Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's a nice parent out there who would love work during school time. Leaping down this poor persons throat because they didn't vet their post over and over again so as not to attract the vitriol of the forum is counter productive. You will put people off posting and we could all miss out on interesting opportunities which are hard to come by. The original post has been removed now so perhaps this has already happened. The original poster already took on opinion and edited to say parents and not mummys.
Sadly employers NEED to be aware of sex discrimination laws as even well meaning errors can land you in an expensive legal case. It's tough on small employers as they're experts in their field, not HR. But flagging it up isn't having a go at them - it's trying to be helpful

Spoonty, there are people on this forum and in ED who know how to speak to others properly and address any issues they may have (valid or otherwise) in a more appropriate manner


Thankfully, you don't have to employ the ones who failed to qualify at charm school ;-)

Before you posted, the OP already changed her language to parent rather than mother in follow up posts. Trying to reach out directly to those most potentially in need of flexible working hours shouldn't be criticized. Also, there is a way to highlight a potential oversight someone has made without being unkind.

When I posted, the ad read 'mummies' and spoonty clearly stated that the company wanted to employ a mother, not a parent. That's not a 'potential' oversight, that is clear statement of an intention to discriminate. Look at the time stamps on the posts.


But I'm in the wrong and unkind for not pointing out this breach of law in the nicest, kindest possible way so as not to hurt spoonty's feelings? Ok, if you say so.

FFS, get over yourself. They posted on a forum used mostly by mothers, and aimed their post at that audience. It's not like they put a sign up in the job centre asking for just "mummies".


You come across as someone that will look for offence even when none is meant, and your post above about racial descrimination is just a joke, and an insulting one at that.


Don't get me wrong, the word "mummies" is vomit inducing, and it's good that it was changed to "parent", but the point is they were trying to offer a job opportunity. I'd rather see that opportunity with some badly selected wording than not see it at all.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi there, Iโ€™m looking to borrow a 6x9โ€ cake tin to bake a birthday cake this weekend if anyone can help? Thank you, Tom
    • At least one used to post but stopped posting, I think because he was given a really hard time on here, quite unfairly in my view. He had only just become a councillor, and to his great credit was trying to engage with the community, or at least that vocal part of it which posts on here. James Barber also  used to post on here, but I think unfortunately he is no longer a councillor. He was a very good one.
    • I thought that re ULEZ, but actually other places do have similar schemes, eg Bristol. I got caught by this a couple of years ago when Google maps sent me through Bristol en route to somewhere else. Though I did manage to get the fine waived. And other places are apparently going to have them, eg Oxford. As I found when I was considering selling the car in Oxford. Which I think is a very good thing, but not helpful if your car isn't compliant  Also in order to sell it I would presumably have to get it into working order, so I'd have to buy a new battery anyway. I use mostly buses and trains already, for travelling both within and outside London.  That's why I rarely use the car except for transporting bulky/heavy items, or going to places which aren't easy to reach via public transport, or giving people a lift who are not very mobile. The problem with hiring a car to go to a festival, for example,  is that I'd be paying for it to sit in a field for several days. And it would be impossible, or at least very difficult,  to transport a tent and camping equipment there by public transport. Not that I've been to any festivals lately. I think I'm talking myself into keeping the car. I did do sums when ULEZ came in. I've had a Freedom Pass for over fifteen years, gulp ๐Ÿ˜‚ This is all true, but you have to factor in my age, convenience, and the waste of money in hiring a car if you aren't actually going to use it once you've got to your destination until you need to drive home. If there was a system like zip cars where you could drive somewhere and leave the car for someone else to use, then pick up another car just to drive back, that would be different. And hire charges are greater for older drivers (even though apparently the stats say we are safer) even assuming you can find a company which will hire you a car. Thank you, that's useful. I  keep meaning to  check for ULEZ compliance. A mechanic once told me I should do this, because his son had a similar issue and then found his car was actually compliant, and I never got round to it. It's a Micra so I probably need to contact Nissan (or could a garage check NOx output? Is this part of the MOT?)
    • We used to have local councillors posting on this forum - are there any who are still members?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
ร—
    Search In
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...