ratmist
Well-known member
I realise some of the nitty-gritty of this article relates to the UK law system, but I think it applies elsewhere in the world, particularly America.
Kira Cochrane on how women are discriminated at work because they are pregnant | Money | The Guardian
Picture this. You're a woman in your early 40s, and have been employed at a firm you love for the past 12 years. You have always been committed, enthusiastic, and your hard work has paid off - you manage a big team and budget, are a recognised leader in your field, and are now just one rung away from that ultimate prize: a seat on the board.
Ten weeks ago you became pregnant with twins, but have miscarried one, which has naturally made you worried about the overall prospects for the pregnancy. While you would ordinarily wait another fortnight before telling anyone at work that you are pregnant, you want to be able to leave for hospital in a hurry, and so, to avoid awkward questions, you decide to inform your HR director. Two days later, you're called for a meeting with a board director. You have to resign immediately, he says.
This is what happened to Ruth Holloway last year. In that meeting with the board director, she found herself "sitting opposite this man who knew that I was pregnant and having a tough time. I said to him, 'Well, what are my options Bob?' and he said 'take a cheque, or just see what happens.' Essentially I was told that if I didn't agree to leave, they were going to make life incredibly difficult for me. They would take away key members of my team, key responsibilities too, until they could justify making me redundant."
While Holloway's story is extreme, she is by no means alone. In 2005, the Equal Opportunities Commission estimated that 30,000 women in the UK are pushed out of their jobs due to pregnancy each year - that is 7% of all pregnant women in the workforce at any one time - and since they are being attacked when they are often low on resources and wary of a fight, it remains largely a hidden problem, with only 3% of cases going to tribunal. And it's not just being fired or made redundant that's a problem. Discrimination means that many mothers and women of childbearing age simply aren't being given jobs in the first place. Last year, the Equalities Review, commissioned by the government, found that mothers face more discrimination in the workplace than any other group. A woman with a child under 11 is 45% less likely to be employed than a man, and that figure is 49% for a single mother. Citing a survey of 122 recruitment agencies, the Equalities Review, found that more than 70% had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of childbearing age - which, given that that period now potentially stretches from our teenage years to our early sixties, means discriminating against any woman of working age.
It's an astonishing situation to be in at the start of the 21st century - that is, until you consider some of the antiquated attitudes that still abound when it comes to the idea of women having access to what men always have, that basic combination that is actually being referred to when people sneer about pushy women wanting to "have it all": a career and a family.
Over the past few months these attitudes have been starkly embodied by the most prominent business person in the country, Alan Sugar, who has specifically questioned the long-standing law stating that employers can't ask at interview whether a candidate has or plans to have children, a law that forms the foundation of anti-discrimination legislation. Sugar defends his position by saying that getting rid of the law would be good for women. Talking to the Daily Telegraph earlier this year, Sugar said that employers "would like to ask, 'are you planning to get married and have any children?' These laws are counterproductive for women, that's the bottom line, you're not allowed to ask, so it's easy - just don't employ them." In an article he wrote for the Daily Mirror, Sugar made the observation that "women should be allowed the opportunity to explain how their home life will not disrupt their work, rather than have their job hopes binned due to guesswork". Essentially, his phrasing suggests that women are to be held to ransom. Either we accept being asked whether we have or plan to have a family - understanding that if we say yes, our job prospects will diminish - or we face having those prospects undermined entirely anyway.
(etc - the link to the article is above)
The article is quite concise and I agree with it. What do you think?
Kira Cochrane on how women are discriminated at work because they are pregnant | Money | The Guardian
Picture this. You're a woman in your early 40s, and have been employed at a firm you love for the past 12 years. You have always been committed, enthusiastic, and your hard work has paid off - you manage a big team and budget, are a recognised leader in your field, and are now just one rung away from that ultimate prize: a seat on the board.
Ten weeks ago you became pregnant with twins, but have miscarried one, which has naturally made you worried about the overall prospects for the pregnancy. While you would ordinarily wait another fortnight before telling anyone at work that you are pregnant, you want to be able to leave for hospital in a hurry, and so, to avoid awkward questions, you decide to inform your HR director. Two days later, you're called for a meeting with a board director. You have to resign immediately, he says.
This is what happened to Ruth Holloway last year. In that meeting with the board director, she found herself "sitting opposite this man who knew that I was pregnant and having a tough time. I said to him, 'Well, what are my options Bob?' and he said 'take a cheque, or just see what happens.' Essentially I was told that if I didn't agree to leave, they were going to make life incredibly difficult for me. They would take away key members of my team, key responsibilities too, until they could justify making me redundant."
While Holloway's story is extreme, she is by no means alone. In 2005, the Equal Opportunities Commission estimated that 30,000 women in the UK are pushed out of their jobs due to pregnancy each year - that is 7% of all pregnant women in the workforce at any one time - and since they are being attacked when they are often low on resources and wary of a fight, it remains largely a hidden problem, with only 3% of cases going to tribunal. And it's not just being fired or made redundant that's a problem. Discrimination means that many mothers and women of childbearing age simply aren't being given jobs in the first place. Last year, the Equalities Review, commissioned by the government, found that mothers face more discrimination in the workplace than any other group. A woman with a child under 11 is 45% less likely to be employed than a man, and that figure is 49% for a single mother. Citing a survey of 122 recruitment agencies, the Equalities Review, found that more than 70% had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of childbearing age - which, given that that period now potentially stretches from our teenage years to our early sixties, means discriminating against any woman of working age.
It's an astonishing situation to be in at the start of the 21st century - that is, until you consider some of the antiquated attitudes that still abound when it comes to the idea of women having access to what men always have, that basic combination that is actually being referred to when people sneer about pushy women wanting to "have it all": a career and a family.
Over the past few months these attitudes have been starkly embodied by the most prominent business person in the country, Alan Sugar, who has specifically questioned the long-standing law stating that employers can't ask at interview whether a candidate has or plans to have children, a law that forms the foundation of anti-discrimination legislation. Sugar defends his position by saying that getting rid of the law would be good for women. Talking to the Daily Telegraph earlier this year, Sugar said that employers "would like to ask, 'are you planning to get married and have any children?' These laws are counterproductive for women, that's the bottom line, you're not allowed to ask, so it's easy - just don't employ them." In an article he wrote for the Daily Mirror, Sugar made the observation that "women should be allowed the opportunity to explain how their home life will not disrupt their work, rather than have their job hopes binned due to guesswork". Essentially, his phrasing suggests that women are to be held to ransom. Either we accept being asked whether we have or plan to have a family - understanding that if we say yes, our job prospects will diminish - or we face having those prospects undermined entirely anyway.
(etc - the link to the article is above)
The article is quite concise and I agree with it. What do you think?
