Bosses claim pregnancy law will make women harder to hire

[nero_bolt]

BOSSES have threatened to stop hiring women of "child-rearing age'', claiming pregnant workers cost too much.

The Federal Government will today announce an inquiry into workplace discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers returning from maternity leave.

The inquiry will probe union claims that some retailers are refusing to give pregnant workers extra toilet breaks, and have forced them to stay in unsafe jobs.

The Australian Industry Group yesterday warned that a new workplace law - expected to pass through the Senate next week - will discourage high-risk industries from hiring women.

The planned changes to the Fair Work Act will force employers to transfer all pregnant women to a "safe job'' for nine months, no matter how long they have worked for the company.

Pregnant workers who cannot be found "safe'' work will stay home on full pay if they have at least a year's service, or on unpaid leave if they have been employed less than 12 months.

"That is obviously a disincentive to the employment of women of child-bearing age in hazardous industries,'' the AI Group national director Stephen Smith said.

The head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions women's committee, Therese Bryant, accused a major retailer of refusing to give pregnant women extra toilet breaks.

"We had a case of a woman ur-inating in her pants at the cash register, and she was so humiliated and embarrassed,'' she said.

Ms Bryant said a major supermarket chain had refused to transfer a pregnant woman working in its bakery to lighter duties, despite letters from her doctor.

"She was having to push a trolley with 400kg of flour, and was on her hands and knees scrubbing,'' she said.

Ms Bryant said the woman was eventually transferred, but her baby was born prematurely with brain damage.

She refused to name either retailer, as both women feared for their jobs.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick yesterday warned employers it is illegal to discriminate against workers on the grounds of pregnancy, potential pregnancy or breastfeeding.

"Working while pregnant is a right, not a privilege,'' she said.

Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus will announce the Australian Human Rights Commission inquiry into pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.

The Australian Industry Group told a recent Senate inquiry into the Fair Work legislation that the safe job provisions would "provide a significant disincentive for employers in hazardous industries to employ females of child-bearing age.''

And the Australian Mines and Metals Association claimed the new law would "make employers think twice before employing women''.

The Law Council of NSW warned the inquiry that "consideration should be given to the possible impact on female workers of a reproductive age competing in the job market.''

And the National Farmers Federation said male and female job candidates would "present a different potential cost to the prospective employer

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/bosses-claim-pregnancy-law-will-make-women-harder-to-hire/story-fni0dotq-1226667822080

[vampire-teddy]

it will get even harder for young women to get work if the paid parental scheme comes in.  

i was refused a job at a bank in 1986 because the manager said I would just have a baby and leave.  27 years later still no baby.  it is discrimination and it is wrong.  

[kilroy_is_here]

just another reason to move our manufacturing offshore, what good are all these perks & benifits if there are no jobs left here in Australia, businesses are not a bottomless pit, as it is now a lot of small to meduim business owners take home way less than their employees.

 break the back of small to meduim businesses & you break the back of this country

[witches*wol]

I'd just like to know what constitutes a "safe job"?

And who gets to decide what is safe and what is not?

I can completely understand small business not wanting to put women of child baring age on.

Just imagine that the employer has no safe job for the pregnant woman so he ends up having to pay her to stay home, then he needs to pay another person to come in and replace her - so that is a wage, work cover premium, and super for 2 people but only one of them is actually doing something productive for the company.  Frankly an extra expense like that is enough to push some small companies over the edge into being bankrupt, in which case all the staff lose their jobs!

It may well be discrimination but I can totally understand why companies need to do it.

[polksaladallie]

Lucky these women were not living in the time when you would not get a job if you were married.  When that law changed, there were no child care centres.  

[purplecarrot-top]

If a woman decides to have a baby that is her choice. Why should the employer bear the cost of her decision?

[icyfroth]

If a woman decides to have a baby that is her choice. Why should the employer bear the cost of her decision?

totally agree with this post.

the government should offer enough tax cuts and other benefits to families so the mums can stay home and look after their own children rather than handing them over for others to rear.

That would open up more positions for the men to be able to work and support their families rather than collecting the dole.

Why should the employer bear the cost? It's hard enough for the small business owner to make any profit with the large retailers monstering the market.

[twinkles**stars]

exactly right pct. 

[i-need-a-martini]

And while we are at it let's remove these ridiculous laws that force companies to put in accessible ramps and toilets cause it costs them money to employ disabled people.

And then we may as well remove that other ridiculous law about employing minors cause it would be much better to employ nimble little fingers at $9 per hour than and adult at $20 per hour.

The government should just be done with it and allow companies to not employ any woman of childbearing age.

All of the above will be so much better for our society.

[sandypas]

Disabled people do not ask to be disabled.  It is a couples choice to have children and I don't see why other people have to sponsor their decision.  Do what we done and wait until you are in a position to have your children and at least be able to nuture them for their infant years.

I agree with pct and icy.

[i-need-a-martini]

Discrimination is discrimination whichever angle you look at it. If you want to have a debate about the working vs stay at home mums that is another topic.

Every person over a certain age has a right to work. The laws are designed to make sure that every Australian has the opportunity on a level playing field.