Pregnant, and get Sacked?
-
Just to ask, how many of you have encountered companies which does that? Sacking a lady just because she's going to be on a 3mth maternity leave...
Just to sack her, so as to get a freshie and save the 3months 'costs' incurred by having 1 less worker...
It's the govt's policy to have our families have more babies, right? So, should'nt the companies be more discerning and forgiving in the nature of ladies going on maternity leave...?
Just a discussion
-
discrimination towards the ladies...
-
Did it really happen? soo bad...
-
isit against the law to sack pregnant woman?
-
Happen...? Well, talked to a person who was sacked, just because she applied a 3 month maternity leaveOriginally posted by SBS9828X:Did it really happen? soo bad...
And she had been working in the company for 6 years already -
Leaving ethics aside.. yes.. it's really uneconomical to have someone to take a 3mths maternality leave.... since the govt encourages increasing birthrates...maybe they should at least subsidise a portion of the paid leave...
-
Precisely...Originally posted by silv3rgal:Leaving ethics aside.. yes.. it's really uneconomical to have someone to take a 3mths maternality leave.... since the govt encourages increasing birthrates...maybe they should at least subsidise a portion of the paid leave... -
quite sad.....
i know of co. tt oso dun shortlist married women, in fear they might take maternity leave, child sick leave........ -
Yea...It's true...can you imagine? Want to answer government's 'call', yet get penalised...?Originally posted by FireIce:quite sad.....
i know of co. tt oso dun shortlist married women, in fear they might take maternity leave, child sick leave........ -
Unfortunately under the "law", unless the person had worked for you more than 180 days will she be "protected". Hence there are alot of companies still doing this by giving all sorts of reason but mainly using the reason as cutting cost. (Unless of course the person is in a "high" position and irreplaceable)Originally posted by deathscythe99:Just to ask, how many of you have encountered companies which does that? Sacking a lady just because she's going to be on a 3mth maternity leave...
Just to sack her, so as to get a freshie and save the 3months 'costs' incurred by having 1 less worker...
It's the govt's policy to have our families have more babies, right? So, should'nt the companies be more discerning and forgiving in the nature of ladies going on maternity leave...?
Just a discussion
Also the other problem is that alot of companies they do hiring via "contract" so to escape the maternity problem and extra $$$ having to hire a new person to help during that time frame.
My experience was via contract. The company liked my work but cos I was pregnant refuse to give me a long contract. They practically asked me was I going to ask for maternity leave, if I was...they probably won't renew my contract and extend it. I had to forgo the 2 months maternity pay and had to take a break of contract during my time on leave. And went back to work abt 1 mth after giving birth just to con't earning my monthly income to support my family. During that time on my own goodwill, I even worked from home for free.
So no matter how the govt tries to prevent this from happening, there is always a loop hole somewhere. Even before hiring, alot of employers will ask that 1 question to most women, are u intending to have anymore/any kids. -
policies and practices dun match
one side say need to have time for family
other side make us work OT
one side say mus make babies
other side threaten to make u lose ur job if u get pregnant -
Yup, and they wonder why birth rates are declining
I wonder how many families are comfortable with the guy being the sole bread winner of the family -
these are the problems created when there is the lack of power in worker's union.
NTUC is like a puppet union. -
that's gg to be very hard... unless the guy's able to earn enuff to support the family n set aside some savings too... other wise, it's actually better for the woman to come out to work too.. maybe when the kid's older? or someone at home is able to look after the kid?Originally posted by elindra:Yup, and they wonder why birth rates are declining
I wonder how many families are comfortable with the guy being the sole bread winner of the family -
they shd be concentrating on helping employees to fight for rights, not open disco.........Originally posted by Deportivo:these are the problems created when there is the lack of power in worker's union.
NTUC is like a puppet union. -
exactly. what's the use of a union that offers you disco, chalet, theme park, supermarket all in the name of making profit, while doing nothing with employee's rights and welfare.
-
wat about AUPE?
-
Well, they are clouding your observations, that's for sureOriginally posted by Deportivo:exactly. what's the use of a union that offers you disco, chalet, theme park, supermarket all in the name of making profit, while doing nothing with employee's rights and welfare. -
2 choices:Originally posted by shinta:that's gg to be very hard... unless the guy's able to earn enuff to support the family n set aside some savings too... other wise, it's actually better for the woman to come out to work too.. maybe when the kid's older? or someone at home is able to look after the kid?
1) Maid
2) Your parents, when they are old. -
chay...i thought you kenna sacked due to pregancy
-
Originally posted by bratpig:chay...i thought you kenna sacked due to pregancy
Thanks hor...but no lor
Just pointing out that there are such ruthless companies out there -
OT but i chanced upon 2 diff records regarding babies
1 was a number of babies born in the first few mths of this year, pathetically few. 200+ only
another record was of this 17yr old girl getting pregnant and aborting the baby at 4mths . -
nowadays employee welfare belongs to the bin. so a staff going on 3 mths company sponsored leave is not economically viable.
to them it is paying u 3mths to do something not for the company. -
u heard of babysitters?Originally posted by deathscythe99:2 choices:
1) Maid
2) Your parents, when they are old.
get someone to help look after ur kid in the day, den u bring the kid home after work or sth
-
baby sitters aren't cheap too. Most are charging abt $500, not including food, diapers, etc If you want baby to be taken care on weekends or public holidays, they charge extra..some up to $50 each extra day.Originally posted by shinta:u heard of babysitters?
get someone to help look after ur kid in the day, den u bring the kid home after work or sth
So having maid in a way is cheaper but regardless it's a hugh cost.