Dundee man leads fight against period poverty

[PrimAndProperPearlClutcher]

“It’s about making people aware of the availability of period products for anyone of any gender, whenever they need it.

... '“I was chosen as the best person for the job and for me, it’s irrespective of gender.

“Having a guy can’t be a bad thing – it grabs the headlines, but that’s not the reason I was put into post!” Jason continues.

“For me it’s about driving the discussion from a young age so boys and girls are included and there’s no hiding it away because that keeps it as a taboo topic.

“I want to be seen as a positive male role model.”'

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/3593497/dundee-man-leading-period-poverty-fight-how-to-get-free-products/

.

ooh! (rubs hands in anticipation)

"The action relates to the treatment of Mr Grant leading up to his resignation from the college, which was heavily criticised in a damning internal report.
Papers seen by The Courier show he was deliberately excluded from key meetings leading up to the decision.
The report also found the announcement regarding his role was also made public before Mr Grant himself had received anything in writing."

Is the "damning internal report" subject to FOI? Or how did the Courier get to see "papers"?

🍿🍿🍿

Hell, I'm going to throw in 🍟🍻🍟

😂😂😂

Pass some of that popcorn over, I’m here for this!

He should never have been given that job, but also, you can’t just fire someone because you’ve been publicly ridiculed for hiring them!

What a clusterfuck.

If they wanted to avoid a courtcase they a) should’ve used the appropriate single sex exemption or having failed at that should’ve b) paid him off to go away quietly.

Bet there are some hair raising internal comms to come out of the dirty laundry bag!

now this is going to be fun

I am HERE for it

Somehow the people involved in hiring and firing this chap have managed to fuck up almost everything. Impressive.

Am I right in saying that it would have been legal under the specific exceptions of the equality act for this role to have been advertised as for women only, due to the nature of the role?

Could be a long wait, I imagine.

Absolutely this!

The job title was ‘Period Dignity Officer’ and the role involved running awareness campaigns on period related topics in schools and colleges so I’m sure the ‘proportionate means’ to a ‘legitimate aim’ part of EQ10 could be justified (IANAL) simply on the basis that some (many! Most?) girls will not want to discuss female bodily functions with a strange man and what good is a Period Dignity Officer who makes a
significant portion of the 50% of school and college students who actually have periods (ie the female ones) feel uncomfortable?

After all, where is the dignity in a period awareness campaign run by a person who is neither a period-haver nor someone with a relevant professional qualification?

He was a personal trainer prior to
being hired for this job so perhaps if he had been a nurse or a GP his employers might’ve been able to justify his hiring in when the public outcry began?

As it was they just scrapped the role entirely and this chap was thus thrown to the media & social media wolves for no reason (and he probably has genuinely suffered both emotionally and practically, potential employers googling the names on CVs aren’t likely to think favourably of an applicant whose last gig was decried as ‘Fucking ridiculous’ by sporting legend Martina Navratilova)

😂

When this story initially broke I thought this chap was an absolute dick but dick or not it does seems that he’s been treated terribly by his former employer and he most likely deserves compo for that.

🍿

I don't care for popcorn but I do like a box of ritz crackers

On my way

Putin? Who knew he'd find time in his busy day!

My thoughts exactly.

In the photo accompanying the article, he does actually look like he's been under a lot of strain, understandably.

Just popping this one down for recap purposes - a female employee claimed she had been working on this project under a different job title (with fewer hours/less pay) and was pushed out in favour of the chap.

She alleges that Grant was hired specifically because one of the bosses wanted a man* and Grant alleges that he was fired for being a man so perhaps being treated favourably for having a penis will somewhat counterbalance him being treated unfavourably for having a penis?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/9448378/scots-college-period-dignity-role-employee/amp/

*although TBF it’s also been alleged that said boss wanted to hire not just any man, but this particular man, so that’s the other bit of goss that the tribunal will hopefully serve up!

Actual lol at this

I'd forgotten about that!
What I think that does is give the woman a viable sex discrimination claim. I don't think it will have any effect on Jason's case. IANAL, obv.

So this man's appointment to the role was announced publicly before he even knew he'd got the job, according to the report.

That's a bit rubbish. Who does that? What if Jason had turned it down, after a moment of reflection and common sense had settled upon him? Seems to me that they were all after woke brownie points, with Jason a mere pawn in their game. So good on him for not letting them all off the hook.

I think the wording is misleading @Rightsraptor

It says:

"The report also found the announcement regarding his role was also made public before Mr Grant himself had received anything in writing."

I think it refers to the announcement that the role was being withdrawn. With all the public outcry I guess they let the press know the role was being withdrawn but forgot to tell Jason. IIRC he went on an extended holiday as soon as the shit hit the fan so I guess he wasn't around for a cosy chat and coffee with Katy.

He does look a lot less chipper in the photo and one can have a smidgeon of sympathy for him. It's not really his fault that a certain person was so determined to give him the job that all normal HR policies regarding advertising the role and fair interviews etc appear to have been overlooked and then the rug was unceremoniously pulled from under his feet accompanied by much public ridicule and condemnation.

I'm sure he was doing OK and was probably quite good at his personal training and working as a wellbeing officer. A chap like that encouraging teens to go for a hike and get some exercise can only be a good thing. But then he got publicly ridiculed and no doubt lots of SM unpleasantness.
That can't have been good for his well-being or his business.

Thank you, @FannyCann- I clearly shouldn't comment at 3.21am!

I don't think he's done himself any favours by taking this case. Unless the college settles out of court (which they may well do), the whole process of how he came to be employed will presumably be aired in the tribunal, making it clear that the college's processes were highly suspect and that he was an eminently unsuitable candidate.

Maybe I’m mean but I find it hard to have any sympathy for a man who thought he’d make a suitable Period Dignity Officer.

Though he shouldn’t have borne the brunt of the backlash when clearly whichever fuckwit “wanted to hire a man” should have been the one dragged over the coals and fired.

(interesting little inversion happening here, with the man being publicly scapegoated and the more powerful woman who was more at fault getting away with it.)

I think he was a total dick for taking the job but he was treated appallingly and will likely be out of pocket.

Also glad he's taking this further and shining more light on the whole sorry mess. 🍿

Yes.

Also, everything the clog lady has said.

He had sufficient lack of self awareness to apply for and accept the job, and do photos ops with uncomfortable looking girls.

This is actually the best possible outcome
Hes no longer doing this job (sadly nobody else is either)
The whole process around hiring him will be exposed
The lunacy of hiring a man to deal with female only issues s being exposed.
Happy Days