ChatterBank11 mins ago
Sex discrimination.
16 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112747 1/Female-workers-bear-brunt-recession-job-loss es.html
Are women now becoming victims of the various sex discrimination laws that have been introduced to protect them?
If you were an employer and you had to reduce your work force, wouldn't it make financial sense to get rid of some of your female staff, so as to avoid the costs associated with the introduction of longer maternity leave and new flexible working rights for mothers?
Or are we now to see, a rapid escalation of sex discrimination claims?
Are women now becoming victims of the various sex discrimination laws that have been introduced to protect them?
If you were an employer and you had to reduce your work force, wouldn't it make financial sense to get rid of some of your female staff, so as to avoid the costs associated with the introduction of longer maternity leave and new flexible working rights for mothers?
Or are we now to see, a rapid escalation of sex discrimination claims?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG's dodgy reasoning strikes again.
No, women are not the victim of equality legislation.
More women are losing their jobs because the jobs that are going are retail jobs. The likes of Woolworths, Marks and Spencer etc have traditionally employed more women. It is these jobs that are going. The average employee is 40- 50 and not really child bearing age, so it is nothing to do with maternity leave.
No, women are not the victim of equality legislation.
More women are losing their jobs because the jobs that are going are retail jobs. The likes of Woolworths, Marks and Spencer etc have traditionally employed more women. It is these jobs that are going. The average employee is 40- 50 and not really child bearing age, so it is nothing to do with maternity leave.
Several years ago Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP, caused controversy by saying much the same thing.
He stated that "Any employer with half a brain would not employ a woman if they didn't have to".
This was of course no slight on women or their skills. He meant that successive sex discrimination laws had made it too expensive to employ them.
He stated that "Any employer with half a brain would not employ a woman if they didn't have to".
This was of course no slight on women or their skills. He meant that successive sex discrimination laws had made it too expensive to employ them.
Gromit
AOG's dodgy reasoning strikes again.
Not so dodgy reasoning, just logic reasoning, even if Gromit can't sensibly reason it out himself.
The likes of Woolworths, Marks and Spencer etc, where not in question or even for that matter discussed.
The latest official employment statistics showed that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter.
Since the companies you highlighted employ mainly part-time workers, they will not be among these full time figures.
Perhaps in future you may learn to look into a worrying situation such as this (especially if you happen to be a woman) more fully, before rushing in just to have a cheap dig at me, it makes you look so silly Gromit.
Especially when you make statements such as this:
The average employee is 40- 50 and not really child bearing age, so it is nothing to do with maternity leave.
What if you happen to be one amongst the thousands upon thousands of female employees that are say between the ages of 20 - 40, what then may I ask?
AOG's dodgy reasoning strikes again.
Not so dodgy reasoning, just logic reasoning, even if Gromit can't sensibly reason it out himself.
The likes of Woolworths, Marks and Spencer etc, where not in question or even for that matter discussed.
The latest official employment statistics showed that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter.
Since the companies you highlighted employ mainly part-time workers, they will not be among these full time figures.
Perhaps in future you may learn to look into a worrying situation such as this (especially if you happen to be a woman) more fully, before rushing in just to have a cheap dig at me, it makes you look so silly Gromit.
Especially when you make statements such as this:
The average employee is 40- 50 and not really child bearing age, so it is nothing to do with maternity leave.
What if you happen to be one amongst the thousands upon thousands of female employees that are say between the ages of 20 - 40, what then may I ask?
Female workers are being hit harder than ever before by the effects of the current downturn, a report suggests.
... many job losses were occurring in retail and hospitality, where more women than men work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7841347.st m
... many job losses were occurring in retail and hospitality, where more women than men work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7841347.st m
Stop digging an even deeper hole Gromit, in your unsuccessful quest to try and get over your irrelevant points.
The point in question is, given a choice of having to reduce one's work force for financial reasons, on a purely one to one basis, would one dismiss a male or a female of child bearing age?
Please stick to the point.
The point in question is, given a choice of having to reduce one's work force for financial reasons, on a purely one to one basis, would one dismiss a male or a female of child bearing age?
Please stick to the point.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
1 to 16 of 16
