Wimmin'
 

Oooh. Step back in horror that someone would decry women in the workplace so. Especially a member of the Women's Rights Committee.

And yet, he's kinda right. I'm (hopefully) about to be a small businessman, running my own company. And if someone leaves to go off and have a kid, I'm supposed to pay her for not being there. In a small company, that pretty much means I'm supposed to either get by on less staff or miraculously find the money to (temporarily) replace her.

So whaddya do? You can't fire women for getting pregnant - clearly, that'd be unfair. And yet, there's a very real number of businesses that simply couldn't afford to support a mother on long-term maternity leave (my current, large, employer has 2 people who're both off for 10 months based on length of service). There's no way I could afford to pay someone else aswell for 10 months, and if I could do without the employee for 10 months then I probably wouldn't hire them in the first place.

Quite the conundrum.

Is it law that a company, despite its size, provide maternity leave pay or is it a benefit decided on by the company, like the number of paid vacations/year? I'd imagine it's not a federal law, or even a state law anywhere, because I just can't imagine a place like McDonalds providing maternity leave pay for the cashier, for example. If it's not law, it can be explained to any women looking for employment with you that you don't provide maternity leave pay if they should happen to be with child. Or perhaps the position you have open doesn't receive that benefit? Or you can say you don't have that yet if you want to sound proactive :) Maybe they can come back to the job when they're ready? That way they have job security (such as it is) and you can funnel the money for her into a temp or something.

Do you know what the law is in GB? Do they maybe have a small business exemption?

From the 6th of April 2003, the following apply:

(from the Department of Trade & Industry website - http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/matleafr.htm)

No small business exemptions that I can find, and the pay is to be 90% of salary for 6 weeks, followed by £100/week for the remaining 20 weeks.

In the States, after years of progress toward pay equity, womens compensation has started to fall off. I would think that knowing you'd have to pay someone not to work would reduce your willingness to invest in them.

As a former small business owner, I have no desire at all to hire anyone I would have to pay for not being there.

That being said, sick leave is one thing, but being pregnant isn't an illness.

From the FMLA website

SEC. 102. LEAVE REQUIREMENT.
o (a) IN GENERAL.--
+ (1) ENTITLEMENT TO LEAVE.--Subject to section 103, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following:
# (A) Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.
# (B) Because of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.
# (C) In order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.
# (D) Because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.
+ (2) EXPIRATION OF ENTITLEMENT.--The entitlement to leave under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) for a birth or placement of a son or daughter shall expire at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of such birth or placement.
o (b) LEAVE TAKEN INTERMITTENTLY OR ON A REDUCED LEAVE SCHEDULE.
+ (1) IN GENERAL.--Leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall not be taken by an employee intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule unless the employee and the employer of the employee agree otherwise. Subject to paragraph (2), subsection (e)(2), and section 103(b)(5), leave under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1) may be taken intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule when medically necessary. The taking of leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule pursuant to this paragraph shall not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled under subsection (a) beyond the amount of leave actually taken.
+ (2) ALTERNATIVE POSITION.-- If an employee requests intermittent leave, or leave on a reduced leave schedule, under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1), that is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment, the employer may require such employee to transfer temporarily to an available alternative position offered by the employer for which the employee is qualified and that--
# (A) has equivalent pay and benefits; and
# (B) better accommodates recurring periods of leave than the regular employment position of the employee.
o (c) UNPAID LEAVE PERMITTED. -- Except as provided in subsection (d), leave granted under subsection (a) may consist of unpaid leave. Where an employee is otherwise exempt under regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)), the compliance of an employer with this title by providing unpaid leave shall not affect the exempt status of the employee under such section.
o (d) RELATIONSHIP TO PAID LEAVE.--
+ (1) UNPAID LEAVE.--If an employer provides paid leave for fewer than 12 workweeks, the additional weeks of leave necessary to attain the 12 workweeks of leave required under this title may be provided without compensation.
+ (2) SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.--
# (A) IN GENERAL.--An eligible employee may elect, or an employer may require the employee, to substitute any of the accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or family leave of the employee for leave provided under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (a)(1) for any part of the 12-week period of such leave under such subsection.
# (B) SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.--An eligible employee may elect, or an employer may require the employee, to substitute any of the accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave of the employee for leave provided under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1) for any part of the 12-week period of such leave under such subsection, except that nothing in this title shall require an employer to provide paid sick leave or paid medical leave in any situation in which such employer would not normally provide any such paid leave.
o (e) FORESEEABLE LEAVE.--
+ (1) REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE.--In any case in which the necessity for leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) is foreseeable based on an expected birth or placement, the employee shall provide the employer with not less than 30 days' notice, before the date the leave is to begin, of the employee's intention to take leave under such subparagraph, except that if the date of the birth or placement requires leave to begin in less than 30 days, the employee shall provide such notice as is practicable.
+ (2) DUTIES OF EMPLOYEE.--In any case in which the necessity for leave under subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1) is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment, the employee--
# (A) shall make a reasonable effort to schedule the treatment so as not to disrupt unduly the operations of the employer, subject to the approval of the health care provider of the employee or the health care provider of the son, daughter, spouse, or parent of the employee, as appropriate; and
# (B) shall provide the employer with not less than 30 days' notice, before the date the leave is to begin, of the employee's intention to take leave under such subparagraph, except that if the date of the treatment requires leave to begin in less than 30 days, the employee shall provide such notice as is practicable.
o (f) SPOUSES EMPLOYED BY THE SAME EMPLOYER.--In any case in which a husband and wife entitled to leave under subsection (a) are employed by the same employer, the aggregate number of workweeks of leave to which both may be entitled may be limited to 12 workweeks during any 12-month period, if such leave is taken--
+ (1) under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1); or
+ (2) to care for a sick parent under subparagraph (C) of such subsection.

How about me? I get tarred with the same "female = unreliable" brush even though I intend never to reproduce. I've actually found a way to casually drop that information in most of the job intereviews I've had; I figure it can't hurt my chances.
- Pie

How did you go about doing that? I also have no plans to have no buns in my oven and if that kind of info helps with the job hunting process, I'd like to glean from it.

Maybe you could list one of your qualifications as having had tubal ligation? :D

Sure sure, I can see it now:

HR:"What makes you feel you're qualified for this job?"

Woman:"I graduated from one of the top universities with honors, I'm familiar with all of the programming languages you use and I've got an excellent work ethic."

HR:"Hmm, well..I'm not sure we have a position open..."

Woman:"AND I've had a hysterectomy."

HR:"You're HIRED."

:lol:

'I'm dedicated, experienced and totally infertile'

When they ask you what town you live in and about the commute, I say something like "I'd like to move to a town where the taxes are low, since we're not planning on having any kids and so I don't really care about the school district..."
Or something coversational about how my cat is a handful of trouble, I don't know how parents cope with kids...

Speaking of cats, anyone know a good way to keep a 16-week old kitten from jumping off a second-floor balcony over the dining room? I can't block off the whole area, since the older cat has her litterbox and food in the loft.
:worried:
- Pie

If you let enough kittens leap off of the balcony, eventually they'll evolve to either
a) not do it anymore, or
b) take no harm doing it!

That may be more of a long-term solution than you're looking for, though.

nails, or at least really long thumbtacks... superglue might work too.

If you're worried about the cat hurting her/himself, don't. If you want to keep him indoors, well that's a bit harder. Try CatForum, they tend to have an answer for all this stuff.

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is "let the kitten try it at least once."

Shouldn't a 16 week old have reasonably good spacial perception and understand it's not a good idea? Has she done this or are you just afraid of it?

FMLA is typically unpaid, unless sick or vacation time is used, isn't it?

Both parents should have the right to leave in order to facilitate pregnancy, give birth and provide personal care for their child in the crucial first few month's of Babies development. Personally I live the system where a couple is awarded a joint amount of time off and they decide how best how to distribute it. Employers should not be out of pocket on this or else informal forms of discrimination with arise and make the measure counter productive. The cost should be social, we all should pay from our taxes to enable people to best raise their children while not destroying their career.

The benifits to society are to encourage parents to spend time with their children, early bonding with both parents has been shown to increase later adult emotional stability, which has to be good for society. By guarenteeing that a mother keeps her job after spending time having a child it increases the chances that she will return to the workforce, thereby not wasting her education that is usually furnished at social cost. By compensating the employers it encourages them to hire replacements thus reducing employment. Without children society would not exist, being a women or a man is a lottery, we should be oblidged to provide social insurance to cover what is a cost of being human. It would really be little for what we get in return

*smiles* well said Yelof. I totally agree.

There are several firearms enthusiasts here on The Cellar; I'm sure at least one is interested in indoor furry skeet shooting...

For a greater challenge I would actually recommend bowhunting with flu-flu arrows and a blunt (small game) tip. Much easier on the furnishings.

now there's an actual though ... do you have a good line of sight from the living room to the part of the loft which is considered a danger zone? Hit kitty with a Nerf crossbow bolt a couple times and she'll stay away from the edge ...

She seems to like high places -- enjoys the view. Our older cat does, too. The problem is that the kitten is growing so fast that she's relatively uncoordinated. I've seen her attempt leaps (like onto the kitchen counter, where she's not allowed!) and miss. I'm afraid she'll misjudge the leap up to the loft's railing and experience a ballistic impact with the hard floor below.
- Pie

Nerf! Naah, she'd just go for the interception. A supersoaker might get the point across, but it'd ruin the furniture...

I had considered supersoaker, but this is an indoor balcony and use of such would be inappropriate. If you do go the supersoaker route, make sure you put some vinegar in the water to reinforce to her that she's been bad. Cats, I understand, really hate vinegar.

They do that at competing businesses in China, don't they? ;)

You are saying that what I am proposing makes the instituting country incompetitive against a non-instituting country.

3 points

1) That argument could me made as valid for any legislation that restricts the ability of an employer to exploit an employee..oh no! the 1st world is doomed to economic take over by the 3rd world because they let children work in sweatshops for next to nothing and we don't! or maybe not!

2) Uncompetitiveness can be largely negated when trading blocs introduce uniform social legislation, such as what the EU attempts to do

3) All societies are massivly inefficient anyhow, it is just a matter of how we prioritise our "wasteful" energies. Tax moneys should be put into legislation that provides for a better work-life experience and not into other "wasteful" activities such as defense. As long as the employer is mostly shielded from the cost of a proper maternity scheme I don't see how it effects competitiveness

I am actually quite ignorant of how the actually scheme works here if different countries in Europe and who bares the cost, I am just expounding how I think it should be

We all have ideas how we think it should be. Most of us would like to see people treated fairly and well. BUT, then reality rears its ugly head. Child labor and sweatshops are a reality, and will remain so as long as people buy their products, like those expensive sneakers. By shopping and spending wisely you can do more good than any laws or government programs. :)

The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks. Basically, a bunch of countries with entirely different political, social and economic make-ups get to impose their will on other countries and the poor bastards on the sharp end are supposed to be grateful.

Sometimes we win, sometimes the Germans win, sometimes the French win... rarely does anything else come up smelling of roses. But the pretty much constant theme is that someone gets shafted at the hands of their neighbours.

In the UK, the majority of "statutory leave" is paid for by the employer, and it's really hard to get rid of an employee who's off for a very long time and costing you money.

They've started doing radio adverts in my town (Sheffield) telling people that they can get extra help finding work if they've been unemployed for over 26 weeks. That's half a year. And at the same time, in the same town, we're struggling to fill low-income jobs because people don't want them and are too proud to take a part-time or low income job while waiting for something better.

But then, maybe that's about stigma. When I was looking for work and really struggling, I took a job working a bar, and had no problems with that. The hours sucked, the money sucked, but at least it was a job and I didn't have to feel beholden to the state (not that I was eligible for anything anyway!). And my friends would drop in and it'd be a fun evening. But I probably wouldn't, for example, have taken a job at McDonalds or Burger King... my friends might've seen me there.

Aren't double-standards odd?

"The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks"
yeah...bloody Brussels insisting our government make proper social provisions for us and protect us from the excesses of the unscrupulous

While I agree with you that the methodology the EU uses to come up with common agreement on these issues suck, becauce it is all bargining and compromises and the final product is nobody's true want or responsibility, I still think these are issues in which the size of the EU common market can work in the favour of the vast majority of Europeans who want a good work-life balance.

Too true. Nex time you go shopping look for the Fair Trade label, consider it an easy way to sell guilt.

Ah, irony.

My problem with Europe isn't what they do. It's that they've got no right or business doing it. I didn't elect the French government. I didn't elect the German one. I didn't elect the Spanish government, or the Italian, or the Polish, or the Hungarian, or the Irish, Austrian, Belgian, Cypriot, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgian, Maltese, Portuguese, Slovakian, Slovenian, Swedish, or the Netherlands governments.

I get to elect only one government, and that government is sworn to a duty of stewardship for this country. Not a single other government in Europe is sworn to look after the UK, and consequently it's wholly inappropriate that they should have the right to legislate for the UK.

I object, on the most fundamental level, to the surrender of our sovereign right to self-government to a body which is in no way obligated to govern in a fashion consistent with the interests of our country.

You and I have differing opinions on how the country should be run. You support a far more socialist point of view than I, and you espouse your views well. You, presumably, support the social chapter - I see it as super-governmental interference in the private relationship between me and my employer; interference I do not wish for, do not welcome, and do not appreciate. You have a right to your point of view, and I to mine; and as citizens of the UK, we both have a right to vote in elections which determine who should rule the country and therefore what the prevailing wish of the electorate is. The French, Germans (and everyone else in the list above) all have the same rights for their own country; I just don't believe in their right to determine what the UK should and should not do, any more than I believe I have a right to decide how they run their country.

The US sits on a border with Canada, and shares much trade with their northern neighbours. NAFTA grants relatively free passage of trade and goods across the border. Both countries have (depending on the metrics you use!) benefited from the arrangement as we've benefited from the easier flow of goods and services and skills throughout Europe. However, I humbly submit that if you were to propose that Canadian citizens should participate in electing the US president, both the Canadians and the Americans would consider you more than slightly off your rocker.

Europe-the-state is just odd. There's no precedent for it, there's little or no common ground thanks to the relatively capitalist, right-of-centre UK and the relatively socialist left-of-centre mainland Europe, our different working practices and work ethics, our different economies, etc etc.

I have nothing against our European neighbours; I just don't believe that they're the same as us. They're not better or worse; they're just different.

I value that diversity, and think it's actually worth preserving.

I haven't had much reason to reply to your posts evansk7........but it seems we have something in common. You feel the same way about Europe as I feel about that worthless band of theives and malcontents...............The UN!

Enter, pro UN cellarites.

Smells a little bit like "these" United States of America circa 1859.

Your right Griff, while I was reading that I was thinking states rights. :thumb: