If a pregnant woman was asked to leave by her employer ( as part of say a large scale lay off, i.e.she has not been a poor professional), would she be entitled to the maternity leave benefit from them? At least in terms of salary in lieu of maternity leave ? ( the paid 3 months) What do you think?
Today , hardly anyone expects to retire in their first job. If we have the freedom to choose / change our employer, the employer can also retain a similar flexibility.
However we are an emotional people and the media loves to fuel this. We also like to think of it as a personal affront to us. But you need not be bad at what you do to be axed. You are unnecessary in the new scheme of things. No body is indispensible. That is difficult to digest.
But running a business is tough. Better that the company survives and a relative few lose jobs is it not?
If there has been adequate notice period and a good severance packet and good handling ( no false assurances, counselling offered) that should be all that one expects. Or am I missing something?
Having said that I find the whole Jet affair rather kingfishy ( Pun intended)
8 comments:
I think the company should her for the equivalent of maternity leave. When you sack any other employee, they can theoretically find a job ASAP but a pregnant woman is handicapped in that sense because no new employer is likely to consider her...
of course-
1. the pregnancy adds to the reasons for sacking her in the larger scheme of things
2. as ro said she cannot get a new job immdtly
3. she is entitled to her maternity leave- as she is permanent employee
The whole affair has become kingfishier and kingfishier now that Mr. Goyal has decided to take back all the fired employees. Why fire them in the first place ?
I think companies can fire people, when things are going badly, though as a last resort. The era of lifetime jobs is over. The sooner we accept it and save for unforeseen events, the better. I think Jet has made a mistake by taking back the employees - it gives an impression that no company can dare to fire staff, in any event.
However, I am wary of things taken to an extreme as in the US, where, even as ordinary employees lose their jobs, top management gets golden handshakes.
Agree with you on the severance package and manner of handling. Perhaps some basic maternity benefits could be a part of this?
NO employee has right to demand they want this pay or maternity leave etc. Leave all those out of picture. Why treat one different than others. Let pregnant woman get a job on merit after delivering the kid which I think is a bad idea. Should take care of kid till kid is 5-6 yeard old. Private sector jobs are at will, hire or fire at will. If you want a non layoff job, go work for Postal department. Fire all imcompetant works and people who sneaked in through reservations at all jobs. Give Merit a only criteria. BTW, I heard, in Music Academy season in Madras they have reservations for backward classes. 50% concerts are by backward people, no merit. ha ha
'couldnt see tears in their eyes' - so what did he expect? they'd laugh or what?
i am with ro - the pregnant women should get maternity benefits.
in the UK it is nearly impossible to sack a pregnant woman, as the woman can drag the employer to court and say she was discriminated against bcoz of her state. in fact parents (note the plural) have a right to ask for flexible hours if they have a child under six years.
ro/ itchy/ apu/ krish- exactly
ramya- i am not sure i follow you
choxbox- I think I like the UK for this
Fishy it is! Wonder what Goyal was upto with his sudden melting of heart!
Agree with others on pregnant woman getting compensation. And yes, even if properly notified, i guess it hurts to feel unwanted!Sigh!
Post a Comment