MoD to compensate female soldier for discrimination

[BetsyBoop]

HERE

Not sure what I think about this one

My (unanswered) questions are

If she was offered an alternative job, (which would have presumably been one with more regular hours & therefore making childcare easier to arrange) what were her reasons for not taking it?

What is the child's father doing to help raise & support her?

I think it's bonkers...feminism gone too far again. When will women wake up and realise they can't do any job they like.

£££££££ in compensation ?.....I wouldn't have given her a penny.

BB;

I'm really sorry...I killed your thread..

What if the soldier were male and had children but no DP? Would they do the same with him? I assume they would say that the army is "unsuitable for a single FATHER who can't sort out his childcare arrangements" too, in the interests of equality right?

Jeez, her child was sick - it wasn't that she didn't organise any normal childcare. And it was just a bloody parade, not a war, that she missed. There are times when I take the day off when DS is sick, and times when I rearrange care with someone else depending on how important my day at work is. What's to say she didn't do the same and judge that a parade was missable. A bloody parade is hardly life and death is it? It's just boys and girls showing some dignitary that they've shined their shoes and ironed their uniforms isn't it?

Having said that, not sure I'd be in the army if I were a single parent with no family close by, but then that doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to if they want to and are capable.

meg - I think they would treat a father the same tbh. It is unfortunate that the sentence singles out a 'single mother' rather than 'single parent', but I think it would have happened regardless of sex.

having served 7 years in the military and having a DH that is still serving, I have to agree with the position of the army here - and will probably get flamed, but there you go. Unless you have cast iron childcare then the armed forces are not the place for you. Very, very few single parents manage it, and the ones I know had their ex very close and used them in a reciprocal arrangements.

Where I feel sorry for this lady is it appears (although we do not know) that she had no support from her ex. Arguably it would be MUCH (but I am sure it does happen)rarer for a father with custody of a child to have no support from his ex in caring for that child. Also, I know she wished to bring family members over to help and immigration rules prevented this; again a very difficult position for her.

Why did she turn down th other position?

Women have fought for equality in the Armed Forces, and part of this means being deployed for 6 months to places like Afghanistan. Who would care for her child if this happened?

I am not saying I don't feel sorry for her, but I think in the circumstances she was in she was not a fully effective member of the military and is therefore causing others to have work harder to compensate.

She didn't miss it - she was late!

Why are the MoD also charged with racial discrimination?

I don't think the dad is on the map. She wanted to bring a family member over to help look after the child, but immigration authorities correctly wouldn't allow it.

Surely if a job requires a certain level of commitment or duty and the person is unable to fulfil the requirements, they need to find alternatives and the company should not be held to ransom over something like childcare.

I think that the discrimination charge relates to non UK soldiers (she is from the Caribbean) being (potentially) subject to different rules re childcare assistance. Also her argument that no-one supported any attempts to ask the UKBA to waive the immigration rules in this case.

Can't say I that I find a great deal of sympathy for her, at least on the reporting I've read. Got pregnant, stayed pregnant, at some point the father left (not clear whether he did a runner from an otherwise steady relationship or it was all a bit more haphazard), knew that childcare was likely to be difficult. Was offered more mummy-track job, didn;t take it but got upset when she was held to the same standard as everyone else in a similar role.

It is a sad fact, but many parents (both genders) make sacrifices for their families with regards to job satisfaction/promotion. A fact that doesn;t seem to have registered here.

IMHO It's just nigh on impossible to be an effective member of the armed services as a single parent (whether male or female) unless you have a lot of support around you for childcare. A more senior member may be able to afford a nanny (but probably not on a corporal's salary) otherwise you need the family & friends network to support you, as it would be extremely unlikely you could cover this with other paid childcare. As has already been said what was she planning to do if she was posted to Afghanistan for 6 months? How about a month on exercise?

I can't see why it should be any employer's responsibility to sort out childcare for an employee?

Having been in the Army when I was younger, "late for parade" is pretty serious. It's isn't just "a bit late for some marching around stuff".

But if she were deployed to Afghanistan for 6 months then I imagine her family in St Vincent would step in and that she has thought about that and has plans for that. I think part of it to me is that there is a big difference between being late for a parade due to a sick child (what happened here) and refusing to go on a planned or unplanned longer term deployment or training exercise because you don't have childcare in place for that eventuality (no suggestion that she had failed to plan for this). But then I'm not in the military, and perhaps don't understand that all things should require the same level of commitment, be it a regular parade or going off to war.

I too was surprised by the racial aspect to this - makes me think there is a lot more to this than I've seen reported and maybe there are technicalities here which are playing a part. Maybe there are cases where they have been more understanding in similar circumstances (missed minor duty due to last minute childcare hiccups) to either men or to British nationals and therefore she does have grounds for a claim?

TBH, I don't know what I think about it, as my inclination would be that this career would never be compatible with single parenthood - just trying to see it from her point of view. I do think parents should think hard about whether they can offer the commitment demanded from their career when they become parents, regardless of whether they are the man or the woman. What seems clear is that the Army's position actually seems to be that being a parent (regardless of relationship status) and being in the Army is incompatible because they will give you zero leeway to look after your children even wrt minor duties and unfortunate childcare hiccups. Therefore being a soldier has to come ahead of being a parent. So partners of soldiers have to expect to shoulder all of the burden, all of the time, regardless of impact on them and their careers etc. I'm so glad I've not married someone in the forces!

I work for the MOD nd hate this story, Don't know what racial discrimination has to do with anything nor sexual. When you join the army you are expected to be available to work at any time even when on leave. She was offered alternative employment but she refused, it frustrates me that people see the army as a charity, its a job not many employers would bend over backwards to help with childcare. To think she could get 100 grand when dead soldiers families only get 25k makes my blood boil, she knew the job she had. Rant over :0

Actually, tis a really techy case. The MOD didn't go down because they made her have 24/7 readiness or anything like that. That was all reasonable.

They went down because they said immigration rules stopped her having a family member come over to help with childcare (single parents can apparantly have a family member live in to help). Tribunal essentially said "we don't care about immigration. You're all bits of government. If you're going to have this rule, sort it out!" What was discrimination was having the rule, but not letting her have the means to comply. That's why it was race discrim too - a Brit could have had a family member there no problem (assuming the family member was British too)

meg - you are right, the racial side of it is interesting and I don't know what angle this is being approached from.

There are a large number of jobs (inc the military) where not turning up for work for childcare reasons on a number of occasions would get you into deep water. (Police/emergency services to name just a couple - imagine having to cancel critical operations because the surgeon is at home with the kids.) I also can't help thinking that there would have been a number of occasions when this had happened before a formal charge was made against her.

You are right that the majority of childcare falls to the partners of people in the military - but I honestly don't think this is unique to the services (although it brought more sharply into focus.) Any well paid job (and I don't include the forces in that!) comes with a set of expectations and there is immense pressure to attend on time everyday. There are a large number of women (and yes, I think it is still that way round) that can't call upon their partners for assistance with childcare because his jobs demands too much from him....or in some case he SAYS (!) it does. My DH works away a lot with the forces, however when he is back he does a lot of the chidcare/pick ups/sickness cover. When he is away...then he is away. There is no getting around it. But lots of people have partners who travel with work - you just get on with it. the difficulty come when the person with the demanding/well paid job is the primary carer. It doesn't usually work and changes have to be made to accommodate that. I left my job as a management consultant to move to the public sector as a manager, as I knew that we could not look after a child with DH in the forces and me away 3 nights a week as a consultant.

Cross posts with notyummy about the race stuff...

Radio 4 this morning said that she was headhunted for the job from her position in the Caribbean. she originally left her child in the Caribbean but became unhappy with this arrangement and brought her child to England. She asked the MOD to help her bring a relative from Caribbean to help with childcare (help vis immigration issues, not cost). MOD said childcare was entirely her responsiblity and refused to help with immigration issues. Appears there was a change of personnel - previous 'manager' (sorry don't have army lingo) was more helpful to her situation than subsequent 'manager'.

So they really wanted her to come and work here but were unwilling to help her get relative to come and help with childcare.

Believe this will cost MOD around £100K. Not enough imo. And hope the 'unhelpful' manager gets a bit of training in being a human being.

Not headhunted as such, but she did respond to a local recruitment drive. You are totally right about it being the childcare angle that the case was really about. The rest is just fluff for the papers and so the DM can get their knickers in a twist!

Bosch - why isn't enough when severely injured soldiers receive less?

I am not generally a DM ranter btw - I appreciate her position was made untenable by the overall government position on immigration and so that is highly questionable.

However, I am still intrigued as to why she turned down another position.....and whether there are other people in the same position in other industries (i.e would like to have family members with childcare come over from other countries but can't because of immigration reasons) where they find another job more compatible with family circumstances.

Should they all be allowed this help?

Thanks Ribena, that makes a bit more sense of it, so it was basically down to two bits of government out of synch? - One saying "you can get a family member to help you" & the other saying "sorry none of your family qualify because of immigration rules"

I still don't agree with the payout though, not when she turned down the other role offered, surely she could have mitigated her losses that way?

Bottom line is that many people (often but not always women) change their employer/role/hours when they have children to cater for childcare issues (and to have a better work/life balance as well of course).

(and don't get me started on the comparison of the sum talked about and what injured soldiers get, it's all from the same pot... )

I think it's part of being in the military IMO. Having served myself, got married and became pregnan,t I was given a form prior to going on maternity leave which stated that if I chose to return to duty I would NOT necessarily be posted with my husband (a chance we couldn't live together), we would both be detatchable and this could be at the same time and that childcare was our total responsibility.

We quickly realised that we could not sign up to this and so I left. DH is still in and we have moved around with him. Although I miss being in the RAF I could not have given them the commitment required after having a baby so leaving was the right decision for us. I am not saying that being a single parent in the military is wrong but it's very difficult as your commitment to serve needs to be the same as everyone else.

Betsy - I see what you're saying about the other job. Thing is, the way discrimination works is that you're not obliged to take the lesser/different job if the employer should have done something to help you keep your existing job. It's meant to stop employers shifting woman onto the mummy track instead of doing things like agreeing flexible hours for the woman in a senior job.

Point was that the government could have allowed her to have a family member come over (apparantly, even though the bits of government were out of step, exceptions had been agreed with immigration in the past). Then she could have kept the job she was in. The one she wanted. That's why they lost. She was willing to be available all the time, at short notice. She was willing to sacrifice the family life (in a way that, as many posters have commented, many women won't).

She will have been expected to mitigate her losses by looking for another job once she'd left. I don't know what she'll be awarded, but FWIW the figures in newspapers are often pie in the sky. They take the numbers from what the employee has demanded in her court papers. That can be twice, three times, ten times what she actually expects to get. Won't go there on injuries - it's one of the big injustices of our whole legal system that physical injury (soldiers, medicial negligence, road accidents) often seems to result in much lower payouts than mental slights (libel, discrimination).

Feel a bit sorry for her cos she was trying to do it right and obviously it would have done no harm for them to cut her some slack that once.

Still she wasn't in a position to promise to be 'available for work' so offering her another job seems reasonable to me.

Not sure why an exception should be made with immigration. Okay, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the immigration rules are pointless ones, but they are the rules and others have to follow them.

ribena that is useful post - if exceptions have been made in the past than they are kind of shooting themselves in the foot.

I would say that any other accommodations (i.e other than ensuring that she got a relative over via an immigration exception if the precedent had already been set) would generally be very hard to do in a military context. It would certainly involve others having to shoulder more than their fair share, which is probably part of the reason why she was offered another post.

Oh yes, the appeal tribunal were very clear that you didn't have to try and give someone in the military set hours or Mon-Fri or anything like you might try in a normal job.

so does this just apply to MOD as they "allow" a family member to live in married quarters to help with childcare, or could it apply to, say, a nurse/doctor who wants to bring a relative over for the same reason? (as the NHS in this example is also a "government" employer.

Although seems like they "shot themselves in the foot" (the MOD ) this time, it seems like the tribunal are classing "the government" as the employer and not the individual departments?

bosch "Believe this will cost MOD around £100K. Not enough imo". It won't cost the MOD £100k. It will cost the taxpayer £100k.

Great use of public money in a time of "efficiency savings"

Childcare is your own personal responsibility, not your employers.

notyummy - didn't catch the bit on R4 vis alternative job offer, sorry haven't read link above either. Agree vis injustices of legal system but that needs sorting out anyway. Latest decision is that MPs who are accused of fiddling their expenses will get legal aid to defend their case in court - I have no idea how that can be a sensible use of resources.

elvis - which makes it all the more important that the MOD get their decisions right. Stand by my original opinion that it appeared from Radio 4 coverage that one boss (I recall a bloke but may be wrong on that) took the view that he wasn't going to help this soldier and that was the end of it. She apparently had no rights to seek help from his seniors. If MOD couldn't make the court understand that this wasn't constructive dismissal then they either have rubbish lawyers or a rubbish case.

All the public sector has to get its house in order if its going to achieve efficiency savings, and that includes making legally correct decisions.

Was she a single parent when she transferred to the UK or did she become a single parent once she was here? If the former and it is apparently normal in the army for relatives to provide childcare then I think some thought should have been given to the immigration issue. If the latter then she should have got a different job.

Pre-ds I had a job that meant I travelled all over the world all the time and at short notice. Completely impractical when I became a single (and unsupported) parent.