Job Discrimination?

[Andrew Curnow]

From the BBC News page:

Mothers 'face job discrimination'

Women with young children are the most discriminated-against at work, a study will suggest.
A mother with a child aged under 11 is 45% less likely to be employed than a man, the Equalities Review will find.
The major report into inequality in the UK was commissioned by Tony Blair to examine how our lives are affected by race, gender and age.
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the review, has said the cost of discrimination is borne by the country.
The report's findings are expected to suggest women with young children face more discrimination in the workplace than disabled people or those from ethnic minorities.
It is also thought to say that the next most disadvantaged groups are Pakistani and Bangladeshi women.

Mr Phillips, head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Equality is not a minority zone - the majority of the people in this country are women and disadvantaged.
"Most of us will be older, many of us will become disabled and even if we are not of one race or another we may have a mixed race child. So these things concern us.
"The unemployment of women costs us about 28bn a year, the under-employment of disabled people about 9bn."
Mr Phillips believes inequality leads to lost tax revenue and increased benefit costs.

It is also thought he will call for the government to promote more family-friendly practices such as flexible contracts, so parents can choose when to work.
Co-chair of the review's reference group, Disability Rights Commission chairman Sir Bert Massie, said the report would recommend "simplification" of current discrimination laws.
Chairwoman of the End Violence Against Women (EVAW) campaign, Professor Liz Kelly, said women faced inequality through domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
She said: "The commission must provide fresh thinking about the way we address violence against women, shifting the current approach of mopping up to one of preventing violence happening in the first place."

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly said the government had made strides in helping women balance work and family life.
"These include extended and better paid maternity leave, new paternity rights and the right to request flexible working."
Business leaders have said they do not discriminate against any candidate.
Mike Cherry, from the Federation of Small Businesses, told BBC Radio Five Live his members selected the most suitable candidate for the job.
"Most small employers would employ people who are the best person for the job, and not be discriminatory in that way," he said.
"If you do find that you've got a young female employee who becomes pregnant or wants to start a family, then that's something that you have to deal with."

I'm not sure what to make of it, frankly. For one thing, I can't quite see why it moves from discussing discrimation in the workplace to domestic violence. For another, am I just being very harsh when I say that surely, if you have a child, it will be a factor when you come to be interviewed for a job - ability to do a job, and availability during working hours, are surely two very major criteria when somebody is interviewing you aren't they? Playing Devil's Advocate, if you're an employer looking for somebody to work 8:30 - 5:00 every day, and one of your candidates says they can't get there until after the school run, at about 9:00, and has to leave at 3:00, then you'd be frankly mad to employ them wouldn't you? Isn't it just another way of being 'unqualified' or 'underqualified' for a job, just as if I were to apply for a job as a mechanic I would be unlikely to get it because I don't know anything about cars.

Also, I can't see how "The unemployment of women costs us about 28bn a year, the under-employment of disabled people about 9bn." Surely if there's a finite number of jobs, then whoever gets them, even if every job in the land was suddenly filled with women and disabled people, then there would still be the same number of unemployed people wouldn't there?

Or maybe I'm just feeling very grumpy and uncharitable today, I don't know.

[Si Hunt]

I tend to agree with you Andrew - I'm surprised that the descrimination isn't towards young POTENTIAL mothers, rather than young Mothers though. Nothing against them (two of my life-long friends wives have both recently given birth for the first time and are engaging on mamoth bouts of maternity leave) but you can't blame an employer for worrying that he's going to take someone on only for them to want 9 months paid leave off.

I was annoyed at my last job when they announced that spouses got more time off work for bereavment purposes. If you've tied the not, you're more entitled to greave than a common law couple? Isn't THAT descrimination when (as the law was then) some of us couldn't even legally get married?

Si.

[Trudi G]

I'm a single mother, and it's been virtually impossible for me to find work that will fit in around looking after my son. I'm not prepared to dump him on strangers, and i actually want to be around for my son at the beginning and end of the school day, and during the holidays. Until my son is old enough to get himself to and from school i will continue to look for something that will fit in with my life, because although we are poor, there's alot of love in my family, and i would rather have that than wads of cash.
As for requesting flexible working hours - we all know that you can request it all you like, but it doesn't mean you're going to get it.

[Paul Monk]

Not sure what I think about that report. Some of what they say is probably true but for I don't think its clear cut either way. People in this day and age can't afford to stay at home with their children and not work and the price of child care is basically the same as a months wages. I know having children is a personal choice but surely these children will be tomorrows workforce and its in the interests of industry and the economy that these children don't end up on the scrap heap because their parents were to busy or stressed out to bring them up properly. Controversial I know.
Oh and I wanted to clear something up.

but you can't blame an employer for worrying that he's going to take someone on only for them to want 9 months paid leave off.

Thats true to an extent, but NO employer pays someone for their entire maternity leave. A good employer might pay the first 6 weeks at 90% then the next 6 weeks at 50% but after that you just get statutory maternity pay up until six months then you get nothing.. Most employers The only cost to the company is hiring someone to cover your leave and this they can do using the money their not paying person on leave.

[Captain Tancredi]

There was a self-employed woman on the radio this morning saying "well, if you can deal with a toddler then you can also manage difficult staff or customers". True, but I've also had the reverse- a manager with two children under ten who spoke to experienced staff as if they were seven-year-olds.

In the workplaces I've had, in the majority of cases women who've fallen pregnant have tended to come back part-time after their first child and leave after the second. Most jobs have certain deadlines written into the daily routine- for instance we need to have all our drawdowns done by 2.30- so it'd be no use somebody coming in afternoons only because that wouldn't be where they're needed. Family friendly policies can also backfire- a manager in my last job came back from maternity leave, tried to come back as a manager on job share but couldn't because there was nobody suitable to do the other half of her job and was then given a job with the same pay scale and prestige (as was her right) but in a different team. Only trouble was, it was a one-off job which disappeared at the next restructure.

Although you can change certain working practices, what you can't change without a great deal of upheaval is the fact that the vast majority of work takes place over a slightly longer day than school hours. Some people may experience problems with that, but the vast majority cope- although seeing as somebody asked, I reckon at least part of the cost of not employing single parents and disabled people would be counted as the amount of social security paid to otherwise employable people.

[Nathan]

Well thats why you can claim childcare tax credit, which means you get a contribution to childcare while you are at work.

It helps a great deal.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'm not prepared to dump him on strangers, and i actually want to be around for my son at the beginning and end of the school day, and during the holidays

I really agree with that - obviously it's a lot easier for us, because there's two of us, so the above applies to Zel, while I go out to work. I do think that we've seen a move towards it being almost the expectation that both parents will work, and that leaving the child with a minder shouldn't be an issue, but that has never really sat very comfortably with me. In a lot of cases, I know, it's really a necessity to make ends meet (and frankly if Zel worked as well our ends would meet more often than they do now, because believe me it is a struggle) but I'm not convinced that it's really a good way to bring up children. It doesn't matter which one, but I still believe that it's best for one parent to stay at home while they have a young child/children - there comes a point at which you have to ask why some people even bother having them.

[Captain Tancredi]

I was looked after by my grandma after school because both mum and dad worked. It's not always ideal for family dynamics (although if you ever need to know how to play three people off against each other, just ask) but seems to be increasingly common.

I also used to know a childminder who would tell horror stories about career women dropping very young children on her at 6am and not picking them up until the early evening. The root problem is almost certainly our material expectations of life and people becoming parents without being prepared to give up the lifestyle, two holidays a year and so on, all of which have to be paid for.

[Trudi G]

I don't have any family members who could drop off and collect Christian from school, or look after him in the holidays.
My mum is agoraphobic and looks after my brothers baby while they are both out at work.
My sister is also agoraphobic, and stays up all night and sleeps all day.
My niece has just had a baby and also takes her little brother to and from school, which is miles away from Christians school.
My nephew is working.
His dad lives 50 miles away and runs his own business, so that leaves me the only option of leaving him with strangers, which i'm just not prepared to do.
I wish the government would leave me alone to look after my son in peace, instead of stigmatising all single parents by branding them lazy dole scroungers who don't want to work. It's only been since my marriage breakdown that i haven't worked, and all i want to do is the best for my son, which at this moment in time is be there for him.

[Nathan]

I was looked after by my grandma after school because both mum and dad worked. It's not always ideal for family dynamics (although if you ever need to know how to play three people off against each other, just ask) but seems to be increasingly common.

I also used to know a childminder who would tell horror stories about career women dropping very young children on her at 6am and not picking them up until the early evening. The root problem is almost certainly our material expectations of life and people becoming parents without being prepared to give up the lifestyle, two holidays a year and so on, all of which have to be paid for.

I strongly object to that. We manage to scrape together 500 for just one holiday (a single week in the UK) per year - and I feel lucky to be able to do that.

It takes two of us to work just to pay the mortgage and buy food. There is no disposable income as such. Our house wasn't even that expensive (bought in the mid 90's) so god help anyone who has to fork out for a mortgage on todays house values, or rent.

We drop Coriander off at school at 8am for breakfast club as we both start work at 8.30, and she is picked up by the childminders from the nursery. I manage to pick her up at 5.30. We wouldn't be able to pay for that without the childcare tax credit, and if one of us where to give up our job we would lose our home.

There is no family to help out as my parents are in their 80's and have health troubles, likewise Tracy's parents also have health issues and live in a different town anyway.

Anyone else we could trust works anyway.

The after school club she goes to is great though, they follow the set curriculum and it is a great place for her to play and socialise and work if she wants (good selection of books there too). It isn't leaving her with strangers as everyone really is a friend.

[Paul Monk]

It takes two of us to work just to pay the mortgage and buy food. There is no disposable income as such. Our house wasn't even that expensive (bought in the mid 90's) so god help anyone who has to fork out for a mortgage on todays house values, or rent.

I totally agree with Nathan on this. We have no choice but for us both to work. Neither of us is paid enough for one person to stay at home full time so we both have to work. We're lucky that we have 2 sets of grandparents to care for the children when we're at work and Jody has gone part time.
Unfortunately having a children is a choice that has limitations. You can't wait until you've retired or are better off to have them because the are limits with age, so are people suggesting that couples shouldn't have children at all! We'd soon have a no-one living in Britain in a few generations if that were the case.
Having said that, I understand that it can be hard on employers but there needs to be some flexibility on both sides.

[Captain Tancredi]

I can't help feeling slightly hard done by there- I wasn't intending to criticise people who are already several years down the line, rather those who start families without really thinking about where the money is going to come from, how long they can get by on one income, childcare and so on. Being responsible, in other words. In my last job I used to work with a woman who'd had two children by different fathers before she was 21 and just had everything given to her on a plate, and it drove me round the bend.

[Paul Monk]

In my last job I used to work with a woman who'd had two children by different fathers before she was 21 and just had everything given to her on a plate, and it drove me round the bend.

That annoys me slightly too Ian. Apparently if you're on benefits and a single mother the government gives you 500 to buy travel systems/ baby equipment etc.
We would have loved that! We went round and got most things secondhand because we couldn't afford new stuff. Surely this is what the government should be encouarging new mothers on benefits to do. Perhaps giving them a voucher for secondhand stuff.

[Nathan]

What really got my goat though Ian was the implication that both parents went to work purely to fund some kind of luxury lifestyle.

Coriander used to sleep in a borrowed baby carrier on our bedroom floor when she was first born.

[Paul Monk]

What really got my goat though Ian was the implication that both parents went to work purely to fund some kind of luxury lifestyle.

Thats just not true. We have very few luxuries. Last year our holiday was a present from my parents. Next years holiday is being entirely paid for by Tesco deal vouchers. We have very little spare cash between us.
Our nursery funiture cost about 60 from Ikea and Tabby and William both spent the first couple of months of their lives sleeping in a carry cot I bought from a car boot sale for 5

[Paul Clement]

I was annoyed at my last job when they announced that spouses got more time off work for bereavment purposes. If you've tied the not, you're more entitled to greave than a common law couple? Isn't THAT descrimination when (as the law was then) some of us couldn't even legally get married?

I'm fairly sure that this is actually against the law. I'm pretty certain that if you went to the CAB they'll give you advice on how to take this forward.

I wish the government would leave me alone to look after my son in peace, instead of stigmatising all single parents by branding them lazy dole scroungers who don't want to work.

That's hardly a fair assessment, and unfortunately quite a common attitude, because most people, naturally enough, see situations from their own personal perspective The Department for Work & Pensions' job is to get people off of benefits and into paid work. To do this, we have to offer people who are not on Jobseekers Allowance but on another form of benefit the opportunity to get help to go into work if they so wish. They aren't forced to go into work, they are given help and advice if that is a route they wish to take. Obviously, we can't know who wants the help or who doesn't at the drop of a hat, so can only achieve our goals by calling everyone in to see an adviser and discuss their situations. There is no financial penalty for not choosing to look at going into work, although there is for not attending the initial interview to discuss the situation. It's not about saying that lone parents don't want to work, it's giving the lone parents who do want to work help to turn that wish into reality.

That annoys me slightly too Ian. Apparently if you're on benefits and a single mother the government gives you 500 to buy travel systems/ baby equipment etc.

It's the Sure Start Maternity Grant, and is not only open to single mothers. Treena got it for all three of our children, and I was working for the DWP when the last two were born. If you are on a low income the help is there to enable you to get the things you need. As that low income pretty much covers everything under about 30,000 per annum, that actually means quite a lot of people are entitled to it. If anyone falls into that category, btw, the form, a MATB1, is available from your Doctor's surgery.

[Trudi G]

In my last job I used to work with a woman who'd had two children by different fathers before she was 21 and just had everything given to her on a plate, and it drove me round the bend.

There will always be some people who abuse the system, but believe me, living on benefits is not easy! One thing i find very unfair is that everyone is entitled to child benefit - which i think should be means tested and only given to those people who really need it.
I used to work for a woman who used to save it up for a couple of months and then use it for whatever she fancied. If you can afford to save it up for a few months, you don't really need it!

[Paul Clement]

There will always be some people who abuse the system, but believe me, living on benefits is not easy! One thing i find very unfair is that everyone is entitled to child benefit - which i think should be means tested and only given to those people who really need it.
I used to work for a woman who used to save it up for a couple of months and then use it for whatever she fancied. If you can afford to save it up for a few months, you don't really need it!

It would have been a good idea for people to have been able to opt into a saving fund for their children using the child benefit as payment. It would have given people who don't particularly need it a savings fund for their children to use when they reach a certain age.

[Dirk Gently]

It would have been a good idea for people to have been able to opt into a saving fund for their children using the child benefit as payment. It would have given people who don't particularly need it a savings fund for their children to use when they reach a certain age.

Surely they can do that privately can't they? Just pay it in to a savings account after they receive it.