The business community, with good reason, is reluctant to employ women, let alone pay them the same as men. This has infuriated the women’s equality lobby. So much so they’ve chosen to totally ignore facts, common sense and fair play and promote their cause by playing the sex and moral outrage card.
Their propaganda machine would have us believe Britain is a culturally sexist country that refuses to regard women as being equal to men and that employers are wicked ogres preying on and exploiting defenceless women. Bollocks! Truth is, the business community’s reluctance to pay women as much as men (or even employ them at all) has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, discrimination, equality or diversity and everything to do with the fact that employing women is just plain bad news. Sadly, women’s rights activists don’t appear to have spotted that the very rights they’ve fought so long and so hard to bestow upon women have now imposed near pariah status upon all women in the workplace. Who in their right mind is going to pay women of childbearing age, burdened as they are with so many rights, privileges and extra costs, the same as similarly qualified non-pregnant men?
There are 4.8 million enterprises in the UK. 4.3 million of them employ less than 4 staff. Problem is, few if any of the 4.3 million owner-managers who run these companies posses either the knowledge or the skill to properly comply with the mysteries of employment legislation, particularly the procedural complexities related to maternity, discrimination and compensation. Nor can they afford to employ Human Relations experts who do. There’s nothing sexist about these people, they’re just scared stiff to employ women. Accepting less money to secure a job is the price women now have to pay to compensate for all the rights, privileges, risks, inconveniences and additional outlay companies have to factor in when assessing the true cost of employing them.
Current employment legislation is a boon for the occasional rotten apple in the barrel but isn’t serving the best interests of the majority of decent hardworking women who are more than capable of competing on a level playing field. Unfortunately, women’s rights activists have laboured mightily and very successfully to deny them a level playing field. Women, unlike men, can demand to be reinstated in their original position after having been on maternity leave for twelve months. If their employer, with good reason, is unable to offer them the same job they’re entitled to demand an acceptable alternative at the same terms and conditions as their previous job. If their employer is unable to meet this condition they can claim unfair dismissal. If they return to work but don’t get their old job back they can invoke grievance procedures that could result in a sex discrimination or detrimental treatment claim - or they can resign and make a claim for constructive dismissal. In addition they can:-
1) demand a year’s maternity leave even if they announce they’re pregnant on the first day of a new job
2) demand, if they become pregnant, their employer conducts risk assessments related to their work and remove all risks (standing or sitting for long periods, lifting or carrying heavy loads or working long hours might be considered a risk). If employers are unable to remove the risk or offer suitable alternative work they should suspend the woman from work on full pay.
3) demand time off on full pay to attend medical examinations, relaxation and parent craft classes. Women undergoing IVF treatment will similarly be entitled to time off on full pay after the fertilized embryo has been implanted
4) demand full maternity benefits if their child is stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy
5) demand full maternity benefits if their child is born alive at any time of the pregnancy but subsequently dies
6) demand full statutory annual leave of 4.8 weeks whilst on maternity leave which can be taken before or after their maternity leave
7) demand to receive, whilst on maternity leave, all contractual benefits they would normally receive if they were still working: gym memberships, use of company car etc
8) demand a repeat of all the same rights if they become pregnant again whilst on maternity leave. Their subsequent period of maternity leave can commence as soon as the current one ends
9) demand to change their mind about the time they intend to start and finish their maternity leave
10) demand, when they return to work, their employer seriously considers any request they make to change to a flexible working pattern. Employers are expected to comply and to provide written evidence that such requests have been very seriously considered
11) demand their employer makes suitable breast-feeding and rest facilities available to them. (Toilets are not deemed to be suitable rest facilities)
12) demand an extra four weeks at the end of their maternity leave for parental leave without it affecting their right to return to the same job
13) demand a total of thirteen weeks parental leave for each of their children up to their fifth birthday and a total of eighteen weeks for each disabled child up to their eighteenth birthday.
And of course some women who have no intention of returning to work aren't going to inform their employer, even if they wanted to. To do so would lose them benefits. Employers will either have to risk the wrath of co-workers by attempting to bridge the gap by redistributing workloads between them or find the time and the money to advertise, interview, select and train a temporary or agency worker.
In addition, according to a number of women’s magazines, women with children are far more likely to be tired, worried, depressed and distracted at work than men because of the many extra hours each day they have to spend tending to and worrying about their children.
Given the above what employer, large or small, would prefer to employ a woman of childbearing age rather than an equally qualified non-pregnant man? Non-compliance with the complexities of the ever-increasing legal and administrative burden of statutory EU and UK regulations not only exposes today’s employers to the ugly spectre of becoming embroiled with lawyers and Employment Tribunals, it also exposes them to the prospect of criminal prosecutions, unlimited fines, and custodial sentences should they fail to strictly observe all statutory procedures when dealing with women (ignorance of the law is not considered an acceptable excuse). Attempting to wade through the 700 pages of Croner’s Reference Book for employers (updated monthly) in an effort to comply with current employment regulations and best practice will, I imagine, confuse everybody as much as it confused me.
Personally, I’d consider it rash for anybody unfamiliar with the complexities of current employment legislation to consider employing women at all. Most women returning from maternity leave are welcomed back with open arms but some will find it more difficult to reintegrate. The company and the friends they used to work with might have changed. Maybe they’re incompetent, have lost the will to work or have some sort of chip on their shoulder which feeds their self-fulfilling belief that they aren’t welcome. Either way, chances are they’ll blame anybody other than themselves for any problems/setbacks they might experience and be tempted to consider redressing whatever imbalance they feel to exist by plucking one or more of the juicy sex discrimination and compensation fruits dangling temptingly before them. One thing is for sure. They’re in the drivers seat and they know it. They know they can, at the drop of a hat, bring a small company to its knees or ruin it with outrageous sex or discrimination-based compensation claims, real or imagined.
The constant threat of the latter and the fact that procedural errors made by inexperienced managers account for 90% of all claims that end up at Employment Tribunals is what finally persuaded me to cease making risk capital available to fledgling companies.
To the many who would deny owner-managers of small companies the right to decide who they should or shouldn't employ and how much they should pay them I can promise, as a Venture Capitalist who has co-partnered the launch of over seventy small companies (run by people who have always considered women to be their equal) that your views about employing women will undergo a sudden and radical change should you personally decide to take the plunge and put your own savings, your own home, your health and the future of your own family on the line to make a 24/7 commitment to launching and protecting your own small business.
Either way, know that asking any female job applicant about the likely impact their existing or future family is likely to have on their work rate, or the frequency and length of time they consider they'll need to absent themselves from work, will immediately qualify them to make a very expensive and very time-consuming sex discrimination claim against you.
