Having children a new right for accommodation in the workplace? What do you think??

[JLM]

Well in Ontario, it's because they have run our province into such an unbelieveable debt load and destroyed the economy with their spend now who cares attitude and the jobs are few and far between. And if we don't rein ourselves in we are screwed three ways to Sunday. I don't care who did it, we need to fix it whether we like the hours or not.

Look on the bright side, Sal, from what I can gather from the news it looks like Harper has just got rid of one of your problems- not only a sex fiend but into a little fraud, it seems. Anyway that is stuff for another thread (which I'm sure will spring up) -

 

[Sal]

Look on the bright side, Sal, from what I can gather from the news it looks like Harper has just got rid on one of your problems- not only a sex fiend but into a little fraud, it seems. Anyway that is stuff for another thread (which I'm sure will spring up) -

oh well I will look for that...thanks...

 

[karrie]

It's a different world today Cap't (and has been headed that way since the 80s). Back in the day when you got a job you kept your mouth and worked as hard as you could so the boss wouldn't replace you. The employer made the decisions. There was no such thing as "discrimination" - It beats me why people persist in working at a job they don't like.

Go read the ruling on this case. The employer states she was an exemplary employee who loved her job. She merely asked if they could accommodate her due to her childcare situation, and following their unwritten policy (that they don't even argue they have), they punished her for that by making her part time.

 

[JLM]

Go read the ruling on this case. The employer states she was an exemplary employee who loved her job. She merely asked if they could accommodate her due to her childcare situation, and following their unwritten policy (that they don't even argue they have), they punished her for that by making her part time.

It's not her that I find fault with, it's an entire system today that tries to deal with too much!

 

[petros]

Go read the ruling on this case. The employer states she was an exemplary employee who loved her job. She merely asked if they could accommodate her due to her childcare situation, and following their unwritten policy (that they don't even argue they have), they punished her for that by making her part time.

So why are taxpayers coughing up for sudsidized daycare?

 

[karrie]

So why are taxpayers coughing up for sudsidized daycare?

To keep the taxes flowing. My doctor needs daycare, my banker needs daycare, my road builder needs day care, my pharmacist, my friend in IT at the legislature, my friend in social services.... they all need day care. And they don't work, don't pay taxes, if they can't get it. OR, even worse, they have fewer kids than they would have because of the financial strain, and don't replace the tax base.

 

[taxslave]

Need daycare? I worked 3 years of night shift so we didn't have to pay a babysitter. Also did some part time driving during the day. Took my son along in what ever truck I had to drive. 

 

[petros]

To keep the taxes flowing. My doctor needs daycare, my banker needs daycare, my road builder needs day care, my pharmacist, my friend in IT at the legislature, my friend in social services.... they all need day care. And they don't work, don't pay taxes, if they can't get it. OR, even worse, they have fewer kids than they would have because of the financial strain, and don't replace the tax base.

Remember the days when family was the daycare. What are your friend's mothers doing that they can't be grandmothers?

 

[karrie]

Remember the days when family was the daycare. What are your friend's mothers doing that they can't be grandmothers?

Very few of my friends live in the same place as their mothers.

 

[petros]

That's a shame. Call me old fashioned but pt time mothering is a lost cause.

 

[L Gilbert]

Having children a new right for accommodation in the workplace? What do you think??
New mother who didn’t like her work hours should have found a new job, not a human rights case | Full Comment | National Post

Good news for all the new parents out there: You’re all your own bosses, now.

This surprising news comes courtesy of the Federal Court, which ruled last week that refusing to accommodate a parent’s schedule constitutes discrimination on the basis of family status. The case in question was the appeal of a 2010 Canadian Human Rights Commission ruling, which found that a new parent had the right to work her preferred shift, not the one assigned to her by her employer.

The new parent was customs officer Fiona Johnstone, who worked at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport on a rotating shift. Ms. Johnstone, after returning from maternity leave following the birth of her child in 2004, requested that management assign her a full-time, thrice-weekly 12-hour shift, to accommodate her childcare arrangements. Management, citing pre-existing policy, refused.

Instead they let her work three days a week at 10 hours, and a fourth day for four hours. Ms. Johnstone took it, but she also took her case to the rights commission.
She won, the ruling was appealed, and now, she’s won again, this time at the Federal Court. She will be paid the money she lost out due to the hours she lost due to the unaccommodating schedule, and an additional $20,000 in compensation.

The human rights tribunal had originally ruled, and the court eventually agreed, that employers are obligated to accommodate family status, because having children isn’t a lifestyle choice. But of course it is. We have the right to become parents. But we don’t have the right to drag our employer, and our fellow employees along for the ride. After all, someone else must now cover the shift that Ms. Johnstone won’t.

Ms. Johnstone may not have intended to get pregnant — I have no idea. But this is not a case of a navigationally challenged stork dropping a baby at her house without any prior warning, or Ms. Johnstone’s consent. The ultimate decision to start a family was hers. Having a child brings enormous responsibilities onto new parents, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking that these new responsibilities are confined exclusively to the baby.

Even exhausted new parents have responsibilities outside of the home. If one wishes to make their newborn their only priority, that’s fine. Quit your job and devote yourself, full-time, to the baby. But if you choose to continue to interact with the broader world, you do so on its terms.

Ms. Johnstone’s original request was entirely fair, and employers should do their best to help new parents cope with the stress and exhaustion of welcoming a new child. But not every employer will be able, or inclined, to be helpful. And one genuine right every Canadian does have is the right to quit and seek out a better boss.

When wifey was an employer, she did her best to make her employees feel that they were wanted there. After all, SHE hired them on that basis. She did NOT hire them just because she needed someone to take up breathing space like the gov't seems to. It's a whole different set of attitudes between gov'ts and most private enterprises. It's not exactly as if people feel it's a privilege to work; more like a freakin necessity, so the gov't should damned well realize that SOME people work out of that necessity and don't feel like it's a privilege to work for gov't.
Either way, I think the Fed Court was dead right. The gov't as an employer should follow the guidelines it set out (anti-discrimination rules). This sounds to me like the admin just didn't feel up to revamping a schedule to accommodate familial circumstances. The woman can't be the only person to have a kid, the gov't's hired.

That having been said, I wonder if she's a good worker. :/

 

[talloola]

If the company is 'able' to accomodate her wishes, they should, as long as they can. If they have good

reason 'not' to, fine, but if she is a good worker, they are happy with her, she likes her job, then

do it, whats the problem.

They shouldn't refuse her, just because they can, without a valid reason.

 

[CDNBear]

Where do the dad's fit?

The wet spot.

Am I the only one that took the time to read the bloody decision?

She tried extremely hard to find a babysitter, but have you ever wondered why they call it daycare? She could not find a place open during evenings when many shifts would take place.

Other people were given such shift patterns: 3 days at 12 hours per day. They offered her less than what she was willing to work and bumped her down to part time which was basically full time 36 -> 34, meaning she would basically have the same life impacts but would lose many benefits.

They refused to do so for her because they thought that her need for such a schedule was something that they could base their decision on.

They were not required to make accommodations, but they were required to not use her family status as the reason for not making accommodations, apparently this distinction is too subtle for many people here. Once you have a policy of making accommodations you cannot say it is ok for one thing but not ok for prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Seriously, read the decision. You wind up looking silly. She was willing to work evenings. She was asking for 3 shifts, each 12 hours, rotating. She is not the only single parent working at Customs even! They made this exact accommodation for the others, why not her? Their stated reason: because of her family status.

She was willing to go quite far. The employer was not required to accommodate her, but the employer chose to discriminate against her. She was asking to be treated exactly like other employees, and they chose not to because of her family status.

Do you not see the difference? If I say to my boss, "Give me a raise," and my boss says, "No, you don't deserve it," then there is no problem. However, if my boss says instead, "No, you are black," then it is discrimination. This boss chose to say, "No, you have children."



They could say many things, something as simple as, "We do not make accomodations," but they were already making accommodations. Once you start making accommodations, the only way to not make an accommodation for someone is for the request to be genuinely spurious, to be unable to because so many other people have been accommodated, or to have a genuine policy in place listing the acceptable reasons and to follow that policy. You cannot use family status as the reason. They chose to forego allowable ways out of accommodating the woman and chose to discriminate based on family status.

Dude, you'll either have to dumb it down a whole lot more, or start banging your head against the wall.

Some people just don't understand the simplest of things.

 

[JamesBondo]

Accommodate what you can, plain and simple. And then tell the people you can't accommodate that you CAN'T accommodate them. Just don't tell them that you WON'T accommodate them because they 'chose' to have kids, and then drop them to part time, while accommodating religion and other issues and keeping those people at full time.

Go read the full decision and all the findings from the court (I shared the link). It's not what people here are trying to make it out to be.

thanks for the link. that clears up a few things.

 

[Kreskin]

Wow! This is amazing. I want to follow my kids hockey and drama and need time off my crazy work schedule to do it. I guess now my boss will have to give it to me or face the consequences. Too bad for him if he cannot provide the service he is contracted to provide to his customers....I have family status that trumps his right to run a successful business and earn a living.

What a crock of sh*t! Let her find a new job. They made some concessions in order to try to accommodate but that wasn't good enough. Maybe she should have considered all the ramifications BEFORE getting knocked-up or just deal with it like we all have for all of history.

If your boss is giving concessions to others outside of the compensation and rewards programs, you should expect some leeway too.

Why would some get the benefit and not others? Is it because of job performance? Then deal with the job performance. It's chicken sh!t to railroad people into job difficulty and dissatisfaction as a tactic to get rid of them.

 

[PoliticalNick]

What they can't do is tell Ted he can work 3 12 hour shifts in a week for whatever reason he had, and then turn around and tell you that your children are not enough of a reason to even try to accommodate you as well.

I say they can. They are the employer and anything outside of your contract is entirely at their discretion. It really is simple, if you don't like what your boss won't do for you go work elsewhere.

My take on the ruling is that somewhere, someone f*cked up and said we won't give you this because of your kid instead of just saying no without giving any reason, which would have been ok.

 

[CDNBear]

I say they can. They are the employer and anything outside of your contract is entirely at their discretion. It really is simple, if you don't like what your boss won't do for you go work elsewhere.

For someone that keeps bleating on about rights and equality, you sure don't like people having equal rights, lol.

My take on the ruling is that somewhere, someone f*cked up and said we won't give you this because of your kid instead of just saying no without giving any reason, which would have been ok.

Actually the latter is what was done.

So I guess you agree with the ruling now.

 

[PoliticalNick]

It says they looked at their policy forms, found it nowhere on the list of things they DO accommodate for, and rejected it.

Sorry, I'm paraphrasing... it says they went off 'pre-existing policy'.

So they had No policy to accommodate her. Shouldn't that be where it ends. Maybe she should have read the policies before she got pregnant.

 

[CDNBear]

So they had No policy to accommodate her. Shouldn't that be where it ends. Maybe she should have read the policies before she got pregnant.

Geezus, why do you hate women so much?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Because they have a policy on when to accommodate and when not to.

Actually if it is 'unwritten' it is not a policy at all.

For someone that keeps bleating on about rights and equality, you sure don't like people having equal rights, lol.

I do believe in equal rights...she has an equal right to go look for work elsewhere if her employer is not pleasing to her.

Actually the latter is what was done.

If they didn't give her a reason to deny her request how did this case come about? How would she know it was because of childcare issues. Is the whole thing speculation?

So I guess you agree with the ruling now.

Not in the least. The employer can accommodate or not as they please outside the scope of the contract. That is the joy of being the boss. Remember the golden rule....he who has the gold makes the rules.

Geezus, why do you hate women so much?

I love women, especially strong, independent women who play submissive in the bedroom ;-)