Discriminating Against New Working Mothers or Pregnant Women - Case Study Example

hе rеquirеmеnt fоr еmрlоyеrs tо аllоw mаtеrnity lеаvе undеr Unitеd Kingdоm lаw is а disаdvаntаgе tо wоmеn in thе wоrkрlасе. Name and Student Number:   Tutorial day and Time:       Tutor’s Name: Word Count: Women in Britain have continued to suffer from an increased level of illegal discrimination in the work place when they become pregnant or during the period when they are nursing their babies, this is according to a new survey that was conducted in Britain in 2013. In the survey, research firm OnePoll interviewed 1200 women. Out of this number 40 per cent of those interviewed were new-working mothers who felt that they didn’t fit in their previous workplace environment, while three in five working mother felt that they were not getting enough support from their employers. For a long time, women have continued to suffer in silence (La Valle and Huerta 2008). A common scenario is when a woman on return to her previous duties, all her clients has been assigned to other staffs within the department (Berger and Waldfogel 2005). And her clients are not returned to her when she has resumed her duties (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003). The controversial issue in many organizations is that working mothers are seen as being less committed to organizations in which they are working for (La Valle and Huerta 2008). Many organizations are entering into out-of-court settlement because they don’t want to been seen as discriminating against new mothers or pregnant women. A decade ago in Ottawa, parental leave for women was increased from 10 weeks to 35 weeks, and this was against most employers which made them to start panicking. Because when parental leave was added to 15 weeks of maternity leave, this meant that a woman will be out of his place of work for almost a year (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). In another study that was conducted in the same year, it was found that those bosses that were anxious were found to discriminate against young women who were seeking employment. Today, the annual leave is standard practice among Canadian women (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003), while parental perks such as extra health benefits, salary top-ups and flextime options have become commonplace expectations among the young women (Fein and Roe, 2005). Yet even as organizations employ women, their attitude have not changed much since a decade ago (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). Many organizations have reported with efficiency and financial burdens as a result of filling temporary positions left by pregnant women, especially if those positions are highly skilled or senior positions. Nowadays, organizations are not sure if women leaving for their maternity leave will return to their jobs or choose to cut on their workload because of children or quit the job altogether (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). On the other hand, unhappiness may crop in among employees left behind because employees may be assigned extra duties or responsibilities. Maternity leave policy in Britain can be compared to maternity leave in Canada. A critic of maternity leave in the U.K. argued that maternity policies may discourage organizations from hiring women has been criticized from various quarters including the media. But 3 years earlier, the editor of Vogue magazine published a controversial article titled, “Year-long maternity leave, flexi hours and four day weeks…why would ANY boss hire a woman? The editor argued that working mothers after their maternity leave they return to their previous jobs with new conditions such as increased pay, flexible hours and freedom to leave the workplace earlier for daycare pickups (Fein and Roe, 2005). “While organizations are required to treat and take care of their employees with respects” she wrote, “shouldn’t employees in various organizations in-turn be responsible when carrying out their duties” (Berger and Waldfogel, 2005). Many organizations, no doubt, have been seen to raise a collective fist. Women in Britain have been given more choices, however, when these choices are compared to those found in other developed countries, maternity leave in Britain rank somewhere between the Sweden’s 16 months paid leave and U.S’s merely 12 unpaid weeks (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003). But in Britain, there is a lot of cost as a result of managing a pregnant employee who has started her maternity leave, starting with recruiting a temporary employee who will replace the woman employee, advertising costs, plus the cost of recruiting company or scout, interview, and negotiate the offer with a potential candidate that will be temporary employed in the organization (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003). Add to that, the organization will incur training expenses for a new employee (Tanaka, 2005). And if there is an overlap between the woman employee- leaving for her yearlong maternity leave- and temporary employee to ease the transition, organization will be required to pay double salary and EI contributions for that period the women employee will be on her maternity leave (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003). Even if the void left by a female employee in the workplace is filled by a person within the organization, there will be a domino effect within the organization. For example, (La Valle and Huerta 2008), “when employee A is filling the temporary position left by employee B, employee C has to fill employee A’s position, but the who will fill employee C’s job?” Sometimes, finding a replacement is not easy, for example, there are some jobs which are technically that an employee will have to be trained after every six months (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003), So when a woman employee gone for months (La Valle and Huerta 2008), It’s almost like they come back a new staff, the training cost will then be doubled because the female staff has to be first be train her replacement and then retrain the female employee when coming back after maternity leave (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003, La Valle and Huerta 2008). The Equality Act that was put into law in October 2010, have provided a legal framework that has helped to streamline laws on discrimination among women in the workplace. Maternity and pregnancy are among the elements that have been taken care of in the Act (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). Therefore, it is unlawful for pregnant women to be dismissed because of reasons that are related to maternity or maternity complications such as sickness. It is also against the Act to deny a pregnant women access to sickness pay, holiday pay, training or any other contractual benefits that other employees within the organization are entitled to (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). Although anti-discrimination law exists, women are still discriminated against in the workplace. For example, women in Britain are 51 per cent of the total population, but in many organizations, women are still behind their male counterparts in terms of progression and pay (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). Another example is that the The current government is made up of 650 Members of Parliament, but only 146 women-less than a quarter-are women. Fortunately protection against working women currently exists in law in the form of the Equality Act 2010, which can prevent pregnant women from being deliberately held back at work. This Act has brought together principals described in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Equal Pay Act 1970 to ensure that pregnant women are not placed at a disadvantage (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). If a pregnant woman feels she is being discriminated in her workplace, Equality Act 2010 offers means of recourse through the Employment Tribunal (Fein and Roe, 2005). There is also hope in the near future for parents, as reforms to employment law due to come into effect in 2015 will change parental leave to allow both men and women to share the 52 weeks leave as they wish (La Valle and Huerta 2008). Also, Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects all pregnant working women, the Act states that firms with at least 15 employees or more should treat pregnant women in the same way as other job applicants or workers with similar limitations or abilities (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). In conclusion, from the discussion above, it has been seen that current legislations on maternity leaves directly discriminate against women in the workplace and have slowed women progression in the workplace (Berger and Waldfogel 2005). Maternity policies on maternity benefits in Britain have continued to promote out-dated stereotypes and inhibit women from partaking in the workplace (La Valle and Huerta 2008). Currently, the provision that protects women in the workplace are incompatibility with the ethos of recent developments in Europeans case law and international texts (Tanaka, 2005). “Although current laws and legislations do not effectively guarantee equality in the workplace, they have represented significant improvements at each stage and reflected the gradual evolution of societal attitudes towards shared responsibilities and away from traditional gender stereotypes” (Chatterji and Markowitz 2004). However, the lack of attention to the consequences of laws and legislations has made working men to be excluded from primary care roles and women have been forced into them (Flouri and Buchanon, 2003). Further laws and policies need to be formulated in the workplace in order to be at par with the current attitudes and domestically enforceable rights that will not discriminate against women in the workplace (Fein and Roe, 2005). Therefore, those benefits that are based on the traditional stereotypes of both men’s and women’s roles in the workplace and home should be allowed to continue and should be re-evaluated in the light of modern attitudes and new laws. Reference List Berger, Hill and Waldfogel 2005, ‘Maternity leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US’, Economic Journal 115, Royal Economic Society. Chatterji and Markowitz 2004, Does the length of maternity leave affect maternal health? NBER Working Paper No.10206. Fein SB and Roe B 2005, The effect of work status on initiation and duration of breastfeeding. An American Journal of Public Health 88. Flouri, E and Buchanon, A 2003, What predicts fathers involvement with their children?. Britsh Journal of Developmental Psychology. Tanaka, Sakiko 2005, Parental leave and child health across OECD countries, The Economic Journal 115, Royal Economic Society. La Valle, Clery and Huerta 2008, Maternity rights and Mothers employment decisions’. Department of Work and Pensions Research Report 496. Read More