Should small companies have to employ women of child bearing age?

I didn't realise it was compulsory - tell us more....

My sloppy wording... you do not have to have a woman of child bearing age on the workforce, but it can be construed as sex discrimination of you have a male and a female candiddate foir the same job ( or promotion ), equally qualified, and the bloke gets it.

Barber vs. GRE refers...

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Alex

If they are the best person for the job but on maternity leave, they are not doing the job - somebody else is.

Regards

Mike ( pedant, Pan Galactic class. )

PS Hope the move went well

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate this issue from the whole subject of subsidy for having children

Our present tax system encourages families to have children, the argument being that we need young workers to keep all the pensioners

IMO this is a bit like curing a hangover with another drink

There is no doubt in my mind that the UK and the world in general would benefit from a lower population. It is going to be painful whilst the readjustment takes place, ie with a prolonged period of low birthrate, and a "top heavy" population. Once we reach equilibrium again, at a new lower popiulation then the so called "demographic time bomb" will heve worked its way through the system

As long as this mentality (ie we must keep producing more youngsters to keep all our pensioners) persists, it will be percieved as A Good Thing to keep producing more children, and mothers will enjoy a special status

Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
It's likely that a woman returning from maternity leave would still be the best person for her job, so I really can't see the problem.

---

Except that a lot of them don't - they hang onto the maternity leave and then phone up just before they are due to come back to resign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:

My earnings put me in the lowest tax bracket, comfortably, before you suggest that benefits are means tested on the family unit.

---

So you earn less than £6000. You should apply for Family support & social security.

Tom
Actively enjoying it all

---

TOM: So, how much do you earn, Alex ?
ALEX: I'm an accountant, Tom. How much do you want me to earn ?

quote:

---

She now gets £65 or so child benefit per month and Fuck All else

---

You may think the amount small,and I am not unsympathetic, but it is still a subsidy

And what about your own personal tax allowance?

Just imagine if your child was, say, a pet dog?

Not even any free medical treatment!



Laurie S

quote:

---

further the economic and social good of society as a whole.

---

this is exactly the point I am making.....not in the long run

I would also applaude your utter selflessness and concern for society when you made the decision to reproduce

quote:

---

My own personal tax allowance is the same as every other adults, before adjustment, and is completely irrelevant.

---

Not so because of the adjustment you mention

Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
My own personal tax allowance is the same as every other adults, before adjustment, and is completely irrelevant.

---

and we are all born equal - before considering parentage, geographical location, etc etc etc...

Just thought I'd mention that the company I work for appears to avoid employing women whenever possible.It's quite a large company, quoted on the LSE, established for about 25 years, with a worldwide presence, a turnover of about £280M and some 1100 staff.
The reason I think this is because we have not a single woman in any form of managerial position.
Also, I know for a fact that the company has had to fight several sex discrimination law suits which have happened when unhappy workers have either been fired or resigned.
Our F.D told me about one such case he fought where a woman working in our stores resigned claiming she was discriminated against by her fellow male workers and treated appallingly. I know the guys there very well and what she described as discrimination and innuendo was the "banter" encountered in many warehouses up and down the length of this land and many others.
Anyway, our F.D told me that the only thing the company could do was to settle out of court as the case was not worth fighting because in his opinion, based on prior experience, the law discriminates against companies.
He was accepting about this and the level of compensation because it seemed the norm. What was a little hard to swallow was the fact that this particular employee had initially temped in the warehouse for 5 months before being offered a permanent position. She resigned some 3 months after this.
The company also keeps stats on the amount of time it's employees take off as sick and allegedly, it's more women than men who take time off.
Anyway, we're a sales led organisation in the I.T industry and certainly, we have had trouble when ladies in sales positions have departed for maternity leave. I can appreciate that it's probably more difficult to find a temporary replacement for a customer facing role than for an administration/secretarial position,(as an example), as these are positions on which the company is financially dependent. This would probably explain why we have no female staff in anything other than telesales roles as far as the company's sales structure is concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
My tax allowance is £4,745 before being adjusted for any pension contributions and tax owing for previous tax years. The same as any other adult below pensionable age, methinks (says me, wondering why I bother).

---

Yes, of course. Sorry. My mistake.

Excuse my ignorance but I thought men in the U.K did get some form of paternity leave? Some of my colleagues have taken time off when they've fathered, albeit no more than a month but it might be classed as "compassionate leave" rather than paternity leave. Could anyone clarify?

I think they do in the Nordics countries but then they do have a more advanced welfare state than in the U.K,(which comes at a price I gather).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate this issue from the whole subject of subsidy for having children

Our present tax system encourages families to have children, the argument being that we need young workers to keep all the pensioners

---

I've got some strong ideas on the whole parent/work thing, but people ARE sick of me saying them... Let's just say, you can only take equality so far.

I've retracted the rest of my post. Best kept to myself...

__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!

Sometimes, you just despair of the human race. We want to run a business but we don't want to employ humans and we somehow think there is something wrong with employing women, the disabled and so on... but of course, we believe in equality, of course we do. Ah yes.

Slightly off subject but hopefully still relevent: we've just employed a guy to run our office in France who's in his 50's. The French government is actually subsidising part of his salary which is apparently a policy designed to stamp out ageism in the French market.
Don't know if there are any incentives offered by our government for the employment of specific groups, other than the scheme,(Young Enterprise Initiative?),to get school and university leavers in gainful employment.
IMHO without some initiatives which benefit employees and employers alike, discrimination in all it's forms will continue in much the same way as it always has....

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlfrs:
Our F.D told me about one such case he fought where a woman working in our stores resigned claiming she was discriminated against by her fellow male workers and treated appallingly. I know the guys there very well and what she described as discrimination and innuendo was the "banter" encountered in many warehouses up and down the length of this land and many others.

---

( my bold )

Hmmmm.. I wonder what "banter" they used to describe any employees who where not White Anglo Saxons.. Coons? N*ggers? Darkie? Sambo?

Innuendo....presumably of the Sid the Sexist variety? I hope she stung them for every penny she could.

Was about to say "Screwed them " but no doubt the Warehouse would have enjoyed that too much.

This is not a dig at jlfrs, btw.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

Well Mike, I didn't intend to give the impression that the interpretation of "banter" as far as innuendo and discimination are concerned was as extreme as that which you described! Our warehouse chaps are a little old fashioned so some of them are still calling women "love", offering to carry heavy loads for them and wolf-whistle a pretty female passer-by.
But perhaps this is sexism more than discrimination?

I run a small business employing 6 people.
I employ 6 people because I have enough work for 6 people.
Govt comments earlier this week regarding extending maternity/paternity leave were to my ears totally out of touch with the economic reality of running a small business.
The issue is not the level of maternity pay, its more the disruption caused by ever changing staff. In my business, customer service is of top priority and continuity of staff and therefore service is the only way to optimise this.

Regarding Ageism, experience has shown that employees in the 35+ age bracket are the most reliable in terms of attendance and reliability - Ageism in reverse if you like. At the tender age of 40 I am the youngest here.

I feel that larger business' have totally lost touch with these issues and are probably not able to evaluate them. Levels of sickness and absenteeism are far higher in larger companies (and in the public sector). There are regular comments in the papers regarding levels of absenteeism in councils for instance - I understand Corby (Northants) council is the country's leader for staff absenteeism.
One also only has to think about recent cases - British Airways and their sickness levels and the Unions abject refusal to accept any sort of deal on this issue last month (don't give me some old bollocks about stress levels at T1). Also the Unfair dismissal case last year of the LU worker off on long term sick leave who appeared to partially win his case for unfair dismissal even though he had been caught playing Squash !

My point - The government and many large companies have totally lost grip with the economic reality of running a business. There is an ever increasing burden of legislation being placed on companies. Large companies with their Legal Depts and HR Depts swallow all this up - Small companies such as mine just have not got the time. The EU now appears to have joined in the fun and games and pumps out directives daily which lead to an ever increasing burden.

I think the legislation is far too slanted in the employee's favour. I am not some tyrannical 19th Century Mill owner working my employee's to an early grave and paying them a pittance.

With thanks to Mick Parry*, I read some of the *pinko* drivel on here and just wonder at times whether I am living on the same planet.

In answer to the poster's question; no they shouldn't! Nor should they have to employ people with disabilities either. Let me ellborate further. Before working freelance, I used to manage a small company of around 7 employees in a media related industry that is traditionally female dominated and youth orientated. Before I started the entire office (bar one) were female and in their 20's. By the time I left 2 1/2 years later they had a slight dominance of male employees. When interviewing for posts I will admit that I was thinking of the overall balance of sexes in a small office but I will maintain that the best person available at the time was hired regardless of gender. The point I'm trying to come to here is that things are quite difficult enough for very small companies in the current business climate without saddling them with yet more well meaning but ultimately stifling employment legislation. Small companies are not charities or the civil service!

Mole Man

P.S. I'm not a tory boy either!

quote:

---

I am not some tyrannical 19th Century Mill owner working my employee's to an early grave

---

You may not be but my employers are

Of the 20 or so colleagues (going back 5 years or so) 4 have had work-induced nervous breakdowns, and 3 have died from illnesses that could be related to overwork and stress. All under the age of 50. At least 7 more have simply quit just in time

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamk:
Regarding Ageism, experience has shown that employees in the 35+ age bracket are the most reliable in terms of attendance and reliability - Ageism in reverse if you like. At the tender age of 40 I am the youngest here.

---

I also run a small business, currently with 8 staff. All of our staff are either in their 30's or 40's. We have had younger staff members in the past but (without actually having thought about it before) I suppose we have had better success with the 30+ ones.

One of our female employees is recently married and of what would now be regarded as "child bearing" age, however it wasn't (and isn't) something I'd consider when recruiting. She took the rest of the day off today though after feeling sick this morning, so now I'm worried...

If one were overly concerned about attendance records etc. then a health check on potential employees might be the best option becuase my experience of long term staff abscence has mostly (other than when it was drink related) been due to medical conditions brought on by obesity etc. Again though it's not something I'd consider when recruiting. We'll continue to employee the best staff available irrespective of colour, creed, religion, sex, weight etc.

I even have had occasion to recruit Celtic fans...

Alex, you might well qualify for some extra WFTC.

As for the question, I think it depends on how much the woman wants the job, how much she needs the money and what her attitude might be when she has a baby.

I'm about as pinko as Matthew but the last 3 years at my University have made me think about this. We had a wonderful full-time female teacher who worked well beyond the call of duty. She went off to have a baby and took a year out. She then decided she'd like to come back as part time (0.4) instead of full time. She only turned up an average of one day a week owing to child care issues. Another year passed and finally she jumped before she was pushed.

This put the rest of us under a lot of strain and the bottom line was she didn't really feel like working but wanted to be with her child. Why not? But it was unfortunate that she committed to things she wasn't going to do and still felt inclined to collect her salary.

What about sex changes then? A friend of mine works at a very large German I.T company in Bracknell where one of the "middle managers" decided to change from a woman into a man over a period of some 18 months or so. A circular was sent out to all employees informing them that this colleague was to change name, etc and would in future be known as "Derek" which is how "he" should be addressed. Appropriate comments about discrimination and tolerance were also made,(quite rightly).
I believe that the usual snide comments were made but apparently Derek's transformation went largely without fuss. However, the one thing the company couldn't allow for was Derek's own interpretation of "approriate" behaviour now "she" was a "he". Derek's conduct at work was a caricature of what he thought a man should "act" like at work taken from experience gained over many years as a woman. The result was that some of his colleagues, both male and female, were up in arms over Derek's apparent blatant sexism with ensuing complaints to Personnel.Derek naturally counter-complained citing discrimination....
I don't know how this panned out in the end and let's face it, it's not something which will be encountered in the workplace often but I wonder which side the law is on in a case like this. Then again, does anyone care!!!!

How do you follow that last post ?

I think, yes, small firms etc.

If you don't, then you're excluding women between the ages of 20-40yrs of age. They might not even fall pregnant. The problem of losing 1 in 4 staff due to childbirth isn't much different from losing them due to death or due to them resigning.

Particularly in a small firm, it would make sense to have back-up plans should a "key-person" fall ill/die suddenly/resign etc..

Brian OReilly

quote:

---

The problem of losing 1 in 4 staff due to childbirth isn't much different from losing them due to death or due to them resigning.

---

Except that in the case of childbirth you have to keep their job open for if/when they decide to come back to work. Temporary posts are difficult to fill.

When I was looking for teaching jobs I always ignored the temporary posts covering maternity leave.



Regards,

Steve.