Has anyone seen this on GMTV about women on maternity leave??

[Peaches174]

www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=33559

How outrageous! Who are these men that think women should be the first to be made redundant in a recession?!

I think it just shows old fashioned attitudes TBH leningrad - a very many people feel deep down that mummies should be at home looking after their children anyway. And that opinion is even held by a lot of mummies.

This really doesn't surprise me.

Apparently the senior people at my company think women get too much money while on mat leave and we only get SMP!!!

Thank God there is protection for women on maternity leave and for part time workers in that if you are chosen for redundancy because you are PT it can be sex discrimination.

I can however understand why small businesses wouldn't want to hire women of childbearing age.

But employers get something like 90% back from the government for maternity pay.

I was speaking to a woman who was complaining about all these 'rights' of pregnant women and I asked her what would be her idea of an acceptable solution... She thought that women should resign until they felt ready to go back to work

I think it would be a good idea if there wasn't an incentive to always say you were going to go back even if you know damn well you aren't.

At the mo people always say to keep your options open and I think you would probably lose money from the accrued holiday side if you didn't go back?

Whereas in practice it would be much better if people who knew they weren't going back felt able to say so, then the position could be filled or not or whatever and not leave the employer in limbo for a year.

In practice it would probably just mean that employers would pressurise women to resign though so I'm not sure it would work...

How is making PT workers redundant grounds for sexual discrimination?

It's the indirect effect thing because most PT workers are women, something that affects only PT workers will disproportionately affect women. It's the way PT workers have gained most of their rights, TBH there's a reasonable string of case law on it, I think.

"It's the indirect effect thing because most PT workers are women, something that affects only PT workers will disproportionately affect women. It's the way PT workers have gained most of their rights, TBH there's a reasonable string of case law on it, I think."

interesting, always wondered that.
does that mean though that say most high earners were men (i have no figures for this just using a hypothetical), could it be legally argued that any sort of salary caps or even the higher tax band was indirect sexual discrimination against men because it is more likely to target men, even though neither proposals mention the gender of those subject to it?

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. But, you obviously know more about it then I do. So, I shall defer to your superior knowledge.

Anyway, men should stay home and change nappies and miss their meeting when the nanny doesn't show up because she's run off for whatever reason. THEN we will be equal. Giving women special perks only holds us back more because it reinforces the views of the good old boys in management who make the decisions irrespective of their legality.

Fab point, MayorQ.

I 'heart' mayorquimby

we still have time to make a fuss before the new equality bill is debated next month - but not much.

They can't make it legal. It is a knee-jerk reaction to all the economic doom and gloom. So much has been done under the labour gvt to protect the rights of workers - they can't do a u-turn now.

Interesting point mayorq. I have worked in a job where i had access to gender/pay splits for hundreds of UK companies and across the board men do still earn significantly more than women even in same job/full time/no career breaks for the women etc.

So while you could argue that a salary cap/higher tax band would affect more men than women, I don't think you could argue that it was discrimination, as the reason the women aren't caught is because they aren't earning that much in the first place. So the discrimination against the women "trumps" the fact that most men are caught. The fact that men are caught more than women in fact shows that women are discriminated against, not men IYSWIM.

V interesting point though.

"Giving women special perks only holds us back more because it reinforces the views of the good old boys in management who make the decisions irrespective of their legality"

before you all get too fortright with your praise i am a man (that normally turns mn-ers against you )
but the part of your post i quoted is what i have always thought with regards to equality. be it sexual/racial/whatever.
i think it may be a generational thing, because i accept the needs of such actions in the beginning to force the change, but i honestly see very little sexual or racial discrimination among my peers (early 20's). so this does then lead to resentment if you see others being given preferential treatment based on their sex or race, but even more than that it re-enforces some peoples views that these groups can't fend for themselves/aren't pulling their weight/are in need of special priveledges to get them on an equal footing. so the old boys upstairs do think of them as the weaker sex and treat them as such.

I have worked for women who didn't want to give jobs to mothers/young women. Saying that, I have worked for men who were the opposite (one had the mad idea that I did already have 2 kids -mnone at the time - and another one was very child-friendly). I hate to admit it... but I have found female bosses (especially those with children) worse for this type of prejudice.

"So the discrimination against the women "trumps" the fact that most men are caught. The fact that men are caught more than women in fact shows that women are discriminated against, not men IYSWIM."

then you get into a very circular debate where by men would argue they're being punished for their success.women arguing they're still being discriminated against (something i don't deny for a second but may be legally difficult to prove seeing as their is so much legislation in place), men arguing that there is in fact a very real and oppressing social discrimination for them to be the bread winner and so they are indirectly discriminated against with regards to being available for art time work so why should it be protected and not theirs.
it would all make your head hurt

i am of course being a little hyperbolic, but i do find some of the legal reasoning that goes into declaring something "indirect discrimination" very interesting. i remember a tread on here that argued a child free academic library was indirect discrimination because women were more likely to be in charge of child care. i couldn't see the connection but others clearly could.

a man!!!!!

I know what you mean mayorq, I think. My DH is a bog standard white middle class OK degree 30 year old bloke. He gets really upset about "positive discrimination". And bangs o about it for hours, much to my delight and enjoyment .

I try to point out to him that he has never experienced discrimination, and never will, and so fundamentally can't "get" why these things are sometimes needed (not so much the positive discrimination - in two minds about that myself - but about discrimination laws etc).

Having experienced constructive dismissal and sex discrimination myself, in a very male orientated company, I do believe that the laws and things are necessary because unfortunately people often do not behave in an unpredudiced fashion when left to themselves.

Many 20 year olds may not be sexist/racist etc but in my experience the people running things - usually older men - often are - and someone needs to keep them in check.

MQ - are you a lawyer?

Last week I and 4 men interviewed a woman for a managerial post. When she walked in, it was obvious that she was about 7 months pregnant. Anyway, she was an excellent candidate and we unanimously offered her the post over two other male candidates.

She would like to start September and that is what we have agreed!

Mayorq the problem is the women are just as successful but not rewarded as richly as the men for being so.

The solution would be to pay everyone the same if they had the same skills/experience etc.

I don't think men can claim they are being discriminated against because they earn more.

I sort of see the point you're making but I don't think it works. I'm not a lawyer though

What white men who hate positive discrimination fail to understand is that for years, they proactively discriminated against anyone who was not like them (ie women and ethnic minorities)and many of them who are in charge of things now still think this way unfortunately.

"MQ - are you a lawyer? "

i've studied it but am not yet qualified.

"My DH is a bog standard white middle class OK degree 30 year old bloke. He gets really upset about "positive discrimination". "

haha join the club. but just like your husband (well i've got a few years on him) i will never really experience it in a true oppressive sense that will hold me back. i mean i accept that where i'm working being middle class helped me get the job (white i doubt had anything to do with it, but at the moment in dublin if you are iddle clas you are more likely to be white but thats another days work)
so my only real experience is the way is the fact that we are the last acceptable target of ridicule at any sort f mainstream level (black comedians can make white people jokes,women can make male jokes,comments like what do you expect he's a man are accepted.) which really is a very very very small thing to have to put up with when alligned with very real racism and sexism others experience.

"Having experienced constructive dismissal and sex discrimination myself, in a very male orientated company, I do believe that the laws and things are necessary because unfortunately people often do not behave in an unpredudiced fashion when left to themselves.

Many 20 year olds may not be sexist/racist etc but in my experience the people running things - usually older men - often are - and someone needs to keep them in check. "

which i agree with and was kind of my point. i look forward to when they are not necessary and while they might annoy me because it feels like they assume sexism or racism on every white males, that annoyance is the far lesser of two evils as oppossed to not having these laws at all

oh no jazz hands i wasn't suggesting we are discriminated against, and i know very real differences in salaries do still exist for exactly the same jobs. i was just kind of thinking out loud if you could use the same logic for the tax band point.
none of what i say could actually be applied i was just looking for others thoughts on my hypothesis.