AIBU additional period leave from work a backwards move?

[1DAD2KIDS]

There is a growing movement to give women a set amount of paid days off a month for periods. This is happening in many countries including an article I read about a company in the UK. To me that sounds a backwards move? A way of treating women differently in the work place. I do think we need better understanding in the work place and more openness about it. Why should something so natural be so taboo? From what I have read a third of women get extreme period problems. So I would say that periods are a natural thing but extreme problems are a medical complication that can be treated and should be treated as in line with existing paid sick leave. Across the genders unfortunately some suffer from permanent conditions from birth. I think treating men and women differently in the workplace is a backwards move?

Maybe it my trade union head but to me a sick day is a sick day in General. I understand that in certain jobs you could work from if you had something like a broken leg and mobility was a temporary issue. But based on the symptoms described I would never say anyone feeling like that should be expected to work even at home. I suppose this does raise issues also of how workers rights in sickness have been contractually watered down.

I have a solution! Maybe we should campaign for higher holiday entitlement with a set number of days that can be taken ad-hoc? I appreciate that it wouldn't work for all industries but it could cover periods, childcare emergencies or days when you're not really sick sick but a bit burnt out.

I'd be happy if my place of work had decent toilets to be honest! We have three toilets for a large workforce which have huge gaps beneath and above the doors, and there is often a queue. There is no privacy at all. I know it's all a natural part of life etc etc, but I 'd like a bit of privacy at the very least.

Personally I would like to see existing legislation used to protect women from detriment. We have the Equality Act that should prevent discrimination on the grounds of sex.

In the old days, before the EA we used sex discrimination legislation to fight against pregnancy and maternity discrimination because they only impact on women. The EA introduced specific protection for pregnancy and maternity to tighten things up.

I'm not convinced we need to tighten up the law around menstruation. The impact is so variable between women and also for each woman at different times that I think broad policy or legislation changes would be too unwieldy and cause more problems for all women.

A nuanced, compassionate approach to each situation using common sense and existing legislation to protect women against discrimination is the way to go I think.

So more awareness for managers and HR and more support for women who need it is good.

Bon we don't even have sanitary bins , we have brown paper bags in the toilet cubicles and a big bin by the sink that we're supposed to put them in. Not very nice or dignified. Still, some women apparently don't care - I went the toilet the other day and found a sanitary pad on the floor, blood all over the bowl, the sink, the bin and drops of blood everywhere.

Well of course you don't understand why women dont want to take hormones as @ treatment" as you are a man op.

Maybe a better understanding/flexibility in general and better facilities. Then on a case by case basis special accommodation on medical grounds with the right medical assessment and documentation. I think this should be the same for people who suffer from a range of other conditions. If this is not already legislated (I have not a huge understanding of this side of employment law). I could see it open to potential abuse so we need to take ample measures to ensure who is making a fair claim and who is trying it on. I think most of us who have worked with people like that. I work in an industry with great sickness policy. But the flip side of that there are a couple of people who abuse these great terms and conditions.

Yes I understand why women don't want to take hormones as a treatment. Plus as has been pointed out it doesnt always work anyway. That's why I say we need to look at better treatments. And to be fair a huge amount of the population do take them for various reasons. With so many other conditions the treatments cause horible side effects and people are expected to take them. It's everyones choice to take treatment or not. But the reality is at the moment there is no magic medication out there. So it is a personal choice that everyone if free to make. To play devil's advocate from an employer's view it could be seen as a poor attitude to solving the problem, same as not taking other treatments that have side effects. Yes ironically in some cases taking the likes of the implant may cause worse all month round problems like mental health. But it really is a case by case basis as it works for many without serious complication.

TBH I agree with many on this thread. The real issue is women being fobbed off by GPs, extreme problems not being treated as worth investigating, etc.

I have almost pain free, very light periods and always have had. I would not want "menstruating days" - I'd rather the company offered sick pay, didn't use the fucking evil Bradford factor, and treated colleagues with recurrent medical issues sympathetically.

Also - given that the Tories have put more and more barriers in place to prevent employees actually using existing legislation against discrimination for sex, disability, etc - fix that first. No good having an "extra" day off if your boss then makes sure you're first in line for redundancy or bullies you into resigning, and you don't have a spare grand to lay out on an employment tribunal. www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals/make-a-claim

So it is a personal choice that everyone if free to make.
Except it's not a free choice if it's contraindicated for you for any reason, be it other medication, existing health conditions or a history of reacting badly to hormonal treatments.

To play devil's advocate from an employer's view it could be seen as a poor attitude to solving the problem, same as not taking other treatments that have side effects.
What treatments I may or may not agree to is a discussion between me and the medical people treating me. My employer has no part in it, and their opinion is not relevant, because it's nothing to do with them whether I choose to do X rather than Y when deciding about my health. I'm not going to ask if they would prefer me to use Mirena or injections or implants or some form of magic menstrual meditation. If I need time off work, I would probably inform them that I have a condition which is under investigation. They don't need all the (literally) gory details.

As an employer you cannot and should not insist on the medical treatment for your employees. That's not your business. What is your business as an employer is that people are able to fill their contract of employment (with a bit of flex and tolerance in some circumstances) and that when people are at work they are safe, well, healthy and able to do their job.

Btw as a Trade Union Rep you bloody should know basic employment law.

Agree with EBearhug - I'd be shocked if an employer wanted to know treatment details of e.g. whether an employee was receiving CBT or medication or both for a mental health issue, and for them to expect to stick their oar in and DECIDE which was appropriate for their employee! My god - on what feudal planet does that happen?

As I understand employment law, someone being chronically/regularly too ill to do their job us the easiest way to get rid of them.

I agree. I believe it should be seen the same as any other medical complication, not a separate issue.

I wouldn't say it was easy but it does often give grounds. Which is fair enough. An employment contract goes two ways: employers pays the employee to do a job; the employee gets paid in return for doing the job. If one party doesn't meet their part of the bargain then there is a problem.

Nobody is owed a job but often with some minor adjustments people with health conditions or disabilities can be helped to stay in work. Unfortunately sometimes it just isn't possible to keep a job open for someone who may or may not be fit to work. "Women's" health issues can often be debilitating but are rarely covered by disability legislation because they don't meet the definition. They should be covered by sex discrimination legislation to an extent. The protection doesn't extend to keeping people in jobs they cannot do.

Compassion, tolerance and a bit of creativity go a long way ime.

One I am not a trade union rep and I would bloody well hope my rep does too. But I am a proud member. I work on the railways and because of our consistent solidarity and hard work we have been able to protect terms and conditions and workers from unfair treatment. Sadly this is not the same for most industries anymore. In fact I have a friend in HR in the retail industry. When they were changing things regarding pay she asked what about the union and the bosses just laught.

As to not taking the treatment I am not having a go or a poke. I am just saying that if it is not taken (of course free choice) that you have to accept the implications with regards to the condition and it's affect on work. Like any other condition. Of course the individual must make a decision based on if it is right for them and also there maybe other reason e.g. religion. I am not a expert on catholicism but would some catholics regard this as a sin? Basically it's a factor in the equation and life with everything in life we must take ownership of how we play with the variables.

I think that although this is about periods it has opened up a question about how we treat the workforce in regards to many long term conditions. I definitely think we can do better but period leave is not the right solution.

Sorry I assumed because you mentioned it that you were an official or rep.

There are still many places, even in retail that have Collective Bargaining agreements in place but they just have significantly less militant tendencies teeth than the unions involved in the railways.

One thing is for sure that many jobs still aren't set up for women. What are the facilities like for people working on our railways? Are there accessible toilets and good washing facilities for everyone? Even those it working on the tracks or is it a case of using portaloos or behind a bush if out on a job? I'm curious because I have never seen a woman working on the lines and it's not because they can't be engineers or use an angle grinder or do manual work. Firefighters and other professions have women.

It would be good if we set work up to be accessible to as many people as possible. Especially when women are 51% of the population.

I am just saying that if it is not taken (of course free choice) that you have to accept the implications with regards to the condition and it's affect on work

I think that you're mis-understanding the effects of hormonal birth control - it's not a treatment exactly, it's something that they try, because sometimes it works.

Personally, for me, hormonal birth control makes no difference to pain levels and effects. For some women it increases them, for some women it reduces them.

Using hormonal birth control to moderate period pain is trying to use a medication's side effect to good purpose - almost an off-label use.

Refusing to take something which you're prescribed on the off-chance it helps your problem is not only non of an employer's business, but also, fairly logical in my opinion!

Yes facilities are good for me and women. The unions have a big say on what needs to be provided by the company and represent all their members issues regardless of genders. Of course I suppose the difference is they are unions with teeth. Sadly it is often only fear of the union that gets employers to look after their workforces rights. As for disability it's it catered for the best it can with regards to the role. For example with regard to a driver for safety reasons the medical criteria is fairly strict. But in other roles such as tickets office work full provision can be made. The railway is as open to all as practicaly possible but will not compromise of safety. As to track workers it is the nature of the job that you can't get toilet facilities to every job. Not when your miles from anywhere, even a road. So yes I would imagine conditions are poor but I don't think the nature of that environment there is always a solution. But there are female track workers so I suppose they just do the best they can. I suppose it the same with the Forces. When I was in I served with a lot of women and likewise although your employer should do the best to accommodate you it is not always practical. Well all just manage best we can, no problem. Where periods have a huge affect on someones ability to operated I don't see why this shouldn't be viewed like any other longterm condition/disability.

I do know that birth control was not invented to to solve period problems. But it has often been the case that some medicines have been found to work for conditions they where not intended for. But it is often seen as the one of the only treatments. And it does work often. Not always and sometimes the side effects are more damaging than the problem. There does need to be more effort in health care. After all surely this problem affects the economy with days of work?