I get the feeling I'm being attacked for things I haven't said.
I didn't make any comments about whether businesses should pay maternity pay.
I didn't suggest that an employee being out on maternity doesn't leave a business down one person.
I didn't suggest make any comments at legislation in this area.
You tell him quite quickly that it doesn't matter how you know, what matters is that he is breaking the law - and his options are to fix the problem himself by negotiation, or to face an expensive legal process and a pile of negative publicity.
I'm extremely sceptical about the existence of any firm data/research to show that men are more productive than women, with the exception of physical labour role.
Any additional unavoidable costs associated with maternity leave (over and above additional costs that exist to ensure holiday cover, sick cover, parental leave cover) are marginal
You don't hold a monopoly on knowledge of how small companies operate. It seems that my experiences are different to yours. And just for the record, your assumption that large companies have loads of excess resources that can easily be cross-trained and swapped around doesn't hold water as a general principle either.daltonr said:You did suggest that the impact of being down one person should be minimal because the "smart" companies should be cross training. We're just setting you straight on the naivete of that with regard to many small busineses, particularly in the knowledge based jobs which is the way work is moving.
This isn't a 'comment' on the legislation. It's a statement of fact. It is against the law to pay men more than women for equivalent work.daltonr said:Yes you did... This was the comment that sparked this whole discussion. You omitted his/her third option which is to tell the employee that he/she values the other employee more.
You don't hold a monopoly on knowledge of how small companies operate.
And just for the record, your assumption that large companies have loads of excess resources that can easily be cross-trained and swapped around doesn't hold water as a general principle either.
Your third option is an over-simplification. If you checked out the links to the Equality Tribunal cases, you'll see that those guys will crawl all over such claims with a fine toothcomb - if the claim doesn't stand up, the employer will end up paying out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?