Employers are *****

I don't see how her being pregnant really comes into it - someone has come along that is better than her at the job - by your own admission also.

If she wasn't pregnant, and had a temp into help her who performed better, the situation might be identical. She isn't being made redundant because she chose to drop child, she is being made redundant as she is crap.
 
fez said:
Couldnt care less to be honest. You make choices in life. If you want to have children then you have to realise that a company has to make their own choices too. What about the person drafted in to replace you for a while. Why should the company lose money because you want children.

I fancy buggering off on holiday for a year soon. Should I just be able to tell my boss im off and walk back into the job in a years time?

Maternity leave really annoys me.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you think the employer pays both maternity leaver and maternity cover for a full year off? That doesn't happen.
 
Wicksta said:
It sounds like you think the employer pays both maternity leaver and maternity cover for a full year off? That doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

No, but they do lose money - you cant deny it costs the company money to hire a temp. More than it costs to have a permanent member of staff.
 
Because I think its way too accommodating to the parents and screws companies over.

MrLOL, im slightly worried that you havn't realised that you can have sex without popping a child out. In fact, im not even sure where you were going with that one.

Wicksta, I just think its plain stupid to run a system that forces an employer to temporarily replace an employee for a long period of time. It seems very one sided in relation to the balance of power.

If you run a company that requires 3 months of training to get new employees up to speed regardless of their experience and background then you will lose so much money hiring and firing someone else while your original staff member minces off for a few months.

Everything in life is a choice, you choose to follow a career to the exclusion of plenty of other things so why should your employer pay for you to have a child.
 
Last edited:
jaws104 said:
A work colleague is on maternity leave. Her replacement is more experienced and to be honest better at the job, but was employed to fill maternity leave.

Anyway today i caught wind of an email between directors (don't ask) basically plotting how to make her redundant (the girl on leave) and keep the replacement. They are planning on amalgamating her job with another into an accounts management role which they will argue she is unqualified to hold.

It sickens me as she was perfectly competent in her capacity, and reminded me that ultimately employers are conniving two faced pri*ks who would gladly stab you in the back if it meant getting ahead (in most cases)
Click to expand...

Welcome to the real world - businesses will pick who they see as the best for the job. No such thing as loyalty in the work place, it's pure business.
 
It'll be interesting to see how some of the attitudes here change when/if the maternity rules change as has recently been propsed.
 
[TW]Fox;18275094 said:
Does suck for the employer though doesnt it. You hire somebody, you invest training in them, and off they go away for a year to do something else instead and you've got to keep the job open for them, have to go through the faff of hiring a temp replacement, etc etc.

All because they chose to have a baby.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets ban wimmin from giving birth.
 
fez said:
Everything in life is a choice, you choose to follow a career to the exclusion of plenty of other things so why should your employer pay for you to have a child.
Click to expand...



of course its not a chuffing life choice.

its essential to the survival of civilisation. If everybody stopped having children tomorrow and never had any more we'd die out.

According to this, only the USA and Australia offer none, and the UK is one of the least generous in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_par_lea_pai_mat_lea-labor-parental-leave-paid-maternity

I fail to see why this is so ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;18275375 said:
Absolutely. Thats totally the opinion of everyone who thinks some of the maternity benefits are a tad harsh on the employer thinks. Exactly that, infact.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is the standard response when the wherewithal to actually debate a topic is lacking.
 
MrLOL said:
of course its not a chuffing life choice.
Click to expand...

Well thats not really true, hence the minority of women who go through life having decided not to have a child. If only more people didn't think it was something they had to do, might solve some of the issues in the country :p

its essential to the survival of civilisation. If everybody stopped having children tomorrow and never had any more we'd die out.
Click to expand...

Quite. I'm sure most of us will have children - but we'll choose to have children. It just seems disproportionately harsh on the employer.
 
[TW]Fox;18275375 said:
Absolutely. Thats totally the opinion of everyone who thinks some of the maternity benefits are a tad harsh on the employer thinks. Exactly that, infact.
Click to expand...

Do you want to not employ females for that risk then?

It's the birds and the bees. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for it.

We are past the days of women sitting at home with the children - so now they work alongside us.

I know what you say with regards to the employer - but that is called the reality of living in reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom