Discrimination - yesterdays article in the Times

[Eve]

Did anyone else see yesterdays article in the business section of the Sunday Times. They had interviewed the FEMALE owner of a small business, with 450 employees which supplies Agency Nurses. She was complaining about employess getting pregnant and the amount of hassle and money they cost her and her business. One was complaining about 1 employee in particular who didn't tell her they were pregnant at interview and then went on to milk the system by having lots of sick leave.

The jist of the article was about how unfair the maternity egislation is on small businesses. I was infuriated and thought the point of this legisaltion is to protect female employees from empolyers like you!!!

In another article there was a table showing how the birth rate in declining across the world, in the UK the birth rate is now 1.6%. I think business should realise that we need women to have children, who will there future customers be, who will be working in 20 years time paying taxes for public services and supporting an ageing population, delivering meals on wheels etc!!

I just to work for a small business and had been there for 5 years when i fell pg, again someone started at the company and was pg on interview, she was taken on and after a while let slip to me that she hadn't worked for 8 months and only got this job because she was pg and wanted someone to give her money. This annoyed me as my employers were fab about me being pg, but a little annoyed that they had to pay out the same for this girl, and this girl had 50% of the time she worked there off (because of a suppose difficult pg), she informed bosses that she was coming back, got paid all maternity leave then informed a few days before she was due to start back that she was not coming back.

did not read the article in the paper, but this girl was bang out of order imo).

I am not 100% sure on what the law is, but it does seem unfair that this girl got the same rights as i did.

I read the aritcle too, and had mixed feelings about it. I do feel the pregnant interviewee was working the system, but for every one who does this, lots of pregnant women will not, there are some horribly un child friendly employers out there, and parents need the protection of the new legislation.

As an aside, I am worried that my chances of getting a permanent job in an overcrowded industry (advertising) have now taken a further tumble: with new laws in place giving parents the right to ask for flexitime, and bosses having to prove a business reason for not giving it, how many employers in this long hours industry are going to be happy taking on the mother of two young children, no matter how much I stress my commitment at the interview?

I have to say that I would think twice about employing a woman of childbearing years if I had a small business. In fact, I have run numerous truly small businesses (I don't consider 450 employees a small business) and when you only have 2 or 3 employees, having one out for any reason is really disruptive to the business. If you are running on a tight margin, having to pay someone maternity pay or for large amounts of sick pay while having to hire someone else to do the job could mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy. I am maternity leave at the moment from a small firm (4 employees in total). I told my boss that I was planning to try to get pregnant several months after he hired me and gave him the opportunity to "lay me off" if he couldn't afford the maternity pay. As it turned out we researched it and found that the government would reimburse him for my maternity pay so he could afford to keep me on. But if he had to lay me off I would have completely understood it. But I am not a believer in the infinite wisdom of the government or its ability to protect my "rights."

Well of course the government reimburses maternity pay so where's the problem?. Small businesses can face equal or more disruption from employees who do not have children while many studies suggest that in the long run, women with young children are more reliable and worthwhile employees in terms of contribution to the business.

A week before I went off on my first maternity leave, a colleague doing the same job as me resigned. When I returned 4 months later, they were yet to find a replacementfor him and it was a further 5 months before one was found. 3 years on and returning after my second maternity leave in 2002, I discovered that owing to a number of departures, I ranked as the longest serving member of the team of 15 people which I joined in 1997. My maternity leave cost my employer very little and certainly far far less than the disruption caused by the unforeseen resignation of colleagues not to mention huge head hunter fees paid out to find replacements (25% of the first year package).

Of all the women I know who have had children and returned to work, none have changed employers voluntarily. I would be very suprised that taking a long term view, the cost to the employer of employing a woman of child bearing age is any higher than an alternative employee.

My Dad ran a small business for years and he used to dread his female staff announcing their pregnancies. Yes, the employer does get the money back, but they don't get the time and energy back in replacing the person, paying the person's replacement (often involving an agency fee for short-term contracts), or for the retraining that is required. If you run a small business you are often quite stretched in terms of your time and your money (with no HR department) and sorting out everything involved with maternity leave is an additional hassle.
Of course the rights of employees must be protected (as a p-t working mother I'm delighted) but I can understand why small employers whinge.

But Bugsy presumably he would also dread unexpected resignations, absences, unrelaibility by all employees? Is it really only pregnant women who cause upset to small businesses?

I must say (quickly, working) that I'm surprised at all the sympathy for small businesses expressed here! Croppy, exactly.

Surely it's a great incentive to talk to women to find out how they could fit some work in around their family? Maybe discussing flexible hours, working from home, etc. Even if women don't come back for 5 years, they will have similar skills to when they left plus a whole new set.

Jobs like that are so hard to come by, it makes sense for employers and employees to keep talking about possibilities.

Of course its not just pregnant women Croppy!!! With small businesses there is often so little slack in the system that it is difficult to meet any additional costs and to spend any extra time on what are effectively non-business related matters. I'm repeating myself now. I suppose I'm just trying to say there are two sides to every story.

But my point is that I wonder whether the disruption and costs caused by maternity leave are any greater than resignation / unreliability / sickness or whatever by any other employee who is not of child bearing age over say a 5 - 10 year period. It seems to me that mothers of small children are often the more loyal, conscientious and productive in the long run.

Croppy, i think the points you are making are exactly the sorrt of things that employers will discover when new legislation on flexible working is introduced in Aprilthis year. Like all forms of discrimination, it won't go away just by legislation but, by legislation forcing people to re-evaluate their decisions, more people will realise that their previous discriminatory actions were not necessary nor were they the best thing for the business.

Of course, the right-wing media (Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times etc) will root out a couple of odd decisions by employment tribunals, manipulate the facts if necessary, just to get the story they want. There were scores of stories about the introduction of the national minimum wage and how small business would "loose flexibility" and jobs would go and the economy as a whole would loose out, yet there has been little evidence of the economy collapsing as a result of employees being paid a minimum of £4.20 per hour.

Quite right Sis. To the contrary, unemployment is at a record low.The fact of the matter is that if women of child bearing age really did cause a material rise in employer costs (relative to other employees) over say a 5 - 10 period, we sure as hell would have seen a study on it published by now.

Quite right Sis. To the contrary, unemployment is at a record low.The fact of the matter is that if women of child bearing age really did cause a material rise in employer costs (relative to other employees) over say a 5 - 10 period, we sure as hell would have seen a study on it published by now.

There is a lot of evidence that working mothers working with good employment rights and, particulalry if they can have hours that fit with childcare, are actually teh most loyal employees around and save all firms a fortune in replacing them. How many women take more than two (max) maternity breaks from the same employer? Very few, I'd guess. YOung ambitious blokes give much less service and need replacing much more often because they leave without a backward glance the minute a better offer/chance comes along. Actually a recent report on flexible working showed that it increased staff retention, cut sick days and other absences and led to increased productivity - so saving all companies money. It's a complete red herring to think 'family friendly' is all cost and no benefit.

It wasn't long ago that employees had no rights at all, including no holidays and could be fired (if female) for getting married. I'm damned sure the CBI would be delighted to go back to that.

Hear hear Aloha. Working in the City, it always astonishes me how employers seemingly place almost no value on loyalty despite the massive cost and disruption of finding replacement staff. By all accounts, this seems to apply across a lot of industries.

And I totally agree on the lower costs due to sickness / absence as regards flexible working practices, something which is very rarely reported.

I work in a very female dominated profession (which is part of the reason why we are so dreadfully paid but that's another story), and to some extent I can see the problem from the employer's side.

We have a fairly small team and most of us are of childbearing age - for the last 4 years at least one of us has been pregnant or on maternity leave at a time. And because we're all so hugely qualified and specialised (but badly paid), getting maternity cover has been difficult to impossible. It makes it tough for us always to be 'one down'.

One of the areas where maternity leave is a real problem is actually hospitals. Because each stage of a doctor's career (house officer, registrar etc) tends to be people of a similar age, and because women are now such a large percentage of hospital doctors, there is a real problem with whole teams being absent (or returning on reduced hours at the same time).

But I'd hate for the solution to be an American one with 2 weeks sick leave a year and 6 weeks maternity leave. Surely there are more creative solutions.

Fair point Philippat, but as you allude to yourself, I wonder whether if your workforce was male dominated, staff turnover etc may be even higher due to the poor levels of pay rather than maternity. Equally, I would have thought that the relatively poor pay and conditions for doctors (and the potential to work flexible times / part time) explains why so many women are becoming doctors and therefore that these women are preventing more serious structural shortages rather than causing them?

Surely no one becomes a doctor because of the part time possibilities? :0 But I do see your point - again I think we need a creative solution really. If the NHS is so desperate for doctors I think they should find the time to come up with one.

Your post puts an interesting point (basically men don't stay in low paid jobs but women do when they return from maternity leave). I'm not sure that really is the case in the art world - there are other benefits. And I'm not sure I agree that men are more likely to move on quickly than women. But still, as mums, are we 'settling' for lower paid/worse jobs generally?

I was under the impression that a major attraction for women becoming GPs was the fact that unlike many other similar professions, it did allow for women to work fewer than 5 days a week. I may be wrong on this.

It does seem to be the case that generally, women who work part time or flexibly are far more likely to value that above pay and conditions which would make others look elsewhere. The reason why after 5 years, I was the longest serving member of my department was simply because as I was able to work 4 days a week, this mattered far more to me than the fact that my employer was a notoriously bad payer. Hence why all the men left. When I think of female dominated professions such as nursing, publishing and so on, they all seem to be badly paid. Doesn't this to some extent reflect demand and supply?.

The statistics on pay disparities between men and women remain extremely depressing.

Is there a single female dominated profession (aside from the sex industry) that is well paid?

I'm a journalist and am not badly paid - but the flexibility I get in terms of hours and no questions asked if I need time off when dd is sick is worth much more than money. and it keeps me sane. my bosses are women with children which is why they are so understanding and pregnancies are greeted with genuine pleasure, not "oh no, what are we going to do now??" looks. those of us who benefit from flexibility really do 'invest' in our environment and I've never experienced any resentment - though I've heard of it in other areas - from childless employees.

I remember the fuss about this at the time. Apparently 25% of female consultants work part time against 10% of men.

Hague's health spokesman accused of living in the past after claiming that productivity rate is lower than for men

Sarah Boseley, health correspondent, The Guardian
Thursday October 5, 2000
The Guardian

Tory health spokesman Phillip Hammond was accused yesterday of being out of touch for suggesting that women doctors were less productive than their male counterparts during a career in the NHS.

Women doctors expressed disbelief at Mr Hammond's statement, at a private meeting during the Tory party conference in Bournemouth, that the NHS would get about 20% less work out of a female doctor than a man over a lifetime. Men, they pointed out, are increasingly looking to more flexible working hours, either to spend more time with their families or to pursue other interests.

The government is forging ahead with changes to working conditions within the NHS that are likely to allow more women doctors and nurses - who are in short supply - to work part-time. In Harrogate yesterday, the health secretary, Alan Milburn, announced a new focus on family-friendly policies.

Mr Milburn dismissed Mr Hammond's remarks. "The Conservatives are firmly stuck in the past," he said. "The NHS is the biggest employer in the country. Now it's got to be the best employer in the country. More flexible ways of working, family-friendly employment policies and the recognition that the way to get the best from people is to fit into the way their lives are lived today."

But Mr Hammond was unrepentant, insisting that the NHS would need still more doctors if more than half of them - reflecting the medical school intake - are to be women. "Over a working career they do not deliver the same number of hours as a male doctor because of taking time out for their family.

"When we hear we are going to have 8,000 extra doctors, if 70% of them are female then we are only really delivering an extra 7,000 careers over a working lifetime."

Mr Hammond claimed his figures came from the Royal College of Physicians. Yesterday Sir George Alberti, its president, cited a study in the British Medical Journal. "It shows that roughly half the women work half time at some point in their careers, so on average for every woman who qualifies in medicine, you get 75% of a whole time equivalent over a lifetime. For men, the rate is 90-95% because some retire early."

But women who work fewer hours get paid less - so they deliver more for the cash they cost the NHS in wages bills, I'm sure. We all know part time workers do more work in their three days than half of full-timers do in five!! Yes, women drs do become GPs because of the part time aspect - I know two. They could earn more elsewhere in the NHS but want to work three days so are GPs. There is a real shortage of GPs because of the pay and paperwork issues (as I understand it) so these women are really vital to the NHS. Flexible working really seems to frighten some people but it's undoubtedly the future and IME works brilliantly. I work p/t for myself as a writer and it's perfect right now. P/T jobs are like gold dust and if you as an employer offer them, you will have far fewer probs with retention. I believe it is quite a well known fact that men change jobs more often than women, even allowing for mat leave. Also, I do think that many female dominated professions are poorly paid because of prejudice. It's catch 22, men won't accept the poor rates of pay, but men in jobs automatically raise their status and thus their pay. This, I think, is depressing.