Re: News: Moo Weeps When Told To Delete Sprog
KFB ESQ
At *least* 26 weeks? Jesus fucking christ! With socialist bullshit like that,
it's no wonder entitlement behavior follows. I wonder if any of these moos
ever think about or appreciate the fact that other people are being forced to
pay (in many ways) for their decision to drop a loaf and freeload for 6 months
in order to "bond".
Better policy: use your 2-3 weeks of earned vacation to drop the loaf and
recover. Beyond that, if you insist on full-time bonding and don't have
someone to support your lifestyle choice, you'd better have some serious
savings...or welcome to destitution. Choices have consequences, and there's no
compelling public policy reason to blunt the consequence of the choice to
sprog.
Kevin
J.W.T. Meakin
kfb...@aol.comshmom says...
> >The law requires all firms to offer new mums at least 26 weeks' paid leave.<<
>
> At *least* 26 weeks? Jesus fucking christ! With socialist bullshit like that,
> it's no wonder entitlement behavior follows. I wonder if any of these moos
> ever think about or appreciate the fact that other people are being forced to
> pay (in many ways) for their decision to drop a loaf and freeload for 6 months
> in order to "bond".
This legislation was coming in while I was still in England.
As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
This was sad, because one or two of them were well qualified,
but it was a small company and we simply couldn't afford the
expense.
Bill.
Jason Steiner
>
> This legislation was coming in while I was still in England.
>
> As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
>
> This was sad, because one or two of them were well qualified,
> but it was a small company and we simply couldn't afford the
> expense.
I don't doubt it was also illegal discrimination. Not that I blame
you. But politicians seem to think that simply passing a law will
fix every problem. They rarely consider the unintended consequences
- like making women less desirable in the market - or the problems
of enforcement.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Bill Godfrey
> As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
A fellow CF aquantance of mine was (is?) openly considering including a
signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
to statutory maternity benefits."
What's your thoughts on the matter? Is it legal? Any thoughts on the exact
wording?
Bill, two weeks entitlement going unusued.
PS.
By way of introduction, I'm Bill Godfrey, aged 29, living in sunny
Coventry, England. My main haunts are uk.media.tv.misc and
comp.programming. (Which sums up both work and not-work for me.) Pleased to
meet you all.
jermec
"Bill Godfrey" <bill-g...@sunny-coventry.invalid> wrote in message
news:20040812181236.979$Yk...@newsreader.com...
Hello. Another Brit, that's good! uk.media.tv.misc also good. ( Best boobs
on a CF telly presenter anyone? )
People like it here if you bring offerings of beer/wine/chocolate/cake etc
on your de-lurk. Whatever you bring, I'll take it off your hands before
Rabbit gets there.
Have fun here. It's, er, refreshing.
jermec
Veronique
> J.W.T. Meakin <jwnos...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
>
> A fellow CF aquantance of mine was (is?) openly considering including a
> signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
> to statutory maternity benefits."
>
> What's your thoughts on the matter? Is it legal? Any thoughts on the exact
> wording?
It's one of those things that doesn't matter if she truly IS CF, and
if she isn't almost certainly isn't enforceable. Also, as a matter of
discrimination, I think an employer would be treading perilously close
to the edge should someone else "accidently" find the clause in the
friend's personnel file-- it could be grounds for a lawsuit, even if
the friend was clearly the better choice for hire.
>
> Bill, two weeks entitlement going unusued.
You and the rest of us...
>
> PS.
> By way of introduction, I'm Bill Godfrey, aged 29, living in sunny
> Coventry, England. My main haunts are uk.media.tv.misc and
> comp.programming. (Which sums up both work and not-work for me.) Pleased to
> meet you all.
Where's the beer? Where's the choccie?
V., pleased to meetcha.
--
KFB ESQ
>meet you all.<<
Welcome. I spent a week in Chipping Campden (sp?) a couple months ago. Made
it down to Portsmouth and South Hampton but didn't get to London. First time
in the UK. Beautiful country. I was very impressed.
Kevin
Bill Godfrey
> It's one of those things that doesn't matter if she truly IS CF, and
> if she isn't almost certainly isn't enforceable.
It's more a reaction to the right to maternity leave (which she will never
need) making women less employable (she says). With a waiver like this, she
hopes her application will be considered as equal to applications from men.
Since her trade tends to be dominated by small businesses, these rights
(she says) seriously causes problems for her employability.
Even if it isn't enforceable, it would be a fairly blunt signal to an
employer "don't worry about that".
But why isn't it enforcable? Seems fairly clear to this layman.
"I want to take maternity leave."
"No. You signed a waiver."
A waiver signed in exchange for a consideration may have greater weight.
Perhaps a payment of five pounds for the waiver?
> Also, as a matter of
> discrimination, I think an employer would be treading perilously close
> to the edge should someone else "accidently" find the clause in the
> friend's personnel file-- it could be grounds for a lawsuit, even if
> the friend was clearly the better choice for hire.
If an employer employed my friend with this waiver, presumably over another
woman who did not supply a waiver, could that other woman sue?
Perhaps instead of a waiver, a statement "I am infertile.", right next to
the need to wear glasses under the section "Known medical issues".
> Where's the beer? Where's the choccie?
I dunno. I read the FAQ, I lurk for a few weeks. Even then I overlook these
little nuances.
Bill, rolling out the (virtual) barrel of beer.
Caine
>> Also, as a matter of
>> discrimination, I think an employer would be treading perilously
>> close to the edge should someone else "accidently" find the clause in
>> the friend's personnel file-- it could be grounds for a lawsuit, even
>> if the friend was clearly the better choice for hire.
> If an employer employed my friend with this waiver, presumably over
> another woman who did not supply a waiver, could that other woman sue?
>
> Perhaps instead of a waiver, a statement "I am infertile.", right next
> to the need to wear glasses under the section "Known medical issues".
The waiver seems fine to me. I don't know what employment discrimination
law is like in Britain. It might be similar to the U.S. and it might be
completely different.
>> Where's the beer? Where's the choccie?
>
> I dunno. I read the FAQ, I lurk for a few weeks. Even then I overlook
> these little nuances.
Eh, the virtual goodies aren't in the FAQ, it's just a group quirk. ;)
> Bill, rolling out the (virtual) barrel of beer.
Mmmmmmmm, beer. It better be the good stuff!
Caine
--
This group is a shark tank. We are not The Childfree Movement(tm).
We are a particular forum. Deal with it or swim elsewhere. Jason G., asc
Gallilea
> A fellow CF aquantance of mine was (is?) openly considering including a
> signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
> to statutory maternity benefits."
I tried to do something similar once and got shot down. Basically, I
was working for a company whose health insurance provider charged
women of childbearing age significantly higher premiums than anybody
else. I guess they figured pregnancy happens by immaculate conception
and men shouldn't have to bear their share of the financial burden.
Anyway, I asked my boss if he would investigate whether I could pay
the same rate as a male my age if I signed a statement saying I would
never get pregnant, or if I did, I would cover all pregnancy-related
expenses myself. He refused.
It's an interesting concept. Although difficult to document and prove
in court, a hiring/promoting bias against women of childbearing age in
certain professions almost certainly exists, the attitude being, "Why
should I hire and train her if she's just gonna wind up pregnant
anyway?" All women in this age range are affected by this bias,
whether it truly applies to them or not. Those of us who will never
leave an employer high and dry because we went off to squeeze out a
hump dumpling should be protected from that bias. The problem lies in
the implementation.
Gallilea
Randy
> > As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
>
> A fellow CF aquantance of mine was (is?) openly considering including a
> signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
> to statutory maternity benefits."
>
> What's your thoughts on the matter? Is it legal? Any thoughts on the exact
> wording?
>
> Bill, two weeks entitlement going unusued.
Well, Bill, I'm not sure about over there, but on this side of the
pond, one cannot waive one's rights. One need not necessarily exercise
them, but one may not waive them. It would most certainly not be
enforceable here in the US. There have even been cases where people
have donated sperm to friends, and signed contracts waiving all
parental responsibility on the part of the donor, yet when the parents
of the resulting child die or are incapacitated while the child is
still a minor, the donor is the de facto parent because of biological
ties, and the courts dismiss the contracts. Rights and
responsibilities, as given by the law, cannot be waived.
Veronique
Veronique wrote:
> > It's one of those things that doesn't matter if she truly IS CF, and
> > if she isn't almost certainly isn't enforceable.
>
> It's more a reaction to the right to maternity leave (which she will never
> need) making women less employable (she says). With a waiver like this, she
> hopes her application will be considered as equal to applications from men.
>
> Since her trade tends to be dominated by small businesses, these rights
> (she says) seriously causes problems for her employability.
>
> Even if it isn't enforceable, it would be a fairly blunt signal to an
> employer "don't worry about that".
I understand (truly!) the desire to been seen as an applicant who
won't suck up company resources (having known two women, one of them
related to me, who hired on while pregnant and more or less
immediately took leave...at company expense.)
>
> But why isn't it enforcable? Seems fairly clear to this layman.
>
> "I want to take maternity leave."
> "No. You signed a waiver."
See Randy's reply in this thread. Not being a lawyer (and not even
playing one on TV!), it is my gut feeling that maternity leave is like
child-support: piece of paper or no piece of paper, the law will be on
the side of the prospective mother. I can even hear the argument that
someone was "forced" to sign a waiver because they knew they wouldn't
be hired without it. The employer cannot be certain, even if your
friend is.
>
> > Also, as a matter of
> > discrimination, I think an employer would be treading perilously close
> > to the edge should someone else "accidently" find the clause in the
> > friend's personnel file-- it could be grounds for a lawsuit, even if
> > the friend was clearly the better choice for hire.
>
> If an employer employed my friend with this waiver, presumably over another
> woman who did not supply a waiver, could that other woman sue?
Again, I can imagine that a snoopy manager/secretrary/other employee
with a bone to pick (and possibly a friend who wasn't picked for the
job) might discover the waiver was signed. And I am positive (because
I am related to someone who will sue at the drop of a proverbial hat)
that a lawsuit would be initiated. It may or may not go to court, but
that damning piece of paper is proof positive that the employer was
willing to go to some length to get around the law. Which means the
case is uphill at the start in proving that Hired Friend truly was the
more qualified. However...
>
> Perhaps instead of a waiver, a statement "I am infertile.", right next to
> the need to wear glasses under the section "Known medical issues".
This is inarguable. It is a medical condition. It makes no bargains
and signs away no rights. It doesn't protect against the outside
chance that said infertile woman is desperate to adopt, but casual
conversation in the interview might lay that fear to rest, yes?
V.
--
stePH
> By way of introduction, I'm Bill Godfrey, aged 29, living in sunny
> Coventry, England. My main haunts are uk.media.tv.misc and
> comp.programming. (Which sums up both work and not-work for me.) Pleased to
> meet you all.
Likewise. So let me get this straight: you work in television, and you
program computers as a hobby? :)
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Julie
wrote:
>DELETE CHILD FROM YOUR CV TO GET JOB
>
>Aug 11 2004
>
>A WEEPING mum claimed yesterday she was told to "delete the existence" of
>her daughter from her CV so she could find another job.
>
I've never, ever seen a CV that includes details of children and I've
never seen a style guide suggesting that those details should ever be
included.
--
Julie S
Beth Cole
> What's the precedent for "one cannot waive away one's own rights"?
>
You cannot legally give someone the right to murder you.
The references usually go back to one or another of the murder trials
where a person with cannabilistic tendencies advertises for a victim,
and the willing victim signs a contract allowing themselves to be
murdered and eaten. (Don't ask how I know this .... It involves some
EXTREMELY tortured discussions regarding federal healthcare privacy laws
and what rights a person can or cannot waive.)
Essentially, you cannot give someone else the right to commit an illegal
act against you. It is why most waivers aren't worth the paper they are
written on.
Beth
--
The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or
cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men
who can dream of things that never were. --John F. Kennedy
our home page: http://www.IsleOfSky.net
Bill Godfrey
> > Perhaps instead of a waiver, a statement "I am infertile.", right next
> > to the need to wear glasses under the section "Known medical issues".
> This is inarguable. It is a medical condition. It makes no bargains
> and signs away no rights.
Thing is, it probably isn't really true, unless you count habitual use of
contraceptives as infertility.
> It doesn't protect against the outside
> chance that said infertile woman is desperate to adopt, but casual
> conversation in the interview might lay that fear to rest, yes?
Next week, a new law to protect women's rights. This one will forbid any
mention of fertility in the job application process.
Veronique
> Omixochitl wrote:
> > What's the precedent for "one cannot waive away one's own rights"?
> >
>
> You cannot legally give someone the right to murder you.
>
> The references usually go back to one or another of the murder trials
> where a person with cannabilistic tendencies advertises for a victim,
> and the willing victim signs a contract allowing themselves to be
> murdered and eaten. (Don't ask how I know this .... It involves some
> EXTREMELY tortured discussions regarding federal healthcare privacy laws
> and what rights a person can or cannot waive.)
Oh yuck yuck yuck. I had just about forgotten that case in Germany. :-p
V.
--
Beth Cole
That is the one that has gotten the most publicity, yes. But, there are
at least a half dozen or so of them in about the last 20 years.
Beth
--
Evolution takes no prisonors. -- Mandy, "The Grim Adventures of Billy &
Mandy"
stePH
> Omixochitl wrote:
>
>> What's the precedent for "one cannot waive away one's own rights"?
>>
>
> You cannot legally give someone the right to murder you.
Reminds me of Gregory MacDonald's novel _Fletch_.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> > As a result I didn't hire any woman I thought likely to sprog.
Depending on the jurisdiction, such could get the employer into
very deep trouble indeed. The fines can be huge. Yet, there does
not seem to be any protection in the other direction, where
non-breeders don't get hired, even when they are better qualified
than the breeders.
> A fellow CF aquantance of mine was (is?) openly considering including a
> signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
> to statutory maternity benefits."
>
> What's your thoughts on the matter? Is it legal? Any thoughts on the exact
> wording?
In some situations and jurisdictions, this would be a Very Bad
Idea(TM). It would, in the best possible scenario, set off alarm
bells in the HR department. In the worse case scenario it would
be used as evidence against anybody handy in a law suit brought
by breeders.
In many jurisdictions, such "anti-discrimination" laws have clauses
written in that amount to the following: Neither the employer nor
the employee can give up their rights nor their obligations under
the law. Rent control laws are often like that. The notion is to
stop people from getting around them by making such agreements.
My advice is, before you try attaching any such statement to a job
application, resume, CV, etc., talk to a good lawyer.
Socks
Marc VanHeyningen
>bill-g...@sunny-coventry.invalid (Bill Godfrey) wrote in message
>news:<20040812181236.979$Yk...@newsreader.com>...
>> signed statement with her CV (resume) to the effect of "I waive my rights
>> to statutory maternity benefits."
>>
>> What's your thoughts on the matter? Is it legal? Any thoughts on the exact
>> wording?
>
>In some situations and jurisdictions, this would be a Very Bad
>Idea(TM). It would, in the best possible scenario, set off alarm
>bells in the HR department. In the worse case scenario it would
>be used as evidence against anybody handy in a law suit brought
>by breeders.
>
>In many jurisdictions, such "anti-discrimination" laws have clauses
>written in that amount to the following: Neither the employer nor
>the employee can give up their rights nor their obligations under
>the law. Rent control laws are often like that. The notion is to
>stop people from getting around them by making such agreements.
Although the idea of waiving such terms is appealing, if you think about
the long-term implications it's a bit chilling. It's not difficult to
imagine a scenario in which most employers simply introduced boilerplate
language to their employee agreement in which the employee agreed to
waive rights to not just maternity leave, but any legal redress no
matter what the employer does. Similar agreements would come from
landlords, financial institutions, and the like.
The employer is then free to practice (or allow) sexual harassment,
religious discrimination, dangerous working conditions, or pretty much
anything else. It's hard to see how this would make the world a
better place. I think even libertarians would agree that there need to
be some protections which can't be waived, although certainly different
people would draw the line in different places.