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

[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...

[andrewducker]

But that's the point - the government steps in to tell you that you can't do that, so as to make things fairer.

[nameandnature]

Fairer for who? As Sugar points out, some employers who are prohibited from asking the question are just going to mark down any woman of childbearing age who is in a long term relationship. This'll be especially acute for smaller companies who can't afford to train someone up and then have them disappear for months. That's less fair on the women who aren't actually planning on having kids.

[andrewducker]

It's illegal for them to mark down all women of childbearing age too...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

And companies never do anything illegal ... yeah, right.

One of the problems with hidden discrimination, is that it is hidden, and so hard to prove.

If you're asked "how will you arrange your job so you can do it and raise a family/run a convention/look after your disabled mother/have your kidney dialysis/handle your depressive episodes/run for city council/be a union rep" then you can reply and the prospective employer can choose to hire you based on full disclosure. But if you are potentially hiding something that will affect the company, then only the potentially pregnant are given legal protection for the hiring process (as I understand things).

And eventually, whatever is said about fairness, it usually comes down to a human making a decision based on "feeling" (predicting how well this person will do their job, how they will work with other members of their team, how quickly they will become productive, how likely they are to leave again quickly etc.) so leaving some factors to be hidden, makes it easier for the hirer to say "oh, no, I never gave that any thought at all, I just figured she wouldn't fit in with the current team and so hired the middle class white male instead")

But I don't have any answers ... it's one of those things where there's an obvious right answer in aggregate but it gets much more difficult when you try to apply that to small individual circumstances.

[andrewducker]

Oh, I agree. I think that the laws, in this case, are largely there for normative effect - to make it clear that some things are not acceptable. And for more egregious cases to be used as a public sign to that effect.

[matgb]

companies pay maternity pay

Not really, they pay it initially but claim it back from the Govt. The bigger issue for most employers is paying someone to cover combined with lower return rates.

You hire a temp, don't advertise for a full replacement to train up, then the new mother doesn't come back or wants to go part time. Of course they have to have the right, but it can really mess things up (and even those that plan to return sometimes don't).

Then there are things like evening/weekend availability, ability to travel at short notice, etc. SB is at work now, I'm providing childcare as I work from home, but if I were to get an office job we'd have some serious rejigging to do, and I'd still be less flexible than a single bloke.

One of the things that Sugar is right on is that not being able to ask and discuss at all does sometimes mean that you can decide not to hire. And sometimes it's essential you don't do so. Once hired a temp for a 6 month contract who was three months pregnant but didn't say—there was no way she could complete the contract, but the last three months were the stressful all-hands-all-hours time. Legally she was covered, but it meant me and my deputy doing 80 hour weeks.

The laws need to reflect what's needed, and that includes ensuring families and mothers can work effectively, that employers frequently think they can't is partially due to outdated attitudes, and unfortunately partially due to overly idealistic regulations.

Horrible minefield to try to sort out though :-( (and sorry I started rambling, long day)

[rwrylsin.livejournal.com]

One of the things that Sugar is right on is that not being able to ask and discuss at all does sometimes mean that you can decide not to hire.

I don't get this at all. You can ask them if they're ok with long hours, weekend work, travel, where do you see yourself in 5 years time, etc. There are all sorts of reasons why they might not be ok, of which kids are only one. Why pick on mothers?
If they strike you as the sort of person who's only going to realise on the first day of work that it interferes with picking up the kids from school then you've got a much better reason not to hire them than the fact that they're a mother.

Yes it sucks to be the employer when you employee changes their mind or has something unexpected come up, or lies in the interview, but that also happens for many reasons. I've never worked more than 3 years at any job despite having no kids, and I still usually outlast most of my (mostly male) colleagues. Had a contractor once who announced a few weeks in that actually, he'd had a better offer elsewhere, so was burning his bridges and out of here. It's what you have to put up with when hiring humans. Some of them suck. Most of them have a life outside work.
Maybe she'll get pregnant, maybe he'll suddenly decide it's time to achieve his dream of sailing around the world. You try to get their measure in the interview then take your chances.