Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Times Online piece on working mothers; mothers mistreated when back at work.
Topic Started: Jan 13 2008, 11:47 AM (171 Views)
Data's Cat's Sister
Member Avatar
Commodore
Quote:
 
The new mum battleground
Women still feel their career is under threat after they have childrenSian Griffiths
Louise Manning breaks off her phone call for a moment to speak to a child murmuring in the background. “It’s finished? TV off then,” she instructs.

Two years ago the ambitious dark-haired graduate was earning about £50,000 a year and tipped for a place on the board of Safetell, a Kent-based company that makes and supplies security systems. The 39-year-old had built a highflying sales career over more than a decade, including a stint in Beijing for an American multinational. Today she’s an unemployed mother of two underthrees, living in Essex with her business consultant husband Peter.

“My career is stymied,” she admits. Manning’s downfall was starting a family while working for a boss who was seemingly both disappointed and infuriated by her pregnancy. Last week an employment tribunal at Ashford, Kent, heard that the company’s ex-Army managing director, Nick Medlam, reacted angrily to the news that his relatively new sales director, who had recently been promoted within the company, was unexpectedly pregnant. She would be “useless” and would “never be the same again”, said Medlam, who had quizzed Manning about her personal situation when she was hired.

In a memo to her Medlam, 60, spelt out his opinions. He felt “betrayed” by her “lack of honesty”, he was “tempted to dismiss and take the consequences”. And, for good measure, he added, she would no longer be due an expensive company car but only a “runaround”.

Related Links
Pregnant worker told she would be ‘useless’
Over the next few months Manning was asked to give up her promotion. She was heavily criticised in an appraisal: “Louise’s pregnancy has quite naturally had an adverse effect on her ability, motivation and dedication,” wrote Medlam, despite lauding her before that. The last straw came when she was demoted after breaking the news that she had become pregnant a second time.

The harassed new mother resigned – and sued. Last week a tribunal upheld several counts of sex discrimination against Medlam and Safetell. Damages, which could be up to £200,000, will be decided next month.

Medlam, on legal advice, declined to comment last week. Manning, too, is reluctant to say much before February’s hearing, which will also hear a separate claim for constructive dismissal. However, at the time of the hearing she could not help but comment that Medlam was like a “neanderthal in his reaction to my pregnancy”.

Last week she added: “I worked in Beijing for an American multinational. The Chinese were not well known for their HR [human resources] policies but their pregnant women are treated much better than I was.”

But the truth is that attitudes such as Medlam’s are widespread – if not so indiscreetly aired – across British companies. An estimated 30,000 women lose their jobs every year because of maternity related issues, and last year a YouGov survey carried out for a legal services website revealed that one in five company directors have avoided hiring women of childbearing age.

Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, explains: “I was head of the Institute of Directors’ policy unit for eight years, and when maternity rights were extended in 2003, we did a survey that showed two-thirds ofIoD members would be less keen to recruit young women after the extension.

“What irritates is the asymmetric obligation – employees have a right to return after maternity leave but no obligation to do so. A woman can have a company keep her job open for months and then just say she isn’t coming back. And often the firm has struggled to cope without her.”

The consequence of resulting standoffs? A rash of high-profile cases as grievances get battled out in the courts. Also pending this year is a tribunal appeal by former City trader Katharina Tofeji, who claimed that when she returned to her £70,000-a-year post with investment bank BNP Paribas,after a year’s maternity leave, her employer made things so difficult she resigned.

Tofeji’s claims of pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination, general and sexual harassment, victimisation and unfair constructive dismissal – together with a complaint that one bank employee had made unwelcome remarks about her female charms in a bikini – were all thrown out by a tribunal last June. Her appeal now is backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

When I spoke to her last year Tofeji, an Austrian-born, grey-eyed blonde, was at home in Brentwood, Essex, looking after toddler Maria.

“The way I see the system is, personally I suffered a lot. I still do,” she said.

“I went to see a therapist, I am taking antidepressants . . . What is worse is for my daughter, sometimes I blamed her, a little girl, for the loss of my independence . . . She deserves a happy mother but she has had a mother for 18 months who has been crying all the time.”

Tofeji was resigned to the fact that her 20-year banking career might be over for good, no matter the outcome of the appeal – which the bank is fiercely contesting. “The chances to get a job in the City are nearly zero. I have to think about changing my career completely,” she said.

And that’s the catch22. Faced with a boss who may accentuate every insecurity a pregnant woman feels, no wonder many new mums throw in the towel. Those that stand and fight face not only the stress of a legal battle but also the knowledge that their bloody-mindedness may make it more difficult to get a job in the future.

“Now I am in a position where I am unemployed with two young children,” says Manning. “It’s much more difficult to find a job when you are in that position. I would have preferred to carry on working for Safetell. It would have been much better.”


Link

I'm appauled that this sort of thing is still going on!

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
That's horrific. But still all too commonplace :(.

I've seen a few cases first hand where women who have become pregnant have not been well-treated. Nothing quite as indiscreet as that, more the kind of treatment that involves subtly making their return to work after having their child difficult.

Also see practices that just make the general situation for working parents more difficult. Recently, the school I work at moved from a 5 day/weekly timetable to a 10 day/two week timetable. An issue with this is that for part-time staff, the timetable is structured in a way that you can't guarantee your part-timers will have the same days off each week - making child-care arrangements more difficult. I raised this at HoD's (Heads of Department) meeting once, but senior management team didn't consider it an important priority. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
“I went to see a therapist, I am taking antidepressants . . . What is worse is for my daughter, sometimes I blamed her, a little girl, for the loss of my independence . . . She deserves a happy mother but she has had a mother for 18 months who has been crying all the time.”


Tofeji was resigned to the fact that her 20-year banking career might be over for good, no matter the outcome of the appeal – which the bank is fiercely contesting. “The chances to get a job in the City are nearly zero. I have to think about changing my career completely,” she said.

“Now I am in a position where I am unemployed with two young children,” says Manning. “It’s much more difficult to find a job when you are in that position. I would have preferred to carry on working for Safetell. It would have been much better.”


There is of course no excuse for harassment and in kind bad behavior because a carrier woman becomes pregnant. If such can be proven I would hope these woman get all they deserve.

But the three paragraphs above give me pause; Tofeji claims she has blamed her child for the loss of her independence, and in some ways she is saying the company she has worked for is to blame for making her feel this way. But I simply don’t buy it and further I find the mentality of this woman immature. Like it or not having children (and being a good parent) requires the loss of independence. Dam strait you loss your independence when you have children because from that point on their needs are way more important then anything you might have other wise wanted, including a carrier as you wanted it. This is a big responsibility one must decided to accept before they even consider having children, and once they do it is a decision they must live up to.

Now that said, there are some jobs in this world that just do not peacefully coexist with family life, (harassment aside of cores) this is not the fault of the employer any more then it is the fault of the employee, it’s just a said fact (for some). And it is not just a fact that woman have to deal with, many men have to deal with it as well. Fathers who put their families first are often hurt come promotion time if they have one of these jobs.

Once again harassment is always uncalled for and should be prosecuted; however family people can’t have their cake and eat it to.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Also see practices that just make the general situation for working parents more difficult. Recently, the school I work at moved from a 5 day/weekly timetable to a 10 day/two week timetable. An issue with this is that for part-time staff, the timetable is structured in a way that you can't guarantee your part-timers will have the same days off each week - making child-care arrangements more difficult. I raised this at HoD's (Heads of Department) meeting once, but senior management team didn't consider it an important priority.


Why should management consider it an important priority? What stake do they have in the rearing of their employees children. Do they get other benefits that come along with the rearing of their employees children? If not why does this one responsibly fall to them as well?

My personal feeling is that employers should care about the family lives of their employees. But I can’t make a logical argument as to why. It’s a matter of emotion and ethics, an employer ought to be more ethical when it concerns the employees family for their own good, but I see no reason why they should be obligated too.

What about those who chose not to have a family, or can not have a family? If you create a work environment that caters to the family (wo)man you are inadvertently penalizing these people for not having a family.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
I was hoping someone would bring some balance and logic to this thread and allow me to avoid yet another voiding match.

Thanks Dan!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


I certainly don't like the employer's attitude here based on what is in the article; but having said all that I'd have to learn more about the situation before I could truly pass some kind of moral judgement.

It of course would be unforgiveable to treat a pregnant employee this way in many kinds of jobs, especially where an employer can make adjustments. However, if an employer depends upon an employee as a key element in their operation, hires them on the understanding that "X" amount of time and "X" amount of commitment will be given by them, then there is a problem all of the sudden when that employee cannot fulfill these previous commitments.

In such a case, the employer should have drawn up an employment contract, which would obligate an employee to certain conditions, or said employee would have to suffer the consequences if they were not able to sustain the agreed upon commitment.

I would of course apply this to either a man or woman who suddenly could not fulfill the agreed upon conditions of their employment situation; pregnancy, injury, illness, and so on can occur which makes it difficult to fulfill certain obligations.

However, if these terms are not enshrined by contract or in some official manner, then a woman in this position has an excellent legal case to make, especially in Canadian Law.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
People are already penalized for not having a family. The marriage tax is a good example, the child tax credit is another.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dr. Noah
Jan 23 2008, 08:45 AM
People are already penalized for not having a family.  The marriage tax is a good example, the child tax credit is another.

School tax is quite a big one
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus