Here's the problem;
A survey in November 2005 found that three out of four British companies actively discriminated against women of child-bearing age who applied for jobs. The report found a growing trend of rejecting women applicants because they might leave to have babies. Recent research suggests that more than a third of employers believe pregnancy is "an undue cost burden" and many pregnant women face pay cuts or hostile treatment on their return to work.
And here's the solution;
Every pregnant woman in Scotland will receive an employment "bill of rights" at her 12-week scan as part of a campaign to stamp out sex discrimination at work, The Scotsman has learned.
The scheme, to be introduced by the Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland early this year, is designed to bolster the rights of pregnant women across the country.
The document will provide a comprehensive guide to an employer's responsibilities, and includes a tear-off section for women to give to their bosses.
It explains how employers must conduct a risk assessment to protect the woman and her unborn baby while at work. She is also guarded against unfair treatment, including dismissal, connected with the pregnancy.
What's a bet the solution compounds the problem. Asinine stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
And what about the real genuine right of the employer to decide who works for them and who shan't?
The bosses are to be "raped" of their rights by pregnant women thinking they have a "right" to force their choices onto non consenting others...how ironic...but so predictable.
James,
the employer does NOT have the right to DISCRIMINATE against particular job applicants, in this case pregnant women. Or, to put it the other way, there is a legal obligation on employers to act fairly (without discrimation) when assessing job candidates. I should have thought this was quite clear in the article, as well as being rather common knowledge.
I also thought that many contributors to this blog are against women receiving the DPB. If this is your position James, how exactly do you think that continued discrimination against pregnant women might mitigate DPB take-up? I'd be happy to bet that the reverse is true.
Rose, The state cannot literally force decisions on employers, as evidenced by the existing trend.
Everybody discriminates (or discerns) when making a choice.
Increasing the risk or cost of employing women of prime child-bearing age (prospective or existing mothers) will make employers even more likely to avoid doing so. I don't think that is a good thing.
Yes. Difficulty in finding employment is likely to push more onto welfare. A bad thing.
The state is not helping women by making them less employable.
I agree that discrimination laws do little in practice, as is indeed evidenced by the article, and as I learned, anecdotally, as pregnant woman attempting to find work in NZ.
Yes, everyone discriminates when making a choice, but that does not mean that they discriminate wisely, in a way that is in their own best interest, or the best interest of society. Stuart Brock, a philosopher at Vic, has written on recent research that shows that interviewers generally tend to make up their minds about a candidate in the first few minutes of an interview and stick to this decision regardless of what information follows. Who would argue that such commonplace discrimination is actually reasonable?
The level of discrimination cited in the article- 75%- is phenomenal. Will increased measures to protect women make this number even larger? Perhaps. Or perhaps not, if women were actually provided with accessible means of redress against employers, and thus discrimination laws made more likely to be enforced.
Your solution to the problem appears to be this: do nothing. But 75% of this group of women are already being discriminated against! How can this fit with your stance on the DPB? Surely you are aware that a pregnant woman can go on the Sickness Benefit at 26 weeks of pregnancy, and is almost sure to, piteous though this income is, if she is deemed unemployable.
Addenda: it appears to be the undemocratic workings of the "free" market that is fuelling "welfare dependency" in this case.
We do not have a "free" market. Go back and look at why employers are already avoiding these women. Because of existing legislation eg compulsory maternity leave. And you want more.
Also, you promote 'protecting' the 'rights' of some (those pregnant) and endanger the prospects of all (including those not pregnant and those never intending to be).
Rose, does an employer have no rights? I know of women who have changed jobs just so that they can get pregnant and have someone else pay for their choice. This is dishonest and manipulative.
As an employer I subtley try to find out whether a potential female employee is going to get pregnant. I then find that the other candidates are 'genuinely' better. It's tough but why should I pay for her choice to get pregnant. Come to me and be honest and I will find a way to employ you in such a manner as to benefit both of us - but you won't get paid as much for part-time employment.
Lindsay,
you avoided replying to my argument that allowing employers to continue to discriminate against pregnant women (or those purportedly intending to be pregnant) will only increase the likelihood of women moving onto welfare.
No, we do not have a free market at all. Note my use of quotation marks.
Yes, I think there should be more support for women in paid employ. It is a simple fact of biology that women have babies and not men-- and ectogenesis looks a long way off-- and this is no basis for discrimination.
You are not clear on how "'protecting' the 'rights' of some (those pregnant)" actually ENDANGERS "the prospects of all (including those not pregnant and those never intending to be)." Is this a circular argument? Employers are discriminatory, so any protection for some category of women will end up discriminating against all? If so, you should note that I am arguing against discrimination (hence I do not concede the necessity of the first premise).
Mawm, I would be interested in learning the techniques you use to work out whether a woman is going to get pregnant. Telepathy? Astrology?
Rose,
Just curious about your argument that
...my argument that allowing employers to continue to discriminate against pregnant women (or those purportedly intending to be pregnant) will only increase the likelihood of women moving onto welfare.
Where is the father of the baby in this increased scenario of women more likely to move onto welfare? If most pregnant women seeking employment are needing welfare if they don't get a job, then maybe we ought to be looking at societal factors that allow women to get pregnant without considering the consequences of their actions. It's not the employer's fault that that father of the child is not around to support his ... girlfriend? and baby.
Lindsay came very close to the obvious reason why this happens. Government has granted special rights to women who get pregnant, in other words mandated benefits to them at the expense of the employer. This makes the cost of hiring these women higher than the cost of highering men or older women. Thus lowering the demand for these women.
If some racist group wanted to make Maori worse off the easiest way to do it would be to pass a law which required employers to pay higher wages to Maori than to other workers. The net result would be a lowering of demand increasing unemployment. (And Labour and the Maori Party would stupidly find such legislation "pro-Maori").
While James is correct that employers ought to have the right to hire any employee they want -- just like employees ought to have the right to refuse to work for employer -- that is not the primary issue here. The question is why would employers act in this way? What gave them the incentive to actively discriminate against women of a certain age only? And that blame rests firmly on the shoulders of well-meaning, but economically ignorant activists who pushed through legislation increasing the cost of employing these women.
Lucyna,
I never said that "most" pregnant women who cannot find employment will move onto welfare, but the fact is that not all pregnant women have the support of a partner and these women will suffer more from workplace discrimination.
When you speak of the employer having to pay for a single women's decision to be pregnant you have changed the issue. Here you are speaking about paid maternity leave, which, if a woman is eligible (i.e. has worked full-time for over a year for the same employer), does not depend on her martial status at all.
My point is that if Lindsay is serious about moving women off welfare then it seems reasonable that she might advocate for easier workplace access for this group.
(But apparently not.)
Rose wrote: "My point is that if Lindsay is serious about moving women off welfare then it seems reasonable that she might advocate for easier workplace access for this group. (But apparently not.)"
Rose you need to ask yourself why employers are reluctant to hire women of a certain age (child bearing age). You don't. If you want to make it easier for women to get jobs who are on welfare stop rewarding them for having children and stop penalizing employers who hire them. The laws demand special benefits that fundamentally apply only to women of a certain age and that makes them more expensive to hire relative to men or older women. So they don't get hired.
Stupid govt. laws make it hard for these women to get jobs and you propose more stupid laws. Get govt. out of the job market, end the special benefits mandated by law and these women will be able to find jobs. Before you suggest policy try studying a little economics. Right now your recommendations appear destructive to women not beneficial.
"James,
the employer does NOT have the right to DISCRIMINATE against particular job applicants, in this case pregnant women."
Yes they fucken do you socialist arsehole! Its called the right to Liberty.Where do you do get off telling someone who they can and can't associate with you arrogant prick? If an employer does not want to employ someone that should be the end of it....how do you get the "right" to hold a gun to his head?
Sorry for the language Lindsay but scum like this deserve it!
James,
Sorry, but an ad hominem attack just doesn't cut it.
I referred to a "legal right" and in response you conjure up a fantasy capital L right to liberty (i.e. NOT a legal right, which is what is under discussion) and conflate the freedom of association, which is NOT the issue in employment contexts, with the legal rules that are applied to contracts to facilitate equal bargaining.
Therefore, I must decline to respond any further as you have NOT said anything relevant.
(But, p.s. I'm NOT a socialist. Guess again, buddy!)
Putting employers aside for a moment:
Consider the othe employees who so often have to pick up the workload of the person absent, due to their decision to breed!
But the whole discrimination at job interview s is a crock, in any case. The interview and selection process IS exactly that- DISCRIMINATION- Selectiong the best person for the job (or trying to)
To be non-discriminatory, one woulf have to be allocated a work unit out of a common labour pool.
Which probably appeals to those who like that sort of socialist crap.
Let the person picking up the tab make the call. It's nobody else's affair!
As Lindsay points outm ore legislation to fix a contrived problem, only makes matters worse.
It appears that several contributors to this thread have great difficulty in understanding anti-discrimination laws. Briefly, these are meant to ensure that persons are considered on merit, and without prejudice regarding their age, sex, race, body type and so on.
Traditionally, as far as I am aware, Liberals have been in agreement with this principle. From this thread, however, it appears that Liberty is in fact Prejudice.
Rose , You put an awful lot of store by what is 'legal' as though it defines behaviour.
It doesn't. Laws may attempt to prohibit or modify behaviour but if they contravene man's rational self-interest they will be circumvented.
I understand the law very well- most of us who have been hirers and firers do- that being our job.
You need to understand busybody nanny-state laws to circumvent them sucessfully!
I'm not out to run a caring sharing society, but to run a business well. I want people who will fit in, not represent society. I want workers that will pull their weight. I want workers that will make money without any dramas.
I don't want 'high-needs' employees. I don't want misfits and I don't want workers that I can't count on to turn up.I certainly don't need bush lawyers or union offfical wannabes.
If someone wants to take a year off and expect to have their job kept open(BTW the only time this happened, it was a guy)they can get a job in the state sector.
Trying to get someone on on one-year contract is not usually practical!
As for this affecting DPB'ers returning to work- if they are on their own, they shouldn't be breeding!
Lindsay,
In fact, I don't put a lot of store on what is legal. Indeed, the justness of many laws are questionable.
But in terms of this debate, the right not to be discriminated against is a legal right granted in this country. (Albeit one which you and I have both agreed that this achieves little in practice.) Notwithstanding, James is still incorrect to state that the employer has a "right" to discrimination. Currently, she or he does not.
As I see it, two debates are going on here. The first at issue is what can be done, if anything, about the already high level of discrimination encountered by women of child-bearing age attempting to find employment. The second regards paid-maternity leave.
Perhaps you are correct in suspecting that the "asinine" approach to correcting discrimination cited in the article-- informing women and employers of discrimination laws-- will only increase discrimination against this group of women. I have already granted this above:
"Will increased measures to protect women make this number even larger? Perhaps."
The fact is, neither you or I can be certain. We will have to check, in a year or so, and see what the outcome is. Perhaps also we could have a look at similar historical precedents and see what the trends were there.
Now, the second issue is paid-maternity leave. It is obvious that these two issues are being conflated when posters speak of the government rising the costs for the employer who employs women of child-bearing age. With the first issue, if there was no paid-maternity leave, there would be no significant rise in cost (although there might still be the legitimate concern that the employee will not stay on for a long duration). The article certainly did not speak about requiring employers to pay higher wages to women.
My personal belief regarding paid-maternity leave as an employer's cost is that it DOES actively promote employer's discrimination against women of child-bearing age and hence is undesirable. i.e. I think it is an unjust law.
Once again, my main point was that the article suggested that discrimination against women of child-bearing age is ALREADY extremely high, and I put it to you that this already-existing barrier to women's access to paid employment likely results in women turning to welfare. The logical riposte for you to make would be to say, given your previously stated assumptions, that this "solution" will make EVEN MORE women turn to welfare (as it would increase discrimination). I would be perfectly happy to accept such an argument as valid, on the condition (as above) that we don't actually know what will happen (i.e. we don't know whether one of the premises is true). But the other point I put to you was that as an activist concerned with getting women off welfare, you should be concerned by the distrurbing trend that already exists.
Regards,
Rose
Employers have a right to discriminate regardless of whether the law allows them to or not.Individual Human Rights precede all law...indeed the purpose of law was to protect pre existing rights.Because the current situation is that the state violates this right and uses its power to force associations onto unconsenting people dosen't make it right....quite the opposite.
"Briefly, these are meant to ensure that persons are considered on merit, and without prejudice regarding their age, sex, race, body type and so on.
Traditionally, as far as I am aware, Liberals have been in agreement with this principle. From this thread, however, it appears that Liberty is in fact Prejudice."
Sorry Rose but learn some history...Liberals uphold the right to Liberty which contains the inseparably right NOT to associate with those not of your choosing.The RTL is not just about freedom of association but freedom FROM association.In short liberty is about the RIGHT to be prejudiced in your own life and with your own property.....or are you saying that pregnant women have more rights than anyone else...?
"(But, p.s. I'm NOT a socialist. Guess again, buddy!)"
Sorry but yes you are.
James,
shall I be as condescending as you and suggest that you "learn some philosophy"?
I have made it more than abundantly clear that I have constrained my usage of rights to "legal rights" for this discussion. This was to avoid entering into the philosophical debate regarding the difference (or correspondence) between legal rights and natural rights, which is far more contentious than your rudimentary "history" suggests. And as I explained above, the LAWS that pertain to freedom of association are not applicable in employment contexts.
I have been trying to stick to the original subject matter, and enter into honest discussion within certain reasonable parameters.
"Or are you saying that pregnant women have more rights than anyone else...?"
No James, I'm not. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. I have been maintaining A FACT: that under current law, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age have the right not to be discriminated against in regards to their reproductive capacities.
I've never said anything about who SHOULD have rights; i.e. I have not proposed a normative program of rights, as you do. I have simply stated what is currently the case: a legal right (albeit one that is not upheld).
Sheesh, how many times do you need this repeated?
No James, I'm not. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. I have been maintaining A FACT: that under current law, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age have the right not to be discriminated against in regards to their reproductive capacities."
Well woopdee doo, tell us something new Rose.We know that that is the current situation ....and the majority of us here are opposed to it.
By the way Rose...."Anonymous" makes some great points above that you ignored....how about answering them?
And Oswalds too...
Post a Comment