Maternity leave and equality laws are ‘sabotaging’ women’s careers

Source: Daily Mail

Generous maternity leave and flexible working practices are in danger of sabotaging women’s careers, the head of the new equality watchdog has warned.

With women now entitled to a year off for each child, Dr Nicola Brewer, the chief executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said employers were thinking twice about offering them jobs or promotion.

The current set of benefits, which strongly favour the mother, has also entrenched the idea that women bring up children, instead of both parents taking an equal responsibility for childcare.

‘The thing I worry about is that the current legislation and regulations have had the unintended consequence of making women a less attractive prospect to employers.’ British fathers are allowed two weeks of paternity leave compared to 52 weeks for their partners.

As usual, the only thing that matters is the effect on women that choose to have children. What about the businesses and all of the other workers?

She said: ‘The way it is framed means it is up to the women to transfer the leave to the man. It is not his right.’

In a speech today, she is expected to call for an extension of fathers’ rights, suggesting men be entitled to 12 weeks of leave on 90 per cent of their earnings following the birth of a child.

Wow, 12 whole weeks! Women = 52 weeks. Men = 12 weeks. (That’s when they even know their girlfriend/ wife is pregnant.)

Aware that her proposals will face criticism from the business lobby, she said: ‘Of course, there is a business case for these changes and many companies are going further. But this is a social argument as well as an economic one.

‘There may well be a cost [to business], but as a society we are already thinking in terms of wellbeing as well as take home pay.’

Well, that answers my earlier question. The businesses and other workers just have to pay for it. Nothing like redistribution of wealth to keep Communism alive.

Sir Alan warned in February that equal opportunity laws had made it harder for a woman to get a job.

Employers are not allowed to ask women about having children  –  so they would just not employ them, he said.

And he is right.

It really gets on my nerves, how the State thinks it has a duty to regulate every little aspect of our lives. In fact it sounds much more like totalitarianism than freedom to me. The State autonomously deciding what society should be like? I thought they were supposed to serve the People, and remain bound by our laws?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, why should a business employ someone who has a high probability of leaving, while you still have financial obligations to them? It reminds me of the treatment of women in divorce. They leave, you pay. What would you do, as a business owner? Especially a small business. How is it good business sense to employ someone, have them leave the workforce while you still have to pay them and then employ someone else to do the same bloody job? You can of course, get the other (working) employees to make up for it, but you know that will not help morale. That could encourage your staff to look elsewhere for work. On top of that, you cannot ask women these questions in interviews, so the women cannot even defend themselves! All brought to you by your socialist State who dictates more and more of our lives to us every day!

Advertisements

Harriet (femscum) Harman still wants to discriminate against white men

I touched upon this scheme from this liberal Marxo-feminist in an earlier post, It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men. Today on the BBC website is another article about her continued push for this most disgusting proposal.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. It is all discrimination. Remember, this is straight out of Communism, the States’ desire to ‘equalise’ the (Collectivist) groups in employment. White men in Britain must be completely undermined in order to be able to complete the State’s takeover of the country. Notice how there is no similar campaign to discriminate against other groups in the case of white men being the minority. By the way, society is not composed of groups, it is composed of individuals. Using groups is the Collectivist method to ‘divide and conquer’.

BBC

Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to.

In favour of female and ethnic minorities means anyone but white men. There are more women of working age in Britain than men. So technically men are the minority, not that it matters. Who does the State see as the threat eh?

The new Equalities Bill will also force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap.

The plans, which will be adopted first across England then Wales and Scotland, will also ban all age discrimination.

We all know about the Gender Pay GapTM LIE. It does however offer a suitable Dialectic for the State to continue to expand its powers into the lives of private businesses.

Ms Harman said she wanted a more “open and diverse” economy with companies not just choosing from “a pool of friends of friends”.

Tackled on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about whether the proposals would lead to discrimination against white men, she said companies would not be forced to use positive discrimination.

What the hell has the ‘make up’ of the economy got to do with a politician? In a free society you employ who you bloody like and make your own decisions. It just goes to show how the State is socially engineering a Communist ideal by enforcing whatever it thinks is ‘fair’.

But she added: “They might think we don’t want an all male team.

“We’ve got a new post coming up, we’ve got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team.

Yeah, until she gets pregnant or something.

“The law at the moment is not clear and we are clarifying and saying if you want to do it, you can, and it makes it much more open.”

Ms Harman will set out the proposals in the Commons later.

Age discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since 2006, but the new legislation will tackle more widespread forms of age-related prejudice.

The Bill aims to close the gender pay gap by forcing firms to “publish their gender pay gap”.

Again, who gets paid what is none of the States’ business.

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today.

“Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It’s not the case. It’s entrenched discrimination. It’s allowed to persist because it’s all swept under the carpet.”

Oh fuck off. If a business ever chose to employ a man over a woman, I’m sure there are very good reasons for doing so, as Sir Alan Sugar explains to us. A business is supposed to employ whomever they think will be best for the job and for the business. The State is essentially saying your business should serve the interests of ‘equality’ and not capitalism.

The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.

Ms Harman said doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.

But she added: “Everybody should be treated as individuals and not just discriminated against across the board because of their age.”

I wonder if the men will still be denied treatment?

Age discrimination will also be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, such as holidays and insurance.

It is likely organisations and companies will be given time to review and, if necessary, change their practices before the new law would be enforced.

Other age distinctions, such as free bus passes and holidays for the over-50s or 18-to-30s, will be exempt.

A sickening power grab by the Police State over fundamental freedoms, as always, under the guise of protecting one ‘group’ from another ‘group’. The real enemy of the State are two ‘groups’. White men and the middle class. Why the middle class? Well generally they tend to run the means of production, like farmers and tend to know their rights and have the financial ability to fight for them. Release a few weaponised diseases and pile on the EU regulations and disenfranchise them. The government can centralise production using taxpayer money in response (preferably with corporate partnership, as is the case with Corporate Fascism.) It is plainly obvious what is going on.

“Feminism is just Communism with tits” – FM Watkins

Harriet Harman should be thrown off a cliff.

Nine in 10 UK jobs go to foreigners

Almost nine in 10 new jobs created over the past decade have been taken by foreign-born workers despite a sharp increase in the number of skilled British workers, official figures show.

The number of British people in work has slumped to the lowest level since Labour was elected in 1997, undermining claims made by Gordon Brown that employment was at a record high.

Labour, ‘Party of the Working Class’.

The figures have been uncovered by a former Labour minister who is urging the Government to urgently restrict immigration from eastern Europe to help young Britons gain employment.

Mr Field said yesterday: “What the Government needs to do is face up to the fact that we need to restrict the movement of labour from eastern Europe.

“We had the ability to do that, but now we would need to ask the European Commission for permission. And the Government seems unwilling to do that.”

In other words, British no longer has control of its own borders. At some point in the past, a Treaty was signed giving that authority to an organisation outside of Westminster. That signing was an Act of Treason. Continue reading

The Folly of ‘Equal Opportunity Law’

Sir Alan Sugar warned last night that equal opportunity laws have made it harder for a woman to get a job.

Employers are not allowed to ask women about having children – so they would just not employ them, he said.

The self-made millionaire and star of BBC TV’s The Apprentice added: “Everything has gone too far. We have maternity laws where people are entitled to too much.

“If someone comes into an interview and you think to yourself ‘there is a possibility that this woman might have a child and therefore take time off’ it is a bit of a psychological negative thought.

“If they are applying for a position which is very important, then I should imagine that some employers might think ‘this is a bit risky’.

“They would like to ask the question ‘Are you planning to get married and to have any children?.”

Sir Alan claimed that the current-laws are “counter-productive for women”. Continue reading