Sandie Peggie facing internal misconduct hearing this week!

[NotAtMyAge]

Utterly mind-blowing to read that NHS Fife is pressing ahead with a disciplinary hearing this Friday against Sandie Peggie, despite the Employment Tribunal not having completed its work. Sandie isn't taking this lying down and has started separate legal proceedings according to The Telegraph, which also includes the stunned reaction of Michael Foran to the news in its report.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ea111fbd4a9af5a6

Archive version: https://archive.ph/lsriA

@AnSolas - did I understand correctly- a person who is high up in one of the big banks works part time as a male and part time as a female concurrently?

@AnSolas I think we might be missing a trick here.
Do they share the same NI number?

If he / she have seperate IDs, seperate jobs, seperate NI numbers that then equals two personal allowances, two lots of money at standard rate tax, therefore less money getting whacked at 40%,
Oh yes and claim Child Benefits under the threshold for that.

Maybe we should all ask HMRC to give our altered ego an NI number?
I can easily rock up at work in a pair of trousers 👖

@AnSolas - did I understand correctly- a person who is high up in one of the big banks works part time as a male and part time as a female concurrently?

Have you heard of Pips/Philip Bunce? This may well be another one but Bunce at Credit Suisse was a famous case of this.

gendercriticalwoman.blog/category/pippa-philip-bunce/

Yes.
Monday you call or email John.
Tuesday you call or email Jane.

Wed you call John etc.
So if you look it up there will be 2 different independent details in the company directory.

I am betting he is classed a ( full time ) female in leadership role, gender pay gap etc. But who knows the bank may have someone in HR/IT/finance work out an auditable time in motion study each reporting period.

For WCs, changing rooms and some other spaces, why not just change the stick-drawing diagrams and words to a basic drawing of a penis and a drawing of a vulva? Keeps that issue as simple as possible. The more tricky issue is all the laws with the words 'women'. How can certain facilities and laws for women protected if they can be hi-jacked by any man who is allowed to decide in that moment that he will momentarily be a 'woman'. It makes a complete nonsense of those long-standing laws. There was already enough work to be done on laws for women such as equal pay for equal work without throwing in the additional huge issue of allowing anyone to call themselves a woman at the drop of a hat. How can the equal pay act possibly be monitored properly in any way now.

I saw one set of toilets referred to online that the TRAs were not happy about. The venue had normal male and female toilets, but they had added 'AFAB' to the ladies and 'AMAB' to the mens. It was a case of using their own language against them.

From my previous experience of seeing five ladies dismissed due to a couple of ladies in the company querying pay/pay rises compared to the men's (mentioned in my earlier post), it looks like NHS Fife are probably being instructed by legal advisors to find as many minor errors faults in the past as they possibly can to collectively form 'gross misconduct' to allow for dismissal. With the group of ladies I knew, it was a brutal process where if one error or 'personal use of computer' was explained as having been prompted caused by one of the senior/men in the company, that issue was quickly ignored and swept under the carpet and other older issues sought in emails/computer system. Eventually the reasons for their dismissals looked nothing like the original letter stating reasons given in the original letters for the disciplinary procedure. Presumably it was to reduce the pay-off amounts in the settlement agreements made to the ladies (which also included gagging orders reducing further risks to the company). Having witnessed this sort of behaviour by a company previously, it looks to me like they will be scratching around for any tiny issues they can find in the past in order to try to issue a settlement-agreement with minimum pay-out and maximum gagging.

That sounds like potential harassment and victimisation in and of itself.

Legally now an individual is only allowed a single active number so the NI number itself can be changed. Its up to the individual to apply for a new number and once given the number active use of the old one would be fraud.
The two numbers should be linked on HMRC's systems.

so if an employer had 2 companies (banks will) and so had 2 (valid) Er numbers running payroll for both ee numbers (one valid one not) would result in the HMRC system calculating a taz bill for the ee.

All od that is only possible due to the computerisation of records.

Historically women who did not work outside the home would never have been given a NI number and would have been given her husbands NI number and even been allowed to pay reduced NI
https://www.gov.uk/reduced-national-insurance-married-women

So if old enough a married woman could be issued with her own NI number and have NI paid under it plus under her husbands plus been given a new number if she went back to work as Mrs Husband's-NI-No

Computers allow a quickly adjustable personal allowances so the Bill would be round to arrest you and put you and your slick looking slax in jail.

Now if you end up in girl jail or boy jail that a whole other debate.

Irelands tax case law is a reflection on how the attitudes to women in the workplace has changed. There were test cases which are easy to find of how married women had to sue the Revenue commissioners (HMRC) to be seen as individuals
It has married womens act about debt
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1957/act/5
but the husband was legally liable for all the tax and PRSI (NI ) up to the late 80/ early 90

Even today married couple can opt for joint assessment (one liable person) or seperate assessment (each liable)

I dont think men can get Irish child benefit without the mothers permission.

@AnSolas Yes, this is a completely real situation. It was dealt with by a small local solicitor so assumed to be the standard/rife way women are dealt with who query their pay (or whose colleagues query pay differences). Although the equal pay Act is dated 1970, women have always had to risk their jobs by mentioning it. The event with the five ladies I mentioned, happened more than ten years ago but little has changed. From I think 2017 companies of more than 250 employees have to show the pay differences between male and female employees. I would like to know what proportion of employees this actually helps. Most people I know (other than maybe teachers who already had local authority pay-bands) don't work for companies with more than 250 employees. The industry of the five ladies I mention has very few companies even internationally with more than 250 employees but thousands of small private national companies here in the UK with fewer than 250 employees. I can't understand why the reporting of pay gaps isn't for all sizes of companies unless the issue is simply being avoided.

Hmmsomething any legal advice to that effect would not be in the best interest of the firm never mind NHS Fife. I 100% agree that managers/legal do act in the way described.

However NHS has rules and well documented process and a long history of dealing with medical mistakes so fishing for an excuse to dismiss stopped being an option when
the doctor failed to report the care incident(s)
the doctors supervisor failed to report the care incident and ranked it on par with leaving the changing room
the various people got involved and decided suspension was appropiate

She would (or should ) be covered under whistleblowing policy as she believed her employer was breaking the law.

If the board decide and imo its a board level decision they still have to be able to justify the second outcome in court. (That is why the hospital have the right to remove her livelyhood.)

Even now a personal level it would be better for Sandie to take a deal. But now that its gone so public and she knew it would so i think she is in it (like it or not) to the end.

I don’t even know what to say about this, it’s insane.
I am at the stage now, and have been for some time, where if people can’t talk about this subject factually then I’m not engaging with them. People can’t change sex, no one is born in the wrong body, I am not ‘cis’ I am a woman. I will not be kind to anyone if that tries to involves me in reinforcing lies and being asked to disbelieve the evidence of my own eyes.
And one last thing - no trans woman passes, ever, not a single one of them, I, and every other woman can spot them a mile away.

Hmmsomething we cross posted.

The problem with pay gap analysis is equivelency Harland & Wolff of NI titanic fame lost a case for fair pay as they paid the women in the canteen less than men in the yards.

In a smaller business of under 250 its normally very flat management and industry specific skews the results ( hairdressing v building homes)
But a big one is cost as the bisiness has to screen out good candidates to meet the DEI.

Underpaying is an attitude and the idea of pregnancy and child care being a cost to the business (which it is) still has not been accound into DEI ( suporting women who have babies is a long term social good as we all one needs 1 person to replaces us oneself in the workforce)

Tbh a good measure would be the number of middle aged, middle/upper managers who are women with childen in their teens. It shows the organisation promotes and hires in may-at-some-stage-be-pregnant workers
That shows the real attitude to women in the workforce but we are not allowed to point that out never mind collect the data

@AnSolas In the case I witnessed with the five ladies, one of the focusses of the disciplinary hearings was getting some evidence that the whistle-blowing laws did not apply by getting each woman who raised the issue of pay to say something (anything tiny at all) to suggest they did not raise the issue in the interest of the group but for their own interests. Each woman was essentially placed on trial for not being paid equal to their male colleagues. The five weren't 'allowed' to speak to each other about the process but fortunately all did so they could work out what the hell was happening to them. They were also able to find out exactly what every single person in the company was earning due to a mistake made by a director at the time and couples within the company talking so that confirmed all suspicions were correct. Made me wonder how many women without such inside information could have lost jobs in the past due to false reasons and never found out the real reason.

Hmmsomething i would say a lot of women

I know of a company that changed UK contract policy terms around pregnancy because the US managers got upset the first time woman had left after being paid maternity. The male paternity did not change. Now that said a lot to the women (with or without babies) who kept working in the business.

@AnSolas I agree, I think it is a lot of women. Sounds like no-one bothered to explain to the US managers in that company then that the UK government reimburse the statutory maternity pay to the company. I'm pretty sure that's how it works/used to work. All the company has to do is employ someone temporarily (they can keep them on if the parent decides it's not possible for them to return). No need for them to send out messages that they would like to make it difficult for staff to have families or to send out messages that it's not an issue to them for the male employees to become fathers but its an issue for them for the female employees to become mothers. They should have noted that men also leave workplaces for family/childcare reasons.

Hmmsomething its different mindset* *
The jobs T&C generally were above that required as it was a way to attract ees in a compeditive market.
The US dont "do" maternity (its about 3 months statutory leave, Mat rebates on pay is State dependant, the company may or may not provide hospital care insurance) .
People move for 1 days extra holiday (7- 10(?) days statutory and may be expected to work some Bankholidays ).
Good health insurance is an expensive ee cost so the ee wants details to what is basic cover.

I know that the discussion on this thread has moved on, but I wanted to add here that writing to MSPs/MPs as others and I suggested before, seems to work quite well, as this is also mentioned in this article:
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/whats-point-holyrood-fury-cowardly-34702533

"She [Tess White] went on to point out the huge public interest in the case, with MSPs being repeatedly contacted by constituents raising concerns. She concluded: "Women are watching today. The public have had enough of the recent abdication, obfuscation, and moral cowardice from this government, we are only going to see more witch hunts at the public's expense if we do not get clarity on the Scottish Government's position."

Shocking carry on towards a poor doctor. Bet the nurse isn't scared of gay nurses

Is this satire? She wouldn’t want any male in her changing room and nor should she have to, their sexual orientation is irrelevant, their biological sex isn’t.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Good one

Whoosh went the Sexism

Male nurses gay or not get their own male CR

HtH

Indeed ConstructionTime good point

If only someone told them🤷‍♀️

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5277296-in-quite-the-turnaround-scottish-labour-say-the-support-sandie-peggie-and-would-not-support-the-grr-bill-knowing-what-they-know-now

I've yet to hear of gay nurses demanding admittance to female changing rooms. It's only the men with inner womanly feelings like this "poor doctor" who do that.

Shocking carry on towards a poor doctor. Bet the nurse isn't scared of gay nurses

Why would gay men be scary...unless they start to use women's spaces?