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

Not employing women of childbearing age is effectively saying not employing women aged between 20 and 40, as Brian has said. A completely absurd suggestion.

I've run a small IT company for around 15 years. 50% of the company is female, working in senior technical roles. It would be a blow to lose them for childbearing or any other reasons, as it would the men in the company, but that's just life.

-- Ian

Of course Ian's right - its funny how one bad experience can pollute one's viewpoint.

Chaps

I dislike the concept of tax relief on children and more espescially family allowance or whatever name they call it now a days.

It is a relatively common sight to see women collect their family allowance and then buy cigarettes and other frivolities with the money.

Less sunsidies equates to less tax for us lot and I bloody begrudge being screwed for 40p in the pound on my pension.

We need another Maggie.

Regards

Mick

Mick
Unlike the motoring thread.............
Totally agree, a family in my mums street all go in a taxi to get their benefits
Martin

Mick I take it you have a defined benefit pension (at the tax payers expense) so I think you will do very nicely in your retirement thank you very much.

Simon

Alex

You only get tax relief if you pay tax in the first place and we are ludicrously overtaxed in this country.

I begrudge propping up chavs as I believe they are now known as.

Regards

Mick

Yes Mick, come one, who is paying for your pension? What company do you work for again? mmm?

Alex


I paid into my pension and was given tax relief the same as anyone else.

My son and his wife have a joint income of around £70k. Thet still get paid family allowance or whatever it is called today.

Does that make sense to you.

It sure dosen't to me.

Regards

Mick

Simon

The Post Office pension fund has never recieved a single penny of the tax payers money.

The PO has not even paid into it since 1978. It is funded by the employees and investment funds.

So you are not paying for my pension.

Regards

Mick

Alex

I begrude paying tax to support unmarried mothers etc.

I am more than happy to pay for defence etc.

In other words, I am a Daily Mail reader and proud of it.


Regards

Mick

Mick,
I am glad I am not paying for your pension. However, based on the value of the pension fund, your three houses, the fine wines, not to mention a CDS3, it does seem as if the PO is paying you too much which in turn leads me to believe that it has abused its monopolistic position over the years and fleeced us all good and proper. Granted you have had to economise on your flock wall paper.
Warm regards
Simon

Simon

This is an old saying........the law of the market.

Regards

Mick

Alex

She has averaged £66k pa.

She should have savings etc.

Yes I begrude the £60pm.

Regards

Mick

Alex - in that case, if I were you I'd get Mrs Alex back out working PDQ.
Mick - got any positions in the PO for a beancounter?
Regards
Simon

Simon

I no longer have any connection with the PO. I am but a poor pensioner blah blah blah.

I still have to work to keep Mrs Mick in the style to which she has been accustomed to over the years.

Regards

Mick

I think its rather nice that Mick is paying, however reluctantly, for a mini gerrard. When you say back to the North, do you mean THE NORTH, or just Camden? You are still running your business I take it.
Cheers
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamk:

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.

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.

---

I totally agree Adam.

As an employer myself the biggest problem with maternity leave is continuity of service.

Don't get me wrong - I employ more females than males. And for very good reason too - cue the obtuse remarks. But the down side is maternity leave.

Staff costs are our biggest cost and quite frankly with the way the law is loaded (AND not just employment law but all the other bureaucratic shit that the government/EU generate) I wonder at times why anyone bothers running a business in the UK.

I could rant on this subject for a long long time but it won't do my blood pressure any good.

A little thought - does anyone wonder why call centres/back offices and the like are being set up overseas. Think about it for a moment from the employer's perspective. I am sorry if I am offending people's views but there are harsh commercial realities to be considered.

I note that I have not actually answered the original question. Should small companies have to employ women of child bearing age? I would like to say no (irrespective of our employment policies) but...

Mike

Alex,
Glad to hear its going well. Perhaps you could open a branch in Swindow and give Mick a part-time job?
Simon

Here in Sweden the father and the mother has equal opurtunities when it comes to being home with the newborn child. And it is quite popular among the fathers to use there right to do so (why having children if you never se them?). This would then mean that that employers would be reluctant to employe anyone, male as female, in the 25-40 age group.

Actually, that a man should have lost a job opurtunity because "he's 30 and will be home taking care of his dam kids all the time" is something I've never heard of. Or any complaints from employers about "half our male staff is of on paternity leave, and my business is going down the drain". Of course, complaints about mothers being home is probably as common here as in Britain.

JohanR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
I take it you have never been an employer?

---

Patrick,

I take it you have never been a mother?

Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Which roughtly translates "I'm your boss and I know better than you, now get back to work you lazy job, you're costing me money"

---

Which I guess makes the likes of Patrick, myself, Adam etc etc evil capitalists.

Well, back in the real world, you may not realise how close to the truth that statement is particularly with the tax & bureaucratic burden increasing.

Mike

Tom

You are welcome any day to come and visit - if you are in or near London let me know. There are two sides to every coin and you may be surprised at what the bosses have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Give me a day or two's notice and I will ensure that one of the urchins cleans the chimneys.

Mike

On a more serious note there are those employers who abuse their staff and clearly they need to be dealt with accordingly.

The downside is that it affects ALL employers good and bad. Is that a good thing? Now start wondering why jobs are being outsourced.

Quite frankly employment laws are now so heavily loaded - a direct link to the nanny state in which we now live in.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
The problem with the responsiblities and loyalty bit, is that in my experience it only cuts one way. Your staff can ditch you at a moments notice even if you've just supported them through a personal crisis or spent a fortune training them, and there's bugger all you can do about it.

---

Patrick,

from where I'm sitting, comments like that just justify the widely held view that most senior managers are overpaid [**********].

I work for a company which has just announced that it's shipping thousands more jobs overseas. So does my brother, and I've been watching him wait *months* to hear if he's one of the 46% being made redundant from the previous round of off-shoring.

Years of loyal service and the company can dump you like a shot as soon as they reckon they can find someone to do the job a bit cheaper.

Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

Or was this a thread just to let off steam?

Tom
Actively enjoying it all

---

No, Tom.

I raised the subject as, IMO. it may not not prudent for a SAMLL employer - lets say,three or four staff - to employ women of child bearing age. Lets get down to brass tacks: three staff, two women, both fall pregnant: workforce reduced by 2/3rds. This, IMO, can be a death sentance for the employers business.

Why should that employer have to employ women?

Regards

Mike

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