Recruiter ordered to pay woman €20,000 after ‘discrimination’ due to her pregnancy

karlitob

Strumms wrote: »

So my business could suffer, My business is further out of pocket because a person ‘has to work’ ? Babys cost money true.. that’s an employers or potential employers problem ?... so if you decide to get yourself pregnant, which takes more effort then pouring a glass of milk... a private company should be left out of pocket because of it, even though you don’t yet work there ?

You do know that there are lots of laws in ireland. This mythical private company - who seems to be the arbiter of societal values these days - is protected from other scrupulous private companies ...banks etc. There’s give and take. If you want to do business in ireland then these are the laws.

You cannot discriminate a person out of hand if they are pregnant.

karlitob

partyguinness wrote: »

You said every other European Country. The Netherlands is but one...So you have a friend in a cushy number in the Netherlands and that's your stick to beat the entire country with...that's it then? Maybe you let your emotions get in the way and exaggerated a tad. That's ok.

The issue for employers especially small employers is just the sheer hassle and cost. It is not some evil vendetta against pregnant women. It is not even so much as the money. But the hassle of finding a replacement and training them up...and the danger with Agency workers is that some really don't give a crap.

Plus don't forget if you have to go through an Agency you will have to 2-3 times the rate. The Agency gets paid.

If the employee is paid say, €10.00 per hour, the employer is paying the Agency €20.00 per hour plus a 'Finder's Fee' which will often be a percentage of the annual salary (15-20% in my experience) and that is if you can even get someone in the first place.

The same mouths complain of agency costs in healthcare even when those agency costs means the HSE don’t have to pay pension and maternity benefits. You can’t win.

Rodin

A nonsense judgement.

She wasn't available to do the job and so should not have been hired.
She fairly hammed it up...."most vulnerable".

karlitob

Kidchameleon wrote: »

This kind of crap hurts women in the long run. Business is business, it is there to make a profit, not to massage your "feels". Becoming pregnant is a decision, if you want to work, don't become pregnant. If you don't have a partner to provide for you whilst pregnant, then don't become pregnant. Ill thought out regulations like this make businesses less likely to hire women.

Funny how business are protected by other laws - patent law for instance.
Imagine you had a great idea stolen by someone who said ‘Business is business, it is there to make a profit, not to massage your "feels".’
Funny how businesses have protection from other businesses but people can’t have protection from business - in your mind.
Now imagine you hid the real you long enough to impregnate a women. Why would you want the mother of you child to be back to work the day after she gives birth. Why would you want to give your child to a private business to mind that child at incredible expense - by other women.

And what’s the problem anyway. Maternity leave has been in for a long while. You already pay it’s cost and taxation. COVID is ruining business - not maternity leave.

karlitob

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Pushing out a human being reference is because some men feel that they have equal say on this matter. They don't. They don't and can't physically perform the act of giving birth thus their understanding and sympathy is limited and thus needs to be given less value in the discussion.

And while we’re valuing people less, we might as well not value the contributions from women who’ve had a hysterectomy or other gynaecological disease preventing child birth.
And maybe any post-menopausal women who didn’t have children either. Their undertaking abs sympathy is limited also.
What about those women who’ve had stillbirths and multiple miscarriages - I mean they’ve not had to ‘physically perform the act of giving birth thus (I love when people put in thus)’....they can’t have an ‘equal say on the matter’


Interestingly, ‘some men’ think that people like you who have high handed, sweeping, sexist, moralising statements like yours should be less equal to theirs because they have to ‘physically’ read and listen to ****e like this from people like you. It’s hurts their ears and eyes in the same - but opposite way - of having a baby come out of a woman.

karlitob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This whole thing is tricky. Women do get pregnant and obviously deserve shots at employment.

On the other hand, I'd have no issues with a girl being pregnant and applying for the role and proving themselves being worth the extra hassle.

How magnanimous of you.

This really is the whole point. She doesn’t have to prove herself more than someone else because she’s pregnant. She doesn’t have the be ‘worth the extra hassle’. She only has to be the best person for the job. She cannot be refused a job out of hand because she is pregnant. Whether you like it or not doesn’t matter. Whether you think it’s worth the hassle doesn’t matter. You cannot do it - it’s against the law.

The successful candidate for a job only has to be 1% better than all other candidates. How many percent better must a pregnant women be for you to justify ‘the extra hassle’?

Strumms

karlitob wrote: »

You do know that there are lots of laws in ireland. This mythical private company - who seems to be the arbiter of societal values these days - is protected from other scrupulous private companies ...banks etc. There’s give and take. If you want to do business in ireland then these are the laws.

You cannot discriminate a person out of hand if they are pregnant.

If a person is not fit and or in a condition or pending condition where they are or will be unable to take up and complete a position and complete a contract... not awarding them that contract is not discrimination... it is that they are not a suitable candidate as they are going to be unable to fulfill a contract... going to require maternity leave you can’t complete your part of the deal...that is not discrimination despite what anyone says....

karlitob

Strumms wrote: »

If a person is not fit and or in a condition or pending condition where they are or will be unable to take up and complete a position and complete a contract... not awarding them that contract is not discrimination... it is that they are not a suitable candidate as they are going to be unable to fulfill a contract... going to require maternity leave you can’t complete your part of the deal...that is not discrimination despite what anyone says....

Clearly the workplace relations commission disagrees with your opinion on discrimination law in this case.....despite what anyone says.

Tell me how

Strumms wrote: »

If a person is not fit and or in a condition or pending condition where they are or will be unable to take up and complete a position and complete a contract... not awarding them that contract is not discrimination... it is that they are not a suitable candidate as they are going to be unable to fulfill a contract... going to require maternity leave you can’t complete your part of the deal...that is not discrimination despite what anyone says....

The law disagrees with you.

Antares35

karlitob wrote: »

And while we’re valuing people less, we might as well not value the contributions from women who’ve had a hysterectomy or other gynaecological disease preventing child birth.
And maybe any post-menopausal women who didn’t have children either. Their undertaking abs sympathy is limited also.
What about those women who’ve had stillbirths and multiple miscarriages - I mean they’ve not had to ‘physically perform the act of giving birth thus (I love when people put in thus)’....they can’t have an ‘equal say on the matter’


Interestingly, ‘some men’ think that people like you who have high handed, sweeping, sexist, moralising statements like yours should be less equal to theirs because they have to ‘physically’ read and listen to ****e like this from people like you. It’s hurts their ears and eyes in the same - but opposite way - of having a baby come out of a woman.

Women who have stillbirths are entitled to mat leave in many places. In ours it's after 24 weeks I believe.

karlitob

Antares35 wrote: »

Women who have stillbirths are entitled to mat leave in many places. In ours it's after 24 weeks I believe.

I know that. It’s the law not a terms and condition of your workplace.
But that’s got nothing to do with the point I was making to the other poster.

Rodin

The company should have interviewed but all the while knowing she's not getting the job.
Because she wasn't going to be available to do it.

Antares35

karlitob wrote: »

I know that. It’s the law not a terms and condition of your workplace.
But that’s got nothing to do with the point I was making to the other poster.

You're implying that women who can't have children or who have lost babies are treated as lesser beings (at least, that is my understanding of your post, there's a lot of hyperbole in it). I'm pointing out one example which perhaps counters this claim, that's all. Forgive me if I've misunderstood though, as I'm late to the discussion

Strumms

karlitob wrote: »

Clearly the workplace relations commission disagrees with your opinion on discrimination law in this case.....despite what anyone says.

Great, such as is there prerogative being a democracy and all, pity their incompetence betrays the wellbeing of the genuine over the profiteering of scam artists.

Strumms

Rodin wrote: »

The company should have interviewed but all the while knowing she's not getting the job.
Because she wasn't going to be available to do it.

Was her pregnancy known by the employer ? would it have been mentioned before the interview though ? the first the employer would have been aware would have been on interviewing her I’d guess as it’s unlikely to be something you’d put on a cv...

I wouldn’t hire a pregnant woman. You hire a person based on their ability as a suitable candidate to be there, DO the job.... to add a valued service and to play an ‘active’ part in the success of the company...if I’m hiring NOW it’s because I need somebody NOW and in the immediate going forward. !

Spend to hire, insure, train, induct, equip the person as in IT, wages and other resources.... then hire a temp, train, pay wages etc...by the time she joins, fecks off, reappears... you are down about 25-30 grand between all those costs and the payback has been negligible...if anything.. no business should be under that compliment. Regardless if some ‘law’ says they should be...

Tell me how

Strumms wrote: »

Was her pregnancy known by the employer ? would it have been mentioned before the interview though ? the first the employer would have been aware would have been on interviewing her I’d guess as it’s unlikely to be something you’d put on a cv...

I wouldn’t hire a pregnant woman. You hire a person based on their ability as a suitable candidate to be there, DO the job.... to add a valued service and to play an ‘active’ part in the success of the company...if I’m hiring NOW it’s because I need somebody NOW and in the immediate going forward. !

Spend to hire, insure, train, induct, equip the person as in IT, wages and other resources.... then hire a temp, train, pay wages etc...by the time she joins, fecks off, reappears... you are down about 25-30 grand between all those costs and the payback has been negligible...if anything.. no business should be under that compliment. Regardless if some ‘law’ says they should be...

Thankfully, laws are developed with the considerations of all stakeholders in mind not just a single person who might own a specific type of business which operates in a particular way.

There are several reasons why a company might knowingly hire a pregnant woman. Let's get the first and most obvious one out of the way. Decent company operators recognize the need for people to have children and that excluding them for consideration about work is simply unfair. They know that a good maternity scheme is a perk that will also reflect on the company making employees feel valued and that they are more likely to join in the first place and to stay there longer.

Aside from that, there are other reasons. A candidate for a particular role might be hard to find and they know that it might be better to have someone on board and lose them for a particular amount of time rather than to not have them at all.

In some cases, the idea of someone coming on board and then taking 6 months off might not be a problem at all. Companies may have a project ongoing which means they need someone now, for a few months, but that then there will be a lag before the heavy workload comes on on the next one and so if someone's maternity break fits in to that window, then that is a win win. You might think that this would be a rare occurrence but it can be the case for a lot of different roles which work on projects that might be delivered on a schedule of 6, 12, 18, 24 months etc where there is a period of not having someone is not a big deal.

Finally, sometimes, someone is just too good to pass up, for whatever reason, the desire of getting them on board greatly outweighs the concern about losing them for a period.

Strumms

I’d be in agreement with some of that... but.. if you interview a candidate, 88% score in the interview / aptitude test , they are 5 months pregnant... that candidate between training, assimilation, maternity leave will be 12-14 months minimum from being a competent , functioning, up to speed employee... there are implications in teamwork, cost / profit, hiring and training temps etc...

Go with the non pregnant candidate, scores 86%... can start in two weeks... you owe your business, staff, colleagues...the support of enough, qualified and available competent staff... hiring somebody to start a year later when you need them now is crazy... no business, their existing staff and customers should be put under that compliment...

shtpEdthePlum

Luckily women are protected from your sh!t opinion under law.

pwurple

karlitob wrote: »

Not sure what you think it would solve.

What benefit to the family do you see forced paternity leave have? Forcing only those men who have built sufficient prsi credits to reduce the family income. There isn’t even forced maternity leave. But you think forced paternity leave would sort much.

And not only is forced good - but even better if the forced leave was equal is rate and duration to maternity leave. So employers would have to pay a full salary of 1 year (6 months to the women and 6 to the man).

If I time it just right, if the moon cycle is perfect, families might get double the salary for half the work.

There IS forced maternity leave. Mine was forced. I was forced to stop work 2 weeks before my due date, even though my baby was not born until 2 weeks after my due date. 1 month of low income when I was not permitted to work at a desk and didn’t have a baby on my hands either.

At the other end, no Creche will take a baby younger than 6 months old. State maternity ends after six months, baby was only 5 months old. 1 month of zero income here, but stump up a deposit in advance for a Creche please. I was a contractor, no salary top-up. My husband was a corporate employee. If he could have taken any leave at all there , looked after his own child for a month or two, we would have been in very different circumstances. But no. You know what the state rule is for transferring maternity leave? Being a widow. The mother of the child has to be actually dead to get that flexibility.



So Yes, enforced would be the way this becomes equal and women stop being beaten by society for having the ability to bear children.

Men would see what it’s like to see the family income deteriorated due to their own salary reduction too. Yes, obviously the outcry would be immense. As it should be. The hypocrisy would be evident. The archaic system might even change.


And contracts like these might improve. Get more flexibility. Allow us, as fellow humans, to cover for each other from time to time.

Anyone that thinks an employer should/would take on a pregnant candidate for contract work with the business disruption/extra costs it would entail would change their minds if they were an employer.

To say otherwise is virtue signalling and such a mindset if genuine would make them unlikely to be suited to being a successful entrepreneur/employer and lead to more people being made unemployed that were unfortunate enough to work for them.

Treppen

celt262 wrote: »

Expensive lesson they will know what to do the next time !

€20,000 is nothing to a company though compared to cost of re-hiring / re-tracing etc.

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyone that thinks an employer should/would take on a pregnant candidate for contract work with the business disruption/extra costs it would entail would change their minds if they were an employer.

To say otherwise is virtue signalling and such a mindset if genuine would make them unlikely to be suited to being a successful entrepreneur/employer and lead to more people being made unemployed that were unfortunate enough to work for them.

Humans get pregnant, society needs it, get over it.

What if I had a parent who was terminally ill, should I reveal that in a job interview, that I might need time in the future to look after them.

"such a mindset if genuine would make them unlikely to be suited to being a successful entrepreneur/employer ".

Are you an expert on what makes someone a successful entrepreneur or employer?

And are you really saying that taking on women would hinder this perceived success?

sydthebeat

Treppen wrote: »

€20,000 is nothing to a company though compared to cost of re-hiring / re-tracing etc.

For a 23 month contract?

statto25

Treppen wrote: »

Humans get pregnant, society needs it, get over it.

What if I had a parent who was terminally ill, should I reveal that in a job interview, that I might need time in the future to look after them.

The difference in this case is there was no "might" about it. The lady was pregnant and for a 23 month contact would miss a large period of that time.

3DataModem

We have the laws like this for the benefit of society as a whole, at the expense of some employers.

I remember being on a recruitment panel with a person who observed that a candidate is just married and likely to start a family soon, so there was a "risk" of maternity leave in the first few years.

I agreed... however I also reminded her that the fact that we are forced to take that risk (as are other employers) and absorb the cost, has allowed tens of thousands of people to enter the workforce who otherwise may have been excluded, including her and the other member of the panel, so the net impact in that context was positive.

karlitob

Antares35 wrote: »

You're implying that women who can't have children or who have lost babies are treated as lesser beings (at least, that is my understanding of your post, there's a lot of hyperbole in it). I'm pointing out one example which perhaps counters this claim, that's all. Forgive me if I've misunderstood though, as I'm late to the discussion

You have misunderstood. Though it was a very straightforward post.

The post I was replying to was by a sexist woman who states men’s opinion on maternity leave is of lesser value as they ‘physically’ didn’t birth a child. I put forward two real-life but upsetting situations where a women ‘physically’ hasn’t birthed a child.

It was heavily sarcastic. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the difference between sarcasm and hyperbole in a scramble to be offended. That often happens.

karlitob

Strumms wrote: »

Great, such as is there prerogative being a democracy and all, pity their incompetence betrays the wellbeing of the genuine over the profiteering of scam artists.

Drivel.

screamer

I can just see this opening the flood gates for easy compo claims. It’s a pity because rather than solidify equality for women, it just knocks it back, and I’ve no doubt it will just make more companies weary of hiring women.

Calahonda52

screamer wrote: »

I can just see this opening the flood gates for easy compo claims. It’s a pity because rather than solidify equality for women, it just knocks it back, and I’ve no doubt it will just make more companies weary of hiring women.

Nobody think this was a setup which worked?

screamer

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Nobody think this was a setup which worked?

No I know that, but it’s now a scenario that worked for future opportunists.