Thread: Job Discrimination?
Results 1 to 19 of 19
-
28th Feb 2007, 11:37 AM #1
Job Discrimination?
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."
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 11:57 AM #2
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 1:00 PM #3Trudi G Guest
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 1:10 PM #4
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 8:25 PM #5Captain Tancredi Guest
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 8:40 PM #6
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.
Make way for a naval officer!
-
28th Feb 2007, 9:28 PM #7I'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
-
28th Feb 2007, 9:34 PM #8Captain Tancredi Guest
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.
-
28th Feb 2007, 9:47 PM #9Trudi G Guest
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.
-
1st Mar 2007, 12:04 AM #10
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.Last edited by Nathan; 1st Mar 2007 at 12:24 AM.
Make way for a naval officer!
-
1st Mar 2007, 8:52 AM #11It 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.
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.
-
1st Mar 2007, 10:45 PM #12Captain Tancredi Guest
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.
-
2nd Mar 2007, 8:56 AM #13In 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.
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.
-
2nd Mar 2007, 9:13 AM #14
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.
Make way for a naval officer!
-
2nd Mar 2007, 11:24 AM #15What really got my goat though Ian was the implication that both parents went to work purely to fund some kind of luxury lifestyle.
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
-
2nd Mar 2007, 6:39 PM #16I 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 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 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.
-
2nd Mar 2007, 9:18 PM #17Trudi G Guest
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!
-
2nd Mar 2007, 9:28 PM #18There 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!
-
3rd Mar 2007, 10:05 PM #19
Similar Threads
-
Government Pushes For Pro-Women Discrimination
By Si Hunt in forum General ForumReplies: 24Last Post: 29th Jun 2008, 5:45 PM
PSAudios 6.1. Bless You Doctor Who
[/URL] (Click for large version) Doctor Who A thrilling two-part adventure starring Brendan Jones & Paul Monk & Paul Monk Bless You,...
23rd Nov 2020, 3:02 PM