To be getting fed up of these type of jumping on the band wagon breastfeeding threads

[sharonthewaspandthewineywall]

here

FTR I'm very pro breastfeeding and think where children are permitted mothers should be able to feed their babies in whichever way they choose. But to me this is a completely different situation and this running to the papers screaming about the inequity of it all is pointless and doesnt actually help in cases where people do breach the equality act.
So AIBU?

I never said about that.

However staff with restrictions o's a good point.

If they can't work. With kids and get a job somewhere that doesn't allow them.but people start bringing them.in anyway what happens then?

and you haven't answered why do you think kids should be allowed in these places. The whole point is protection from influences. why does it surprise people that they can't take their kids?

Because, you know what, if a parent takes a child into work premises, as a matter of law the child's safety and well-being is the parent's responsibility and no-one else's

You do realise that this isn't the case. If it was we wouldn't see so many cases in law of people suing because poor Jonathan fell off the park swing and broke his arm.

leedy, so what you're asking for then isn't to be able to take children into work a la Licia Ronzulli - which is the image I got from posts in this thread - you want daycare facilities. Sorry but workplaces shouldn't have to build places and employ staff to accommodate it's staff's children. Your child, your problem and your expense.

How does that solve the breastfeeding problem by the way? Does the nursery nurse pop in the office to grab the mum? Hourly breaks? Two hourly? It's not going to work.

God! Who needs to battle sexist men when we can beat each other up! And a new mum too. Fgs. She has a tiny baby, breast fed so babe needed to come to. And she made appropriate arrangements to enable this. Her line of work not at all comparable to regular hours work for which regular home/burserybased care can be arranged when baby is older.

Icimoi Tue 16-Dec-14 17:53:14
Come off it, Grays. I work in a large office. It really isn't unknown for the occasional staff member with a childminding crisis to bring a small child in.

Well they are fuckwits also.

Come too.

No her lime of work. involves going into licensed premises and running risk of children not being allowed through the doors.

have a brain and use maternity leave to work out what you plan to do about this that doesn't involve potentially costing staff their jobs

And would this move to allow mums to bring thier dcs to work include ff mums? I would be pretty fucked off if I missed out on free childcare/being able to see ds more simply because my boobs didn't work

Oxon don't turn this into a feminist argument because I'm sure there's people willing to run rings around that point.

She quite clearly didn't make appropriate arrangements did she otherwise there would have been no problem.

'tiny breast fed babe' shouldn't have been in the workplace.

She has a tiny baby, breast fed so babe needed to come to.

And if she's just started Beethoven's 5th and baby starts screaming for milk? What then? Does she just say to the Conductor....."stop, I'll be back in 15 minutes"

Or does she let the baby scream for the 32 minutes duration?

No matter how hard you try to make it so, no matter how much you rant and rave, and scream 'unfair', there will always be occasions when breastfeeding and work are NOT compatible. Get used to it.

I disagree wholeheartedly

Speaking about hospitals again.. sorry.. but how do you folk think surgeons cope? Do you think they can just pop out of a triple bypass to breast feeding their poor tiny babes?

No, they make reasonable adjustments because they know that this isn't doable. Just like any other should be expected to make instead of thinking the world and it's kin should bend over backwards.

And Porto, no lectures please. Have bfed and juggled around work etc like most of us on here. I find your views worrying.

Because, you know what, if a parent takes a child into work premises, as a matter of law the child's safety and well-being is the parent's responsibility and no-one else's

Wrong - the employer or the person in control of the premises has a duty to ensure the health and safety of persons on those premises - which includes visitors. That is quite clearly defined under the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974.

I find your views worrying. said Oxon

Why's that, then? Because they don't coincide with yours?

There are many things that many people can't do because of circumstances, physical or mental limitations. They don't whinge and moan and go to the papers and draw attention to themselves.

They just quietly and with dignity get on with their lives.

I can't sing, but I don't expect the National Opera Company to accommodate my limitations and give me a starring role, do I?

You do realise that this isn't the case. If it was we wouldn't see so many cases in law of people suing because poor Jonathan fell off the park swing and broke his arm.

People suing and people winning their cases are two different things. There certainly are reported cases of parents trying to sue when little Jonathan fell off the swing and losing - because they have to establish that the park owners have been negligent and have complied with all relevant safety standards. If they have, and if little Jonathan fell off because he was not properly supervised, those parents's cases have been thrown out of court.

Well they are fuckwits also.

Oh, right, OP. I will tell the highly professional people in my office who, very occasionally, find that their childminding arrangements have totally collapsed, that a stranger on the internet says they are fuckwits. I'm sure they'll be devastated.

icimoi

And surprisingly enough an astonishing amount of people have won. That's neither here nor there though, the fact of the matter is workplaces do have a duty of care if they allow children on the premises. Please have a read into legalisation so I don't have to bother typing it up for you.

Squirrelled, the Health and Safety at Work Act expressly sets out the duty of employers or people in control of premises to take such care as is reasonable. That has consistently been interpreted as meaning that they are entitled to assume that people take reasonable care of their own safety and that of others, including children, for whom they are responsible.

Grays, people only win such cases when the prove on a balance of probabilities that the owner of the premises in question has acted negligently or has failed to comply with statutory requirements. If you can point me to a playground injury case where a parent has taken a claim all the way to court and has won despite proving those elements, do supply details.

The duty of care of workplaces with regard to children on their premises nowhere entitles them to assume that parents will not be responsible for the care and safety of those children.

ici My point was a flippant one that you have chosen to latch onto, although you are welcome to find such examples that are out there. I should know, 'little johnny' is a pseudonym for someone I know.

I didn't actually say or imply your last sentence anywhere. What I'm saying is that health and safety of a child in a workplace is NOT solely the parent's responsibility. Stop trying to run round in circles because your point was quite clearly wrong.

That has consistently been interpreted as meaning that they are entitled to assume that people take reasonable care of their own safety and that of others, including children, for whom they are responsible

We're not talking about what people interpret. We're talking about your claim that health and safety of a child is the parents responsibility only. Which is wrong.

Icimoi - if there is an accident involving a visitor on the employer's premises then the onus is on the employer to show that he has taken all reasonably practicable measures to ensure the health and safety of those on the premises. There is a duty on employees to ensure their own health and safety and the health and safety of others, but the ultimate responsibility remains with the employer. The phrase "reasonably practicable" is a balance between cost and the degree of risk.

If it was a man who wanted to bring in the "tiny breast fed babe" then the answer would have been the same, so don't see how this has suddenly become a breast feeding issue.

Women get a lot of protection and rights these days re pregnancy and parenting. Some would say too many esp re maternity leave that can leave small businesses in a vulnerable position. If they are then given more rights ie to bring in babies for feeding or other purposes, then it IS going to lead to employers not wanting to employ young women.

With rights, comes responsibilities and when you are at work, your responsibility is to your employer. If you don't like that, stay at home with your baby as you are perfectly entitled to do.

But the fact remains that employers regularly can and do allow children onto premises, regardless of whether all employees have taken child safeguarding courses and the like, as posited by Gray. And the reason is that the law is nowhere near as rigid as is suggested. Clearly I did not suggest that, for instance, employers would escape liability for having dangerous wires trailing across the floor or dangerous chemicals leaking all over the place by saying that that is only the parents' responsibility. But they unquestionably have no duty to refuse to allow children onto their premises in any circumstances, and they absolutely are entitled to assume that if a parent brings a child onto those premises they will take be primarily responsible for that child's safety.

And before anyone else comes on with a whinge that obviously you can't take children onto, say, a factory floor full of dangerous machinery, please note that that is not what I am saying either. Obviously.

If anyone turned up to my place of employment with their child as they don't have a plan b for Childcare then I would indeed think they were a fuckwit. And believe you me I work with intelligent professionals. To the extent that it wouldn't happen