These poor small businesses and all that Red-tape getting in the way of a dynamic workforce and profit, said a Tory somewhere about this case…probably.
Hopefully that is paid by the ice-cream shop owner.
This should be a reminder that people are human beings and not robots who are to only function for your sole gain.
This is where I would want the state to step in.
The woman’s finances need to be protected. But ultimately, the business owner won’t see the benefits of any potential offspring. Society will.
I want people to be kind. But living in a capitalist system makes that super hard.
I have some sympathy for the employer tbh. She rendered herself unable to do the job. And tossing in shite like this…
>However, Mrs Gannapureddy’s other claims of disability discrimination due to dyslexia and religious discrimination were dismissed.
…just makes me think she’s at it.
Interesting article really. It seems the employer made quite a few changes to the the business to accommodate her pregnancy, like changing her work hours and presumably reassigning some of her work to others.
But ultimately, it would not have been possible for her to have continued once she can’t reach the ice cream. So, assuming an Ice cream parlour has no need for another person “in the office”, she has to stop working. [The shop could rearrange itself which could be very expensive, although it sounds like there might be some disability awareness benefit in doing so].
So who should pay? Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Pay would cover quite a large part of it, and the employer can claim most of it back. It only applies at a decent rate for a relatively short period though, not that long before the due date.
What to do if an employer feels that the employee cannot do her job but she refuses to take leave could be complicated (and might turn bitter) – but in this case it would have been cheaper just to pay her off and hire a temp.
5 comments
These poor small businesses and all that Red-tape getting in the way of a dynamic workforce and profit, said a Tory somewhere about this case…probably.
Hopefully that is paid by the ice-cream shop owner.
This should be a reminder that people are human beings and not robots who are to only function for your sole gain.
This is where I would want the state to step in.
The woman’s finances need to be protected. But ultimately, the business owner won’t see the benefits of any potential offspring. Society will.
I want people to be kind. But living in a capitalist system makes that super hard.
I have some sympathy for the employer tbh. She rendered herself unable to do the job. And tossing in shite like this…
>However, Mrs Gannapureddy’s other claims of disability discrimination due to dyslexia and religious discrimination were dismissed.
…just makes me think she’s at it.
Interesting article really. It seems the employer made quite a few changes to the the business to accommodate her pregnancy, like changing her work hours and presumably reassigning some of her work to others.
But ultimately, it would not have been possible for her to have continued once she can’t reach the ice cream. So, assuming an Ice cream parlour has no need for another person “in the office”, she has to stop working. [The shop could rearrange itself which could be very expensive, although it sounds like there might be some disability awareness benefit in doing so].
So who should pay? Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Pay would cover quite a large part of it, and the employer can claim most of it back. It only applies at a decent rate for a relatively short period though, not that long before the due date.
What to do if an employer feels that the employee cannot do her job but she refuses to take leave could be complicated (and might turn bitter) – but in this case it would have been cheaper just to pay her off and hire a temp.