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 just can't agree, Sabrina. I would like to emphasise that I think we should get full financial and personal support if we do choose to take our maternity leave whilst the key worker on a hard-won, short-term project, but I can't agree that it is always morally right.

As I said already, though, the bigger issue is that so many jobs now are short-term. It puts women in a really tough position.

YANBU The worst comment is "So many do not take this honorable position". Fuck off. Shame there isn't an open comments section on there as it's a "problem solved" one.

Plus the fact you can be as honorable and loyal as you like with employers, it doesn't prevent them from right royally fucking you over at the drop of a hat. I don't think it's taking the piss to get a job and then get pregnant in a year's time. It's life. A man could get a job and go off on paternity leave for six months soon after: "My wife is having a baby and we are intending to share paternity leave" is hardly likely to come up at interview. And it could apply to men of any age from teens to retirement!

Glad I'm not the only one horribly jarred by Jeremy's comments. I'm thinking of putting in a complaint to the editor.

And yes, I'm defensive because I did interview for a job while pregnant and I didn't tell them. I was off for 3 months (including the Christmas holidays, when the place shut down for 2 weeks) and didn't cost them a penny as I hadn't accrued any maternity entitlement. And I achieved everything I was contracted to do and more.

I needed that job, I could do, and I did do, save for a short break. I couldn't take the risk of being discriminated against, and to accuse me of acting in a "reprehensible" way is absolutely infuriating.

I've complained to: [email protected]

Dear editor,

I wish to complain about the advice given by Jeremy Bullmore in Saturday's Guardian: [link]

I was particularly offended by the phrase: " Such behaviour is reprehensible only if you deliberately conceal the fact of your pregnancy (or your imminent intention of becoming pregnant) when going through the recruitment process".

The law provides that women do not have to disclose pregnancy, let alone intention to become pregnant, at interview stage. This is an important legal protection, and to describe women who avail of it is "reprehensible" is appalling. Pregnancy discrimination is alive and well. Jeremy's stance attempts to morally blackmail women into making themselves vulnerable to discrimination.

Having been a loyal reader for years, I feel personally hurt and betrayed by this content, and I'm unsure as to whether I will now remain a reader.

I hope to see an immediate retraction and apology, and an acknowledgement that Mr Bullmore's advice does not reflect the legal position. I also suggest Mr Bullmore undertake some urgent re-training in employment discrimination law before purporting to provide advice on employment-related topics.

That's a very good letter biblio. Please let us know if you get a response. I may send one too.

I think that article should be retracted, along with an apology that his 'advice' contravenes employment law.

Yes, he is completely wrong.

Apart from anything else, I think the number of people who TTC and then lo and behold within a year a baby must be very small compared to the number of people who TTC and take longer than a year; have an unplanned pregnancy; or just change jobs at the end of a year for some completely different reason.

If his argument is that employers should be able to choose not to employ somebody who might go on maternity leave, I'm not really sure why he is giving employment advice in the Guardian...

as a nation we agree that parental leave is a good thing and we make it law. therefore we need to fully fund it. otherwise women will be discriminated against.

The below is a previous response of mine:-

"Employers can claim back the SMP they pay. They are entitled to claim back at least 92%. Small employers can actually claim back all the SMP plus some compensation.

Companies with an annual liability for National Insurance contributions of£45,000 or less are entitled to claim back 100% of the SMP plus 4.5% additional as compensation for the NI contributions paid on the SMP."

The Government covers a huge cost of SMP as it is. To cover all the expenses related the maternity leave would be impossible. We have previous posters not happy about the annual leave accrued by their staff when they are on leave (this obviously forms part of their existing and ongoing contract of employment). Should the Government foot that bill too?

To bring it into perspective let's look at say 1 woman who earns £25,000. She takes a full years maternity leave and she works for a small businesses. This is what the government would have to pay out to cover all costs:-

6 weeks maternity at 90% of Gross salary - £2,907.69
33 weeks at standard rate (£136.78) - £4,513.74
13 weeks at unpaid - £0.00
Compensation at 4.5% - £333.96

These are very rough figures based on the average 25-30 year old females salary in the UK. They already cover all these costs for small businesses and 92% for larger businesses (deducting the 4.5% figure.)

If we were to go on and include annual leave accrued through maternity leave we are looking at additional figures of:-

Minimum A/L accrued over a year - £2,692.30

Without even looking at the cost of paid time off for pre-natal appointments you are looking at a minimum of £10,447.69 for a woman who earns this amount. Can you see this being feasible because with the government trying to make cuts left right and center already I can hardly see this being a realistic option.

I would like the reiterate the fact that to make the commitment to employ members of staff irrespective of sex you have to accept that unforseen costs may come up. EVERY employer should look at the costs of someone going off on longterm sick leave or maternity leave, if they cannot afford what the cost will be then they should not be employing as many people.

With all the information at our fingertips these days I can't help but think for any business to be put in financial jeopardy by someone going off on maternity leave begs the question of how poorly they were managing the finances of their business in the first place.

Thanks, sabrina. I'll post here if I get a response.

windy you are acting rationally (assuming you never get caught out) but you are also acting selfishly - you seem to think that acting rationally means you're not being selfish. They're not mutually exclusive.

Imagine this scenario. I'm going to steal something of yours. Sure, I know it's illegal, but I'll probably get away with it, and I'll be better off because of it. It's just economics, you shouldn't take it personally. Can you see the parallels in doing something illegal to benefit yourself at the cost of others? And why females might, indeed, take your discriminatory practice personally?

I'm not saying I don't have sympathy with the impact on small businesses, and I don't dispute the fact that it can have a negative impact, but it is just one of those things. People have babies and you are employing people, not machines.

meepmeep - you are missing the higher cost of temporary staff and that fact they wont be productive in many industries for 3 months.

In my line of work a temporary replacement would cost £400 per day. so who pays for that?

the govt paying SMP covers a couple of hours of a replacement per week.

you need to stand your argument up with real figures.

Everything in the Grauniad is Bang out of Order ...............

meep meep - sorry I misread your post. but the result of not funding it will be discrimination.

YANBU. Why should somebody have to tell a prospective employer about something that might not happen for years. Or sadly might never happen?

If society was more equal, and it was more accepted for either parent to take the leave then I doubt this would ever come up as an issue as it would just be accepted that people may take time off when a child is born. Sazzle82

Oh this. With knobs on. Watching Scandimania last night, HFW interviews three men who are in the middle of their 12-16 month paternity leaves. This is the norm in Sweden.

If it were like that in the UK men of 'childbearing' age would become as unemployable as women and the likes of WindyMiller wouldn't know who to discriminate against first. Women would no longer have to bear sole responsibility for a couple's choice to have children.

another benefit of equally shared parental leave, would be more people taking leave, but for less time.

I think this would be better for business and women.

I'm an MD of a firm and it is a bit of a pain when someone really good goes on ML. But obviously life is life and life happens. People who are good at their jobs usually come back, because they enjoy what they are good at. And I will make sure they get a nice payrise before they go off to let them know I value them. Conversely, when someone shit goes on ML I don't give a hoot (just as I don't when someone rubbish leaves the business). A chance to get someone good working on that client, and maybe (since they aren't very good and probably don't enjoy it) that person won't come back. It all depends on how good you are, not that you may be absent. Hiring good people makes my clients happy.

When I hire for senior, pivotal roles, it DOES cross my mind that the 33/34 year old woman might go off to have a baby (a first, second or third child) but I want the best person for the job, so I will take my chances on someone good (every single time) even if I know there is a fair chance in a year or so I might be looking to cover her for a while. I'd never go for the male or 'no kids for me' woman just because there will be no ML. It's not about being unsexist - it is about hiring good people and taking a chance on what might happen.

Nothing should get in the way of having a family (if that is what a woman wants). Nothing is more important. A view I hope the Chairman has in 3 weeks time when I hopefully can tell her I am having baby number 3.

But I work for a huge firm and have the luxury of not having to personally worry about the P&L implications of ML. Have to say that none of us can truly say what we would do when running a small business unless we have been in that position. I have some sympathy for Windy.

Nothing should get in the way of having a family (if that is what a woman wants). Nothing is more important.

so what help is there for female small business owners? what helps their businesses remain open while they take a short ML?

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime

No it isn't at all. That is the minority way of thinking. The majority of companies in this day and age comply with the Gender Equality Laws. So if the majority can what is the reason for the minority not to? The only answer to that is ignorance of finance and the equality laws that they are legally obliged to follow. If they don't they run the risk of being sued for sexual discrimination. A sexual discrimination lawsuit that is lost will end up costing the employer considerably more in the long run so they can either afford the hit (which means they could easily afford the maternity pay in the first place) or they are quite frankly extremely stupid and risk their company collapsing and most likely bankrupting themselves in the process.

All that a larger employer has to fund at a maximum if they safeguard themselves properly is 8% of the full figures plus the annual leave accrued (which they would have to pay over and above wages if the person was physically working anyway). I appreciate extra costs will incur in replacing the person on maternity leave but as I have previously stated if a company cannot afford to do this they shouldn't be employing as many people as they are, it is simple common sense to sit down and work out what the loss would be when employing anyone if they were to go on maternity leave or long term sick. If the company can't afford the loss then they aren't in a position to be employing.

Unfortunately the case is that discrimination against women in the work place will continue for a long time. There is no immediate way to stop this because we still have people with attitudes such as Windy's running companies. Slowly and surely these sexist attitudes are crumbling because current legislation makes it illegal to run your business with these sexist policies. It is definitely a difficult thing to police however women and being made more and more aware of their rights and have been for years. All it takes is one woman to stand up to employers like this.

With shared parental care after the birth now being mainstreamed into businesses it will also decrease gender discrimination because either male or female could be the one to take the majority time off work.

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.

Great letter biblio
Completely agree.

Imagine if a woman gave such bad advice on an area of law that applied particularly to men - such as child support payments for example

I haven't got an answer for that, Favourite. It must be tough. I'd personally always work for a big firm because of that protection and freedom.

one company employs 1000 people. say 5% are off at any time on ML. this is a constant charge and easy to spread across the business.

in a small business, it is nothing like that. say you employ 4 people and one goes on ML, that is a 25% reduction in staff, for 1 year, that is a massive strain on the business, which is usually picked up by the owner working longer hours.

now if that business owner is female, they have no rights to ML, return to their job etc.

it is not realistic to expect the current system to work.

I think it's wrong and impractical to pretend that maternity (or paternity) leave is a small cost for small employers when their staff are on maternity leave. Employment expenses are often your greatest cost - there is no way of getting around this. If you have two employees and one is on maternity leave, then 50% of your work force are on maternity leave.

However, you have to set this against other employee costs like sick leave, being rubbish at your job and leaving on a whim. In my working life I have encountered far more of the last 3 than the first.

On the other hand, somebody with children is going to find non cash benefits like flexible working hours more attractive, may be more happy to work part-time which can cut costs and is more likely to value job stability. (These are also the reasons why women are often badly paid, but there you go). I think it's swings and roundabouts.

yes, that Guardian guy has written similar disgusting stuff before.

it's the law for a reason, not just an inconvenient rule that women should ignore when it doesn't suit their employers.

Wasteoftime - perhaps that is an argument for more government financial support for small businesses rather than less rights for women?

someone leaving is easier than ML because you have to replace them, not hold their job open to see what they want to do.