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!

Evil bosses put logic before women

More than half of UK bosses assess the chances of a member of staff falling pregnant before employing them, a survey suggests.

And 76% of managers admitted that they would not hire a new recruit if they knew they were going to fall pregnant within six months of starting the job.

And why wouldn’t they? There are two points of view to consider here, that of the woman, and that of the business. The woman is obviously looking out for herself, so why can’t the business?

Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) said discrimination was prevalent, despite legislation to outlaw it.

There had been a rise in cases over pregnancy and new starters, ELAS added.

About 52% of those surveyed said that they considered the chances of a candidate getting pregnant taking into account age and whether they have just got married.

Legally, a direct question to a potential employee cannot be asked.

That’s helpful. So now women cannot even defend themselves in an interview, the business has to decide without that additional information. Naturally, they will err on the side of caution, because getting it wrong could get very expensive as well as disruptive. By the way, if women are so strong and empowered, why do they need additional legislation to ‘protect’ them? I’m sure they can handle it on their own? Continue reading

Sperm donor wins child support battle

Good news men! Well, potentially at least. Hopefully this sets a legal precedent.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

For those who don’t know, it is normal for a man who donated his sperm with the understanding he would not be liable to provide for the child, to then be sued for child support and be forced to pay regardless. Like what happened to this idiot.

“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week. Continue reading