Employers are *****

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 18:53

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

The stuff above is a 'cost', but I know better than to argue and argue with you so I'll concede just to avoid it

As for a solution? No, I don't really. I don't work in HR, but off the top of my head perhaps something that makes the employee contractually obliged to return? I've no idea. Is that even workable? Probably not.

I just think 'Crikey, thats harsh'. It can cripple small businesses with tight margins and not many staff.

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 18:56

MrMoonX said:
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.

How nice. I didnt make ANY reference to the money the woman gets, though, so I don't know why you are telling me. I know how SMP works.

I'm referring to the cost of hiring and training a temp.

Fox you are a disgrace with this!

Can we not have a discussion without all the drama? All I'm saying is 'Wow, thats a tad harsh'.

my already low opinion of you just hit the bottom.

I hardly advocated the banning of maternity leave. Infact I didnt advocate anything, I'm just musing that I think its quite harsh on the employer!

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

I'll be dead chuffed to have SMP one day, because from a personal perspective it will be of great benefit to me, and personal circumstances will always cloud judgement.

That still doesn't stop it being harsh from the employers perspective though.

I think you are so busy foaming at the mouth at the horrible injustice you perceive in what I've said that you've not bothered to actually understanding what it was I just said.

I'm just saying its harsh for employers, thats all.

I have not at ANY point supported the actions of the employer in the OP. Not ONCE. All I've said, time and time again is 'Its harsh for the employer, all this, eh'.

Yet you come steamrolling in with bilge about 'disgrace' and 'rock bottom' opinions? I think you've scanned my posts, assumed I've wholeheartedly supported the employer in the OP, and commented accordingly.

Thats the thing with assumption. Bad idea, isnt it?

Biohazard · 20 Jan 2011 at 18:57

[TW]Fox;18275532 said:
The stuff above is a 'cost', but I know better than to argue and argue with you so I'll concede just to avoid it

As for a solution? No, I don't really. I don't work in HR, but off the top of my head perhaps something that makes the employee contractually obliged to return? I've no idea. Is that even workable? Probably not.

Don't want to get caught in the trap eh?

However no, I think that would be somewhat untenable.

Even then - return then leave?

I appreciate the point you raise, but it isn't a big problem apart from what you mentioned below VVV

[TW]Fox;18275532 said:
I just think 'Crikey, thats harsh'. It can cripple small businesses with tight margins and not many staff.

Yes it can cause small business hardship, but there isn't really much better solution unfortunately.

MrMoonX · 20 Jan 2011 at 18:58

Sudden said:
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.

they are going to move her whilst on maternity leave to a job she cant do then make her redundant, they cant make her redundant, they can make her post redundant, which would mean the other person cant have her job, plus women on maternity are entitled to go back to their previous job, this is blatant discrimination. Any employment lawyer would be all over this like a tramp on chips, especially if the OP gives a witness statement or the email

Biohazard · 20 Jan 2011 at 18:58

[TW]Fox;18275553 said:
Can we not have a discussion without all the drama? All I'm saying is 'Wow, thats a tad harsh'.

I love a good bit of drama I do!

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:00

Biohazard said:
I love a good bit of drama I do!

I feel like I'm being lynched by a bunch of people who were too busy picking up the pitchforks to actually read what I wrote

Duke · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:00

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)

What was your question again? Also, why get involved?

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:00

MrMoonX said:
they are going to move her whilst on maternity leave to a job she cant do then make her redundant, they cant make her redundant, they can make her post redundant, which would mean the other person cant have her job, plus women on maternity are entitled to go back to their previous job, this is blatant discrimination. Any employment lawyer would be all over this like a tramp on chips, especially if the OP gives a witness statement or the email

There is absolutely no question that what they intend to do is illegal, and she would win a constructive dissmissal case based on this.

Energize · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:01

MrMoonX said:
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

You can always rely on this forum for a laugh.

Ironical it's because of maternity leave that young women are discriminated against, they are a liability.

Sudden · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:01

MrMoonX said:
they are going to move her whilst on maternity leave to a job she cant do then make her redundant, they cant make her redundant, they can make her post redundant, which would mean the other person cant have her job, plus women on maternity are entitled to go back to their previous job, this is blatant discrimination. Any employment lawyer would be all over this like a tramp on chips, especially if the OP gives a witness statement or the email

Yes, that all may happen while she is on maternity leave, but her being on leave is not the reason why it is happening. The reason it is happening is that the new person is just simply better.

MrMoonX · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:02

why is it harsh, employers even tiny ones know employment law and the benefits employees are entitled for, they chose to employ people and run a business, it comes with risks and liabilities, maternity, sick, rights etc.

maybe employers should stop thinking about the gains and remember that employing people costs and they cant just treat workers as slaves, as appears to be the trend, using the recession as an excuse

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:02

Sudden said:
Yes, that all may happen while she is on maternity leave, but her being on leave is not the reason why it is happening. The reason it is happening is that the new person is just simply better.

Her status in being on maternity leave though makes it virtually impossible for the employer to acheive what they want. You can't make somebody redundant because you find somebody else you'd rather hire.

Biohazard · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:03

[TW]Fox;18275578 said:
I feel like I'm being lynched by a bunch of people who were too busy picking up the pitchforks to actually read what I wrote

Has petrol risen recently?

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:03

MrMoonX said:
why is it harsh

I explained why, but you were too busy pretending that I was advocating a mass baby cull or the banning of SMP or something to bother to read it.

they chose to employ people

They cannot choose who to employ on the grounds of sex, race or sexual orientation, this is illegal.

MrMoonX · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:04

Sudden said:
Yes, that all may happen while she is on maternity leave, but her being on leave is not the reason why it is happening. The reason it is happening is that the new person is just simply better.

if they make her redundant there wont be a job for the other person as the POST is redundant not the person

MrMoonX · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:05

[TW]Fox;18275610 said:
I explained why, but you were too busy pretending that I was advocating a mass baby cull or the banning of SMP or something to bother to read it.

They cannot choose who to employ on the grounds of sex, race or sexual orientation, this is illegal.

you misquoted me deliberately

I said they chose to employ people and run a business, that comes with risks

Sudden · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:05

[TW]Fox;18275605 said:
Her status in being on maternity leave though makes it virtually impossible for the employer to acheive what they want. You can't make somebody redundant because you find somebody else you'd rather hire.

Agreed. My point was simply that she isn't being discriminated because of the fact that she was on leave, which is what MrMoonX said.

Raumarik · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:06

I'd warn her, they could quite easily have done this prior to her getting pregnant if they had bothered about it, incompetent hiring doesn't justify treating someone like this.

Definately warn her.

Castiel · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:06

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)

Good luck to them, she would have a seriously strong case for unfair or constructive dismissal.

They can make her redundant if her job is no longer available, but then the other woman would not be able to continue in that role even if it is expanded because of her qualifications.

The problem also is that she is entitled to return to her old job, and if that job no longer exists then the company are obliged to find her a suitable alternative position.

This is an absolute minefield for the employer and frankly if they go ahead with this then any employment tribunal will tear them a new one.

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 19:07

MrMoonX said:
I said they chose to employ people and run a business, that comes with risks

Thats just a complete non-point though. It doesnt stop some of us from thinking its a bit harsh. Thats all we've said - its a bit harsh on employers. We've not said it should be banned, we've not said you should be allowed not to employ women.