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

[twinkles**stars]

wow!.....disability has nothing to do with this topic. 

[alexander*beetle]

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.

I agree totally.

However, as a small business owner, it is my prerogative to hire who I like . We are a small business and there is not enough money to go around to subsidise someone's choice to have a family. If it were a bigger business maybe we could carry the cost but as it stands we simply can't. We don't make big profits and to have to put on an extra worker while paying someone who is not contributing to the business is just not feasible.

The costs of running a small business are huge and I won't be bullied into hiring someone who decides after a year of dedicated training to demand that I finance their lifestyle. It may be deigned to be "discrimination" but I see it as a choice. I would rather keep 7 other people in work than have the business fold because we can't pay for another's choice.

For me, I think if anyone wants to be funded for their lifestyle choice, get a job with a government department where we are all paying for it.

[daydream**believer]

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

100% agree

[lakeland27]

or the taxpayer .. remember  the liberal scheme for rich mums 🙂

taxpayers subsidising the wealthy.

[kilroy_is_here]

And what about a bosses right to run a viable & profitable business ,why should we be discriminated against , why should we have to pay for some one who has made a decision to make them selfs no long suitable for the job for which they applied.

should we then be made to support assay model who chooses to shave head thus making her self no longer suitable for the type of work in which she was employed .

[kilroy_is_here]

We no longer need to look for reds under our beds one has taken up residence in the bedroom of the lodge