for time off to look after the kids because the ethos of the business would mean they would never progress. These men are relying on their wives to do all the childcare. What do you think the alternative is to giving women decent maternity leave?

1. 2 weeks maternity leave, resulting in tiny babies in expensive childcare
2. Women not having children if they want a career (who will pay the taxes in future?)
3. Women having to give up work when they have children ( What's the point in educating girls? They will only give us 5-10 years productive work after university).

Small businesses are always moaning about this. If you are in a highly skilled industry, 9 months out of an employees working life is nothing!

katese of course that's the official line, maybe you had better ethics than the folk we deal with that charge me 20% to make a few calls but outside of work they tell me it's normal.

As most roles these folk work with are never advertised its impossible to say if they've been naughty or not, nobody directly applies for the role so nobody can complain if they didn't get selected.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's what happens

In response to me saying anyone with the tiniest bit of HR knowledge knows how to safeguard themselves your response was to only imply men.

Dress it up how you like you are sexist and in breach of employment law legislation.

Employ*

"Mansplaining"

This isn't FWR.