Picture this: A small IT firm set up in Exeter employs four people and due to growing demand for its technical products is looking to employ a fifth member. This will be a skilled job and will require some training, and the interview process has narrowed down the candidates to a 28 year old man and a 28 year old woman with identical skills and potential; who does the firm pick?
Much has been done in terms of employment law in the past decade to address the inequality, both in wages and in treatment between the genders. However, much of the legislation has proved counter-productive and often harmful to prospective female workers, especially for those employed in small businesses. Consider the case of maternity leave. An employer has to pay six weeks of 90% pay and then up to another thirty three of £135.45 a week (or 90% still whichever is lower) for an employee who during that time contributes £0 to the company. That can mean thousands of pounds shelled out to an employee while in the meantime a replacement has to be found. A worker to cover the lost manpower is often very difficult to recruit as the work is only to be for a short period of time and especially for skilled jobs this is often both difficult and expensive.
Furthermore, many women lose the willingness to go back to work and want to stay with their child; while the company’s outlay on maternity pay will be decreased, the disruption of their long term plans is not healthy for business plans. For men, paternity pay can be an inconvenience, but as it only lasts two weeks, the impact on the business is minimal. For large companies employing thousands of workers, the small numbers on leave at any one time, providing they are not in important areas, will have much less effect, but for a small business, especially in harsh times, this can prove catastrophic. So, back to Exeter’s IT firm: why should they employ the woman?
Benjamin Blackford
exeposedev 