# Why do job applications often ask for your marital status?



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

And why is there never the option 'none of your fucking business'?
And while we're at it, why do they ask for your NI number?


----------



## Santino (Jul 16, 2012)

So they can discriminate against married women who might get pregnant?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 16, 2012)

SO they can know how much of a threat you are to winning the affections of the secretary .


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

And why do they ask for a photo? Isn't that illegal?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

I assumed knowing your NI number was a check of working status; like I think if you're on a working visa they give you a temporary NI number.  Isn't for their purposes with the tax man?

Asking marital status really fucks me off.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 16, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And why do they ask for a photo? Isn't that illegal?


 
It is


----------



## kittyP (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:
			
		

> I assumed knowing your NI number was a check of working status; like I think if you're on a working visa they give you a temporary NI number.  Isn't for their purposes with the tax man?
> 
> Asking marital status really fucks me off.



Yes, I think your NI number is for tax stuffs. 

No idea what your marital status is about. 
Santino is probably right although nowadays, it's just as likely that an unmarried woman of the certain age will get pregnant than a married one I would think.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

kittyP said:


> Yes, I think your NI number is for tax stuffs.
> 
> No idea what your marital status is about.
> Santino is probably right although nowadays, it's just as likely that an unmarried woman of the certain age will get pregnant than a married one I would think.


 
I've seen job apps ask about sexuality before.  Way out of order IMO.


----------



## kittyP (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I've seen job apps ask about sexuality before. Way out of order IMO.


 
Was it not optional


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

kittyP said:


> Was it not optional


 
No.  I expect they would have claimed it would be to demonstrate that they have a broad workplace open to everybody.  Or some such similar bullshit.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And why do they ask for a photo? Isn't that illegal?


In Germany you are expected to attach a photo to your CV.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

Santino said:


> So they can discriminate against married women who might get pregnant?


This, it is wrong ... very wrong..


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

Of course it's wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.  I have read many times about young women being asked at interview if they plan on having children.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In Germany you are expected to attach a photo to your CV.


And we all know the sort of things that Germans are capable of.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I've seen job apps ask about sexuality before. Way out of order IMO.


 
They often do that on the detachable equal ops form, that no one is supposed to see but which gets left attached to all the CVs they give to interviewers.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> They often do that on the detachable equal ops form, that no one is supposed to see but which gets left attached to all the CVs they give to interviewers.


 
I find it completely inappropriate tbh.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 16, 2012)

I always leave it blank - they can work out for themselves how many tick-box categories their recruitment efforts manage to fill.


----------



## biggus dickus (Jul 16, 2012)

It's illegal to discriminate based on sexuality and yet paedos aren't allowed to work in schools!

I am attracted to young women, should I be barred from working in pubs?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> It's illegal to discriminate based on sexuality and yet paedos aren't allowed to work in schools!
> 
> I am attracted to young women, should I be barred from working in pubs?


 
Really, really, really not funny at all.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I've seen job apps ask about sexuality before. Way out of order IMO.


I'm a woman of an age likely to get pregnant, perhaps I should claim to be gay when I apply for jobs. 



bi0boy said:


> They often do that on the detachable equal ops form, that no one is supposed to see but which gets left attached to all the CVs they give to interviewers.


Allegedly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

I dunno. It was just a cheap joke. Please don't be offended on my behalf!


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I'm a woman of an age likely to get pregnant, perhaps I should claim to be gay when I apply for jobs.


 
Hah, maybe.  Not as though you can't get preggers though.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Hah, maybe. Not as though you can't get preggers though.


Slightly less likely though. Perhaps I should lie and say I've had a hysterectomy.


----------



## tombowler (Jul 16, 2012)

is it not something you can give an answer to that is telling them nicely this line of questioning is not on? I have a memory it was on a post a few weeks back or at least in a link on one.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

tombowler said:


> is it not something you can give an answer to that is telling them nicely this line of questioning is not on? I have a memory it was on a post a few weeks back or at least in a link on one.


You have to tell them your sex though as you have to give your name.


----------



## astral (Jul 16, 2012)

They're not allowed to ask for your DOB any more either, so I would imagine marital status is dodgy ground. 

I always put down single, for the pregnancy/maternity leave reasons stated above.  I've worked in companies where (totally illegally) this has been a major consideration when hiring.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> You have to tell them your sex though as you have to give your name.


A name doesn't necessarily indicate one's gender


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

tombowler said:


> is it not something you can give an answer to that is telling them nicely this line of questioning is not on? I have a memory it was on a post a few weeks back or at least in a link on one.


If you're filling in an online form, you're given no choice as they are mandatory fields


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 16, 2012)

questions on an online application to be a warehouse operative/order picker; wondering how many of them are actually legal to ask (particularly in the 'additional questions' bit)?




> Surname
> Forenames
> Date of Birth
> Sex
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I'm a woman of an age likely to get pregnant, perhaps I should claim to be gay when I apply for jobs.


I thought you had a job stuff_it?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 16, 2012)

as others have said, there is a valid role for equal opportunities monitoring, but not in any way forming part of the decision making process.  if (for example) an organisation is in an area where 25% of the local population are non-white, but only 5% of people applying to work there are non-white, it may indicate a reputation problem.  likewise, if 25% of job applicants are non white, but only 5% of people taken on are non-white (or if there's a significant variance between appointing decision makers) again, it may indicate a problem.

I'm not sure I'd trust smaller organisations to do it properly.  Answering 'prefer not to answer' on the whole lot is better than refusing to answer one question, as the latter will imply that you feel you have something to hide.

I don't see what relevance a photograph has unless it's for a modelling / acting job - I can't help thinking it's a subtle way of employers filtering out on age / race / grounds without doing so obviously.

As an aside, it's legal to discriminate against people for being single, but not legal to discriminate against people for being married.  Which is kinda  - the law was brought in as some companies used to have a policy of not employing married women, but I don't understand why it hasn't been modified...

 at asking if you're a home-owner.  

I was once asked at an interview what my father's occupation had been.  I wish I'd either given a frivolous answer or asked wtf that had to do with anything...


----------



## IC3D (Jul 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In Germany you are expected to attach a photo to your CV.


And in France


----------



## peterkro (Jul 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I assumed knowing your NI number was a check of working status; like I think if you're on a working visa they give you a temporary NI number. Isn't for their purposes with the tax man?
> 
> 
> Asking marital status really fucks me off.


 

Mind you there are more NI numbers than people in the entire country.



weltweit said:


> In Germany you are expected to attach a photo to your CV.


 
Attach a photo of some random then claim it shows your skill at lateral thinking.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

I actually thought of attaching a photo to my job applications in the UK, might help me stand out...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

Why would they need your NI number before they employed you?


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 16, 2012)

when i worked for a recruitment agency (admittedly it's been about six years since i was there), we used to be extremely wtf?? when people sent in photos.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I thought you had a job stuff_it?


Sort of, and I have plenty to do come October but doing bits for my nightmare mum for less than min wage isn't really 'work' - wouldn't mind something that paid even min wage for a few weeks before I go to uni though. Can't see it happening though. 



Orang Utan said:


> Why would they need your NI number before they employed you?


To make sure you have one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2012)

Doesn't everyone have one?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Doesn't everyone have one?


i've got two.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2012)

AFAIK its illegal to ask your marital status and whether or not you have kids.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> AFAIK its illegal to ask your marital status and whether or not you have kids.


Lots of places won't ask on the application but will ask at interview. At my age not having kids is a disadvantage as clearly me and the Mr will be at it like knives in the hopes of my getting pregnant the week after I get anything permanent.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 16, 2012)

Still illegal to ask at interview AFAIK.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

I don't mention my age on my CV as I am pretty sure it is illegal to discriminate on age now. If they ask I don't mind saying (even though I think it is illegal) but my CV is just a tool to get to an interview so thats how I am going to treat it.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 16, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Still illegal to ask at interview AFAIK.


Yes, but you prove that they asked. Desperate people aren't going to want to refuse to answer an interview question.



weltweit said:


> I don't mention my age on my CV as I am pretty sure it is illegal to discriminate on age now. If they ask I don't mind saying (even though I think it is illegal) but my CV is just a tool to get to an interview so thats how I am going to treat it.


TBF they don't really need your age to work out your age to within a few years anyway, as they will have your CV and the date you left education.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2012)

Santino said:


> So they can discriminate against married women who might get pregnant?


 
Age is a better signifier of who may get pregnant than marital status. That and whether or not they have kids already, and all that would usually come out in interview anyway. Not saying that discrimination on this basis doesn't take place, it's absolutely rife, and if I'm honest I've done it myself when someone getting pregnant could have been crippling and we couldn't take the risk.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 16, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A name doesn't necessarily indicate one's gender


 
It does more often than not though. And ethnic background quite often as well. They anonymise application forms where I work although I don't think that's all that common.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jul 18, 2012)

What relevance does marital status have to your ability to do a job ??? so why ask the question / give the answer......


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> What relevance does marital status have to your ability to do a job ??? so why ask the question / give the answer......


 
some employers will assume that a married man will be more stable / responsible and all that sort of thing (and that a married woman will probably get pregnant / be more interested in home than career)


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 18, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Age is a better signifier of who may get pregnant than marital status. That and whether or not they have kids already, and all that would usually come out in interview anyway. Not saying that discrimination on this basis doesn't take place, it's absolutely rife, and if I'm honest I've done it myself when someone getting pregnant could have been crippling and we couldn't take the risk.


Yes, but if you haven't had kids you may have them - and if you have them you may need time off to care for them. 

Of course it's rather an unfair assumption to assume that everyone wants kids, can have them, and won't give a rats arse about planning them for a better time than when they've just started a new job, and of course unplanned pregnancies do happen and of course it's nearly impossible to sack someone even if they are blatantly taking the piss. I don't envy smaller businesses in this but it's clearly not right to discriminate, unfortunately some employees become ill or pregnant, and a small number of these will be doing it deliberately to play the system.


StoneRoad said:


> What relevance does marital status have to your ability to do a job ??? so why ask the question / give the answer......


Sadly there is a proportion of women who deliberately go out to get a permanent job so that they can get maternity pay. Same as some people spend their lives balancing the sick pay and not often ebing actually at work, but just enough to keep SSP or work schemes ticking over rather than getting the sack.   Lots of the agency jobs I've had back when I was still under 30 (and thus employable) were cover for people blatantly taking the mick on the sick leave (working just enough to keep getting the higher rate of sick from their employer). It really lets the side down when people do it as the more people take the piss the less likely employers are to be sympathetic to everyone. 





StoneRoad said:


> What relevance does marital status have to your ability to do a job ??? so why ask the question / give the answer......


You might take time off to have kids, care for a sick spouse, etc.


----------



## Boudicca (Jul 18, 2012)

I always wonder why they want to know if you are single or divorced.  I always tick single although technically I'm divorced.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Lots of places won't ask on the application but will ask at interview. At my age not having kids is a disadvantage as clearly me and the Mr will be at it like knives in the hopes of my getting pregnant the week after I get anything permanent.


 
Answer, 'not the human kind, but three of the four-legged kind'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2012)

Today I got asked if i was related to anyone who worked for the potential employer (Lambeth council)


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Today I got asked if i was related to anyone who worked for the potential employer (Lambeth council)


That's fairly common. Makes you wonder if workplaces are planning to send their entire staff off in a generation starship.


----------



## Thora (Jul 18, 2012)

How can you become ill or pregnant to play the system?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Today I got asked if i was related to anyone who worked for the potential employer (Lambeth council)


 
That's fairly common with council jobs.

It's more akin to 'declaring an interest' than a recruitment criteria as such, to make sure that existing council staff / councillors don't lean on the recruiting decision makers or get involved with the process.  Some councils used to have something of a reputation for nepotism.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> How can you become ill or pregnant to play the system?


You can't. I don't think they fear people are playing the system. They just want people to stay forever.


----------



## Thora (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't understand how getting a permanent job in order to get maternity pay is in any way "playing the system" though.  Surely it is just normal behaviour - you get a job before you have children


----------



## renegadechicken (Jul 18, 2012)

i interview people as part of my job and we never ask for marital status, sexuality or dob...but i work for social services so we are very aware of anti discrim practice.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2012)

Surely everyone sets out to get a permanent job?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2012)

Sorry just read stuff it's post. It's uncharacteristically reactionary and right wing.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Jul 18, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> That's fairly common with council jobs.
> 
> It's more akin to 'declaring an interest' than a recruitment criteria as such, to make sure that existing council staff / councillors don't lean on the recruiting decision makers or get involved with the process.  Some councils used to have something of a reputation for nepotism.


This^^^


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't think there can be that many people going on the sick either. I think that's just fantasy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think there can be that many people going on the sick either. I think that's just fantasy


Is this real life? Is it just fantasy?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Is this real life? Is it just fantasy?


 
Caught in a landslide no escape from reality


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Caught in a landslide no escape from reality


 
under new DWP guidance, being caught in a landslide is not a valid reason for failing to sign on.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 18, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> under new DWP guidance, being caught in a landslide is not a valid reason for failing to sign on.


 
I hope you're joking.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jul 18, 2012)

StoneRoad said:


> What relevance does marital status have to your ability to do a job ??? so why ask the question / give the answer......


 
Sorry, what I put was a bit open to mis-interpration - What I was getting at was "actually, how does matial status relate to your skills / experience / qualifications for the post applied for", not your availability, family commitments.....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I hope you're joking.


 
i was, although i would not be surprised to find it's true...



StoneRoad said:


> Sorry, what I put was a bit open to mis-interpration - What I was getting at was "actually, how does matial status relate to your skills / experience / qualifications for the post applied for", not your availability, family commitments.....


 
to an increasing number of employers (especially the sort where recruitment decisions are made by people who were 'trainee managers' rather than people who might have done the job) little details like qualification and skills seem to be less important than 'attitude' (i.e. high bullshit threshold) and meeting whatever's been determined as the company standard personality...


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think there can be that many people going on the sick either. I think that's just fantasy


 



Orang Utan said:


> I don't think there can be that many people going on the sick either. I think that's just fantasy


 

I personally have done agency work in the NHS where the permanent person only came back for a few weeks every so often, funnily enough when their sick pay was about to go down to statutory sick pay. It's rare but it dopes happen. Of course there are far more people who view their permitted sick leave as a part of their holiday as well. One of my exes also used to do it, the tosser. He wasn't ill, just lazy.



Puddy_Tat said:


> <snip>to an increasing number of employers (especially the sort where recruitment decisions are made by people who were 'trainee managers' rather than people who might have done the job) little details like qualification and skills seem to be less important than 'attitude' (i.e. high bullshit threshold) and meeting whatever's been determined as the company standard personality...


Family commitments can mean someone who isn't willing to work weekends for no pay, come in at short notice etc.


----------



## Thora (Jul 18, 2012)

And in what way are women who take maternity leave playing the system?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 18, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I've seen job apps ask about sexuality before. Way out of order IMO.


 
I always put "prefer not to say", so much so that I've actually started to define my own sexuality as "prefer not to say".


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't understand how getting a permanent job in order to get maternity pay is in any way "playing the system" though. Surely it is just normal behaviour - you get a job before you have children


 
Its perceived as you get the job and then 6 months later become pregnant and go on leave. Unreasonably a lot of employers get really pissed off at this, because you are getting more from them than they are from you, for lack of a better phrasing. I have to admit its something that ms grit has taken into account for when we plan to start a family. She wants to be in the company several years before taking maternity leave. Its not fair, its not right, but its how it is. 

To a private company a pregnant woman is nearly the worst kind of expense, long term with no value being provided to the company.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

The government pays maternity pay though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> The government pays maternity pay though.


I did not know that.
Through the employer, or directly?


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

Small businesses get 103% of SMP back from the government, large business get 92% back.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> And in what way are women who take maternity leave playing the system?


There's a difference between someone falling pregnant accidentally or going out to get pregnant once they have settled into their job for a few months and someone who goes whooo, I've got a permanent contract, better bin the pill or lies about being pregnant at interview.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

What's the difference?  Getting a permanent job or one wih good maternity benefits before getting pregnant is perfectly sensible 

You shouldn't have to lie about being pregnant in an interview because you shouldn't be asked!

Do you feel it is equally wrong to take a job, then leave in 6 months for something better?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 19, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> It's illegal to discriminate based on sexuality and yet paedos aren't allowed to work in schools!
> 
> I am attracted to young women, should I be barred from working in pubs?


kids under 13 aren't allowed in pubs so you'll be ok with that.... rapist...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> There's a difference between someone falling pregnant accidentally or going out to get pregnant once they have settled into their job for a few months and someone who goes whooo, I've got a permanent contract, better bin the pill or lies about being pregnant at interview.


no there isn't and this is why the law doesn't discriminate...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Why would they need your NI number before they employed you?


credit vet... tax investigation see if you have any outstanding tax issues against you... it's happening more and more at the moment with interviews... we'd love to employ you but your credit rating is below what we're allow to make you an offer...


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> What's the difference? Getting a permanent job or one wih good maternity benefits before getting pregnant is perfectly sensible
> 
> You shouldn't have to lie about being pregnant in an interview because you shouldn't be asked!
> 
> Do you feel it is equally wrong to take a job, then leave in 6 months for something better?


No, but it would be a bit wrong to take a job, work there for a month then leave (unless it was well shit). I may have mentioned the word months. I think it's a bit wrong looking for a job just so you can get SMP tbf, if yuou want to not work and have kids then do that. If you're so skint that you rely on the SMP to have your  kids then surely working 6-12 months and saving up a bit first should be on the cards anyway.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

If you only work somewhere for a month before going on maternity leave then you won't qualify for SMP anyway.

Are you really saying people shouldn't have children if they need a job to afford them?


----------



## kittyP (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:
			
		

> What's the difference?  Getting a permanent job or one wih good maternity benefits before getting pregnant is perfectly sensible
> 
> You shouldn't have to lie about being pregnant in an interview because you shouldn't be asked!
> 
> Do you feel it is equally wrong to take a job, then leave in 6 months for something better?



I think if you're pregnant when applying for a job you have to tell them don't you?


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

No, you don't have to, and you'd be stupid to before an offer is made.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> If you only work somewhere for a month before going on maternity leave then you won't qualify for SMP anyway.
> 
> Are you really saying people shouldn't have children if they need a job to afford them?


No, because what people think they can manage on varies from person to person, just as people's circumstances do. Someone who is desperte to have kids and can't get work can (if they want) bake everything from scratch, have an allotment, etc to save money.   I have no idea how long you have to work to get smp, but I feel it's a bit wrong to go out to get a job _just_ to get the maternity pay (bearing in mind that very low level occupations no longer offer permanent contracts or any in-employment benefits so it's likely it's a job you have worked towards getting in some way or another). It's not massively wrong, but it's a little bit out of order and only encourages employers to discriminate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

EEEUUUUUNNNNGGGGHHHH


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

Fucking hell that is one of the most depressing posts I have read for a long time!  Women with children should stay out of the workplace and BAKE instead???


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> The government pays maternity pay though.


 
The cost is not purely monetary though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

I must admit, I'm looking for a permanent job that provides a pension, and I have every intention of ruthlessly exploiting that by getting older and retiring.

I suppose it's people like me, playing the system, that are the reasons for pensions being generally shit or non-existent


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

What's wrong with getting a job and leaving for a better one soon after?
I won't address the pregnancy thing cos, well, just, as i said EEEEUUUUNNNGGGHHH


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

grit said:


> The cost is not purely monetary though.


There are costs involved in recruiting staff, but you could have to recruit new staff because someone has quit/been promoted/died/emigrated after 6 months.  There is no guarantee any new recruit is going to stay long term.  Of course offering decent maternity benefits is likely to encourage women employees to stay long term.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Fucking hell that is one of the most depressing posts I have read for a long time! Women with children should stay out of the workplace and BAKE instead???


That's not what I said. I said people should accept that if they want to do several things with their life they have to take them all into consideration in a balanced way. I said if you are desperate for kids and can't find work you should bake so you can still have them. I haven't ever said that people shouldn't get maternity pay, just that I can understand that employers are wary that people may look on their job as a way to get SMP rather than as a job of work, and that a few rotten apples who take that attitude end up making it worse for the majority of people who aren't like that.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

I don't work for the love of making money for someone else - I take a job for the pay/benefits/pension etc.  You are no more a "rotten apple" for taking a job then going on maternity leave 9 months later than you are for taking a job and then getting a better/different one or retiring or just quitting 9 months later.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

When did you turn into a right wing nut? @stuffit


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> There are costs involved in recruiting staff, but you could have to recruit new staff because someone has quit/been promoted/died/emigrated after 6 months. There is no guarantee any new recruit is going to stay long term. Of course offering decent maternity benefits is likely to encourage women employees to stay long term.


 
Thats sort of getting off the point. First I'll just clarify I certainly dont approve of the discrimination. However as someone who has run a small business (with female employees) I can understand the aversion (for lack of a better word) towards employing women who are likely to become pregnant. It has a real negative impact on the business, and if you are working your bollocks off to meet payroll every month and then a core employee is going to be gone for the best part of the year that can cause real problems. It can be a complete fucking disaster if you fill the role and several months later that employee goes on maternity, its actually a *worse situation* than someone leaving for another job.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> EEEUUUUUNNNNGGGGHHHH


 
we need a smiley to express that...


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2012)

Real problems?  You mean having to hire a replacement. Gosh, so hard.  Or is it the extra five minutes the finance person has to spend deducting the SMP from their tax payments?  It's only a 'problem' if the pregnant person is the only competent person employed.  In which case clearly the boss is an incompetent.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

Why is it a worse situation than someone leaving for anther job?


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

belboid said:


> Real problems? You mean having to hire a replacement. Gosh, so hard. Or is it the extra five minutes the finance person has to spend deducting the SMP from their tax payments? It's only a 'problem' if the pregnant person is the only competent person employed. In which case clearly the boss is an incompetent.


 
Spoken like someone who doens't have the first fucking idea about running a business and making payroll every month. Its so much more complex than that.

edit: To clarify I'm talking about highly skilled positions, low skilled jobs it is a different sitaution, granted.


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Why is it a worse situation than someone leaving for anther job?


 
One of the many reasons is that, their replacement/cover for the maternity leave is a pure stop gap solution. You really have to judge how much to invest in the replacement (I'm talking about time here not just money). Its also unreasonable to expect them to get to grips with a complex position if they are aware that their time there most likely has an expiry date. 

Its not a true replacement, its like patching a leak in a boat by someone sticking their finger in it rather than actually doing a long term repair.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2012)

grit said:


> Spoken like someone who doens't have the first fucking idea about running a business and making payroll every month. Its so much more complex than that.


I do payroll every month.  It isn't more complicated than that.  So fuck off.


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

belboid said:


> I do payroll every month. It isn't more complicated than that. So fuck off.


 
Please note my edit relating to the type of position I'm talking about. 

There is also a difference between processing the payroll and being responsible for the decisions to ensure that the money is available.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2012)

Makes no difference at all re payroll. I have come across plenty of employers who claim it is really really complicated, and used that as an excuse as to why they dont want to employ women of impregnable age. They're talking utter nonsense.

As to its a pain when it comes to temporarily replacing really good employees, again, that makes no sense. What is your alternative? Not employing the best person because they might take 9 months off? That doesnt make sense, does it?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't work for the love of making money for someone else - I take a job for the pay/benefits/pension etc. You are no more a "rotten apple" for taking a job then going on maternity leave 9 months later than you are for taking a job and then getting a better/different one or retiring or just quitting 9 months later.


Yes but the thing is that most workplaces have given out a permanent contract in hopes that you will stay on longer than that, and hopefully unless it's a shit hole you would want to go back after having the child. One needs to bear in mind that what you work at and where has a bearing on whether it's out of order to go out to get pregnant soon after starting or not, but I can see why smaller businesses are wary of hiring people who may have kids - and with marriage is becoming less of the norm these days it's turning into a pretty strong indicator that someone is seriously thinking about starting a family soon.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

What are women who want to have babies meant to do. Not work at all and let the state support them?
Tbh seeing this as a 'woman's problem' is the problem, if men were more able and likely to take family time off we'd be looking at this in a different light. There's always going to be a need for maternity leave tho purely on medical grounds.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff-it  

Hahaha. To be fair I know what your talking about cos my other half runs a small business, and it's really hard when maternity leave happens (even tho obv he'd only smile and say congratulations, cos he's not a cunt ). Cos finding someone GOOD is hard enough, finding someone good who only wants a temp contract, and who can step in to those particular dates is almost impossible. Recruitment is time consuming and anyway, there's always an uncertainty about whether they will want to return to work full-time (in which case, that's complicated again).

But... fuck it. That's life. My mate recently found out she was up the duff 2 days before going to an interview for her dream job. My advice to her was not to even MENTION she was pregnant until after she'd accepted the job. Women get pregnant and still want jobs to return to. Tough shit.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> and with marriage is becoming less of the norm these days it's turning into a pretty strong indicator that someone is seriously thinking about starting a family soon.


really?  Overhelmingly my recent expereience is that it is for couples who've been together for ages and have already had kids.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

It's never "out of order" to take maternity leave, whether you have been in a job 10 years or 10 months   Yes, it might be inconvenient for a business but that's just one of the problems that comes with employing people.  I'm sure plenty of business would rather not have to pay minimum wage or give 5.6 weeks holiday too, but tough shit they do.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What are women who want to have babies meant to do. Not work at all and let the state support them?
> Tbh seeing this as a 'woman's problem' is the problem, if men were more able and likely to take family time off we'd be looking at this in a different light. There's always going to be a need for maternity leave tho purely on medical grounds.


I'm not saying there shouldn't be maternity leave, perhaps people should get much better maternity conditions but have to work longer to get the really good ones? Possibly even an outright bribe/reward/lump sum if you wait two years before becoming pregnant or something.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

EEEEUUUUNNNNGGGGHHHH


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

Business are more than welcome to offer whatever maternity benefits they want - many do offer enhanced pay and rewards for coming back afterwards etc.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I'm not saying there shouldn't be maternity leave, perhaps people should get much better maternity conditions but have to work longer to get the really good ones? Possibly even an outright bribe/reward/lump sum if you wait two years before becoming pregnant or something.


Why tho? If your clock is ticking say you're about forty and need to look for a job should you have to choose between work and a family. Which won't even be a choice for many.
We need to do something to make it easier to have a family and work which fundamentally isn't happening here (decent state supported mat/paternity leave and supported childcare).


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

belboid said:


> Makes no difference at all re payroll. I have come across plenty of employers who claim it is really really complicated, and used that as an excuse as to why they dont want to employ women of impregnable age. They're talking utter nonsense.
> 
> As to its a pain when it comes to temporarily replacing really good employees, again, that makes no sense. What is your alternative? Not employing the best person because they might take 9 months off? That doesnt make sense, does it?


 
FFS, I'm not claiming that processing payroll is complex, its the managing of cash flow in a SME to ensure everyone gets paid. 

Your second part makes absolutely no sense regarding what we are discussing. Of course I would have employed the best person for the job regardless of age/gender/whatever. HOWEVER that does not detract from the extra pressure that can be put on a company when a recent hire then goes on maternity leave. They are two completely different situations.


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> But... fuck it. That's life. My mate recently found out she was up the duff 2 days before going to an interview for her dream job. My advice to her was not to even MENTION she was pregnant until after she'd accepted the job. Women get pregnant and still want jobs to return to. Tough shit.


 
Good advice 

Yes it is tough shit on the company, but for people here to claim it has no negative effects is wrong.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> Business are more than welcome to offer whatever maternity benefits they want - many do offer enhanced pay and rewards for coming back afterwards etc.


 
But many many more either don't or can't afford to.



_angel_ said:


> Why tho? If your clock is ticking say you're about forty and need to look for a job should you have to choose between work and a family. Which won't even be a choice for many.
> We need to do something to make it easier to have a family and work which fundamentally isn't happening here (decent state supported mat/paternity leave and supported childcare).


 
Pretty much the opposite, from what I understand from people with kids. There needs to be more provision for agency workers as well - no reason they can't do something similar to what they have done with holiday pay and have it accrue from the first day at a lower rate. In large parts of the country and for large parts of the population it's the only work going. Where I'm from a permanent contract is now considered a posh job.


----------



## biggus dickus (Jul 19, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> kids under 13 aren't allowed in pubs so you'll be ok with that.... rapist...


 
Is fucking rape ever fucking funny?


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2012)

grit said:


> FFS, I'm not claiming that processing payroll is complex, its the managing of cash flow in a SME to ensure everyone gets paid.


Nonsense. The payment is simply knocked off the tax bill so it makes no odds. 



> Your second part makes absolutely no sense regarding what we are discussing. Of course I would have employed the best person for the job regardless of age/gender/whatever. HOWEVER that does not detract from the extra pressure that can be put on a company when a recent hire then goes on maternity leave. They are two completely different situations.


This is quite different to your earlier post - that it's a pain when it's a really good employee. Now it's any recent hire. All it actually means is having to rerun a recruitment process, which, overwhelmingly isn't that hard. Sometimes you don't even need to rerun the process, as it's perfectly acceptable to just go back to an unsuccessful previous applicant. 

If its a 'real problem' then it's a poorly run company.


----------



## grit (Jul 19, 2012)

belboid said:


> Nonsense. The payment is simply knocked off the tax bill so it makes no odds.
> 
> 
> This is quite different to your earlier post - that it's a pain when it's a really good employee. Now it's any recent hire. All it actually means is having to rerun a recruitment process, which, overwhelmingly isn't that hard. Sometimes you don't even need to rerun the process, as it's perfectly acceptable to just go back to an unsuccessful previous applicant.
> ...


You are still completely misinterpting my payroll comments, but I dont have the energy at this stage to further explain.

My clarification was that I was speaking about highly skilled positions, not that its a particularly good employee but the job itself is complex (e.g software development versus receptionist or whatever). Fact is in software is that there is a massive drought of good people, finding them is extremely difficult at the best of times.

It can be a real problem for poorly run companies, or small well run ones without massive chests of cash and time to throw at problems....


----------



## Mation (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Yes but the thing is that most workplaces have given out a permanent contract in hopes that you will stay on longer than that, and hopefully unless it's a shit hole you would want to go back after having the child. One needs to bear in mind that what you work at and where has a bearing on whether it's out of order to go out to get pregnant soon after starting or not, but I can see why smaller businesses are wary of hiring people who may have kids - and with marriage is becoming less of the norm these days it's turning into a pretty strong indicator that someone is seriously thinking about starting a family soon.


You sound like you're starting from the assumption that a fair business model is one in which employers can expect the people they take on to be there for some minimum time that's based on them not having, or not leaving to have children. And I can understand that, given that times are tough, and that even when they're not, businesses don't want to have to - or can't afford to - keep 'wasting' resources.

But it's a shit model. If your business can't accommodate people behaving like people (women having babies,for example), it's not viable.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

Mation said:


> You sound like you're starting from the assumption that a fair business model is one in which employers can expect the people they take on to be there for some minimum time that's based on them not having, or not leaving to have children. And I can understand that, given that times are tough, and that even when they're not, businesses don't want to have to - or can't afford to - keep 'wasting' resources.
> 
> But it's a shit model. If your business can't accommodate people behaving like people (women having babies,for example), it's not viable.


But your not showing a lot of understanding of what it's like to run a SMB.


----------



## Mation (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> But your not showing a lot of understanding of what it's like to run a SMB.


No, I do understand (I think!) what it's like given a state/system that still doesn't support small businesses very well in a way that allows them to employ people that include women without suffering. But it's still a shit model. Understandable under the circumstances, but shit.

And yes, I am short on solutions...


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> But your not showing a lot of understanding of what it's like to run a SMB.


Why should business needs trump basic human needs?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

I have a friend who runs a small firm employing people with quite specialised skills, and he doesn't seem to have had any trouble with I think two periods of maternity leave so far and another one coming up.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Why should business needs trump basic human needs?


I'm not saying it should


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> I'm not saying it should


 
So what's the problem running a SMB then?


----------



## colacubes (Jul 19, 2012)

See the problem is with all this shit about maternity leave, particularly for small businesses, is a lot of it is a myth.  If you treat people properly there's little difficulty.

See links here for your rights as pregnant worker:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-and-maternity/

And managing redundancy when a worker is pregnant:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...gnant-employees-and-those-on-maternity-leave/

I work in the equality world, and depressingly the most calls we get are from women who've been fucked over when they announce they're pregnant.  It would be nice if everyone could just grow the fuck up and play nicely on this issue.  Yes it's a pain for business, but no more so than anyone else leaving.

And on the playing the system point, SMP is mostly paid by Government.  Enhanced maternity pay is generally only offered by businesses when you've been there for a specific amount of time.  So let's all get a fucking grip please.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

IME, there is a sizeable proportion of SMEs that treat _paying people at all_ as some sort of PC-gone-mad government red tape demand holding honest wealth creators back, and act all pissy when you say things like "hey don't want to be picky here but where the fuck is my money?" In those circumstances, something like maternity leave is just unthinkable.

This isn't because they have to, of course, it's because they're greedy and/or incompetent, though even if they did have to or else go out of business I wouldn't give a fuck.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> But many many more either don't or can't afford to.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the opposite, from what I understand from people with kids. There needs to be more provision for agency workers as well - no reason they can't do something similar to what they have done with holiday pay and have it accrue from the first day at a lower rate. In large parts of the country and for large parts of the population it's the only work going. Where I'm from a permanent contract is now considered a posh job.


You know agency workers and people on fixed term contracts also get maternity pay, don't you?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Thora said:


> You know agency workers and people on fixed term contracts also get maternity pay, don't you?


I seriously doubt that agency workers get anything at all. Are you claiming that people who can get sacked for taking a day off sick actually receive any maternity pay? I somehow doubt it.


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I seriously doubt that agency workers get anything at all.



You are wrong. Google Agency Workers Regulations 2010


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I seriously doubt that agency workers get anything at all.


 
you'd be seriously wrong


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> You are wrong. Google Agency Workers Regulations 2011





Blagsta said:


> you'd be seriously wrong


Really? When you can get sacked for taking a day off ill, are you fuck going to get maternity pay off an agency that treats people like that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

Can you get sacked for taking a day off sick?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Can you get sacked for taking a day off sick?


I was last year. Yes.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> IME, there is a sizeable proportion of SMEs that treat _paying people at all_ as some sort of PC-gone-mad government red tape demand holding honest wealth creators back, and act all pissy when you say things like "hey don't want to be picky here but where the fuck is my money?" In those circumstances, something like maternity leave is just unthinkable.
> 
> This isn't because they have to, of course, it's because they're greedy and/or incompetent, though even if they did have to or else go out of business I wouldn't give a fuck.


 
The firm gets the maternity leave back from the government, plus a bit (I think).  A lot of people don't seem to know this.  I mean, yes it's probably a bit of a pain in the arse if too many people go off too early, but the firm doesn't pay directly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Really? When you can get sacked for taking a day off ill, are you fuck going to get maternity pay off an agency that treats people like that.


 
Who sacks you for a day off ill?  The agency?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I was last year. Yes.


That's not on. Can't be legal.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I was last year. Yes.


 
Almost certainly illegal.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I was last year. Yes.


 
The agency took you off their books completely and ended your contract with them?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Almost certainly illegal.


Not much you can do about it though. Any agency that doesn't want to give you maternity would just claim there was no work for you, which will be a fair few of them sadly.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> IME, there is a sizeable proportion of SMEs that treat _paying people at all_ as some sort of PC-gone-mad government red tape demand holding honest wealth creators back, and act all pissy when you say things like "hey don't want to be picky here but where the fuck is my money?" In those circumstances, something like maternity leave is just unthinkable.
> 
> This isn't because they have to, of course, it's because they're greedy and/or incompetent, though even if they did have to or else go out of business I wouldn't give a fuck.


Start your own then.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> The agency took you off their books completely and ended your contract with them?


Yes, because I got a terrible fever while I was at work, so bad that I was dizzy and had to go home and I didn't come in the next day (I rang in). 

Was meant to be ongoing work and was towards the middle of a third week of training.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Yes, because I got a terrible fever while I was at work, so bad that I was dizzy and had to go home and I didn't come in the next day (I rang in).
> 
> Was meant to be ongoing work and was towards the middle of a third week of training.


 
The agency sacked you, or the workplace the agency had put you in?


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Really? When you can get sacked for taking a day off ill, are you fuck going to get maternity pay off an agency that treats people like that.



The Regs are 2010 (I edited) but they came into effect in Oct 2011. There are some employers that are doing their best to mitigate the effects to their profit by using the "Swedish Derogation" but the Regs are in force and are the building blocks to hopefully increase their rights in the future.

I don't know why I'm responding though, I doubt you'll believe me.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, anyone who has worked something like 26 weeks in the 66 weeks prior to their due date gets maternity pay.  You can also choose the 13 highest paying weeks in those 66 weeks to average to work out the level of pay you get.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 19, 2012)

Hmmm - actually may not be illegal before 12 weeks:

http://www.hrbullets.co.uk/employment-law-basics/agency-workers.html

Shitty and unusual behaviour nonetheless


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Not much you can do about it though. Any agency that doesn't want to give you maternity would just claim there was no work for you, which will be a fair few of them sadly.


 
http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/im_an_agency_worker_do_i_get



> As an agency worker, to qualify for SMP you must:
> 
> still be pregnant at the 11th week before the week your baby is due
> have been engaged by the same agency for 26 continuous weeks by the start of the 14th week before the week in which your baby is due (“the qualifying week”) and still be engaged by the agency in the qualifying week. Even if you haven’t worked for the agency in each of the 26 weeks ending with the qualifying week, *you can still get SMP if the reason that you didn’t work is that the agency didn’t  have any work to offer you*, or because you were ill or on paid annual leave.
> ...


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> The agency sacked you, or the workplace the agency had put you in?


Both decided I wasn't worth the bother despite the fact that I was quicker and more accurate than anyone else that started at the same time. 



cesare said:


> The Regs are 2010 (I edited) but they came into effect in Oct 2011. There are some employers that are doing their best to mitigate the effects to their profit by using the "Swedish Derogation" but the Regs are in force and are the building blocks to hopefully increase their rights in the future.
> 
> I don't know why I'm responding though, I doubt you'll believe me.


I believe that they are meant to, I don't honestly believe it happens a lot of the time.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> Start your own then.


 
See, this is the problem Edie.  The whole you wouldn't understand unless you've been there man attitude   Read my guidance above.  If you do things by the book everyone can be happy


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Can you get sacked for taking a day off sick?



Yeah. Anyone with less than two year's service (if you commenced 6/4/2012 onwards) could be, agency, temp, perm, whatever.

Edit: to clarify, I'm referring to everyday sickness, not pregnancy related sickness.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/im_an_agency_worker_do_i_get


No agency would hire you for that long continuously, it's standard practice in industrial work to lay people off for a bit every so often to avoid paying in-work benefits. This is why I said there should be some way to have it accrue somewhere in case you need it, especially as paying your national insurance and taxes are now worth fuck all and are soon to be worth even less. 

I never had such bad problems with office work, but there isn't any.


----------



## Thora (Jul 19, 2012)

You don't have to be continuously employed to get Maternity Allowance though - it's the same rate as SMP (other than the 6 weeks at 90%) and is paid directly from the government rather than through the employer.


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I believe that they are meant to, I don't honestly believe it happens a lot of the time.



The Regs are still bedding down at the moment and doubtless unscrupulous employers will seek to avoid them or try and ignore them altogether. 

This is why it's important to know your rights and be careful not to misrepresent the position.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> Start your own then.


Have done. I'm self-employed, and a lot of my friends are too or are involved in small businesses, which is how I know it's quite possible to do it without being a cunt.


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Have done. I'm self-employed, and a lot of my friends are too or are involved in small businesses, which is how I know it's quite possible to do it without being a cunt.



Ditto. Also I'm 70% B2(small)B and the majority* of them aren't cunts either.


* notably not all, sadly.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Have done. I'm self-employed, and a lot of my friends are too or are involved in small businesses, which is how I know it's quite possible to do it without being a cunt.


That's great, it really is! 

There may come a time tho when your bottom line is so tight that you don't take home hardly fuck all in order to pay your employees wages. Cos you don't wanna sack people, or decrease their working hours.

See, strange as it seems, I not here to show support for people being cunts!


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ditto. Also I'm 70% B2(small)B and the majority* of them aren't cunts either.
> 
> 
> * notably not all, sadly.


Tbh it's only FM saying that a 'sizeable proportion' ARE cunts!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ditto. Also I'm 70% B2(small)B and the majority* of them aren't cunts either.
> 
> 
> * notably not all, sadly.


Unfortunately the cunts do tend to stand out (and also, pop up on news reports claiming to represent small business owners).


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

Could we possibly stop using the word cunt, it's making me feel grim.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

Edie said:


> Tbh it's only FM saying that a 'sizeable proportion' ARE cunts!


A sizeable proportion _are_ - which is not to say everyone, or even a majority, that would make it unbearable. But there are a lot of individuals and firms who will try to avoid paying people for as long as possible, and/or constantly try to get free work out of them.


----------



## Edie (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A sizeable proportion _are_ - which is not to say everyone, or even a majority, that would make it unbearable. But there are a lot of individuals and firms who will try to avoid paying people for as long as possible, and/or constantly try to get free work out of them.


You know what, I'll take your word for it, never having worked for one myself.


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A sizeable proportion _are_ - which is not to say everyone, or even a majority, that would make it unbearable. But there are a lot of individuals and firms who will try to avoid paying people for as long as possible, and/or constantly try to get free work out of them.



They get a worse rep in the SME world as well, because they tend to shaft suppliers and customers in a similar way. Also, in the corporate world it's easier for this type of behaviour  to blend in, they can hide/camouflage/ hide behind company policies.


----------



## toggle (Jul 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Unfortunately the cunts do tend to stand out (and also, pop up on news reports claiming to represent small business owners).


 
my expereince is that the cunts tend to be those that think they should be running a large buisness and not actually having to do anyhting to keep the buisness running. and seeing as they think they don'ty actually have to do any proper work, then they have time for all the shit that puts them on tv and stuff.

benefit is, once you know what drives their ego, you can play them so easily


----------



## Hellsbells (Jul 20, 2012)

The job ap I'm currently completing is asking me if my gender identify differs from my birth sex 
I mean, it doesn't, but why the hell should it matter if does and why would anyone need to know that?! It's also essential that question is answered as it's an online application and it refuses to go to the next page if I leave anything blank! I'm almost tempted to put 'yes' just to see what happens.
Maybe I'll automatically get an interivew


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 20, 2012)

I got asked that took, but it was on a separate stats sheet.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 20, 2012)

I expect they will be asking that for equal ops again; ultimately none of their business but they can argue they are open to trans individuals because x number of their employees are trans. 

But really it is fuck all to do with them.


----------

