|| UKIP: just say "fuck off you sexist, racist, homophobic, isolationist, nationalist, populist, bigotted imbeciles"
||Jul. 21st, 2004 10:09 am|
Politics: Ukip MEP appointed to the women's rights committee declares: 'I want to deal with women's issues because I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough'.|
No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.
Urgh. Sad thing is, though, he's probably right. I'd love to put the fact that I'm snipped on my CV but I think that's probably *too* personal ;-)
I hope he's wrong, given that I'm employed by a small businessman and actually had the audacity to bear a child. :) This isn't the first small business I've been employed by, either.
It is of course illegal to ask about a woman's child-bearing intentions during interview. Though it's happened to me. (I said I wasn't planning on having one for a while. Hah.)
I hope he's wrong too, but sometimes I worry that women are informally viewed like that - as people who will inevitably leave at some point to have kids. Of course it's every woman's right to expect maternity leave etc, I just wish that... well, that somehow the balances were evened out a bit. Maybe it's better that everyone gets maternity-ish leave, then women wouldn't be singled out ;-)
I've asked financial advisers in the past to treat me no different from male customers (because they all want to put in place options for "when" I take a break from work to have kids etc etc). I'm sure they secretly think I'm just a silly girl who's going to change her mind and then regret her financial layout when she does etc etc, but that's none of their business ;-)
Of course it's every woman's right to expect maternity leave etc, I just wish that... well, that somehow the balances were evened out a bit. Maybe it's better that everyone gets maternity-ish leave, then women wouldn't be singled out ;-)
I've noticed conversations about this in the past and not quite been able to decide what I think. I think of maternity leave as being like sick leave in some ways - you're recovering from an operation, essentially. Admittedly a self-inflicted one, but then some operations are caused by smoking etc.
Maybe it would be better to have a general leave allowance that's not connected with maternity leave, so that everyone gets extra actual holiday - given that maternity leave isn't actually that much fun!
It's simple. You have
parenthood leave, which is given to both of a child's carers equally.
And is enshrined in law. I forget to mention that rather important fact.
Absolutely, but that doesn't answer lozette's point about people who don't have children getting equal leave.
Well, what happens when someone takes up that leave, then decides to have a child? Do you write a blank cheque for 6 months leave every 9 months?
It's a very difficult problem, to strike the correct social/economic balance.
Well, exactly. I'm not arguing for equal leave.
Well, there are a number of more enlightened companies that do offer paternity leave on the same terms a maternity leave...
I think it's better to be working for someone like that, not solely because of this issue, but because they are currently doing this without legal obligation and it is indicative of a philosophy of working together with you, the employee, rather than exploiting you as a resource and only meeting your needs so far as they can't get away with not doing.
If you can find the first sort of company, you're probably going to be happy. The second sort will find ways to screw you around no matter what your legal rights are.
(I tend to treat bosses as equal partners in the business. The difference is one of areas of competence - I couldn't run a company, but then they couldn't write code - rather than of control.)
I'm OK where I am. And to be honest I'd rather work for somewhere that went beyond mat- and pat-, all the way to family leave. Because hey, it's not only parents that have dependants.
Sadly, I think I'm over-idealistic ;-)
He is right. My first employers were crippled by SMP payments during the two occasions when employees went off on maternity leave, and never employed another fertile female.
Odd - my employers haven't suffered financially at all, I don't think. Perhapd the law has changed. I think they could claim my SMP back from the government.
The point is "claim back". They run their payroll weekly, and trying to get money out of the government... Lt's just say it didn't do much for the cash flow.
I agree with some of the comments about equal leave for all, but thinking about it gives me a feeling of deja-vu - cigarette breaks? (Some of my colleagues and I go for a 20-30 minute break most afternoons in response to smokers.)
That just seems like bad financial management on the part of the company - I don't see why women should be penalised because the company don't hold anything in reserve for exceptional circumstances.
Hmm. This, taken with one of your replies to another comment some time ago, leads me to believe that you and I are diametrically opposed on the political spectrum.
My take on this is that if the government is determined that there will be SMP (and I don't think that it is a bad thing), it ought be available when the mum-to-be needs it. It ought not to be down to the empoyer to fund something beyond their control and then have to claim it back. (Also, my contributions to this thread started from the references to small businesses - I've worked for a few, and what they all had in common was a limited pool of "spare" cash for such things.)
I'm not sure where you are on the political spectrum, or where you believe I am.
I wasn't making a point about the rights or wrongs of the law concerning Statutory Maternity Pay, simply pointing out that since the law on it is as it stands, a sensible budget and business plan would take into account the possibility of staff having kids, and allocate funds accordingly, just as they would if a member of staff was long term sick, or became disabled.
The smaller the company the less they can afford to keep in reserve. For many, they face a constant battle against bankruptcy, and every single contract won makes a *huge* percentage difference to their cashflow.
If they are to give SMP, they need the cash from the government when they need it. Losing half of one persons salary (and bearing in mind they have huge tax costs on top of your stated salary which aren't shown on your payslip) without the productivity to justify it could be very dangerous.
Big companies are of course unlikely to even notice the amounts involved, so have no excuse.
Where I work, when people go out for smoke breaks it generally results in a couple of non-smokers coming along to take their non-smoke breaks at the same time.
Great in the summer sunshine, too. Though apparently you Brits are getting really screwed on that this summer. ;)
If you have to prove that you aren't going to have kids for them to employ you, do you really want to work for them?
No. And I've never had to prove anything or been asked. I just... I don't know, it's just that I've had it assumed by people other then employers a few times. I would like to think I'm not being treated any differently than my male peers but I worry sometimes that I'm not. Maybe it's all just in my head.