LymmParent Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Not if they had a clear policy of not hiring single PARENTS. This is not a gender issue, as a single father with sole custody would be in precisely the same position. If she didn't own up to the child in order to get hired, then she shouldn't get a bean! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 She was recruited in 2001, she left in 2008 after 7 of the 22 years she signed for. Her child is now four. They did not recruit a single mother, she couldn't own up to the child since she hadn't got one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 So you can join the Army and get pregnant whilst on duty, give birth and they don't bat an eyelid, but heaven forbid you should be late for parade when that same child is sick? When she became a single mother, the MoD should have reassigned her..... they're all mad!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 So you can join the Army and get pregnant whilst on duty Not an option available to 49% of the population, are us men being discriminated against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Not if they had a clear policy of not hiring single PARENTS. This is not a gender issue, as a single father with sole custody would be in precisely the same position. Sadly, our employment tribunal service has shown itself more than capable of finding in favour of a sexual discrimination complainant where no reasonable person would. They seem have a policy whereby if an issue statistically effects more of one race or gender than another, then all instances of the the issue occurring must be as a result of deliberate discrimination. Since most single parents are women the tribunals will almost always see any problems arising from the childcare aspects of that as sexual discrimination. Similarly there have been many cases where asian moslems have won racial discrimination cases where the issue has been aspects of their chosen religion - nothing to do with their ethnicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Inky, Where do you get your information You sound like a Mail reader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Still pigeon-holing people on the basis of flimsy, or non existant, evidence LtKije? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Nope, If he stops posting twoddle, I will stop accusing him of reading a twoddle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7187032.stm See the section entitled "no go areas" - questions which employers are not even allowed to ask candidates at interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8287173.stm Apparently, asking someone to remove their turban so they can put on an item of safety equipment which is vital to their being able to perform their duties is racial discrimination. http://www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/EqualPaytalk.pdf "(A) Pay protection arrangements and the implications of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and ors [2007] IRLR 91 3. The Redcar case is one of many brought against local authorities in the North East of England in which women doing jobs in which women predominate (e.g. care, catering and cleaning) complain that men doing jobs in which men predominate (e.g. refuse collection, grounds maintenance, highways maintenance) receive bonus in addition to their basic pay, whereas the women do not have access to bonus schemes." It is now even against the law to have different rates of pay or bonus structures for different jobs! Paying (or in any way treating) workers in a predominately female profession differently from workers in a completely different but predominately male profession has been ruled by our courts to be sexual discrimination if the claimants allege that their work is of equal or similar "worth". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 All part of the process of dumbing down military and civil emergency services in the name of gender equality; which as this case proves - the genders arn't "equal" they are different - and those differences can make individuals incompatable with the needs of the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_nana_jackson Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 All part of the process of dumbing down military and civil emergency services in the name of gender equality; which as this case proves - the genders arn't "equal" they are different - and those differences can make individuals incompatable with the needs of the job. Heyho .. such is life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.