Employers are *****
- Thread starter jaws104
- Start date
i think there is 2 sides to this guys, with myself being a father to be within the next 2 weeks, i myself think that 2 weeks paternity leave isn't enough for men, in those 2 weeks you have to make the most of your baby missing out on the most important things, however when the time comes that shared maternity leave comes, i will discuss with my employer about working from home, so that i can take some of the responsibility, however at the same time they see it as that the father bringing in the cash whilst the mom looks after the child and tbh i want that to change. Also feel that employers should work with the employee on flexability i.e. if you are flexable we will help you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
to the op - if you are that concerned about your employers conduct, why not pass the evidence you have seen to the woman getting the heave-ho so she can sue them for unfair dismissal?
Very idealistic, however a lot of the time you want the mother to do as much as she can. You need that mother-baby bond and babies don't do much until they are a few months older tbh, so you won't be missing much after the first 2 weeks.
That's coming from a parent of 2 that did what you want with both of them
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 229
- Location
- London
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
[TW]Fox;18275094 said:
A small company my wife used to work for only employed women of a certain age to mitigate the risks of losing staff due to pregnancy for the reasons you cite above.
Probably illegal but that is what they did although technically some of the women working there could have got pregnant (take my wife who had only turned 40 at the time) but they did all they could to mitigate the risks.
As for the OP welcome to the world of business. Even here in the good old Public Sector we have had what the OP described happen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,409
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Part of running a business is risk assessment and control. Yes if your the sort who likes to have a working environment full of "pretty young things" you will stand more chance of suffering badly at the hands of maternity time off.
If you run a balanced workforce you should expect to pay for and suffer some inconvenience due to maternity.
If your a useless ower/manager of a business you do not plan for anything to "go wrong" like maternity/outage/customers going bust etc and you deserve to feel some pain when your lack of planning hits you.
Part of business plannig is understanding the environment you work in and legislation that will affect that, its not rocket science by any stretch and as I said if you fail to take account of these risks then your almost certainly not fit to be "running the business" you think you are.
Way too many people can set up a business and "run it" until something they have not attempted to plan for comes along.
Regarding the original person, the company looks like they have failed on ensuring that they have a multi skilled workforce, with job cover and have resorted the simplest most obvious "**** I didn't plan for this" of getting a temp to cover exact role.
If you run a balanced workforce you should expect to pay for and suffer some inconvenience due to maternity.
If your a useless ower/manager of a business you do not plan for anything to "go wrong" like maternity/outage/customers going bust etc and you deserve to feel some pain when your lack of planning hits you.
Part of business plannig is understanding the environment you work in and legislation that will affect that, its not rocket science by any stretch and as I said if you fail to take account of these risks then your almost certainly not fit to be "running the business" you think you are.
Way too many people can set up a business and "run it" until something they have not attempted to plan for comes along.
Regarding the original person, the company looks like they have failed on ensuring that they have a multi skilled workforce, with job cover and have resorted the simplest most obvious "**** I didn't plan for this" of getting a temp to cover exact role.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 355
- Location
- Manchester
OMG! WHY ISN'T THIS ON WIKILEAKS??
lol To be fair it's life. Even the first line you wrote made me think. You say the new girl is much better...
End of the day, an employee wouldn't hestiate to change contracts in a heartbeat if they had a better off or salary sometimes the same rules apply with employers.
Sucks doesn't it, but everybody needs to keep on their feet.
lol To be fair it's life. Even the first line you wrote made me think. You say the new girl is much better...
End of the day, an employee wouldn't hestiate to change contracts in a heartbeat if they had a better off or salary sometimes the same rules apply with employers.
Sucks doesn't it, but everybody needs to keep on their feet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Gosh I agree with everything you've said in this thread, and I never agree with you. Ever.
Everybody ends up agreeing with Fox at some point. It's a process of normalisation.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,703
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Well there's 2 women colleagues who have told me lies.
No not at all, my mates mrs is a qualified nurse and I know she got somewhere between 9 months and a year on full pay or as near as dammit. She had to come back for a certain amount of months though or pay back what was above statutory.
I suspect that different PCT's may have different contractual obligations to their staff.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,703
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
but MrMoon has called me a liar and says I don't know what I'm on about.
He even gave me a roll-eyes so that's serious.
This kind of thing often happens.
It is a two way street though.
As others have pointed out, you invest a great deal of time in getting good staff and then you have to find a temp replacement if one goes on maternity leave.
The trouble I found with a co-worker fairly recently was that she had a baby and was gone at least a year on maternity leave. She then came back to the company, who had actually closed the department in the time she had been gone. So instead they were basically giving her a brand new job that was even better and higher paid than her previous role.
However... she had already told some of us, as friends that she was already pregnant with a second baby. She did not tell this to the Company Directors or HR at the time. Thus she worked just a few months and then went on maternity leave again. I left the company but I believe they eventually just paid her off or something, because they wanted another member of staff who was more permanent.
So without being totally sexist, that is one risk with women for employers... perhaps that's a reason why at the top level, women still get paid less than male counterparts.
As for this case.
If you are a friend, I'd turn over the information you have if you can do so without exposing yourself to any wrong doing.
It is a two way street though.
As others have pointed out, you invest a great deal of time in getting good staff and then you have to find a temp replacement if one goes on maternity leave.
The trouble I found with a co-worker fairly recently was that she had a baby and was gone at least a year on maternity leave. She then came back to the company, who had actually closed the department in the time she had been gone. So instead they were basically giving her a brand new job that was even better and higher paid than her previous role.
However... she had already told some of us, as friends that she was already pregnant with a second baby. She did not tell this to the Company Directors or HR at the time. Thus she worked just a few months and then went on maternity leave again. I left the company but I believe they eventually just paid her off or something, because they wanted another member of staff who was more permanent.
So without being totally sexist, that is one risk with women for employers... perhaps that's a reason why at the top level, women still get paid less than male counterparts.
As for this case.
If you are a friend, I'd turn over the information you have if you can do so without exposing yourself to any wrong doing.
Women going on maternity leave is always a risk, and I can understand an employer wanting the best person for the job, but also wanting someone who is less likely to go off and have another one at some point.
A few years ago my school hired a new teacher, who must have been pregnant when they hired her, or become so soon after. This resulted in her leaving half way through the year and a string of rubbish supply teachers. So I can totally see it being a pain in the arse for the employer. In the end she never came back, so either school did something similar to op situation or the cunning-mother-to-be was probably planning this before she got the job.
A few years ago my school hired a new teacher, who must have been pregnant when they hired her, or become so soon after. This resulted in her leaving half way through the year and a string of rubbish supply teachers. So I can totally see it being a pain in the arse for the employer. In the end she never came back, so either school did something similar to op situation or the cunning-mother-to-be was probably planning this before she got the job.
What is the alternative? baring in the mind the issues with the jobless breeding and getting paid more than minimum wage via benefits for doing so and non work shy people deciding not to have kids or at least have very few because they can't afford to take the time off work.