UKIP MEP in row over working women (Sexism)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Fluffy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Hayley...)
I've got a feeling that's paid leave. If you can afford it, you can take more time off without pay and, legally, your job is still secure.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/paternity.htm
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by Fluffy)
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/paternity.htm
I found that but it looked to complicated - why are government websites always like that?

I found it nicely and clearly set out on a "know your rights" website.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
Just to clear up what maternity pay women are entitled to:

6 months SMP (Statutory maternity pay) which is 90% of your full pay for 6 weeks followed by either 90% of your full pay or £100 a week whichever is lower for the remaining 20 weeks.

If you've worked at a company for more than 6 months then you're also entitled to another 6 months UNPAID maternity leave.

Employers can claim SMP back from the government...they're only left out of pocket if they offer contractual maternity pay on top of SMP - and then they're only out of pocket for the difference between SMP and the contractual pay (ie if they offer £120 a week for the final 20 weeks then it only costs them £20 a week).

Paternity leave is 2 weeks paid (at the same rate as SMP - 90% of full wage)
Both parents have a right to unpaid leave of up to 13 weeks before a child is 5 yrs old.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/ind...employment.htm
0
Llamas
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
Just to clear up what maternity pay women are entitled to:

6 months SMP (Statutory maternity pay) which is 90% of your full pay for 6 weeks followed by either 90% of your full pay or £100 a week whichever is lower for the remaining 20 weeks.

If you've worked at a company for more than 6 months then you're also entitled to another 6 months UNPAID maternity leave.

Employers can claim SMP back from the government...they're only left out of pocket if they offer contractual maternity pay on top of SMP - and then they're only out of pocket for the difference between SMP and the contractual pay (ie if they offer £120 a week for the final 20 weeks then it only costs them £20 a week).

Paternity leave is 2 weeks paid (at the same rate as SMP - 90% of full wage)
Both parents have a right to unpaid leave of up to 13 weeks before a child is 5 yrs old.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/ind...employment.htm
They can claim back from the government? That makes the MEPs comments even less justified.

edit: Thanks, by the way.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by Llamas)
They can claim back from the government? That makes the MEPs comments even less justified.
SMP is like SSP (statutory sick pay) - it's a legal requirement that employers pay it but they're reimbursed by the government.

Many large employers offer contractual maternity benefits on top of the statutory ones - but small businesses tend not to.
0
Fluffy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
I found that but it looked to complicated - why are government websites always like that?

I found it nicely and clearly set out on a "know your rights" website.
I had a look at the KYR website, but thought it a little simplistic, and obsessed with paternity leave when adopting!

Meh! been a CS for too long!
0
Poc ar buile
Badges: 0
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
"No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."
I am all for equal rights, but this makes sense. I would never employ a woman who I thought was going to go off and have a baby and live off me. I have a friend I used to work with at a Chemical company in Hampshire. She got pregnant and had no intention of going back to work. She still took all her maternity pay and screwed the boss over because she kept saying she'd go back so he could never replace her and the rest of us all had way more work to do.

Equal rights for women, yes. Extra rights for women, screw you!
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Fluffy)
I had a look at the KYR website, but thought it a little simplistic, and obsessed with paternity leave when adopting!

Meh! been a CS for too long!
oh yeah - it had had about 8 sections on adopting!
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by polthegael)
I am all for equal rights, but this makes sense. I would never employ a woman who I thought was going to go off and have a baby and live off me. I have a friend I used to work with at a Chemical company in Hampshire. She got pregnant and had no intention of going back to work. She still took all her maternity pay and screwed the boss over because she kept saying she'd go back so he could never replace her and the rest of us all had way more work to do.

Equal rights for women, yes. Extra rights for women, screw you!
But SMP doesn't cost employers a penny?

They're living off the government/tax payers NOT their employer...unless their employer offers extra benefits, which most small businesses don't.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Fluffy)
I had a look at the KYR website, but thought it a little simplistic, and obsessed with paternity leave when adopting!

Meh! been a CS for too long!
I like the CAB site (the www.adviceguide.org.uk one) it usually sums things up quite clearly and has links to more detail if you want it.
0
Poc ar buile
Badges: 0
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
But SMP doesn't cost employers a penny?

They're living off the government/tax payers NOT their employer...unless their employer offers extra benefits, which most small businesses don't.
We still had to do another persons work and, because of our strick needs to have stuff "checked", we had to send people (usually me :mad: ) between our sites.

We couldn't replace her because then we would be overstaffed and unable to lay anyone off should she come back (the boss had to play by the rules).

Any funding from the government comes from us all anyway in taxes. Why should we pay for some woman to play the system like a fool?
0
dogtanian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by polthegael)
I am all for equal rights, but this makes sense. I would never employ a woman who I thought was going to go off and have a baby and live off me. I have a friend I used to work with at a Chemical company in Hampshire. She got pregnant and had no intention of going back to work. She still took all her maternity pay and screwed the boss over because she kept saying she'd go back so he could never replace her and the rest of us all had way more work to do.

Equal rights for women, yes. Extra rights for women, screw you!
But a woman of child bearing age can mean anything from 18 - 45+
So you'd never employ a woman of those ages, just in case she got pregnant? You call that equal rights then?

I'd agree with the MEP if he was interviewing a pregnant woman, that's fair enough. But to dismiss all those people just because they're women is not on.


Course, it does happen, which is quite tragic.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by polthegael)
We still had to do another persons work and, because of our strick needs to have stuff "checked", we had to send people (usually me :mad: ) between our sites.

We couldn't replace her because then we would be overstaffed and unable to lay anyone off should she come back (the boss had to play by the rules).
That's what temping agencies are there for. Just because your employer is too lazy/tight to pay for someone to fill in while she's away doesn't mean that every business is short staffed - it means your employer KNEW you would all get the job done with one person less and that you would turn against the woman on maternity and not the person who caused the situation - the employer.

I find it quite worrying that you can't see when people are manipulating you.
0
Poc ar buile
Badges: 0
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by Hayley...)
But a woman of child bearing age can mean anything from 18 - 45+
So you'd never employ a woman of those ages, just in case she got pregnant? You call that equal rights then?

I'd agree with the MEP if he was interviewing a pregnant woman, that's fair enough. But to dismiss all those people just because they're women is not on.

Course, it does happen, which is quite tragic.
No, I'd change the law to allow flexibilty for employers. If a woman could be laid off if she could no longer do her job (or chose not to), then I'd be happy to take on fertile women. There would always be the possiblity to re-employ her if she was good at her job, a vacancy came up and she was interested in the future...
0
Poc ar buile
Badges: 0
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
That's what temping agencies are there for. Just because your employer is too lazy/tight to pay for someone to fill in while she's away doesn't mean that every business is short staffed - it means your employer KNEW you would all get the job done with one person less and that you would turn against the woman on maternity and not the person who caused the situation - the employer.

I find it quite worrying that you can't see when people are manipulating you.
But temping agencies charge twice as much as just employing someone. We were a small department (boss and three others) and had a fixed budget!
0
dogtanian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
Pregnancy isn't a disease or disability. It's part of life.

If the law was like that, woman would end up forced back into the home, and that's just not good for business, or the economy.. We need that half of the population working.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by polthegael)
But temping agencies charge twice as much as just employing someone. We were a small department (boss and three others) and had a fixed budget!
You can get someone on minimum wage from a temping agency for less than £7 per hour - including employers NI.

Were they really paying this woman less than £12k pa?
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by Hayley...)
Pregnancy isn't a disease or disability. It's part of life.

If the law was like that, woman would end up forced back into the home, and that's just not good for business, or the economy.. We need that half of the population working.
W e do, but this UKIP guy wasn't just talking about pregnancy, he was saying that some legislation has disadvataged women in some ways as it has made them less employable.
0
Llamas
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by polthegael)
But temping agencies charge twice as much as just employing someone. We were a small department (boss and three others) and had a fixed budget!
He could've employed someone for at least one day a week on the money claimed back from the government. If you're department is a part of a larger company then your boss should've claimed for some extra funds.
0
Poc ar buile
Badges: 0
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
You can get someone on minimum wage from a temping agency for less than £7 per hour - including employers NI.

Were they really paying this woman less than £12k pa?

I doubt anyone with sufficient knowledge of gas chromatography, HPLC, spectrophotometry, etc to do the job would agree to work for minimum wage anywhere! No, she was on well over 12k.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With no certainty that exams next year wil take place, how does this make you feel?

More motivated (42)
22.58%
Less motivated (144)
77.42%

Watched Threads

View All