Xtra News Community 2
March 29, 2024, 12:51:51 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pregnant employees unfairly treated

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pregnant employees unfairly treated  (Read 315 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Crusader
Guest
« on: February 21, 2012, 11:41:08 am »

Pregnant workers' treatment concern

The Human Rights Commission has expressed concern about a high number of complaints from women who feel mistreated by their employers because of their pregnancy.

A Whanganui hairdresser has been awarded $4000 and maternity leave by the Employment Relations Authority after claiming her boss sacked her unfairly after she became pregnant.

The salon owner has repudiated the claim, and says he would "rather go to prison than pay her". He plans to appeal against the decision and to lay a complaint against the ERA.

The authority ruled earlier this month in favour of Nicole Gibson, who began working for Claudio Petronelli at Claudio's Hair Design in March 2010.

ERA member Dzintra King said the relationship between the two was good until October that year, when Ms Gibson claimed Mr Petronelli said he was not going to pay her maternity leave or hold her job open while she was away.

The pair had another argument later that month when Mr Petronelli accused Ms Gibson of undercharging clients and sending them to another salon. Ms Gibson said she told them to go elsewhere because the salon did not have the hair colour they wanted.

But Mr Petronelli "continued to shout and call her selfish and ungrateful" before telling Ms Gibson to write her resignation before she left, which she did, Ms King said.

The authority ruled Ms Gibson was constructively dismissed and that Mr Petronelli had breached their employment agreement.

In her decision, Ms King said she did not think Mr Petronelli had told Ms Gibson he could not keep her job open, and that was not the reason for the dismissal.

Mr Petronelli told The Dominion Post yesterday that he had done nothing wrong. "I'll go to hell before I give her a dollar."

Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor said cases of pregnant women being unfairly treated by their employers were "unfortunately far too common".

The Human Rights Commission has received 84 such complaints in the past two years. The main issues were jobs terminated while workers were pregnant or on parental leave, different treatment by employers once a woman became pregnant, employers not accommodating the needs of pregnant women, and problems organising parental leave.

"Because of this persistent problem, the commission has made pregnancy and maternity rights a feature of its guidance for employers and employees," Dr McGregor said.

The Employment Relations Authority awarded lost wages, maternity leave and $3000 in compensation to Auckland spray-tan specialist Veronica Kloeten last month, after it found she was unfairly dismissed by her aunt, Janita Wright. Mrs Wright claimed CTS Cosmetologists in Mt Wellington could not afford the leave and clients would find being served by a pregnant woman "disgusting and repulsive".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6450680/Pregnant-workers-treatment-concern#comments

Pretty selfish of the employer IMO. Can't see past his profit to see his actions are causing unnecesary stress which will have an adverse effect on the unborn baby. Definately a nomination for a conact counselling course.
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

ssweetpea
Moderator
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7433



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2012, 04:50:30 pm »

Fear of having to pay maternatity leave is a cause of one of the invisible forms of discrimination encountered.

Nobody will admit that it exists - but it does.
Report Spam   Logged

The way politicians run this country a small white cat should have no problem http://sally4mp.blogspot.com/
Ferney
Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2776



« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2012, 07:39:31 pm »

Maternity/Parental leave is paid by Inland Revenue, not the employer.
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2016, 08:32:37 pm »



(click on the picture to read the news story)
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2016, 09:20:31 am »

Fear of having to pay maternatity leave is a cause of one of the invisible forms of discrimination encountered.

Nobody will admit that it exists - but it does.
Of course it does.  It affects the bottom line of the business.  It is unlawful to decline to hire a young woman on the grounds she may become pregnant at some time in the future, but I definitely understand why it happens.
In point of fact, why should an employer have to pay a woman for a choice she made?  I can envision an employer holding a job for her when she decides to come back but I consider it unfair that he or she should have to pay for her to have a baby, in effect.
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2016, 09:53:49 am »


However, looking at it from a long-term view....if employers were all miserable buggers about pregnancy and women therefore decided to stop getting pregnant and concentrate on their careers, then the economy would collapse in the future as the population declined, then business owners would be moaning their arses off about how economically tough times were as the country eventually ended up with mostly old buggers.

It's a bit like all the companies who stopped spending money on training apprentices and relied on the big government departments to pay to train a shitload of apprentices every year; then when all of those big government departments ceased to exist, or ditched their training schemes (Ministry of Works, NZED, the military, NZ Government Railways, the P&T, etc, etc), within a few years those same companies who refused to spend their own money on training apprentices to tradesmen standard were moaning their arses off about shortages of qualified, experienced tradesmen.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Crusader
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2016, 11:55:44 am »

I must admit I have been in the position of having to choose between a woman of which I knew wanted to start having kids soon and a single guy. When weighing up the two, it actually came down to choosing the guy as I wasn't in a position where I could hold the position vacant for a period of time. A classroom needs an instructor for the students to actually learn.

The same applied to anyone that wants to take a period of leave without pay i.e. several months off work to go on an O.E. I rejected one of those applications solely because whilst they were on leave I would have to carry the vacancy. I told the person that if they wanted to take a leave of absence for a substantial amount of time to resign and then join back up once they get back. That way I could actually fill their vacant position.
Report Spam   Logged
guest49
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2016, 12:31:40 pm »


However, looking at it from a long-term view....if employers were all miserable buggers about pregnancy and women therefore decided to stop getting pregnant and concentrate on their careers, then the economy would collapse in the future as the population declined, then business owners would be moaning their arses off about how economically tough times were as the country eventually ended up with mostly old buggers.

It's a bit like all the companies who stopped spending money on training apprentices and relied on the big government departments to pay to train a shitload of apprentices every year; then when all of those big government departments ceased to exist, or ditched their training schemes (Ministry of Works, NZED, the military, NZ Government Railways, the P&T, etc, etc), within a few years those same companies who refused to spend their own money on training apprentices to tradesmen standard were moaning their arses off about shortages of qualified, experienced tradesmen.

There is no comparison between training an apprentice who will gain skills to assist a business and a person who's pregnancy is going to be a burden to a business owner.  It is only comparatively recently that businesses have started having to pay for their female employees pregnancy.  Why should they?
If your argument about declining population held water, it would have happened decades ago. 
And if there was any validity, there are plenty of Syrians who may be qualified!  Cheesy
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2016, 12:50:21 pm »


The economic benefits come from women producing the next generation of consumers.

If women decided to stop breeding, then there would be no next generation of consumers, and therefore no customers for those stingy businesses.

Simple, really.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2016, 01:12:36 pm »


The economic benefits come from women producing the next generation of consumers.

If women decided to stop breeding, then there would be no next generation of consumers, and therefore no customers for those stingy businesses.

Simple, really.

So you believe that women will stop "breeding" if they don't have a job?    Really?
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32232


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2016, 01:21:31 pm »


Plenty of women today seem to see having a career as being more important than having children.

Just look at the number of women who wait until they are much older before deciding to breed, then needing medical intervention to help them get pregnant.

As many people have often posted, “if you can't afford to have children, then don't”, so I guess as the cost of living and housing increases, if there is no financial support and women take those people who spout that nonsense at their word, then many may decide they cannot afford to breed, so look after their careers instead.

The birth rate amongst WHITE NZers has dropped considerably in recent years, and in some respects we are going backwards. Japan is a classic example of what occurs when women decide they can't afford to breed. Their population is both retracting, and aging with dire economic consequences.

It'll be no good whinging about it when the birth rate has dropped so much that it is having an economic effect on the country. Unless of course you are prepared to open the gates to the Asian hordes to replace the non-appearance of replacement next generations, although then you'd no doubt whinge when Asians become the majority and therefore control Parliament and everything ends up getting done their way.

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2016, 01:36:47 pm »

Irrelevant. 
The salient point is, a business should not have to pay for some woman's choices in life.
Report Spam   Logged
Crusader
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2016, 04:24:16 pm »


The economic benefits come from women producing the next generation of consumers.

If women decided to stop breeding, then there would be no next generation of consumers, and therefore no customers for those stingy businesses.

Simple, really.


This is a pretty lame emotional attempt to prove a point.

As I eluded to sometimes as a manager you are just not in a position to carry a vacancy for an extended period of time. In my old position, I was paid to ensure the tasks allocated to my section was carried out in the now. For that I needed warm bodies in the positions underneath me. I wasn't paid to worry about the future workforce of 20 years time. That was for someone much higher than me on the food chain collecting an obscene pay cheque doing SFA.

I do however think there needs to be a way where it is fair for all (both women and managers). The policy in organisations (such as the NZDF), that enforces you to keep the position vacant whilst the incumbent takes an extended period of leave needs to be looked out. There should be scope to have replacement staff come in either permanently (of where you can find suitable employment for the returning staff member) or on a temporary basis. 
Report Spam   Logged
Calliope
Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 3568


If music be the food of love, play on


« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2016, 08:55:38 pm »

Irrelevant. 
The salient point is, a business should not have to pay for some woman's choices in life.


Even when that choice is, more often than not, in conjunction with a man?

Men expect women to carry their babies so men should be expected to pay some of the costs.

Until such time as there is pay equality then yes, businesses should pay. Women are more often than not paid less than men for equal work despite that many would claim otherwise.
Report Spam   Logged

[W]hat the internet and its cult of anonymity do is to provide a blanket sort of immunity for anybody who wants to say anything about anybody else, and it would be difficult in this sense to think of a more morally deformed exploitation of the concept of free speech.
- Richard Bernstein in the New York Times
nitpicker1
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 11886


Nothing sexceeds like sexcess


« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2016, 05:22:48 am »


Irrelevant. 
The salient point is, a business should not have to pay for some woman's choices in life.


Even when that choice is, more often than not, in conjunction with a man?

Men expect women to carry their babies so men should be expected to pay some of the costs.

Until such time as there is pay equality then yes, businesses should pay. Women are more often than not paid less than men for equal work despite that many would claim otherwise.

Men expect women to carry their babies so men should be expected to pay some of the costs.   





Report Spam   Logged

"Life might not be the party you were expecting, but you're here now, so you may as well get up and dance"
guest49
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2016, 06:23:16 am »

Irrelevant. 
The salient point is, a business should not have to pay for some woman's choices in life.


Even when that choice is, more often than not, in conjunction with a man?

Men expect women to carry their babies so men should be expected to pay some of the costs.


Until such time as there is pay equality then yes, businesses should pay. Women are more often than not paid less than men for equal work despite that many would claim otherwise.
I don't have a problem with that, provided its the husband who pays - But why should a business carry the can?  If I remember correctly, the original article was a female owned business.  Why should she have to pay for one of her employees pregnancies?
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.024 seconds with 15 queries.