A feminist discriminating against women.....

[TheRealTillyMinto]

...oh yes... and the feminist is... me.

I run my own company in a male industry. we are small but growing and have really large, demanding clients. i am in my mid/late thirties. i want to have children. i will have to work as much as possible. thats ok as it is my choice to be an employer & women in my family have worked for generations so i grew up with a working mother, grandmothers, aunts etc.

but my company is not large enough to have me working as much as possible, and another woman on maternity leave. very few women apply for jobs in my industry, so this is only theortical, but for the time being i would not employ a women if i thought there was any chance of them needing mat leave at the same time as me.

it is a terrible thing to say but i dont have much time left so i am prioritising me & my life over the employment equality of other women.

generally speaking as an employer, i think ML is good for business as it creates change within an organisation.

your thoughts please.

[suzikettles]

Well, maybe you'll fuck up in your oh-so-careful plans to discriminate against women in your recruitment practices and it'll be some other woman's turn to move things forward.

Probably not though. Your sort usually do get away with it.

[TheRealTillyMinto]

i was answering:

ThealaWed 21-Sep-11 22:21:23
Employers (or self-employed/freelance people) don't generally have the same rights as employees. That's what it means to be the boss, and applies whatever your sex.

hence:

you cannot compare a male boss loosing paternity leave with a woman loosing maternity leave.

[suzikettles]

You're not "loosing" maternity leave. You will get MA which is paid at the same rate as SMP

[suzikettles]

I don't think self-employed fathers do get paternity leave though, so you're right that you can't compare them.

[TheRealTillyMinto]

SMP/MA is not a main issue: small companies get most of the cost of a replacement employee funded by the govt. they wont fund a replacement for me - so how does my company function at the same level?

The OP says it is theoretical. i work in a very geeky area & you get at best about 20 men applying per woman. last recruitment, no women applied at all.

[suzikettles]

But an employee on maternity leave, whose replacement costs are funded by the government is a totally separate issue to your own replacement costs.

Your own replacement costs will remain the same whether you employ a woman or not.

So your op makes no sense.

[suzikettles]

And do small companies get the cost of a replacement employee funded by the government? My understanding was that they could claim about 105% of the SMP they paid out. Obviously they can also employ temporary cover as they won't be paying the woman's wages while she's on leave.

Presumably your company also won't be paying your wages while you're on leave which would leave some cash for employing some sort of cover.

[Sam100]

Not sure where you get the bit about government funding a replacement from? My understanding is that small employers can recover 104% of SMP paid out. The 100% bit is to reimburse the SMP paid out to woman on ML. The 4% is a contribution towards the admin of running the SMP scheme. It also applies to SSP paid out - or do you not intend to employ people who might get sick either?

It is your choice to structure your employment arrangements as they are. You could operate as a company and employ yourself as a worker and give yourself all the benefits of employed status if you chose to. Presumably you do not do this because it has other tax consequences. But it is still an option open to you.

[skrumle]

"small companies get most of the cost of a replacement employee funded by the govt."

huh? what suzikettles said... when i went on ML i got SMP both times, the govt covered the cost of that but neither time did the company i work for get any additional benefits in order to cover me. the difference between SMP and MA is very little.

it seems to me that you may believe yourself to be a feminist in lots of areas but when it comes down to it you would be prepared to discriminate against a woman simply because she could get pregnant. lots of women of child-bearing age don't get pregnant, lots of men of child-bearing age fall ill, quit without notice, or turn out to just not be very committed to their jobs. such is the joy of being an employer!

[TheRealTillyMinto]

if you are employed, you have a right to 52 weeks maternity leave from work. i will be v lucky to get 2 weeks out of the office.

if you are employed you have a right to go back to your orginal role or equivalent. the more time i take, the less of a company i would go back to.

i dont begudge other woman proper maternity leave rights but i am gutted that the rights dont exist for me.

it is bad for equality if women are discouraged from entrepreneurship. it is a way of overcoming discrimination in the workplace & in salary.

[Beachcomber]

I know nothing about UK employment law so can't help there.

I just wanted to agree with LeBOF;

"I wish someone had warned MNHQ that their post about the Fem Section was effectively creating a Troll's Charter. I've seen it tediously parroted by trolls and friends of trolls almost gleefully ever since."

[NotADudeExactly]

It's not only illegal it's also helping to keep women out of your industry.

As a woman software engineer I have found that, having outperformed most of my fellow students at uni, I still have a hard time convincing anyone I know even the first thing about writing software.

The last thing women in male dominated industries need is to be regarded as problematically fertile as well as stupid.

[SardineQueen]

Your ideas are confused, tillyminto.

I think you need to look more into what you will be entitled to as a self-employed person (if that is your standing in the company? many bosses are employees of the company) if you get pregnant, and what will be paid if a female employee goes on mat leave.

The ideas that you have expressed here are not correct and I find it strange that you have decided not to employ a woman of child-bearing age based on your ideas about what will happen, rather than researching what will actally happen.

I think that is really poor TBH.

I also think (obviously) that what you are intending to do is wrong. You are not looking to employ the best person for the job, you are looking to employ a man. That is wrong.

[MoreBeta]

I am a soon to be employer (and a man) and discriminating against child bearing age women like this is stupid, short sighted, illegal and bad for your business.

I have come across women who do discriminate against other women in business. You might be a troll but you might also be one of those women.

Either way, you are missing a massive opportunity to employ talented people who happen to be women. In my business, I am keen to employ women for a very good business reason.

Women with children will tend to be far more loyal to your business than men of a similar age because when women find a good employer that takes account of their family life and gives them a bit of flexibility they stick with the job because it is often hard to find another one with an understanding employer who treats them half decently. Providing a bit of flexibility to a good employee who is unlikely to leave makes good business sense to me.

A man on the other hand is far more likley to resign to go to a competitor at short notice. That is very disruptive to your business. You have far more notice a pregnant woman is going on maternity leave and she is much less likely to take all your trade secrets and customer lists to a competitor either.

[Alibabaandthe80nappies]

OP maternity legislation is to protect female employees. You are your own boss, and therefore able to make your own choices.

[MrsKarbonara]

"I wish someone had warned MNHQ that their post about the Fem Section was effectively creating a Troll's Charter. I've seen it tediously parroted by trolls and friends of trolls almost gleefully ever since."

So sorry to be off-topic, could somebody please link to this MNHQ post for me, I missed it. Thanks

[sunhat]

So you took a company to tribunal - you do not say if you or they won? Are you stating this so that readers think you are some trail blazer for the rights of women? But you are going to practise hidden discrimination against women? Yes you know it is illegal, you should know it is wrong but you will get away with it.

You obviously do not have such a great accountant as you could get money for a replacement if you had paid yourself as an employee. But you have probably not paid sufficient NI and Tax to qualify for maternity leave and it to be reimbursed.

If you are an employer then you have responsibilities - that is what being an employer is all about.

I would not define you as a feminist either.

Good luck living with your conscience. I wouldn't like to be you.

If you have a child then good luck telling her or him the story about how you wouldn't hire women of child bearing age.

[skrumle]

if you are employed, you have a right to 52 weeks maternity leave from work. i will be v lucky to get 2 weeks out of the office.

you have the exact same right - like lots of other women (employed or self-employed) you may feel that's not an option

if you are employed you have a right to go back to your orginal role or equivalent. the more time i take, the less of a company i would go back to.

you may go back to less of a company in the same way that an employee may go back to a less influential role, fewer people to manage, a grotty basement office when they used to have a view. there are always risks!

i dont begudge other woman proper maternity leave rights but i am gutted that the rights dont exist for me.

i just think you are totally misunderstanding "rights" - and in a way, feminism! as a white, educated woman living in a country with free access to healthcare and legislation that prevents discrimination on the basis of sex what could i possibly have to complain about? maybe the fact that the culture still hasn't changed?!?

you have the same rights, and in fact have the right as an employer to create a better situation (e.g. offer employees enhanced mat pay) but you choose not to exercise them because you feel it would impact your business - welcome to the real world!

[TheRealTillyMinto]

i am obviously incorrect in some areas. i will go away & read up on them. The main reason i dont know is that i have never employed a woman. using a completely fair process (ticking off against job description), i/we have never shortlisted a woman. very few women apply even when using job websites (the OP did say this was theoretical).

but women running their own businesses do face difficulties women who are employed dont. a friend who is a personal trainer went back to work 2 weeks after giving birth because she could not afford to lose any clients.

So it still remains:

if you are employed, you have a right to 52 weeks maternity leave from work. If you run your own business 52 weeks off work is impossible (forget about being paid for the time, your clients will move on and/or the competition will overtake you).

if you are employed you have a right to go back to your original role or equivalent. the more time most women running a small business take, the less of a company they have afterwards.

so if you are a woman running your own business, some of the laws created to help achieve equality dont apply to you.

[sunhat]

What utter rot. If you take a risk to start a business then you understand the risk and gain concept don't you?

If you run a business then you can create wealth that exceeds what you could earn as an employee.

I don't think you have what it takes OP you don't even understand Maternity Leave and the payments that can apply.

You could for example, put in a return to work bonus to encourage a woman to return after maternity leave.

If you are an employer you are NOT beyond the law, and yes those laws still apply to YOU.

Anyhow as I say - good luck with telling your child/children about how you discriminated against women.

[TheRealMBJ]

Take some legal advice on this. What you are suggesting is illegal.

BUT, if you have your own company, I'm pretty sure you can have it set up so that 'the company' (a separate entity) employs 'you'. Thereby you become an employee of 'the company' even though you run it. And all laws and provision for any other employee will also apply to you.

[SardineQueen]

"if you are employed, you have a right to 52 weeks maternity leave from work. If you run your own business 52 weeks off work is impossible (forget about being paid for the time, your clients will move on and/or the competition will overtake you)."

Only 39 weeks of it is paid.

If you are self-employed you get the same amount of money for the bulk of mat leave ie SMP which is about £100 a week. Many women cannot afford to take a whole year off on this wage and so return much earlier than a year.

"if you are employed you have a right to go back to your original role or equivalent. the more time most women running a small business take, the less of a company they have afterwards."

I am not sure what the point of this is. You can pay someone to cover you while you are off, with the money you would otherwise be paying yourself. Unless you don't pay yourself anything, but given that you are in a position to employ others I assume you are getting money out of it.

As the boss you are in a stronger position than many employed women. You can give yourself flexible working to fit around your new role as a parent. Many women approach their company with their legal request for flexible working and find it turned down for often rather spurious reasons. So they end up without a job at all (if they really can't do full time / long hours that they were doing before).

[SardineQueen]

" If you run your own business 52 weeks off work is impossible (forget about being paid for the time, your clients will move on and/or the competition will overtake you"

Your hiring policies are obviously pretty rubbish then if you think the whole thing will go under if you are away for a while.

[WoTmania]

'if you are employed, you have a right to 52 weeks maternity leave from work. If you run your own business 52 weeks off work is impossible (forget about being paid for the time, your clients will move on and/or the competition will overtake you).'

OP - I really don't see waht this ^ has to do with whether or not you would employ a woman. And I don't see how you can stop this happening if you want to both take time off and^ retain your client base.

[WoTmania]

agh, ^s didn't work.