Women in Senior Management

LolaLuv

brianthebard wrote: »

But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice! Even though in the end its not a choice at all, because a pregnant woman has to take some time off, that's obvious. I don't get you, lets not give a couple the chance to enjoy their pregancy and new born, but we'll substitute it with the joys of working an extra week or two of a job they'll have for 40+ years, and probably won't get promoted from since as a woman, she's being discriminated against! I don't see how this is even an issue, if a woman feels that strongly about not losing time at beloved work because of a child why not get her tubes tied and be done with it???


Interesting that the American thinks the answer lies in suing the company rather than giving the parents a better quality of life. :pac:

What the ****????? A woman who enjoys work ought to get her tubes tied??? Yes, god forbid should a woman want to be a mother and also have a job she enjoys. What century are you from??

And Jesus Christ, if a woman is facing discrimination because of maternity leave, then you hit back at the propagators of the discrimination, you don't force all women to take off of work. There are women who enjoy working, crazy as it sounds. And I'm not saying men and women shouldn't be allowed to take off, I'm saying that every couple ought to be able to decide that for themselves.

Yes, let's bring in some American stereotypes. I don't think someone who comes from a country where abortion is illegal and unhappy couples have to wait five years for a divorce has much room to talk about quality of life.

Nevyn

If there was two weeks supported paternity leave on par with maternity leave I think a lot of things would change.

Fun isn't it that countries with falling birth rates which are concerned about having an aging population are investing in paternity leave.

Statutory Paternity Leave in Europe:

Ireland is right down the bottom of the European league table:

* Iceland - 3 months paid paternity leave
* Slovenia - 90 days paid paternity leave
* Norway *(Outside EU) - 6 weeks paternity leave
("use it or lose it")
* Finland - 18 days paid paternity
(proposing to raise it to 25 days)
* Denmark - 14 days paid paternity
* Estonia - 14 calendar days
* France - 2 weeks paid paternity
* Italy - 2 weeks paid paternity
* UK - 2 weeks paid paternity (from 2003)
* Sweden - 10 days paid paternity leave
* Latvia - 10 calendar days
* Austria - 10 days paid paternity
* Romania - 5 days paid paternity leave
* Hungary - 5 days paternity leave
* Portugal - 5 days paternity
* Belgium - 3 days paid paternity
* Spain - 2 days paternity
* Holland - 2 days paid paternity
* Luxembourg - 2 days paid paternity
* Ireland - NO entitlements to paternity leave

Nevyn

And PillyPen I think having had two children that the lack of maternity leave in america is barbaric.

Also I don't think you have an understanding of legal separation and divorce in this country.
After two years of living apart a couple can file for legal speration and the separation agreement sorts out the maintaince, custody, visitation and assets. The only thing missing is the right to remarry and the disoution of being each others next of kin ( which can be also changed if wished beforehand). There is then a waitng period and then the divorce decree is done which gives the right to remarry.

Also the distance to travel to the UK for an abortion is the same as some women in the USA face as their state does not allow for abortion.

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

And PillyPen I think having had two children that the lack of maternity leave in america is barbaric.

I agree. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but it shouldn't be forced.

brianthebard

PillyPen wrote: »

What the ****????? A woman who enjoys work ought to get her tubes tied??? Yes, god forbid should a woman want to be a mother and also have a job she enjoys. What century are you from??

I don't see why you think its necessary to allow or keep women in work right up to the pregnancy, whether they enjoy their jobs or not. It also (MUCH more importantly) puts pressure on all women to do so "Mary down in accounting didn't take six weeks, so now Anne in tech has to do the same". The needs of the majority of the population should come before the minority who insist on working up until the due date.

And Jesus Christ, if a woman is facing discrimination because of maternity leave, then you hit back at the propagators of the discrimination, you don't force all women to take off of work. There are women who enjoy working, crazy as it sounds. And I'm not saying men and women shouldn't be allowed to take off, I'm saying that every couple ought to be able to decide that for themselves.

Hit back with legislation first, and then if needed sue for discrimination. If the laws aren't strong enough in the first place then discrimination will always be an issue. Making stronger laws would actually allow for more cases to be brought on the grounds of discrimination.

Yes, let's bring in some American stereotypes. I don't think someone who comes from a country where abortion is illegal and unhappy couples have to wait five years for a divorce has much room to talk about quality of life.

It was a joke? I'm sure we could trade quips on our respective regions for a long time but there's no point.

Thanks for the figures Thaed, I think if you look you'll see a direct link between levels of discrimination in a country (on gender lines) and the amount of maternity/paternity leave given to couples.

LolaLuv

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't see why you think its necessary to allow or keep women in work right up to the pregnancy, whether they enjoy their jobs or not. It also (MUCH more importantly) puts pressure on all women to do so "Mary down in accounting didn't take six weeks, so now Anne in tech has to do the same". The needs of the majority of the population should come before the minority who insist on working up until the due date.

Hit back with legislation first, and then if needed sue for discrimination. If the laws are strong enough in the first place then discrimination will always be an issue. Making stronger laws would actually allow for more cases to be brought on the grounds of discrimination.

I don't think women should be kept in work, but they should be able to decide that for themselves. And women will face that anyway. Unless you're also going to force paternity leave, which I've already said just pisses off everyone, then forced maternity leave is already discrimination. If an Irish company can choose between a man and a woman of child-bearing age, isn't the man more likely to get hired because he's not forced to leave work for several works? Is it better to be discriminated against before or after you get the job? Not all women have children; why should the ones who are career-focused and are not going to have families have to be encumbered by a forced maternity leave that potential employees don't know won't affect them?

The problem with the US is that legislation doesn't get rolling until someone gets sued, because old habits die hard. To get enough support to get anything changed here, someone has to lose a lot of money. But you're right that stronger discrimination laws would be the best way to go.

It was a joke? I'm sure we could trade quips on our respective regions for a long time but there's no point.

It wasn't funny and it added nothing to the debate but resentment.

brianthebard

PillyPen wrote: »

I don't think women should be kept in work, but they should be able to decide that for themselves. And women will face that anyway. Unless you're also going to force paternity leave, which I've already said just pisses off everyone, then forced maternity leave is already discrimination. If an Irish company can choose between a man and a woman of child-bearing age, isn't the man more likely to get hired because he's not forced to leave work for several works? Is it better to be discriminated against before or after you get the job? Not all women have children; why should the ones who are career-focused and are not going to have families have to be encumbered by a forced maternity leave that potential employees don't know won't affect them?

yes of course they should be able to decide for themselves, but the reality is there are all sorts of other factors to consider. I don't see why you think forced paternity leave is a bad idea though? Again if both sexes are given leave then there is no incentive to discriminate against women, regardless of whether they have a family or not, which was my point all along.

It wasn't funny and it added nothing to the debate but resentment.

Sorry.

LolaLuv

brianthebard wrote: »

yes of course they should be able to decide for themselves, but the reality is there are all sorts of other factors to consider. I don't see why you think forced paternity leave is a bad idea though? Again if both sexes are given leave then there is no incentive to discriminate against women, regardless of whether they have a family or not, which was my point all along.

I had a big long thing written. The bottom line is that I think it's better to fight the ideas that lead to discrimination rather than just discriminate against everyone.

Nevyn

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working. Socail standards here are different but I do not think that abolishing or making it possible for maternity leave to be an opt out is a good thing as it will put pressure on women to do so.

We are still having trouble with parental leave and employeers but the answer isn't to make it an opt out but to enforce it and punish employeers that stall or refuse to honour it and the same with maternity leave.

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working. Socail standards here are different but I do not think that abolishing or making it possible for maternity leave to be an opt out is a good thing as it will put pressure on women to do so.

We are still having trouble with parental leave and employeers but the answer isn't to make it an opt out but to enforce it and punish employeers that stall or refuse to honour it and the same with maternity leave.

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

And I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a valid question.

Nevyn

Well as I have said it is only in the last 10 years we are at the stage were the majority of households have two parents working, daycare/creches are fairly new and there are not enough places for the demand and they are on par with mortaguage payments for a lot of families there is not the after school programs or summer camp programs which schools have in the usa.

Women can go back early from maternity leave if sanctioned by their dr and they can be available and be on the phone/email from home. Many women who are self employed or are in small companies take shorter maternity leave.

But it should not be an either or situations and we are working to having a more family friendly work policies.

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well as I have said it is only in the last 10 years we are at the stage were the majority of households have two parents working, daycare/creches are fairly new and there are not enough places for the demand and they are on par with mortaguage payments for a lot of families there is not the after school programs or summer camp programs which schools have in the usa.

Women can go back early from maternity leave if sanctioned by their dr and they can be available and be on the phone/email from home. Many women who are self employed or are in small companies take shorter maternity leave.

Day care is a huge problem here as well, and it hits the lower income families the hardest, of course. It's a vicious cycle; they need two incomes but if both parents work then one is only working to pay off the daycare bill.

brianthebard

PillyPen wrote: »

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

Well I think the first thing is I was suggesting six weeks because there needs to be a certain amount of time for health reasons that every woman should take off. I don't think we need to get into the mechanics of how it might work, lets just focus on whether its a good idea or not. Secondly why is it that people can only have one of the other? You make it seem like you can only either be career driven or family driven. And why is it that someone who wants a family must therefore accept that they won't be CEO?
Because that's the key to all this, woman are being made choose between one thing and the other, but they are not allowed have both, and what you are suggesting doesn't do anything to address this, whereas levelling the playing field for all concerned does. If someone is career driven and puts the work in then they will get noticed, surely that's the point of doing the work? I don't see why a certain amount of mandatory maternity leave should be seen as a huge barrier to that. However when the playing field is not level, when women have to sacrafice career for family or vice versa, then that's where we see choice being taken away not given.

Nevyn

And men are not supported in the choice to be the stay at home parent or the parent with reduced hours, it seems to ususally default to the mother rather then the father.

LolaLuv

brianthebard wrote: »

Well I think the first thing is I was suggesting six weeks because there needs to be a certain amount of time for health reasons that every woman should take off. I don't think we need to get into the mechanics of how it might work, lets just focus on whether its a good idea or not. Secondly why is it that people can only have one of the other? You make it seem like you can only either be career driven or family driven. And why is it that someone who wants a family must therefore accept that they won't be CEO?
Because that's the key to all this, woman are being made choose between one thing and the other, but they are not allowed have both, and what you are suggesting doesn't do anything to address this, whereas levelling the playing field for all concerned does. If someone is career driven and puts the work in then they will get noticed, surely that's the point of doing the work? I don't see why a certain amount of mandatory maternity leave should be seen as a huge barrier to that. However when the playing field is not level, when women have to sacrafice career for family or vice versa, then that's where we see choice being taken away not given.

Of course I think a woman can have a career and a family, you're the one who said a woman who wants a career should get her tubes tied. What I'm saying is you can't be CEO without missing out on a lot of the family stuff, and vice versa. It's a choice everyone has to make, not just women. Most people aren't bothered by this because they want a job that pays the bills with some extra for savings and fun, but if someone (male or female) wants to be in upper management then they're going to have to contend with people who want to be in upper management more than they want to spend time with their families. You can't have it all.

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

And men are not supported in the choice to be the stay at home parent or the parent with reduced hours, it seems to ususally default to the mother rather then the father.

In America that is changing a lot. There are many men who are stay-at-home fathers. I'd like that sort of arrangement myself I think.

brianthebard

PillyPen wrote: »

Of course I think a woman can have a career and a family, you're the one who said a woman who wants a career should get her tubes tied. What I'm saying is you can't be CEO without missing out on a lot of the family stuff, and vice versa. It's a choice everyone has to make, not just women. Most people aren't bothered by this because they want a job that pays the bills with some extra for savings and fun, but if someone (male or female) wants to be in upper management then they're going to have to contend with people who want to be in upper management more than they want to spend time with their families. You can't have it all.

That was a sarcastic comment, I don't actually think women need to tie their tubes to get along.

Stheno

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF we had paternity leave then I bet there would be better systems in place as it standards there is not statatory paternity leave in this country.

+1 imo what is needed here is the system that I *think* is available in either Norway or Denmark, where either parent is entitled to extended leave after the birth of a child, giving the option for dads who want to, to stay at home with their child, if their partner wants to/has to go back to work.

brianthebard wrote: »

But the choice/chance of promotion is being taken from women because of pregnancy and not giving men a choice! The discrimination is coming from "giving" women a choice!

You can cut your maternity leave short, I know several self employed, and "employed by a company" women who have done so, one went back to work three weeks after having her baby as she wanted to.

If someone was in an equal role with a man and takes 3 x 9 months (27 months) out of an e.g. 5 year period to have and stay at home with their children, then they woud by choice have just under 2.5 years experience than their male colleague so yes it might/would affect their chances of promotion imo, but then what of the joy of having those kids etc?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pillypen we have been, up until the late 1970s here when a woman married she had to quit working.

OT several of the ladies I currently work with had to leave work during the marriage ban!

PillyPen wrote: »

There's no doubt that Ireland has made a lot more progress in the past 30+ years than America has, but both countries still have a long way to go, imo.

Again, it must be a cultural thing. I know many women who love to work, and I think if maternity leave were forced it would cause an outrage.

Honestly, I think everyone at some point has to make a choice between family and a high-powered career. Why should the women who have chosen a career be forced to take time off to make it more fair for the women who want to take time with their families? That holds true for men as well, some would rather focus on family while others would rather focus on career. But why should anyone who puts more emphasis on family expect to have the same success as someone who is drive solely by their career? If someone makes sacrifices for their career, then they should be expected to be rewarded more. At the same time, someone who chooses to concentrate on his or her family is going to have a more rewarding home life. It's just that people can't be two places at once, which is fine because not everyone wants to be a CEO.

And I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a valid question.

Pilly see above and Thaedydal's post earlier, one can take less maternity leave in some cases.

LolaLuv

nouggatti wrote: »

If someone was in an equal role with a man and takes 3 x 9 months (27 months) out of an e.g. 5 year period to have and stay at home with their children, then they woud by choice have just under 2.5 years experience than their male colleague so yes it might/would affect their chances of promotion imo, but then what of the joy of having those kids etc?

I agree. The happiest times in my childhood were when my little brothers were tiny. Kids are such a joy, I can't imagine any parent willfully giving those moments up. But, not everyone feels that way so.

Pilly see above and Thaedydal's post earlier, one can take less maternity leave in some cases.

I just think it's weird that it's mandatory except in some cases. That concept is completely foreign to me. The flip side is a country like the US where the maternity leave laws are sadly lacking, so a woman (if she gets any time off at all) generally isn't paid for leave.

Stheno

PillyPen wrote: »

I just think it's weird that it's mandatory except in some cases. That concept is completely foreign to me. The flip side is a country like the US where the maternity leave laws are sadly lacking, so a woman (if she gets any time off at all) generally isn't paid for leave.

Actually forgive my last post, I've just read through the maternity leave link that Brian posted, which says that you are entitled to take maternity leave, and lists the conditions one should follow to take leave.

Nowhere in the link posted does it say you have to take maternity leave. That would explain the various women I know of, who took little or no maternity leave.

Interesting to also note (whilst in tragic circumstances) that the legislation addresses leave for fathers whose partner dies in childbirth, and for women who suffer a late miscarriage.

LolaLuv

Wait, so it's not forced? If that's the case, then that's fantastic, but I thought people were telling me it is mandatory? Lolz, that's what I was arguing about, at any rate. If it's not mandatory then my apologies!

Stheno

PillyPen wrote: »

Wait, so it's not forced? If that's the case, then that's fantastic, but I thought people were telling me it is mandatory? Lolz, that's what I was arguing about, at any rate. If it's not mandatory then my apologies!

Read the link Brian posted, imo (and it's just my interpretation) it's not mandatory, but I'm open to correction ??

brianthebard

I don't think its mandatory, I think what it says is that if you are taking leave then it is mandatory that two weeks of leave should be before the birth and four weeks after. I never said it was mandatory tbh.

LolaLuv

nouggatti wrote: »

Read the link Brian posted, imo (and it's just my interpretation) it's not mandatory, but I'm open to correction ??

Well, looking back over the posts, it seems that Brian and I were arguing the theory of it more than anything else. No one ever said it was mandatory.

Stheno

http://www.welfare.ie/publications/sw11.html

The link above is perhaps a bit more explanatory, in terms of the taking min. 2weeks before giving birth so that you get the max. entitlement of leave, and also explains that if you go back to work early then you give up your entitlement to maternity leave.

On an entirely seperate point, someone earlier asked Dragan I think it was, why there were no process/education in place to cause less disruption when people go on leave.

Imo it's often down to the need for familiarisation with the company itself, much as he explained, bare bones process will never ever replace good internal knowledge of a company and many companies from a small family run business, to huge multinationals have many unique ways of doing things that one would not know unless one was working in the relevant role for a certain period.

DenMan

Hi OP

Your opening in post is very intriguing. I work in the tv/film industry and have recently returned to full time education. There is definitely a lack of women in senior positions in the entertainment industry. I always wondered why that was the case. From a creative point of view it is driven by us men, but not exclusively. In fact I have a huge respect for women like Edwina Forkin who have thrived in what is a male dominated industry. I really hope there are many more females like her on the way up. Of course in the retail industry, banking, health service there are a great deal of women in senior positions. Maybe because of the competition between themselves this has resulted in a very ruthless streak regarding their responses to other women around them. It is very petty, although very understandable.

Stheno

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think its mandatory, I think what it says is that if you are taking leave then it is mandatory that two weeks of leave should be before the birth and four weeks after. I never said it was mandatory tbh.

PillyPen wrote: »

Well, looking back over the posts, it seems that Brian and I were arguing the theory of it more than anything else. No one ever said it was mandatory.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your posts

Kind of OT but in many ways women in more senior positions are often more fortunate than women in less senior jobs in that their benefits package includes full pay on maternity leave, given that the max. maternity benefit per week is €280, which pro-rated 26 weeks is just €7260, but given that it is not taxable, at the lower rate of tax, it's equivalent to €8297 over the 26 weeks, and at the higher rate of tax, €13866 /€27733.

So if you don't have full pay as a benefit from your employer, it's a big drop for most people, and imo would hit those who earn less more?

g'em

Dragan wrote: »

I don't know, i just work for one?

It was a generic "why", I'm not asking you personally to divulge the details of your companies policy.

Dragan wrote:

Of course there is, it's called personal experience. There is no way i could write a handover document that would detail all my knowledge of what i do and what i deal with on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The job is far too dynamic with far too many variables. I walked into this job without them and built them up over the course of 3 years. It would take anyone else time to do the same. And of course training is provided but once again that can only be done is systems, processes, businesses goals, targets , current project goals and timelines etc. Once again it would be the personal experience and savvy developed over time in a working environment that would be missing.

But people leaves jobs/ go on long-term sick-leave all the time, and a company has no choice but to cope. If you have women of child bearing age working in a company it's a pretty reliable fact that a large proportion of them will indeed have kids at some point and companies should be able to forsee and cope with that. This isn't staff turnover either, this is a woman taking temporary leave from her job and so surely it would be in the company's best interest to entice that woman back to her job (with all that personal experience) once maternity leave is over.

Dragan wrote:

I think mean "why is there not"?

Why yes, yes I did. Btw, there should be a "you" after the word think there.

Dragan wrote:

Do not mistake being able to see both sides of an argument for agreeing with either.

I think you're seeing something in my post that isn't there. A bit less condescension would be just fab too.

Stheno

g'em wrote: »

But people leaves jobs/ go on long-term sick-leave all the time, and a company has no choice but to cope. If you have women of child bearing age working in a company it's a pretty reliable fact that a large proportion of them will indeed have kids at some point and companies should be able to forsee and cope with that. This isn't staff turnover either, this is a woman taking temporary leave from her job and so surely it would be in the company's best interest to entice that woman back to her job (with all that personal experience) once maternity leave is over.

In the case of maternity leave imo, the real issue is, given that companies have six weeks notice and presumably more if the lady/woman/wimminz *look* pregnant prior to the six weeks mandatory notice they have to give, companies don't prepare to replace that person and fill the skills gap.

One of the divisions that my IT dept supports are in just such a case, a key person who is fundamental to support from a business viewpoint of one of their critical apps (sorry for all the work language) is going on maternity leave in a few months time, and the division are currently interviewing her replacement, with her on the panel, and other relevant individuals (three in all), and once her replacement (for the duration of her leave) is hired, then they will be trained up fully prior to this lady leaving.

For many companies imo, that investment in terms of additional wage cost, and the time needed to train the individual, is immaterial in terms of potential revenue loss, and the bigger the company the worse it is.

Does that make any sense to you g"em?

Nevyn

Health and safety policy for most companies state that an employee who is pregnant must inforum thier manager asap so that a health and safety assement can be done. So really that tends to be when they get booked in with thier dr at 2/3 monts and they don't go on leave until 81/2 moths which is easily 5 months to sort cover and hand overs.

If a company has 60/65 % of female staff and has at any given time 5 or more on or preparing for maternity leave and they don't have policies and strageties in place to ensure things go smoothly then the company is at fault.

nouggatti that should just be the cost of doing business it's sexist and discriminatory when it is said it is the 'cost' of hiring women of childbearing age.