Contract ended for being a man

luckat

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0609/2831421598HM1PARIS.html

Ambassadors in dispute over house manager


The Department of Foreign Affairs has become embroiled in a legal dispute with the house manager of its Paris embassy, after the outgoing ambassador refused to remove him from his post, writes Mary Raftery.

Ambassador Padraic MacKernan has resisted terminating the contract of the embassy's Maitre d'Hotel, Eduardo Ramos. But the department and the incoming Paris ambassador, Anne Anderson, are insisting that Mr Ramos's employment should end now that Mr MacKernan is leaving Paris.

Mr Ramos, a Filipino, has worked in Irish embassies for 17 years. If his employment ends, he will also lose his accommodation in the embassy, where he lives with his wife and daughter. Ms Anderson, who has been Ireland's permanent representative to the EU in Brussels, has argued that for personal reasons she would prefer to have a woman in the post occupied by Mr Ramos.

The row is the second time Mr Ramos's and Ms Anderson's paths have crossed in this way; in 2001 she did not want him to continue in a similar post at the Irish mission in Brussels, saying her preference was for a woman in the house manager role. That difficulty was overcome at the time, when Mr MacKernan offered Mr Ramos the Paris position.

When contacted by The Irish Times yesterday Ms Anderson said she did not want to comment publicly on the matter.

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs, domestic staff such as Mr Ramos are hired by the Head of Mission in each overseas posting and their employment ends when the Head of Mission moves on.

"The management of the residence and the employment of domestic staff in Irish missions abroad are matters within the responsibility of the incumbent Head of Mission," the department said yesterday. "Each member of the residence staff is employed by the Head of Mission for a period co-terminous with his or her term of office. This condition of employment is made clear by each Head of Mission to employees. In the circumstances, the department does not propose to make any further comment."

In a letter to Ambassador MacKernan last month, Ms Anderson wrote: "Being on my own. . . as Head of Mission over the last 10 years, I have always had a woman housekeeper/house manager.

"Given the range of tasks involved, this has always seemed to me an easier and more relaxed situation and one that I would like to continue." She said she wanted Mr Ramos treated with consideration, and if he were informed of the position right away, he would have three-and-a-half months' notice to find new accommodation.

When Mr MacKernan - who left Paris this week - declined to terminate the employment of Mr Ramos, the personnel section of the department wrote to Mr Ramos telling him that his employment would cease.

"Your services will no longer be required from the date of commencement of the term of office of the incoming Ambassador," the department wrote.

A lawyer for Mr Ramos has now told the Department that Mr Ramos intends to legally challenge the move, and to "take all appropriate measures and legal proceedings to include injunctive remedies if necessary to prevent such action".



© The Irish Times

0utshined

luckat wrote:

In a letter to Ambassador MacKernan last month, Ms Anderson wrote: "Being on my own. . . as Head of Mission over the last 10 years, I have always had a woman housekeeper/house manager.

"Given the range of tasks involved, this has always seemed to me an easier and more relaxed situation and one that I would like to continue."

That's disgraceful and frankly I don't think I'd like someone like that representing me or my country abroad. She doesn't know how well he can do the job but knows she doesn't want him in it on the basis that he has meat and two veg ?

I'd be interested in knowing what the "range of tasks" are that she seems to think she needs female assistance with. She needs to cop on to herself.

TerrorFirmer

0utshined wrote:

That's disgraceful and frankly I don't think I'd like someone like that representing me or my country abroad. She doesn't know how well he can do the job but knows she doesn't want him in it on the basis that he has meat and two veg ?

I'd be interested in knowing what the "range of tasks" are that she seems to think she needs female assistance with. She needs to cop on to herself.

Ditto. Disgrace is the only word.

rainbow kirby

That's just wrong. And I'd say the same thing if the gender roles were reversed here.

nesf

OMG!!! :eek:

Sexism in the workplace!!!! :eek:

Call the PC brigade!!!

etc

luckat

nesf wrote:

OMG!!! :eek:

Sexism in the workplace!!!! :eek:

Call the PC brigade!!!

etc

nerf, a small correction here. The term "PC" ("Politically Correct") was a 1990s coinage referring to the censoring of language - for instance, when people were scolded for saying "negro" rather than "black".

This is a different matter. This is a man losing his job, purely because he's male and not female.

Akula

What exactly does the job involve though?

Bear in mind this is this womans residence, so she has to have a bit more leeway given the inevitable personal nature of the job.

The way its being handled though is far from perfect. There is no way they should sack him, given the circumstances a transfer would be perfectly fair though as they did in the past.

magpie

This is what happens when you let women have jobs.

Whatever_fools

luckat wrote:

nerf, a small correction here. The term "PC" ("Politically Correct") was a 1990s coinage referring to the censoring of language - for instance, when people were scolded for saying "negro" rather than "black".

This is a different matter. This is a man losing his job, purely because he's male and not female.

I dont really think this helps the situation now does it....does anyone care what the term PC stands for? Eh no...I suggest we stick to the topic in hand perhaps?

Stephen

What a bitch. She's the one who should be sacked.

meditraitor

She should be sacked and sent home to do the ironing, were she should have been in the first place.!

luckat

Let's be serious about this, please.

The job involves running the embassy - in effect, he's a butler. Mr Ramos runs all those events held in the embassy to represent Ireland, and he generally runs the embassy's day-to-day domestic affairs. He's worked for 17 years in something like three Irish embassies or missions, if you read the piece.

It is not appropriate to make jokes about Her Excellency, Anne Anderson, who herself has been Chairwoman of the UN High Commission on Human Rights.

This is a most unfortunate and serious case, especially for the man who is losing his job because of his sex.

Zulu

...so she believes that a woman can do the job better than a man. Equal oppertunities indeed.

MicraBoy

"The management of the residence and the employment of domestic staff in Irish missions abroad are matters within the responsibility of the incumbent Head of Mission," the department said yesterday. "Each member of the residence staff is employed by the Head of Mission for a period co-terminous with his or her term of office. This condition of employment is made clear by each Head of Mission to employees. In the circumstances, the department does not propose to make any further comment."

The fact is this guy chould have been out on his ear regardless of his sex. It's a bit rich him going to the lawyers to try and cling onto his job. Ambassador MacKernan is at fault for letting the situation arise in the first place as it was clear that there was no obligation to keep Mr Ramos on once he was gone.

On the other hand I can't see how Ambassador Anderson can get away with saying she will only employ a woman. Not many situations were that would be tolerated. I would have thought she should keep that to herself really. Just goes to show most of these ambasadors are a bit touched. They seem to live in a world of there own, and suffer from a malady called "expatritis".

ixoy

I find it somewhat ironic then that someone who's been involved in the quest for human rights has no desire to speak out against a decision about a person's right (to work) that appears to be discriminatory.

Now she says it's for "personal reasons" but she needs to elucidate on this - does she think men are less capable of this job? How would she have reacted if, when applying for her current embassy position, she had been informed by the Dept. that "Sorry, but we traditionally prefer men in the role" and then been told that it was for "personal" reasons that they made this decision? Because, without any further elaboration, both appear equally wrong and the sort of decision I'd imagine that, during her tenure in the UN, she would have fought actively against.

Is there any justification for denying someone a job/role based on gender (aside from obvious examples like being a surrogate mother)? Because I can't think of any.

nesf

She is within her rights not keep him on. His contract is based (apparently) from term to term of each Ambassidor.

A head of house could be a very personal choice for an ambassador. Maybe they have one of their own that's worked with them and their family for the last 20 years? Are they not entitled to choose their own house staff?


Personally I think that the fact that she would prefer a woman in the role is moot. She is perfectly within her rights to replace him as head of house.

seamus

Is there any reason why she should be allowed to remain in her job as an Ambassador? That she should publicy and blatantly reveal herself as a bigot of the worst kind is not the kind of image we want for an Ambassador.

Personally I think that the fact that she would prefer a woman in the role is moot. She is perfectly within her rights to replace him as head of house.

Kudos to her honesty, but I don't think she has the right to effectively sack him because of his gender, regardless of her own personal feelings on the matter. Replace the word "female" in her sentence with "white", and see if you still feel like she's still right to replace him. At the very least she should make an effort to find him a similar position elsewhere that's agreeable to him.

RuggieBear

non omne licitum honestum

WhiteWashMan

she is within her rights to employ whomever she wants.

she is not replacing him becuase she feels he cannot do the job, she is replacing him becuase his tenure is at an end, and she has the right not to re-employ him.

as nesf said, the fact that she is looking at ofr a woman to fill the role is neither here nor there.

WhiteWashMan

seamus wrote:

, but I don't think she has the right to effectively sack him because of his gender,.

but thats just it, she is not sacking him.
she is just not keeping him.

WhiteWashMan

RuggieBear wrote:

non omne licitum honestum

no, but ones man meat is another mans poison and just because you or i dont agree with it, doesnt make it the root of all evil.

its all terribly subjective, and easy to hand down judgement, wouldnt you agree?

nesf

seamus wrote:

Replace the word "female" in her sentence with "white", and see if you still feel like she's still right to replace him.

See. I don't get this. Just because someone is black/filipino/female/whatever doesn't entitle them to everlasting employment.

Your employer has a right to fire you if he follows your contract. She has. He can be replaced by any incumbent ambassador. It's the terms of his employment.

Lemming

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but thats just it, she is not sacking him.
she is just not keeping him.

Bu that's the poiont WWM. She's just not keeping him .... because of his gender. I'd hasten to put odds on that if he was a she, this wouldn't be happening.

As mentioned before, substitute the word "woman" in her statement of preference with "white" and see how it reads.

Whilst she's entitled to seek someone else since his tenure should be at an end unless chosen to be renewed, he should at least have the option to re-apply for the role along with anyone else seeking the position. There's something else going on here that we don't know about though, since she's a) dismissing him completely ie. no "equal opportunities" and b) she's done the same before to him elsewhere.

RuggieBear

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no, but ones man meat is another mans poison and just because you or i dont agree with it, doesnt make it the root of all evil.

its all terribly subjective, and easy to hand down judgement, wouldnt you agree?

aye, you are right.

but while i'm on my high horse...

nesf

Lemming wrote:

There's something else going on here that we don't know about though, since she's a) dismissing him completely ie. no "equal opportunities" and she's done the same before to him elsewhere.

That's my reading of it too.

Thus why I'm slow to condemn her.

seamus

I think the mistake she has made here is saying "I don't want to keep him on because he's a man". If she kept her mouth shut, he would have left quietly.

I'm aware that she doesn't have to keep him - as it says, his employment comes to an end when the Ambassador changes. Essentially what's happened here, is that this guy has applied for the job, and been told - "Sorry, but we don't want a man". Now, that's OK if the job is, say, a Hooters waitress, but not in this case, and certainly not when he's amply qualified.

luckat

Why do you assume "something else is going on here", Lemming and RuggieBear? Sometimes things are just what they seem.

This is a man who has worked successfully for the same "company" (the Irish nation) for 17 years. Now he's being dismissed, and the reason that has been given is that his sex is not acceptable. Nothing "going on".

luckat

As I understand it, by the way, all the local staff in Irish embassies around the world have the same contract.

Rew

I wonder how many staff are actually changed with each Ambassador or are they all normally kept on.

WhiteWashMan

Lemming wrote:

Bu that's the poiont WWM. She's just not keeping him .... because of his gender. I'd hasten to put odds on that if he was a she, this wouldn't be happening.

As mentioned before, substitute the word "woman" in her statement of preference with "white" and see how it reads.

Whilst she's entitled to seek someone else since his tenure should be at an end unless chosen to be renewed, he should at least have the option to re-apply for the role along with anyone else seeking the position. There's something else going on here that we don't know about though, since she's a) dismissing him completely ie. no "equal opportunities" and b) she's done the same before to him elsewhere.

but at the same time, if i movved in somewhere, id want to have 'my preferred staff' with me.

dont get me wrong, im neither condemning or condoning, i just think that both sides need to be represented

at the end of the day, the chap is not entitled to be there when she starts. his contract is technically over. she does not have to re-employ him.

thats the very simple approach to it.

if there is anything underlying that, then god knows what it is, but if you want to spend the next 10 pages speculating and making things up, then be my guest.
just try and make it entertaining.

WhiteWashMan

luckat wrote:

Now he's being dismissed,

again, he is not being dismissed.
his contract is over and he is not being kept on.

there is no sacking or dismissal.

RuggieBear

perhaps she has some relative she wants to give the job to....or she just doen't like lackeys

ixoy

Ok WWM but picture this situation then instead:

Applicant: I've been doing this job for 17 years and am more qualified than any other candidate - why have I been refused?
Ambassador: Well I'm white and and, I'll be frank, I'm just not comfortable around black people, so I'd prefer a White, fair enough?

Would you say that's also acceptable?

magpie

It is not appropriate to make jokes about Her Excellency, Anne Anderson, who herself has been Chairwoman of the UN High Commission on Human Rights.

Excellency my hole. Gobby bint more like.

RuggieBear

tbh, i think it's shocking that this woman is supposed to be a diplomat.....you think she'd have been a bit more savvy

luckat

I take the point about the employee not being sacked, and am therefore going in to edit the original title of the thread. If how I stated this was incorrect, I absolutely apologise.

WhiteWashMan

ixoy wrote:

Ok WWM but picture this situation then instead:

Applicant: I've been doing this job for 17 years and am more qualified than any other candidate - why have I been refused?
Ambassador: Well I'm white and and, I'll be frank, I'm just not comfortable around black people, so I'd prefer a White, fair enough?

Would you say that's also acceptable?

how do you know you are more qualified?

and yes, if i feel uncomfortable with you and i dont think we will have a good working relationship, then why would i hire you?
just becuase you think so?

WhiteWashMan

RuggieBear wrote:

tbh, i think it's shocking that this woman is supposed to be a diplomat.....you think she'd have been a bit more savvy

that i wont disagree with.
not one iota

MicraBoy

Of course what may be "going on" is that she is bringing her female housekeeper from Brussels, which is an altogther more acceptable position.

Thats just speculation of course.

if there is anything underlying that, then god knows what it is, but if you want to spend the next 10 pages speculating and making things up, then be my guest.

Entertaining speculation: They are lesbians!

WhiteWashMan

luckat wrote:

I take the point about the employee not being sacked, and am therefore going in to edit the original title of the thread. If how I stated this was incorrect, I absolutely apologise.

actually, an interesting thing you can take from this...

if you had put down something else, then you probably wouldnt have gotten such passionate reponses from people

there is a cluture on boards.ie to defend mans position in any case, perticularly as a throw back against women. i think you will often find that depending on how something is worded, something in the brain of a male boards.ie user closes down and they read only what they want to read.

dont know, theres something almost mysoganistic about it.

ive noticed it on several threads on PI and on AH.

just something to think about.

RuggieBear

that would be the boards demographic...young males 17-30ish

WhiteWashMan

oh dude, i am only too well aware of it

its the only time ive ever thanked god for being over 30!

seamus

WhiteWashMan wrote:

oh dude, i am only too well aware of it

its the only time ive ever thanked god for being over 30!

Whoah....you're like....ancient...dude.

WhiteWashMan

banned for being ageist

The_Conductor

Is this individual actually in the employ of the Irish nation- or is he simply in the employ of the head of the consulate (mission)? Also- as its an embassy, and by definition Irish territory, surely Irish legislation governing employment rights applies (the guy and his family have been living in successive Irish embassies), irrespective of the fact that he is a non-national? The fixed term employment act of 2003, offers security of tenure to those on successive contracts, renewed with less than a 6 month gap.
My reading of the situation is that, totally irrespective of the idiot comments that were made by the incoming head of consulate, that the individual in question has accrued employment rights and security of tenure- irrespective of the fixed term nature of his employment. You can't just keep employing people on revolving fixed term contracts for 17 years and then tell them to bugger off for flippant reasons...... Sexist comments totally aside, this guy has a decent case, and if it ever gets to court (which I seriously doubt) there will be some very red faces in Iveagh House.....

luckat

He's paid by the Department.

The_Conductor

In that case, sit back and watch this space.
He is going nowhere......
The LRC would have a field day with this one......

nesf

Well, I think both myself and WWM are just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Well. I know I was, I'm just guessing on his part.


An interesting point to remember is that just because I argue a certain viewpoint with you doesn't mean I agree with what I'm saying. It just means that I think what I'm saying needs to be heard.

In this case, I wanted to develop this thread into something more than a string of passionate responses condemning the ambassador. You can't have a discussion if there's no one arguing the other side of the question.


Then again, maybe I just think too much about this kind of thing.

Oh and I'm a young un at 23

luckat

nesf, you're absolutely right - this needs to be discussed rationally and coolly, and with due regard to decency.

luckat

D'you know, we've been talking about this in terms of the law. But should we always rely on the law?

Surely this is a question of basic decency?

In a lot of work questions, people look to the legal situations to see what should be done - but the law has changed a heck of a lot over the years. For instance, only a few years ago it was perfectly all right (legally) to advertise a job and say that no black people would be hired. It was all right legally, but it wasn't all right morally.

Ireland is going to be so shamed by this when it goes public around the world - and it will go public. And the reason that we will be shamed is that what's happening here is morally indefensible.

It's just plain wrong that someone should lose his job purely because of his sex.

none

Ambassador, you saved our ass
http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/5724093?view=Eircomnet