I received a negative annual appraisal, my manager says it's because I took maternity leave. Surely this is sexual discrimination?
I work at a leading European IT service provider.
A few days ago I received my annual appraisal. I scored 2/5. This means that I will not be eligible for a pay rise. My manager, who I like and usually get on very well with, informed me that he did not want to give me this score but he was forced to due to the fact that I had been on leave for 4 months over the past year. However, I also notice that the reasons he wrote down were others, for example, "did not contribute to profitability of the department" then he explained that because I was not present the whole year, I did not contribute. I suppose he knows that giving me a negative review for the reasons he has stated is actually illegal.
My male colleagues - the company where I work is 90% male - who have had children this year did not get a negative review because of it, in fact they are more likely to get a raise or promotion. So basically what it boils down to is that my male colleagues have the right to have children but I do not. In the country where I live they are obliged by law to allow me to take this leave. I received full pay for 4 months, however the cost is covered by taxes (we are taxed at a very high rate) and not directly by my employer. I am also entitled to a 25% reduction in working hours because I breastfeed, and my employer has refused to grant me this
I am not sure how what to do in this situation. I feel like I have been unfairly treated. On the other hand, I believe that pursuing this as a legal matter would be stressful, difficult to prove and pointless. So do I just start looking for another job, or what?
EDIT: I am more aggrieved about the negative review of my work not really about the money
EDIT: My company doesn't give out staff bonuses and everyone gets a standard raise in line with inflation - it's usually about 1%
Posted Dec 12, 2009, 12:38 PM UTC · edited
IF you are allowed to take this leave by law, and to have a reduction of 25% by law after you return and the company is treating you differently because you use these laws properly, then they are in violation of the law. The legislature would never intend that a benefit which is mandated by law would result in punishment if someone tried to use that benefit.
I think this is a good point about the intention of the law, but unless you are referring to a "cost of living" pay increase, it is difficult to claim that not receiving a raise is a punishment. Raises are usually rewards for good work. We obviously don't know the OP's contributions throughout the rest of the year, but 1/3 of the year is a lot of time where she wasn't doing "good work."
What if the OP's employer gave quarterly evaluations? What should her score be for the four months she was gone (no work for the entire evaluation period)? Of course this time should not reflect negatively, but it shouldn't reflect positively either. Not negative or positive? To me this is exactly the situation described - continued employment at the same pay grade.
most companies give annual raises based on level of performance. adequate performance..meets job expextations ....= avg pay increase. superior = more than average, inferior = less than average or no increase, or maybe a decrease. She got an unfavorable rating due to having to take time off as mandated by law. she is being punished for time away from the job not for the quality of work done while there. This means that next year the others around her will make more than her eventhough they do the same exact work. it is discrimination.
Yes, people here aren't recognizing the cumulative effects of this event. Salary increases on a percentage basis, so if your pay does not increase by 1K in a given year, that's not just 1K you're talking about, it's decreasing all of the following years' pay and all of the following years' raises.
The counterargument is that you point out the cumulative effect of not getting a pay raise, but ignore the cumulative effect of less work experience due to the maternity leave as well.
Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth?
She did not do the exact same work. She worked 4 months less than the others, and 25% less time than the others now. I see no reason why her pay should be equivalent to her coworkers if they worked more hours (all things equal of course - if she's doing better work even while missing time, it would be outright discrimination)
Why did she work 4 months less? Baby Was it acceptable for her to miss the 4 months? Yes, it's within the law. Was her being allowed to miss 4 works and work 25% less time contingent on the fact that she would be giving up her yearly raise? No.
You see, these laws are in place to protect mothers who have babies from not falling too far behind while doing so.
The company did not have to pay her while she was on leave. The law states that she is entitled to take said leave. Kindly explain to me how, for the period of time she was being paid BY THE COMPANY, her work (prima facie) differed from her male colleagues.
Remember, this is Europe she's talking about; the citizenry of most Western European countries have decided that socialism is preferable to a command economy masquerading as capitalism.
What part of NEXT YEAR do you not understand?
Look what people's common sense are trying to get through your head is that logically a person should not be discriminated against due to her performing a natural function of life. Getting fucked at work because you need to take care of a life -- the same kind of life that keeps the world and businesses like her employer turning -- is bullshit.
Her time off wasn't mandated. She chose to take time off her employer is obligated to allow her to take the time off and she was reimbursed by the government. She still was not at work for 4 months and that should have an affect on her yearly performance.
the time off was mandated to her employer by the government.
[deleted]
That's what I think as well.
Being the mother on maternity leave for 4 months should reduce her overall annual year to 8 months rather than 12. She should be assessed on that. Her absence should not play a role at all.
She didn't exactly have a choice in the matter (EDIT: Didn't have a choice to give birth, as in she is female and must give birth EDIT2: She had to leave work because she was going to physically give birth unlike the father.),
*she had to physically give birth. No real circumvention on that one. <-- this here was kinda your clue that I wasn't speaking about the choice to become a parent.
Note: No choice in giving the physical act of birthing a child from her womb. If you can't figure it out from here you're dense, sorry.
I tend to agree with you on the fact that she should have been judged on the time she was there rather than the full year, I do disagree with "she didn't exactly have a choice in the matter." While the law typically guarantees the right to take leave, doing so is a choice.
She does say the men who had children this past year didn't get a negative review because of it. This is a bigger problem for me, assuming that "had children" means "took 4 months of leave and didn't do any work during that time". Without that statement I could easily think of several ways that an annual review could end up being 2/5. My employer does reviews quarterly, for instance. If you're not present at least half of the quarter, you get no review for that quarter. If something like this were the case for the poster maybe her 4 months of leave invalidated 2 quarters. So the system goes 4/5 X X 4/5 and the annual cycle sees 8/20 -> 2/5. It would be fair if it were applied evenly. It would, for instance, limit the ability of a new hire from getting a raise after 3-6 months. If such a thing were in place and not being applied to male colleagues, then it would be an issue.
If it were applied and the men she talked to got lucky and missed a couple of weeks from one quarter and a full quarter with a couple of weeks on the last one, so had 3Q of reviews the same scenario would have been applied fairly and the poster would just be unlucky in timing.
</devil's advocate> Of course, the fact that the boss is making up excuses rather than just saying "here's how it works" makes me believe it's not something like this.
Are you kidding? She had lots of options:
Did the men who had children take four months off? If they did and didn't get the same ding on the performance review then this is blatant sexual discrimination; if they didn't take leave, it's not comparable—the company doesn't care that anyone had kids, they care that it interfered with their work for 1/3rd the year.
Is it illegal to punish someone for taking a legally guaranteed leave? Idk, I would assume in most places it would be, but at the same time, proving it would be difficult. Is it unjust to not give someone a raise because they weren't at work 1/3rd of last year? I don't think I could reasonably arrive at that conclusion.
[deleted]
Actually, she did have a choice in the matter. She chose to have a child. It's a great choice, but I have worked at many employers who frown upon it as well.
I disagree, getting pregnant is a choice outside of rape scenarios. I would argue she chose to get pregnant, therefore accepting the consequences that come with it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not get pregnant? It is a choice...
[deleted]
That's a great point. Thank you. I feel free to quote it.
It's an interesting point, although in this case the person is not being paid during their absence. I'm not defending the company's behaviour though.
Then again, the new recruit wouldn't be paid for the beginning of the year. The company could just be handing out the reports based solely on the amount of money it paid the employee vs. the amount of work received in return from the employee.
Frequently companies limit eligibility for raises to employees who had started at least X months earlier, which would mean they could easily say "your annual review is a 4/5" without it having any financial significance.
Yes she should and it should be prorated for the time that she was at work. She should not get a performance bonus for time she was not working.
[deleted]
I agree with SashimiX. A persone taking aternity leave is in the same boat as a new hire. If a new hire worked 3 quaters out of the year, she is judged based on her performance during these 3 quarters, becasue she was not around during the first one. Now the question is, how does the company evaluate new hires?
I highly doubt they get 2/5 and a permanent negative performance review.
But I do think this situation is a little different; someone on maternity leave or maternity leave should be even more protected. Some on this forum have made very good cases for why allowing parents to take care of children is so important to our society.
This was an annual appraisal, not a "time you were actually here and working" appraisal. So you don't get a raise next year. At least you got 4 months paid leave out of it. I don't think you're really being unfairly screwed financially by this. Just take your 25% reduction in work and call it even.
You aren't entitled to a raise. You are entitled to 4 months paid leave and a 25% reduction in work. Take what you are entitled to, but don't fight for something you aren't legally entitled to.
You are legally entitled to be treated fairly. A negative appraisal sets up ground for firing her, just because she had a child. It will result in lower pay for the rest of her life, just because she's female.
Operative sentence being 'reduction in work', therefore your evaluation should put that into consideration when looking at your overall performance. 12 months minus 25% reduction in work due to maternity leave is an evaluation on the 8 months you were present, nothing more, nothing less.
This is a simple argument, everyone knows the answer to it yet we're all playing devil's advocate.
As for this gem:
Call it even? Come on, she wasn't exactly on holiday!
[deleted]
Yeah, but if male took leave, and they still managed to get raises, that raises a issue.
Getting a negative annual review because of taking time off you are Legally allowed to take, shows that you are being punished. Your performance ratings are lower than they would have been if you didn't take the time off, which was indicated in the comments of the review. I think there is a case here to be made that the company is punishing the OP for maternity leave. I'd consult a lawyer.
is there/what is the difference between a punishment and a consequence? and how do you determine what is which? An obvious consequence of having a child is that you now have a child you need to take care of—surely no one would argue this is an undue punishment. Likewise, an obvious consequence of needing to take off a third of a year from work, for whatever reason from sick leave to personal development (good luck still having a job to come back to if you take off a few months to study art), is that the work you contributed to the company is only about two thirds of what it otherwise would have been. Your net performance for that year decreased by around a third; why is the company not allowed to acknowledge this reality?
As for the legality, OP probably does have a fairly solid case.
Punishment/consequence? I would define them as follows, if there is a lawyer out there to wishes to chime in, that would be great because I am also interested in getting another view on this.
Legally a consequence would be an if you took actions that are not protected, namely there are no laws guaranteeing your access or ability to use them, and you were, for example, fired. e.g.: I called out sick too often and was let go.
Punishment is any case where it can be reasonably assumed that you took action that is a legal right for you, in this case the law stipulates that if a woman becomes pregnant her employer must grant her time off, and (I'm assuming because I don't know the Netherlands' laws very well, but it seems reasonable otherwise employers could just fire women who became pregnant) allow her to return to work. If you are given a bad review after taking legally guaranteed time, specifically because you took that time off, the case can be made that the employer is attempting retribution.
In the US, as an employer it is illegal for me to impede anyone who used to work for me from getting work in the future, as in if someone calls to ask me about their employment they have to have a release signed by the employee in question otherwise all I can say is "They used to work for me". If I say anything that costs them a job I could be sued for, I think, harassment or slander.
Negative reviews set up grounds for firing. If she'd gone on vacation for a month, do you seriously think that should be factored into her annual review? This is allowed leave. You can not punish an employee for taking leave, and that's what this company is doing.
If she had started the job in May and received the review in December, I don't believe she would have been denied a raise. She would have been judged on the time she was there, and would have been granted a raise.
She wouldn't get paid for Jan~April either.
Effectively she wasn't, the state paid her (or more likely, reimbursed the company).
What she was paid for those three months is irrelevant.
Negatively evaluating one's work based on a legally mandated leave IS punitive. Unless there were other negatives relating to performance, she is due a positive review and a raise.
They lied to get the same or a lower salary for this person. They know they cannot use the reasoning you put forth.
Not receiving a raise is definitely punishment. The OP stated that males taking time off for young children receive raises, but she did not, and no reason was stated other than her absence. This seems like pretty clear-cut sexual discrimination.
She didn't say they took time off... Just that they had children.
Right, so they are punishing her for being a woman. It's much more difficult for a woman to go strait back to work after having a baby than it is for a man, especially if she intends to breast feed (which she should, if she can).
Yes, but they weren't forced to take time off, she was. So in the end the company is retaliating the law against her, which they can do to all women, but only against men who choose to take time off -> man can choose, woman cannot -> discrimination.
the OP didn't state that the males took time off, only that they had kids. It could mean that it was their wives who took the time off and they spent that 4 months working.
No, its just not a reward. A pay CUT is a punishment. Lack of a raise is a "nothing".
OP just said they had children. I would gander they took no time off at all.
No, its not clear cut. We have virtually no facts at all. What was her performance otherwise? How many other "men" got raises? Did any men take time off? This is far, far from clear cut. Its roughly cut.
I need more facts, and less assumptions. Maybe she really was discriminated against? I honestly don't know, and i don't see how any of you do with these sketchy facts.
The crux of her post is "i didnt get a raise because I had a baby". Really? Because theres a lot of other factors involved in that. How many other men did nto get a raise? Hwo common are raises? how long has she been there (at the company)? Why does she feel so entitled to a raise? Was her other performance noteworthy? These are important questions!
When you set up a system that will create price inequity that is neutral on its face - an "annual" system, but over time negatively impacts women's earnings more than men, then you have a system that has the effect of discriminating against women over time.
Now, you said you need more facts but it is fair to assume that her manager told her it was "because I took maternity leave," or we'll all be on some skeptics-solipsist plane of discussing the issue.
Ultimately, if that is the way the system is built: take maternity leave and get a lower score, then it does discriminate against women.
Forget "punishment" v. "reward." The system would be one that treats men and women differently. I'm not sure what country this OP lives in, but basically every European country has mandatory maternity leave time. As a result, it would be silly to make some punitive determination because of it.
Parental leave in Europe
If the males took off 4 months paid leave and did get raises, it is most definitely sexual discrimination. If the males did not take off any time, how are the situations comparable? The company doesn't care that people are having kids; it cares that people are unable to do their work for extended periods of time.
You apparently do not understand how monetary systems work. Money is created by central banks of every country in the world. The net amount of capital is always increasing. This forces the value of that capital to decrease. A dollar in 1910 had the purchasing power of about a hundred dollars, today. This is what inflation is. The word inflation is describing what is happening to the money supply.
So, if your pay stays the same and the money that you are being paid with decreases in value each year, what do you think is happening to your actual income?
This is not a trick question.
Hey moron, how about the employer just SKIPS the fucking evaluation for the time that she's not present.
Holy shit man, some people will go to great depths of stupidity just to play devils advocate in a situation which is clearly leaning one way.
Clearly she is entitled to take the time off and get a reduction in hours. If she even FEELS she's being treated differently because of it, she has every right to take it to court, and I think she should. The companies putting profits before anything. And it seems like this is a corporate problem, because she seems to like her boss and has good things to say about him.. in general.
The way it seems the boss was "forced" to tells me it came from above, and this problem of sexual discrimination exists far deeper than anyone wants to admit.
No need for name calling. This isn't YouTube.
Am I obnoxious by asking if you are by any chance American? While I agree she has a point, the problem is, there is nothing on paper to prove this, she only heard the actual review reasons from the manager, he can easily deny this in court, if it ever came this far. While the negative reviews feels like a knife in the back, I fear you have no other choice but to live with it. Would you also be inclined to name and shame the company?
this is the very first thing I thought of when reading the title. Bring a tape recorder or get it in writing next time. Otherwise it's hearsay and not worth clogging the civil courts with a suit.
I'm actually Canadian. But I see where you were going with that. Americans love to sue.
But that's not why I said she should sue. It's because, apparently, she has a point. Even if there is no paperwork to prove that the reason for the 2/5 is that fact that she took mat leave, he is going to have to provide some reason for it, and that reason is going to have to be verifiable. He can't just say she's been late (when there is no papwer record of tardiness), he can't say she swindled money from the company, on top of that, in all likeliness, she has many other positive reviews from her employer.
What does it show if the employer has been giving positive reviews this whole time, and then during the year after her pregnancy, all of a sudden she scored a 2/5?
I agree, the judge could see it either way. But the point is, she has more than enough (I think) to take this to court and have a good chance. And she should.
A punishment would be a pay reduction. This is merely the act of denying a company-given pay raise. Nothing more.
Yeah, she's not being punished, she's just not being rewarded. Huge difference that she (and half the people here) don't seem to understand.
It's an opportunity cost punishment, I think you're confusing people not understanding what you're thinking and people not agreeing with what you're thinking. The 'cost' of not having a baby is a pay rise, and the 'cost' of a having a baby is not getting a pay rise. In the situation where she has a baby, she earns less money, and so in economic terms it's a punishment. As well as that, if her income stays the same, she has less real money next year due to inflation. Stand back everyone, I'm an economist.
Her having a baby is not the company's decision. It has nothing to do with the company.
If you are saying having a baby is economic punishment..she punished herself, the company did not punish her. I'm willing to accept in a cold money-only systematized way of thought that 'punishment' might be the right word, but who is culpable? Clearly her. Its not the company's baby. Its her choice, her genes, her reward for mating and reproducing successfully.
If i work at the company, get sick and don't get a raise am I being economically punished? Having children isn't a life requirement, you know. The guy getting sick has even less control over his destiny than a mother. You don't even choose to get sick in any capacity.
That's a stretch. I was speaking more that the company is not punishing her. Indeed, they set the criteria for the raises, and she elected not to meet that criteria. You can call it a punishment, but it's self inflicted. Obviously, this assumes she provided all the correct information in her post.
Maternity leave should only be about ensuring a position in the company upon return as well as the same salary. It shouldn't be about forcing the company to pretend as if you had been there that entire year performing above and beyond, enough to earn yourself a bonus or a raise.
That would be all good and well, if say a labor union required pay raises. In most companies, a pay raise is a reward for doing a good job. Being out for four months, even if you are legally entitled to it, is not "doing a good job", like it or not. So the company has the right to deny the pay raise.
It's not like they lowered her pay or fired her. It's not discrimination, she still HAS THE JOB. People have to stop thinking they're entitled to everything.
Upvote for knowing what opportunity cost is (though I guess it is your job)
Wouldn't it be fair to include the part where she's getting 4 months paid leave in the calculation? So, the cost of not having a baby is a pay rise and not getting 4 months leave with pay, and the cost of having a baby is not getting a pay rise and getting 4 months payment without work...
Wait, are you an economist, or are you majoring in economics? Big difference, because the concepts you mention are pretty much explained on the syllabus in econ 101. In the current economy, raises are not generally handed out for mere adequacy, nor should they be. Employers should not be obligated to issue a raise in excess of the inflation rate if employees do not exceed expectations.
If this principle is enforced (requiring, or strongly encouraging raises during years in which maternity leave is taken), businesses will be less likely to hire women in important positions, and when they do, more likely to pressure them to refrain from having children.
Viewing business and (especially) life decisions in terms of economics "costs" can be dangerous. The "cost" of working a full-time job for me is that I can't go try to be a rock star. If I left the company to go on tour for four months, I probably wouldn't complain about not getting paid for that time.
but shes not basing her complaints on an economic basis whatsoever, instead opting for a moral stance against it.
ugh this is why i got out of that field.
you are right it there is a cost to having a child. The question now is "is it right to have that cost?" Protip: Yes its fine.
"opportunity cost punishment" lmao really? That's like when the record labels claim millions of dollars in "losses", because they didn't make as much as they felt entitled to make. opportunity cost punishment...that's rich.
In economic terms, in reality, the company lost money on her for the year, which is the reason for the negative. I thought that was quite clear from the article. If someone were on leave for four months for any other reason (illness, rehab, etc), I expect the company would treat them the same. And ultimately, if she feels she isn't being paid what she's worth she can always find somewhere else to work.
So the true cost/benefit is in having babies.
This earns a 4 month straight paid vacation (by law), and then you earn a 25% reduction in amount of time required working (by law).
According to OP, she should (by law) get a raise each year by working at most ~60% of the time as everyone else... and she can't get fired or even have to accept responsibility for the time she doesn't contribute to the company.. not to mention that the extended breaks probably eat up time as she becomes re-acquainted with processes, etc...
You should really stick it to your boss by having a baby every year.. cause then they have to keep paying you a full salaray, giving you more time off than everyone else, you can't get fired, and they have to reward you with a raise..
really?
EDIT: Math
i doubt law has anything to do with "opportunity cost punishment" crap. we would never know how much of a raise would she have got if she did not take the leave in the first place. hell she could have claimed superior performance.
secondly, so by your logic, every working person who did not get a raise at least at the inflation level is being punished? woohoo, if i am a minority and lazy as fuck, i can abuse this like hell.
i hate cocky economists.
I'm putting on my asbestos underwear!
Then you should have put a value on her now having a kid. She got a true reward of watching and shaping a young life, so her life is economically richer for having had a child. Thus shouldn't need the extra rewards of her employer. In a few years she can now put her kid to work... Why should the employer take all of the negatives of her having a child (likely a dedication change, overtime coverage, more time off, less likely to take additional work on short notice...) And few of the rewards (happier employee, except now she's upset at her employer canceling that.)
[deleted]
Bonuses are a huge part of some people's salaries. Yes, it is a pay reduction, and the part you're not getting is, it's a reduction based solely on her gender and her exercising her legal rights.
[deleted]
I'm talking about the lack of pay raise, I agree that giving you a poor review (that remains on your record) for taking time off for having a child is bad and shouldn't happen.
Right, because it's totally not a problem if we don't give raises to black people, for example, right? Because a raise is a reward after all, right?
You're ignoring inflation. She is actually experiencing a decrease in pay.
[deleted]
My understanding from your post is that the appraisal is use for determining bonuses/pay raises above and beyond the 1% increase. If this is the case, I don't see the issue. If there is more, than I've said as much that I based it off what you said, nothing more, nothing less.
[deleted]
I didn't see your edits when I made my comments. Is the review used for more than determining the raise? You made it appear as if that was all it was used for. The scale you used makes it feel as such.
They lied to get the effect...i.e. lower or same pay...They know that they are breaking the law.
Where did they lie?
Honestly, I think there is more to the story, but based only on what the poster said, I can't see an issue. They had criteria she didn't meet for a bonus pay raise, apparently on top of the mandated one by the government.
If the criteria was for her to make $400,000 in sales to get a bonus raise, and she didn't reach that because of the time off, should she get the raise or not?
However, I also notice that the reasons he wrote down were others, for example, "did not contribute to profitability of the department" then he explained that because I was not present the whole year, I did not contribute. I suppose he knows that giving me a negative review for the reasons he has stated is actually illegal.
You have put that very well
I'm not sure about the corporate structure in your country, but if it is anything like in the US, you can go directly to human resources and file a complaint. HR is who is really controlling your raise, not your boss. His evaluation is more like a recommendation to them, one that they will blindly follow unless they have more information. If you are certain that what your boss is doing is discriminatory, HR wants to know this and they will be on your side, because one of their main jobs is to reduce liability.
Also, if done carefully, you may be able to swing this so it doesn't affect your boss at all, i.e. you don't challenge his evaluation, you just work things out independent of him. This way you don't screw the pooch when he's up for evaluation.
Over a 2% pay raise and one review, suck it up and move ahead. Regardless of to whom you bring the complaint and how you word it... The world throws shit at your face now and again, suck it up and move along. Start making a stink about this, and over the course of a year or two your company will be certain to document anything that can look negative, and quite possibly can your ass in due time.
Companies aren't all so exactly the same xyphus, quite often it is your supervisor who is directly responsible for your pay raise. The amount, and if you actually receive a raise or not as it often is an expense item that comes out of a dept or team budget.
yeah that one line jumped out at me as particularly well phrased, too
As an expert on discrimination, I concur with this man.
This sentence confused me.
Are you an expert because you study discrimination?
Are you an expert because you partake in discrimination?
Or, as Adolf Hitler's mustache, which has certainly experienced incredible and absolute discrimination for the last 70 years, are you an expert because of your own experiences in discrimination?
I don't know... Maybe? Are you confused with my statement, because you're always sarcastic?
I've seen people (managers) fired as a scapegoat when an employee complains externally and it brings them heat, but in the end, it also affects them because you might be seen as a troublemaker. I would attempt to complain internally first to see what happens.
It's perfectly reasonable that the legislature could have meant to mandate the option without mandating that the option should be cost-free.
OK, if the employer can give a bad evaluation to anyone who would use the policy and cause them to suffer financial hardship for doing so , then there would not be anyone to use the policy and the legislature would have passed a meaningless measure. Obviously in more developed countries the wage and hour laws are enforced.
And legislatures have never passed meaningless measures?
Well no one can argue that they have not but usually in this sort of case there are teeth to back up the law.
I work in australian workplace health and safety and broadly the legislation i go over covers discrimination. The fact most people here are ignoring is she wasn't there for the 4 months she had off, you cant discriminate against here for not being there, but to give here the same credit as people who were there working is discrimination against them. If you were her co worker, you both contributed equally for the time you were working together and then she left for 4 months and you continued to work and she wasn't there how could you both be considered equal contribution wise. a pay rise isn't an entitlement unless its in a workplace agreement or contract so shes not being punished. a pay rise is usually given for exemplary work considering she wasn't there for 4 months of the year, she would have had to have contributed equally with her coworkers who were there for the whole year to be entitled to a pay rise. Also her sense of entitlement is well fucked up you weren't there for 4 whole months why would you be entitled to something that someone who worked for 4 months while you were gone deserves. you cant be punished for not being there but you shouldn't be praised for it
The fact that she had a law providing her the RIGHT to take off means that by extension she has to be considered the same as the others as if she did not take that time off. Taking off for four months under a protected policy means that the rules do not change for her in regard to others. There is a public policy in play here, it is not just the aims of the individual vs. the aims of the employer. The state says she has that right and you cannot treat her any differently. Obviously they are trying to do just that and they are lying on her evaluation to avoid being prosecuted for it.
Is there any chance that after months of pregnancy, and now being sleep deprived the poster's thoughts may be a bit askew? My kids are little enough for me to remember my wife's mental state during pregnancy, and the time after during sleep deprivation. Mine too! I had to sneak in a nap during my lunch break and inhaled coffee to maintain productivity.
That's probably right, but does it make it morally right for her to claim extra money for doing a job... when she didn't do it?
Companies usually have a median increase across the board for their employees each year. She should have been evaluated on the quality of work she did while on the job full time. IF you go on vacation for two weeks would you think it fair to have your yearly evaluation based on the two weeks you were on vacation and not producing for the company? NO? WHY NOT? This is what they are doing to her!
The policy of vacation is generated by the company. The policy of maternity leave is generated by the government. Obviously you believe that a person should be put at a competitive disadvantage if they take maternity leave by getting a poor review if they take advantage of a benefit mandated by law. That is why it is illegal and morality does not enter into the process. To paraphrase Allen Iverson " We talking bout business. Business." The company obviously disagrees with the public policy and is punishing the employee for using the benefit mandated by public policy by giving a poor review. You should work every spare minute for the company to get a good review. And this business of not working after quitting time. Well we do not care that we are required to pay overtime, by law, .. you should work extra hours for free or get a bad review. I have seen this happen and seen the state of NJ go after the employer. This is why we have labor laws and have the right of lawsuits against the employer. And also why we have agencies overseeing the actions of employers.
Don't do the work required for a bonus, don't get the bonus.
She isn't losing anything because she was pregnant, she's losing out on having a pay rise because she wasn't there. This is the same as a black person not getting a pay rise because they took 4 months off to go on holiday then playing the "my employer is racist, they hate blacks, I deserve a pay rise!".
What's hard to understand about; do work well, get bonus, don't do work, don't get bonus.
What bonus? we are talking about the salary for the work to be performed in the next year.Why should she be paid less for doing the same work as the others around her next year? Do you understand why your argument makes no sense There is no bonus. It is for work to be done in the future and a poor evaluation for something which is a benefit mandated by law but disguised is only a reason to get rid of her under a false assertion.
This isn't about a bonus. This is about an annual raise.
The black person who took four months off to go on holiday isn't being discriminated against because he or she didn't have to go on vacation just because he or she is black.
Whereas if women are to continue our species, they need time off work to care for themselves and their young. Men who do the same exact thing, procreate, do not need time off work. They are rewarded.
The reason we have maternity leave is that as a society we are making a statement: Women are valuable. Allowing children to be cared for by their mothers is valuable.
An example of women's value in the workplace: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/women-outperform-men-in-hf-returns-study-says/?src=twr
not bonus....increase in salary.
Sounds to me like the company didn't really loose out much here. So I fail to see how she would even deserve it from a supposed "moral" standpoint.
[deleted]
Time spent finding an appropriate replacement
Time spent training someone to replace her
Money spent paying other employees for overtime
Time spent organising replacements and overtime
none of which is her problem nor should she be punished for it. If a company does not wish to abide by the laws of the land in which they operate they can either lobby to try and change those laws or choose to do business elsewhere.
while I might agree that it would be questionable to give any raise (except for maybe a standard inflation raise which is very common in many companies regardless of performance) or promotion based due to the lack of work, it should not be reflected in a performance report as such. The employee should be rated on the performance of her work while she was there. Government mandated leave should not be considered as it waters down the report and it can come back to haunt her later when she may actually deserve a merit based promotion or raise. It is this where I think they will run afoul of their local laws based on how many european laws and courts seem to back a lot of workers rights.
I guess so according to the shared morality of that country as expressed by its legislature
is she claiming money for work not done? It seems to be a falsification of her evaluation by claiming she is not productive when she works. This changes her future earnings lower.