AIBU to think the £185k payout for the woman who had leave to pick up her kid from nursery is not positive for women?

[purpleneon]

Women of child bearing age already face so much discrimination in the job market because employers assume that you will be less committed due to children & will make your childcare arrangements/issues their problem.

This story seems to do just that, as it's unclear why she couldn't get a child minder or nanny for a few hours a week given she's on a big salary!

It is problematic from a business perspective for an estate agent to leave at 5pm every day because most people want late 5pm or 6pm viewings. It also wouldn't be called sex discrimination if a man's request was turned down, which adds to the idea that childcare is primarily a woman's issue.

Seems like a progressive step but I actually think it is not as positive as it seems for working women, or am I missing something? What do you think?

She did have childcare.
She wanted to finish in time to pick up her child from childcare (eg finishing at 5 instead of 6)

She didn't have childcare that matched her hours though. I've always paid for care that covers up to the expected time I get home from work. Even when DS was at nursery I paid for nursery + wrap around hours for someone to pick him up and bring him home.

@roses2

*She did have childcare. She wanted to finish in time to pick up her child from childcare (eg finishing at 5 instead of 6)*

She didn't have childcare that matched her hours though. I've always paid for care that covers up to the expected time I get home from work. Even when DS was at nursery I paid for nursery + wrap around hours for someone to pick him up and bring him home.

Same! That's why I struggle a bit with this specific point raised in the sex discrimination case.

I think if someone takes a job with specific hours, yes the workplace should try to accommodate flexible working definitely but the onus is also on employees to sort out appropriate childcare.

And if by default childcare falls to women (as it does it many households), then it is only going to count against women if a precedent suggests that employers need to work around/accommodate requests because people don't want to pay for appropriate childcare arrangements.

Anyway hopefully flexible working will become more acceptable for both men and women (regardless of whether they have children) as a result of this!

@purpleneon

But that's not what they've been fined for.
They have to pay her compensation because they didnt consider the request properly within the set out procedure for doing so. That's why they're being fined.

There are also all the other things they did like not paying her commissions on the sales she got, because the money came in when she was on maternity leave. They also made derogatory comments about her pregnancy/maternity leave/being a mum.

You're misrepresenting what has happened. Its misrepresenting and bad reporting which is bad for women in the workplace, it iant this judgement which is the problem.

Even after being repeatedly told that you're misrepresenting it, youre continuing to say the same thing. You're part of the problem.

@roses2

*She did have childcare. She wanted to finish in time to pick up her child from childcare (eg finishing at 5 instead of 6)*

She didn't have childcare that matched her hours though. I've always paid for care that covers up to the expected time I get home from work. Even when DS was at nursery I paid for nursery + wrap around hours for someone to pick him up and bring him home.

This! We have to pay extra to nursery so our daughter can start 30 minutes earlier which enables me to get to work. If this wasn't possible, either myself or my husband would have had to change our jobs to suit.

[quote TheWoleb]@purpleneon

But that's not what they've been fined for.
They have to pay her compensation because they didnt consider the request properly within the set out procedure for doing so. That's why they're being fined.

There are also all the other things they did like not paying her commissions on the sales she got, because the money came in when she was on maternity leave. They also made derogatory comments about her pregnancy/maternity leave/being a mum.

You're misrepresenting what has happened. Its misrepresenting and bad reporting which is bad for women in the workplace, it iant this judgement which is the problem.

Even after being repeatedly told that you're misrepresenting it, youre continuing to say the same thing. You're part of the problem.[/quote]

... I'm commenting on that fact that the judge specifically referred to THIS POINT as "indirect sex discrimination", I'm not talking about any of the other points.

Anyway thankfully, I don't think my random comments on Mumsnet which 10 people will read will have much impact on anything, was just interested to see what other people thought. Lots of interesting and valid points!

But it is indirect sex discrimination. This happens a lot. That is what it is called.

Whether you like it or not, children affect women more than men in the work world. That is wrong. But it is true. So, when a company treats parents badly, it affects women more than men. And this company most certainly tested her badly because she was a mother.

It would be really good if people actually read the story before commenting.

She didn't get the payout because they refused to let her finish at 5 or to work reduced or amended hours. She won because they didn't consider her request properly in line with the law.

Yes she did take it to court because her request was incorrectly handled but to be honest if she didn't act like an entitled snowflake and pay for proper childcare in the first place like most people on her salary do then there wouldn't have been an issue!