£200,000 payout for woman told by boss she was 'useless' when pregnant

[sputnik]

^^^
seriously, why is it even still legal for employers to ask prospective employees if they plan on having children? that's discrimination right there. if i wanted children soonish and someone asked me in an interview i'd say no too cause you know that if they're asking, it's because they won't hire you if the answer is yes.

[Sweetie]

^ I think they ask to protect their company, not as discrimination. Why hire someone if they are going to just get pregnant and be out for several months on leave. The defeats the whole purpose of hiring someone to work.

[sputnik]

^^^
yeah but in this case, protecting the company is discrimination... i know here it's not allowed because they've proven that women that are honest and answer the question by a yes almost never get hired.
i mean, jesus christ, having children is a right. they can't ask you if you're gay and not hire you, they shouldn't ask you if you're expecting kids and not hire you either.

[nwgirl]

He's a lug head, and apparently what he did was illegal. But it does seem a little over the top. I would probably just royally tell him off and quit and not sue, but that's just me. Don't know how it works in her area, but here in the states if you sue an ex-employer, you kind of get black listed in that industry. Word travels fast in HR circles.

And the whole workplace thing irritates me to no end. There are lazy people who call in sick once a week, stupid people who can't do their work if you paid them, and people with great work ethic who never miss a day of work. You'll find all of these types of people, and everything in between - with and without children.

As en employer though, it would piss me off to hire someone for a top level job, only to have them get pregnant immediately and know that they're going to be gone for three months or more to have the baby. And if the pregnant women I ever worked with in corporate America are any indication - there's no computing how much "work" time would be wasting looking on the internet at baby crap, or emailing friends and family about the progress of every little kick and burp they feel, making and going to doctor visits, etc.

I've always been a pretty decent, contientious employee. But now that I am the one paying the salaries, I have a totally different perspective on a lot of things than when I was a worker. When our people call in (and it happens more often than I think it should), we're in a total jam. Especially when it's busy. We can literally lose our business if that happens too often. And we only have seven employees. I can't imagine the scope of having hundreds of employees, like some of the places I've worked for.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by sputnik

^^^
yeah but in this case, protecting the company is discrimination... i know here it's not allowed because they've proven that women that are honest and answer the question by a yes almost never get hired.
i mean, jesus christ, having children is a right. they can't ask you if you're gay and not hire you, they shouldn't ask you if you're expecting kids and not hire you either.

I don't see it as discrimination. I see it as asking a person if they plan on working. Clearly when a company goes to hire someone they do so because they need help. It would defeat the purpose to hire someone that was planning on taking time off. (This of course is being said in terms of a woman getting pregnant right after being hired, I am not talking about a woman that's worked for a company for many years. )

[sputnik]

maternity leave is a right. whether you decide to have kids or not is a right, that shouldn't be used against you or prevent you from being hired. no one asks men if they plan on having kids, why should they ask women. you should be hired based on your skills alone.
one solution is to do what a lot of companies do - you can't qualify for paid maternity leave unless you've been working with the company for a year. just like some insurance companies won't pay for certain things (including maternity costs) until you've been with them for a year.

[Sweetie]

^ I don't know of many men that take maternity leave. That may be why they aren't asked.

[nwgirl]

^^^

Being employed for 12 months is actually a stipulation of the Family Leave Medical Act. I guess employers could waive that if they wanted to, but I don't know of many that would.

And I know it's a "right" but seriously, now that I know just a little bit about what it takes to hire and keep people, and how hard it is to replace someone when they're gone, I would definitely think twice if an interviewee offered the info that she was pregnant or hoping to be pregnant soon.

I honestly think a lot of people's perspectives would be slightly different if it was their money or time on the line. Not saying people shouldn't have the leave, just that maybe things would be a little different if people had experienced wearing the other shoe.

[suede]

Originally Posted by nwgirl

^^^

Being employed for 12 months is actually a stipulation of the Family Leave Medical Act. I guess employers could waive that if they wanted to, but I don't know of many that would.

The woman in the article had only been working at the company 7 months when she got pregnant.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

^ I don't know of many men that take maternity leave. That may be why they aren't asked.

hehe i know, but a lot of countries also have paternity leave. i know canada does, scandinavian countries...
fathers can take up to 6 months paid leave in some cases.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by sputnik

hehe i know, but a lot of countries also have paternity leave. i know canada does, scandinavian countries...
fathers can take up to 6 months paid leave in some cases.

Yeah, I know. I bet my husband wishes his company had that written in.

[nwgirl]

Originally Posted by suede

The woman in the article had only been working at the company 7 months when she got pregnant.

This story is from England though, isn't it? I don't know anything about their maternity leave.