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

GreeBo

Antares35 wrote: »

What about equal paternity? I can mention it if you want, but it wasn't relevant to my point. How do you deduce my position on equal paternity leave? You have no idea what my position is. But for your information, I support a system where leave can be shared among both parents. There is however a mandatory statutory leave period which women have to take, reflective of the simple fact that pregnancy and birth are undertaken by women and they therefore need time to recover - that is a separate necessity to caring for ones child which imo can be done by either parent.

I'm not saying that I can deduce your position on paternity/equal leave!

My point was that the length of time given to maternity leave is determined by the recommended amount of time you should breastfeed your child. This seems pretty darn logical to me as its tied to biology.

You decided that this was forcing people to decide to breastfeed, I *strongly* disagree and used the example of paternity leave to show how you had misrepresented the other posters point, by deliberately misrepresenting yours.

GreeBo

I think the laws that exist are to protect everyone, but they are too broad and shouldnt apply to contract work.

Imagine hiring people for the Christmas period, only for them to take the entire thing off on maternity leave, it just makes no sense that the company be out of pocket for this.

Equally, its wrong that a senior manager gets passed over for promotion because she is/was/will be pregnant.

Mrs OBumble

Antares35 wrote: »

So should women who can't (or simply don't want to) breastfeed only get parental and not mat leave?
Why do adoptive parents get the same entitlement? They can't breastfeed. Is a woman not entitled to time off simply to recover, in particular if she's had a caesarean, which is considered a major surgery.

Breastfeeding dogma still alive and kicking it seems.

If artificial feeding is prescribed, then of course maternity leave is relevant.

But other than that, of course maternity leave should be linked with breastfeeding. The benefits aren't dogma, they are extremely well established scientific fact.

It you need time to recover from abdominal surgery, that should be sick leave, not maternity leave.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

Because they should have lied to get around the law? To me that would make the law an ass or at least an accessory to being an ass.

No - it makes those who try to circumvent the law an ass. Not the law.

There are lots of laws. It doesn’t mean they prevent illegality. The law can only be applied when illegality is identified.

“People commit murders - the laws an ass.....sure they could have lied to get around the law.”

They didn’t lie. They broke the law. They got fined.

Antares35

GreeBo wrote: »

...used the example of paternity leave to show how you had misrepresented the other posters point, by deliberately misrepresenting yours.

I'm sorry I can't keep up with your mental gymnastics.

Antares35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If artificial feeding is prescribed, then of course maternity leave is relevant.

But other than that, of course maternity leave should be linked with breastfeeding. The benefits aren't dogma, they are extremely well established scientific fact.

It you need time to recover from abdominal surgery, that should be sick leave, not maternity leave.

Artificial feeding is prescribed? What are you on about? Formula feeding is a perfectly valid choice that millions of parents make every day - it's doesn't need to be "prescribed" by anyone.

And recovery from caesarean will take place within the alloted maternity leave - it isn't covered by sick leave.

GreeBo

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm sorry I can't keep up with your mental gymnastics.

The idea that mothers are more important than fathers is still alive and kicking it seems. <-- See how easy and unfair that is to do?

I thought the bolded bit made it clear, but live and learn!

GreeBo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But other than that, of course maternity leave should be linked with breastfeeding.

So what is paternity leave linked with then?

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

No - it makes those who try to circumvent the law an ass. Not the law.

There are lots of laws. It doesn’t mean they prevent illegality. The law can only be applied when illegality is identified.

“People commit murders - the laws an ass.....sure they could have lied to get around the law.”

They didn’t lie. They broke the law. They got fined.

Right, but you are saying they should have lied...to circumvent the law?

mrslancaster

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, but you are saying they should have lied...to circumvent the law?

In fairness, if the candidate hadn't mentioned her pregnancy & had a successful interview & got the 23 month contract, there is precious little either the agency or the client could have done about it when she came along 3/4/5 months later to request her maternity leave.

Also if a woman started a 23month contract & 2/3 months later became pregnant, well that could happen too.

Very annoying for the employer but they would just have to suck it up & get a replacement temp to cover the first temp. They can't ignore the legislation or they'll end up in the wrc.

Antares35

GreeBo wrote: »

So what is paternity leave linked with then?

Chest feeding is a thing apparently!

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

The point of this thread is to discuss the awarding of compensation to someone who couldn't fulfill a role she applied for the term advertised. Not that she was pregnant and couldn't fulfill the role but that she was not in a position to and was told as such. The same for the person with the hand issue, they cannot fulfill the role as required so they wouldn't be a suitable candidate based on the information they disclosed after the application process.

My issue isn't pregnancy, hand issues or any other ailment/affiliation or situation. If you cannot fulfill the role as required and in the time stated, you are not suitable, law or no effin law. The law needs to be amended to protect all, candidate, employer and employee alike.

You must be embarrassed to see the title of the thread references pregnancy.

For your own clarity, the point of this thread is to discuss a case where the wrc adjudicated that a recruitment company broke the law by discriminating out of hand that a pregnant woman was declined this job.

The reasons that are put forward as to why a pregnant woman cannot meet the contract are inconsequential to the law and the finding.

There are plenty of laws protecting employers and employees and companies. This is only one law of many.

karlitob

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

I think there should be some minimum length of service before there is an entitlement to maternity or other types of parental leave, maybe a year or two.

What would be to stop someone working a month, taking the full maternity benefit and leaving.

This is already the case. Maternity leave is by law, maternity benefit isn’t. State entitlement based on your prai credits. Top ups to full pay depending on your employer.

That’s not what happened in this case.

karlitob

Antares35 wrote: »

So should women who can't (or simply don't want to) breastfeed only get parental and not mat leave?
Why do adoptive parents get the same entitlement? They can't breastfeed. Is a woman not entitled to time off simply to recover, in particular if she's had a caesarean, which is considered a major surgery.

Breastfeeding dogma still alive and kicking it seems.

To be fair, that’s not what he said. He said the basis for that time is on recommended breastfeeding time periods. All the examples you gave is comparable to that or else you would be accused on being discriminatory.

It’s nothing got to do with whether you do, don’t or can’t breastfeed. It’s just a line in the sand based on something reasonable.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

There are however numerous examples of women taking "back to back" maternity leave breaks. That's reality, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it mind you.

Obviously you are.

karlitob

jrosen wrote: »

Funny one of my close friends recently had her 3rd child. She worked for the same company throughout, taking all leave and unpaid leave plus annual leave. She missed approx one year per child and was full paid by the company. She says herself, she will have been paid for 4 years work while taking 3 years off. Great for her, not so great for the company.

Thankfully this law is not made for the benefit of the company but for the benefit of society. Everyone pays, everyone benefits - in one way or another. Increases taxes and increase product cost v more women having a choice to work, financial stability at home while on mat leave, a job to come back to, children cared for by their mothers, and having the talents and skills of ½ the species of a working age to choose from.

90% or the health service workforce is female. About 2/3rds are of child bearing years. Without maternity leave, you’d either have no children born because women at work and can’t afford to become pregnant or you’d have no nurses because they want children.

And all the experience, knowledge and professionalism of those women would be lost, not least because that 2/3rds go onto become the ⅓ who are beyond child bearing years.

You’re probably the same mouth that says pay our nurses more or some other drivel but don’t give them terms and conditions that would benefit everyone in society.

But you hold your candle for discrimination.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

I think the laws that exist are to protect everyone, but they are too broad and shouldnt apply to contract work.

Imagine hiring people for the Christmas period, only for them to take the entire thing off on maternity leave, it just makes no sense that the company be out of pocket for this.

Equally, its wrong that a senior manager gets passed over for promotion because she is/was/will be pregnant.

They don’t get paid maternity benefit by the company. Especially in seasonal work. There isn’t a whole load of pregnant elf’s sitting in Holles street with a pay cheque coming in for doing nothing.

The company gets a new person for the contract work.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, but you are saying they should have lied...to circumvent the law?

No you said that.

I’m saying they broke the law and got fined. You can’t discriminate pregnant women out of hand for being pregnant.

Whether a company has the maleficence to break the law is up to them. Not all companies or all people have the same disregard for the law as you do.

Treppen

statto25 wrote: »

Say a person with a medical issue, an arm issue perhaps and is due to have major surgery in a number of months applies for a manual handing role. They then disclose a week later that in fact they would be going for this procedure and would be out of work for 6+ months, would the same apply to them?

Yes... If Only women could have arm issues.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

You must be embarrassed to see the title of the thread references pregnancy.

For your own clarity, the point of this thread is to discuss a case where the wrc adjudicated that a recruitment company broke the law by discriminating out of hand that a pregnant woman was declined this job.

The reasons that are put forward as to why a pregnant woman cannot meet the contract are inconsequential to the law and the finding.

There are plenty of laws protecting employers and employees and companies. This is only one law of many.

Whats embarrassing is your insistence to make me out to be some sort of poster boy for discrimination especially towards pregnant women. We are all well aware of the law now thanks to your insistence at shoving it down my throat. Others are here to discuss how the law is flawed.

statto25

Treppen wrote: »

Yes... If Only women could have arm issues.

What are you going on about?

jrosen

karlitob wrote: »

Thankfully this law is not made for the benefit of the company but for the benefit of society. Everyone pays, everyone benefits - in one way or another. Increases taxes and increase product cost v more women having a choice to work, financial stability at home while on mat leave, a job to come back to, children cared for by their mothers, and having the talents and skills of ½ the species of a working age to choose from.

90% or the health service workforce is female. About 2/3rds are of child bearing years. Without maternity leave, you’d either have no children born because women at work and can’t afford to become pregnant or you’d have no nurses because they want children.

And all the experience, knowledge and professionalism of those women would be lost, not least because that 2/3rds go onto become the ⅓ who are beyond child bearing years.

You’re probably the same mouth that says pay our nurses more or some other drivel but don’t give them terms and conditions that would benefit everyone in society.

But you hold your candle for discrimination.

The law needs to be fair but it needs to be fair to all and it also needs to show some common sense. I believe the latter was not shown here. I wouldnt have hired her, simply because she wouldnt have been able to commit to the actually duration of the contract.

There needs to be middle ground. Right now women are untouchable in the workforce while pregnant and while their protection is important not to the detriment of women overall who are viewed in a certain way.

Antares35

karlitob wrote: »

To be fair, that’s not what he said. He said the basis for that time is on recommended breastfeeding time periods. All the examples you gave is comparable to that or else you would be accused on being discriminatory.

It’s nothing got to do with whether you do, don’t or can’t breastfeed. It’s just a line in the sand based on something reasonable.

Fair enough.

Antares35

jrosen wrote: »

Right now women are untouchable in the workforce while pregnant and while their protection is important not to the detriment of women overall who are viewed in a certain way.

What does this mean? How is any of this detrimental to women overall?

karlitob

jrosen wrote: »

The law needs to be fair but it needs to be fair to all and it also needs to show some common sense. I believe the latter was not shown here. I wouldnt have hired her, simply because she wouldnt have been able to commit to the actually duration of the contract.

There needs to be middle ground. Right now women are untouchable in the workforce while pregnant and while their protection is important not to the detriment of women overall who are viewed in a certain way.

This really is drivel.

You don’t get to decide what’s common sense or not. That’s already been done.

You’ve stated that you’re happy to break the law - your reasons are inconsequential. It’s still against the law.

I would hope that no pregnant woman is touched in the workplace.

You are not the bastion of reason as to how other women are viewed because of protections in law for pregnant women. I don’t see other women in the workplace in a negative light because of this case. I see recruitment companies in a more negative light for breaking the law. I see a whole load of lads in a different light for not actively stating that they would break the law because it doesn’t suit them. Why - according to you - that I or anyone else would judge other women negatively because of this case is beyond me. Even if she did something wrong - which she didn’t. She is a separate person to the other million or so women in the workplace.

Clearly your sensibilities have been affected that you cannot discriminate people out of hand by virtue of them being pregnant. You should stand for election on a platform of reduced rights for pregnant women.

Rodin

Treppen wrote: »

You do know she was discriminated against?

For anyone still having trouble , pregnancy falls under gender in the 9 grounds for discrimination.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

If people on here are saying that a woman should have less of a chance of being hired, then that's favouring a male candidate. You can't do that... as much as you'd like to.

Somebody who is unavailable to take up the post should have less chance of being hired. For whatever reason.

statto25

statto25 wrote: »

What are you going on about?

They mean in a round about way that pregnant women should be a burden on an employer and an employer should suck it up. Not the state, but even an employer with one employee. All bow down before mother earth.


The reality is that we've 8 billion people on the planet, we're heading for climate disaster, energy crises and likely resource wars, but we've to penalise possibly vulnerable employers (male and female) because the 30th billion child is gestating.



Great, you're pregnant. Good for you. Now take responsibility.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

They mean in a round about way that pregnant women should be a burden on an employer and an employer should suck it up. Not the state, but even an employer with one employee. All bow down before mother earth.


The reality is that we've 8 billion people on the planet, we're heading for climate disaster, energy crises and likely resource wars, but we've to penalise possibly vulnerable employers (male and female) because the 30th billion child is gestating.



Great, you're pregnant. Good for you. Now take responsibility.

If these employers are focused on increasing growth year on year, then this is one of the prices they are going to have to pay.

Or, you know, we could reimagine the entire capitalist and economic structure somehow in order to ensure pregnant women don't have to be considered for employment so it doesn't impact on employers chasing profits.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

If these employers are focused on increasing growth year on year, then this is one of the prices they are going to have to pay.

Or, you know, we could reimagine the entire capitalist and economic structure somehow in order to ensure pregnant women don't have to be considered for employment so it doesn't impact on employers chasing profits.

Or, we don't punish employers for what should be a social concern.


As to your first point over population is not going to be good for anyone.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Or, we don't punish employers for what should be a social concern.


As to your first point over population is not going to be good for anyone.

A - We're not punishing employers, they're sharing the load of society and given that they aren't obliged to pay women during maternity leave, but many still do, this shows that companies are willing to facilitate this practice.

B - Yes over population is going to be a problem but trying to overcome this problem without drastically impacting on company strategies is nigh on impossible in the current climate.