Employers are *****

[[TW]Fox]

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

You can't not employ females for being female - this is against the law.

I'm not suggesting an alternative. I'm saying 'crikey, thats pretty hard on the employer, isnt it, having to bear the cost of somebody elses decisions in life'.

 

[Richie]

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

Doubt it, the chavs popping out numerous sprogs will take care of that...

 

[Fr0dders]

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.

its not disproportionate when compared with the rest of the world.

You can't not employ females for being female - this is against the law.

I'm not suggesting an alternative. I'm saying 'crikey, thats pretty hard on the employer, isnt it, having to bear the cost of somebody elses decisions in life'.

its not a decision, its essential to the survival of the human race.

its human instinct to procreate, its in our nature to want to do it ! if it wasn't we'd have died out as a species.

 

[Biohazard]

You can't not employ females for being female - this is against the law.

I'm not suggesting an alternative.

Yer I do know this.

I also thought you might have one!

I'm saying 'crikey, thats pretty hard on the employer, isnt it, having to bear the cost of somebody elses decisions in life'.

They are not bearing the cost.

Do they have to raise that child?

I know what you mean but it's called social responsibility.

Thankfully.

 

[fez]

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.

Is it actually impossible for you to think beyond the very simplest of situations. What you are saying is akin to claiming that everyone would instantly stop having sex and children if you removed maternity leave.

Having children is programmed into most human beings. Maternity leave has not been about since the dawn of time. People will give up careers if children are more important.

You are right though, I doubt anyone has ever met a woman that stopped working after she had a child.

 

[Wicksta]

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.

I agree on the whole, but I think there is a fine line somewhere. Personally I'd rather the hard working people in this country bring up similar offspring rather than end up with these generations of benefit scroungers who have never, or will never work having kids.

Like I said in European terms the UK is very tight towards working parents, I think we have it just about right.

 

[Fr0dders]

Having children is programmed into most human beings.

good, now we've got that settled we can understand why employers need to be sympathetic to it.

 

[Biohazard]

Is it actually impossible for you to think beyond the very simplest of situations. What you are saying is akin to claiming that everyone would instantly stop having sex and children if you removed maternity leave.

Given real world commitments and constraints, it would be hard to encourage population growth with no maternity leave.

 

[Biohazard]

good, now we've got that settled we can understand why employers need to be sympathetic to it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

They are not bearing the cost.

They are bearing *a* cost.

They hire a member of staff, they invest time into training that member of staff before they are fully productive. Then one day the member of staff is pregant and the following now must happen to the employer:

a) They must give the member of staff up to a year off work. They MUST keep the job open and they cannot replace the missing staff member on a permanent basis.

b) Therefore they must now hire a temp, and again bear the costs of training him or her on the job in question, companies internal processes and so on and so forth.

c) The woman can then, with a few weeks to go until they come back, decide actually they wont come back. They dont need to tell the employer this for almost a year.

d) This means the employer can often find themselves with just a few weeks notice to sort out replacement staff, etc etc...

All because somebody else decided they wanted to have a child. Somebody who, despite the inherent risk involved with employing a woman, the employer could not legally refuse to employ based on this risk.

This is a modern problem - many years ago people just didnt employ women for this reason. This, obviously was wrong, but now we seem to have gone the other way..

 

[Wicksta]

good, now we've got that settled we can understand why employers need to be sympathetic to it.

You can't expect an employer to give in to every single carnal desire though.

 

[Fr0dders]

They are bearing *a* cost.

*snip*

I disagree entirely.

Best leave it at that as we won't get any further. It comes down to a difference of opinion

You can't expect an employer to give in to every single carnal desire though.

they shouldnt be able to sack them just because they are having a child either. Which is what they would do to avoid having to pay for a temp.

 

[MrMoonX]

typical ocuk members, why should employers pay for maternity wah wah wah, well maternity rights are some of the strongest in employment law. The reason for this is so people keep having children, despite some of the disgraceful opinions in this thread, the government need people to have babies as we already have an ageing population.

OP should give this girl a copy of the email, she can then rape the employer in ET as employment judges take an extremely dull view of employers discriminating against women on grounds of maternity, these cases usually run to 5-6 figures for compensations payments

 

[[TW]Fox]

disgraceful opinions

Oh come off it. Nobody is saying there should be no maternity protection at all. Just that it's quite harsh on the employer. Thats all anyone has said.

 

[Biohazard]

They are bearing *a* cost.

They hire a member of staff, they invest time into training that member of staff before they are fully productive. Then one day the member of staff is pregant and the following now must happen to the employer:

a) They must give the member of staff up to a year off work. They MUST keep the job open and they cannot replace the missing staff member on a permanent basis.

Rightfully so.

It should be treated no different to a long term sick absense etc.

b) Therefore they must now hire a temp, and again bear the costs of training him or her on the job in question, companies internal processes and so on and so forth.

Yes. Most of the time.

c) The woman can then, with a few weeks to go until they come back, decide actually they wont come back. They dont need to tell the employer this for almost a year.

Any person can decide to leave a job at any point in their career mostly.

This is also becoming rarer these days.

d) This means the employer can often find themselves with just a few weeks notice to sort out replacement staff, etc etc...

This isn't a cost as such.

Many businesses have to deal with this on a day to day basis for lots of reasons other than 'a woman decided to have a baby omg'

All because somebody else decided they wanted to have a child.

Yes, and?
It is natural.

It is of course correct to try our hardest to ensure that nature and business can work together.

Somebody who, despite the inherent risk involved with employing a woman, the employer could not legally refuse to employ based on this risk.

Yes I know. We've both agreed this is the case.

However, you keep highlighting and putting emphasis on this point.

Again - do you have a solution to these social ills you see?

 

[fez]

good, now we've got that settled we can understand why employers need to be sympathetic to it.

They should be sympathetic to it. Do you honestly think that the current system is fair though?

I don't think that we should remove maternity leave, it just needs to be reined in.

You dont have to notify your employer untill a little under 4 months before the predicted birth. You can have up to a year off and they you can just tell them you are not coming back at the end of it.

You could leave an employer who needs trained individuals, with the original staff member leaving after a whole year, the replacement took 3 months to train, they have found another job as they were told it was only for a year and you have to find someone new and train them again.

Do you think that the maternity system genuinely brings more equality to women at work in its current state.

Its illegal to discriminate against women but I would wager that less companies would discriminate when hiring, if they felt that the maternity leave system was fair.

 

[Sudden]

OP should give this girl a copy of the email, she can then rape the employer in ET as employment judges take an extremely dull view of employers discriminating against women on grounds of maternity, these cases usually run to 5-6 figures for compensations payments

But she isn't being discriminated against on those grounds? The impression I got from the OP is that the new employee is just simply better at the job and that is the reason they want to replace the one on leave.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

My department is like a baby farm and I'm worried that I might get pregnant.

 

[Fr0dders]

4 months a perfefctly reasonable ammount of notice with which to find a replacement.

If a man decided he was going to up and leave his highly trained position he'd possibly only have to give 1 months notice anyway. 2 at a max.

They're lucky to get 4 !!

 

[MrMoonX]

They are bearing *a* cost.

They hire a member of staff, they invest time into training that member of staff before they are fully productive. Then one day the member of staff is pregant and the following now must happen to the employer:

a) They must give the member of staff up to a year off work. They MUST keep the job open and they cannot replace the missing staff member on a permanent basis.

b) Therefore they must now hire a temp, and again bear the costs of training him or her on the job in question, companies internal processes and so on and so forth.

c) The woman can then, with a few weeks to go until they come back, decide actually they wont come back. They dont need to tell the employer this for almost a year.

d) This means the employer can often find themselves with just a few weeks notice to sort out replacement staff, etc etc...

All because somebody else decided they wanted to have a child. Somebody who, despite the inherent risk involved with employing a woman, the employer could not legally refuse to employ based on this risk.

This is a modern problem - many years ago people just didnt employ women for this reason. This, obviously was wrong, but now we seem to have gone the other way..

Wrong wrong wrong, depending on contract the employer doesnt pay for maternity pay this is usually SMP which the employer gets back from the government, women who take a year off often arnt paid anything for the last 4-6 months, again depending on contract. Also they give their employer notice usually after 24 weeks pregnant, when they hand in their MAT B1. To change their return plans they have to give their employer 28 days notice.

Fox you are a disgrace with this! my already low opinion of you just hit the bottom. If a female decides to breed with you (god forbid) i am sure you will be all smiles if her employer discriminated against her in this manner