I'm disgusted

[andrewducker]

If you are a woman, know one, or are related to one then you'll almost certainly be as sickened as I am by this article on discrimination against pregnant mothers.  But not terribly surprised by most of it.  The bit that gets to me is that an advisor to the government is saying it, and nobody is speaking out to contradict him...

Comments

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

This is one of the reasons why I delayed announcing my pregnancy to people at work. I didn't want some key people to think that I suddenly wouldn't be trying for a post-doc or needing their support for funding applications.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

I despair at attitudes like that. As for Alan Sugar, I always wondered what the fuss was about with him anyway.

I do wonder how we'll ever reach equal pay across the sexes though. Even when an employer makes all the allowances that it should do for a woman to take time off for pregnancy, I still don't see salaries averaging out the same.

We have a working culture where getting ahead usually involves working bonkers amounts of hours at work - finishing at six or seven in the evening every night. This obviously leads to higher productivity levels for men (and women without children) who are willing to 'live for work' like this.

The only thing I can think of to rectify that would be to have much stricter controls on how much time anyone is legally allowed to work. With the political and cultural climate of the UK, I really don't see us ever reaching that. Hope for European legislation?

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

OK, wierd thing that isn't mentioned in the article at all - *actual* effects of pregnancy, potential pregnancy, or motherhood on a woman's effectiveness in the workplace. I mean, come on, surely someone's done a study. Everyone's either assuming that it has a dreadful effect (Alan Sugar) or assuming it has no effect at all - surely there must be some, you know, at least semi-concrete statistics to add to the argument?

Given the statistics on diminishing efficiency with increasing working hours beyond 40, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many mothers who can't work 60-hour weeks are actually more efficient.

As a sometime employer, my first thought were "well, what do the numbers say?".

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

I'm going to defend Alan Sugar as that question is always taken out of context. Kate was a single mum, separated from her husband, with two young kids, applying for a job based 250 miles from her home and her parents who were also her primary childcare givers. He was asking her what her childcare arrangements would be - not saying she wasn't a worthy contender just bringing her down to earth.

Yes mothers are discriminated against - even in our own company, I'm happy to discuss this with you offline - myself and other mothers have _never_ been passed over for promotion etc. but we also never get asked to travel for work purposes - even when we are the most suitable person for the job.

[zz]

am i right in thinking that companies pay maternity pay (and not the govt)? if so, while morally icky, there is a business case against risking the cost of having to pay that plus the second salary of a stand-in...

[johanna-alice.livejournal.com]

Now that was sickening. I knew there was something about the Katie thing in the last Apprentice that didn't seem quite right...

Though I suspect that it doesn't matter if the big question is or isn't asked. As long as it is or isn't asked of both sexes:

"So Mr Smith, your CV is outstanding. We'd like to employ you, but it says here you'd like a family before you're forty. Would you care to reconsider before we make a decision...".

Though in my devious mind, the answer seems to be getting a contraceptive pellet injected into your arm and then (truthfully) telling a prospective employer you are incapable of having children in a very, very sad voice.

[e-halmac.livejournal.com]

And another reason to quit working after I have kids. I hate the fact that this sort of sexist crap makes me feel this way. Although I'd love to be a strong independent woman and still to my guns, it'd be easier just not to have to risk putting myself through this...

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

In my office, overtime is a fact of life. It's not constant but there will be periods (usually twice a year) when you will either have to do overtime or else other people on the team will have to pick up parts of your work along with things that make them do overtime. Even on the teams who have perfectly balanced workloads, there are two periods a year when externally-controlled timescales mean this happens.

Some people with children have problems doing this overtime and, for those that aren't used to structuring things in that way (or without family/friends to look after children), they can't do it.

This overtime is made clear when you're interviewed so if someone says "I'm a mother and that comes first", the company's situation is pretty clear. Either you discriminate, or you hire someone who may not be able to do the job as it stands.

Similar, for the accountants I used to work with - it was made clear to them that if they took the job, here was the chart of when they couldn't be off work. At all. Yes, some of it was school holidays - tough luck, their job was to be in the office at those periods, no matter what. Someone who said "I couldn't do that, but I still want the job" isn't going to get it because, quite simply, they can't do the job.

That said, discriminating against people because they might get pregnant is ridiculous. Discriminating against people who have children is fair, as long as you've had an open discussion with them. If the demands of the job and their choices/necessities of their family situation can't be reconciled then they're not the right person... just as I wouldn't be the right person for a job which demanded periodic travel to the middle east if I refused to leave home for more than a day at a time.