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

Antares35

[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.

Yes let's all stop having kids. Sure the pensions can pay for themselves.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Employers employee people, they pay employment taxes. They are not social services. There is a cost to training and productivity. Same way as a person skipping out of a contract to tour the world's an extra burden that if known they wouldn't employ.


Not sure what you mean by point B.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

Yes let's all stop having kids. Sure the pensions can pay for themselves.

So, you think the world should rely on a pyramid scheme. That's going to end well.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, you think the world should rely on a pyramid scheme. That's going to end well.

Who do you think will pay the pension bill?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you think the world should rely on a pyramid scheme. That's going to end well.

Do you have any idea of the economies currently in operation in virtually every country in the world?

Maybe it would be worth putting some thought in to that instead of going to bat for employers over something that most of them are happy to facilitate.
If you think maternity leave is very bad for employers, wait until you hear about upward only rental agreements, rates payments and the difficulties of accessing credit.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

If you think maternity leave is very bad for employers, wait until you hear about upward only rental agreements, rates payments and the difficulties of accessing credit.

My dear fellow, you seem a tad confused. Has nurse done her rounds yet?


Where have I sad maternity benefit is bad? I recently brought it into a company that didn't have it before.


Take two tablets. I hope you are better in the morning.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

Who do you think will pay the pension bill?

What's the outworking of that? 10 billion people to pay for 8, 15 billion to pay for 12 billion people? When does it stop?



Personal pension plans. Mandatory personal pension plans. They are coming. Next question?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

My dear fellow, you seem a tad confused. Has nurse done her rounds yet?


Where have I sad maternity benefit is bad? I recently brought it into a company that didn't have it before.


Take two tablets. I hope you are better in the morning.

You're all over the place. Night night.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You're all over the place. Night night.

Nah, you just got your misperception called on. You'll not find any comment from me where I'm against maternity benefit, because I'm not against it. I've championed it in my working life.

I'll also champion common sense and call out moronic economic nonsense like having children to pay for prior generation pensions or employers being social services.

Hope you've had a good night's sleep

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's the outworking of that? 10 billion people to pay for 8, 15 billion to pay for 12 billion people? When does it stop?



Personal pension plans. Mandatory personal pension plans. They are coming. Next question?

Not all those kids will work and pay tax. Not everyone works and can fund a private pension.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

Not all those kids will work and pay tax. Not everyone works and can fund a private pension.

Then those that care for them will need to have sufficient pension provision built in. It will be mandatory.

Not sure how anyone can defend having children to support those that don't work. The planet cannot support such extravagance. Do you support any other type of pyramid schemes?

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then those that care for them will need to have sufficient pension provision built in. It will be mandatory.

Not sure how anyone can defend having children to support those that don't work. The planet cannot support such extravagance. Do you support any other type of pyramid schemes?

Oh yawn. Ok you win, you win the world

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

Obviously you are.

Excuse me?

I clearly stated that I am not. I have zero issue with it.

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

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.

So what should they have done?

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

So what should they have done?

NOT BREAK THE LAW.

I’m not sure how much simpler I can make this for you.

For your future reference - as you seem to have supreme difficulty with this - here are a few sentences to help you stay on the right side of this law.

DON’T SAY. You cannot have this job because you are pregnant/black/Jewish/gay/traveller/all the above.

DO SAY. Here are the legal reasons why you cannot have this job. Not qualified etc etc.

Do you understand?

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

Excuse me?

I clearly stated that I am not. I have zero issue with it.

You’re excused.

You clearly have an issue with it or you wouldn’t be upset at my posts or asking stupid questions like the one right above this post.

If you had zero issue with it you wouldn’t ask what the company was supposed to do to not break the law.

Treppen

Rodin wrote: »

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

The reason was that she was a woman.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

The reason was that she was a woman.

What thread are you replying to? Or do you think all women are pregnant all the time. You sound like you're on a wind up.



The reason she was never getting the job was because of the guarantee she could not fulfill the contract.


Its that simple, and not rocket science.

Plus it was a MUA role. Pretty sure it was going to a woman in any case.

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What thread are you replying to? Or do you think all women are pregnant all the time. You sound like you're on a wind up.



The reason she was never getting the job was because of the guarantee she could not fulfill the contract.


Its that simple, and not rocket science.

Plus it was a MUA role. Pretty sure it was going to a woman in any case.

Because of pregnancy, men don't get pregnant.
So the only reason for discrimination was gender based.

Rocket science is quiet easy actually, and perfectly predictable, like gender based discrimination.

Keep up, it's not brain surgery you know.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

Because of pregnancy, men don't get pregnant.
So the only reason for discrimination was gender based.

Rocket science is quiet easy actually, and perfectly predictable, like gender based discrimination.

Keep up, it's not brain surgery you know.

I don't think you understand simple logic, never mind rocket science. The best scientists in the world work on rockets and they still regularly blow up. Stop embarrassing yourself further.


And I know this isn't going to suit your narrative, but given the role, given the agency and likely employer the likely only male input in this case is likely to have been on the WRC committee that awarded the €20,000. So stop with the sly misandry.


Again, it wasn't 'because she was a woman', sorry this doesnt fit what you are peddling.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you think the world should rely on a pyramid scheme. That's going to end well.

no just not discriminate against pregnant women, who have to make a living as well.

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the outworking of that? 10 billion people to pay for 8, 15 billion to pay for 12 billion people? When does it stop?



Personal pension plans. Mandatory personal pension plans. They are coming. Next question?

ultimately it doesn't stop, the population will grow and one will just have to suck it up.
personal mandatory pension plans will still mean discrimination against women who are pregnant will not be tolerated in ireland or most countries.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then those that care for them will need to have sufficient pension provision built in. It will be mandatory.

Not sure how anyone can defend having children to support those that don't work. The planet cannot support such extravagance. Do you support any other type of pyramid schemes?

the plannet will be able to support what it is asked to support, technology to allow the greater growth and use of certain resources will be developing and growing as the decades go on.
either way, nonsense about the plannet does not justify discrimination.
no pyramid scheme here, just employers being told you cannot discriminate against pregnant women, and 1 who was stupid enough to do so getting dealt with as it should be.

Deleted User wrote: »

What thread are you replying to? Or do you think all women are pregnant all the time. You sound like you're on a wind up.



The reason she was never getting the job was because of the guarantee she could not fulfill the contract.


Its that simple, and not rocket science.

Plus it was a MUA role. Pretty sure it was going to a woman in any case.

the reason she didn't get the job was because of her pregnancy.
it's that simple, and not rocket science, everything else is irrelevant.

karlitob

Treppen wrote: »

Because of pregnancy, men don't get pregnant.
So the only reason for discrimination was gender based.

Rocket science is quiet easy actually, and perfectly predictable, like gender based discrimination.

Keep up, it's not brain surgery you know.

To be clear, it was because she was pregnant not because she was a woman.

Let’s not let the argument creep.

They didn’t say - you can’t have this job because you’re a woman. They said - you can’t have this job because you're pregnant.

While you are accurate that only women can get pregnant it’s not a logical extension.

That’s not to say that the reason why these protections are in place are for the societal benefit of all people - especially women - but for their children and partners too.

So I see your point but I disagree with it.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

no just not discriminate against pregnant women, who have to make a living as well.



ultimately it doesn't stop, the population will grow and one will just have to suck it up.
personal mandatory pension plans will still mean discrimination against women who are pregnant will not be tolerated in ireland or most countries.




the plannet will be able to support what it is asked to support, technology to allow the greater growth and use of certain resources will be developing and growing as the decades go on.
either way, nonsense about the plannet does not justify discrimination.
no pyramid scheme here, just employers being told you cannot discriminate against pregnant women, and 1 who was stupid enough to do so getting dealt with as it should be.




the reason she didn't get the job was because of her pregnancy.
it's that simple, and not rocket science, everything else is irrelevant.

Your whole argument falls apart when you consider I'd bet my house that it was a woman that eventually got the MUA role. So, how were they discriminating against women? Are you sure your general prejudice isn't blinding you to a very obvious flaw in your argument?


BTW, do you think a male applicant would have been entertained for this role that included training. The answer is no. If anything roles like this have a natural discrimination against men.


Now, we're not going to agree about over population, and if you want to start a separate thread on that I'll happily contribute. As for mandatory pensions, you do realise they are due to come in?

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

You’re excused.

You clearly have an issue with it or you wouldn’t be upset at my posts or asking stupid questions like the one right above this post.

If you had zero issue with it you wouldn’t ask what the company was supposed to do to not break the law.

I think you are confused. I said I have no issue with women having back to back pregnancies, what company do you think is involved in that?
I'm upset at your posts saying that I do have an issue!?

The company in question is regarding a contract position, back to back pregnancy is irrelevant, I'm unsure why you are linking the two?

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

NOT BREAK THE LAW.

I’m not sure how much simpler I can make this for you.

For your future reference - as you seem to have supreme difficulty with this - here are a few sentences to help you stay on the right side of this law.

DON’T SAY. You cannot have this job because you are pregnant/black/Jewish/gay/traveller/all the above.

DO SAY. Here are the legal reasons why you cannot have this job. Not qualified etc etc.

Do you understand?

The whole point of the thread is that in this scenario, i.e. a contract position, being forced to employ someone who will knowingly be unavailable for most of the period, the law as it stands is wrong.
Discrimination is wrong and should be prevented, I and others don't believe this is discrimination, we think it's simply common sense.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

The company in question is regarding a contract position, back to back pregnancy is irrelevant, I'm unsure why you are linking the two?

I didn’t.

Someone else did - Possibly you because you seem to have a problem with companies being unable to break the law and discriminate against pregnant women.

You’re confused. It’s ok - it happens.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Your whole argument falls apart when you consider I'd bet my house that it was a woman that eventually got the MUA role. So, how were they discriminating against women? Are you sure your general prejudice isn't blinding you to a very obvious flaw in your argument?


BTW, do you think a male applicant would have been entertained for this role that included training. The answer is no. If anything roles like this have a natural discrimination against men.


Now, we're not going to agree about over population, and if you want to start a separate thread on that I'll happily contribute. As for mandatory pensions, you do realise they are due to come in?

my argument is fine, no flaws in it what so ever.
ultimately she didn't get the job because she was pregnant, hence the pay out, refusing to employ someone because they are pregnant is grounds for discrimination in this country and that isn't going to change.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point of the thread is that in this scenario, i.e. a contract position, being forced to employ someone who will knowingly be unavailable for most of the period, the law as it stands is wrong.
Discrimination is wrong and should be prevented, I and others don't believe this is discrimination, we think it's simply common sense.

You and others don’t decide what’s ‘common sense’.
You and others don’t decide what is and isn’t law.
You and others don’t decide whether that law has been broken or not.

You don’t decide! You seem to have a real issue that your opinion is not ex cathedra.

It was already been adjudicated on. It’s already been decided in this case. By someone who is trained, who has the authority to adjudicate on the law and someone who has all the facts to hand. You, others - and I - have none of those things.

You clearly have an issue with discrimination against pregnant women. If you didn’t - you would accept the judgement as has been adjudicated on, and then reflect on your current understanding of discrimination.

Both your understanding on what this thread and case is about; and your use of language makes your position very clear. No company is ‘forced’ to employ someone, this case was not about forced employment, this case was about that a potential employee was discriminated out of hand for being pregnant.

I had thought I made this clear - just to help you cos I’m good like that. I’ll try again.

DON’T SAY - you can’t have this job because you’re pregnant/black/gay/Jew/all of above.

DO SAY - you can’t have this job for the following legal reasons etc etc.

They said that you can’t have this job because you are pregnant - you can’t do that.

I’ll happily continue to repeat these points until you understand.

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

You and others don’t decide what’s ‘common sense’.
You and others don’t decide what is and isn’t law.
You and others don’t decide whether that law has been broken or not.

You don’t decide! You seem to have a real issue that your opinion is not ex cathedra.

It was already been adjudicated on. It’s already been decided in this case. By someone who is trained, who has the authority to adjudicate on the law and someone who has all the facts to hand. You, others - and I - have none of those things.

You clearly have an issue with discrimination against pregnant women. If you didn’t - you would accept the judgement as has been adjudicated on, and then reflect on your current understanding of discrimination.

Both your understanding on what this thread and case is about; and your use of language makes your position very clear. No company is ‘forced’ to employ someone, this case was not about forced employment, this case was about that a potential employee was discriminated out of hand for being pregnant.

I had thought I made this clear - just to help you cos I’m good like that. I’ll try again.

DON’T SAY - you can’t have this job because you’re pregnant/black/gay/Jew/all of above.

DO SAY - you can’t have this job for the following legal reasons etc etc.

They said that you can’t have this job because you are pregnant - you can’t do that.

I’ll happily continue to repeat these points until you understand.

This is a discussion forum where people are free to give their opinion on things, including the current law.

It used to be that gay people couldn't marry and that abortion wasn't an option, laws change.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

This is a discussion forum where people are free to give their opinion on things, including the current law.

I know. I disagree with it. And I’m telling you why.

This reminds me of my favourite quote from Brian cox

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!
Brian Cox