Most recent :
|
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME OF OUR MONEY BACK?
|
|
|
|
Brussels' propaganda is below the belt
|
|
|
|
Landmark Challange to National UK ban on smoking now imminent
|
|
|
Search Speeches and Articles
| |
| News and Articles |
|
|
Employment law – The problem
|
Employment law – The problem
George Orwell’s book ‘1984’ is a science-fiction account of a totalitarian, propaganda-driven state. The ‘Ministry of Truth’ deals with propaganda and lies. The ‘Ministry of Peace’ is responsible for war, and the ‘Ministry of love’ tortures and kills those who refuse to share the state’s view of things.
A less extreme example of what Orwell calls ‘doublespeak’ can be found in modern society, what the government likes to call anti-discrimination employment laws.
Unfortunately, the law fails the very people it is designed to protect. Women face discrimination by small businesses, for the simple reason that many businesses simply can’t afford the financial burden that comes with so-called equal opportunities legislation.
Small businesses are vital to the UK’s economy, employing over 65% of the private sector workforce. There are 3.8 million small businesses in the UK and together they generate over half the total UK turnover.
Small businesses together make big business. In the UK Independence Party we believe this engine-room of the economy should have a proper voice, just like the big multi-national companies. The fact is that small firms (1-19 employees) incur, per employee, five times higher regulatory costs than larger firms (50-500 employees). Society should take a wider, more enlightened view, and realise that if we don’t strangle the small businesses of today they will become the big business of tomorrow.
Many small businesses simply don’t dare to employ women if there is the slightest chance that woman might become pregnant. Discrimination? Yes. But it happens simply because small businesses are so terrified of maternity leave destroying their fledgling company.
In an article praising Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP, Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire), Sunday Times columnist India Knight wrote :
And small businesses do suffer when the one person in the company who knows her way round the books suddenly takes six months’ maternity leave, and then decides not to come back at all. I know someone who has had four children at the rate of one a year : she’s pretty much on endless paid leave. How could this not be a problem for the small company by which she is employed?
To avoid this problem, a growing number of small businesses simply refuse to employ women of childbearing age.
Women : The true victims
Godfrey’s office has received tremendous feedback from people who have been victimised by excessive employment legislation. One female employee wrote to us about her office closure saying :
Well done with your comments! I am a completely sane person, but I have just been kicked in the teeth because I am single…those on maternity leave at the time of the office closure will be offered jobs in preference to myself, with longer service, due to the insane EU laws that state that it would be unfair dismissal if they were not offered the jobs.
A self-employed businesswoman sadly wrote to us describing how her business used to employ over 10 staff, but now thanks to employment legislation she has just one, and intends to close down completely.
One after another, the letters flooded in from exasperated company directors bemoaning the fact that they could not afford to employ women any more. A couple of comments are reproduced below :
We could no longer employ females under 40 because of pregnancy legislation.
We considered the consequences of employing a 20 to 30-something woman. A small company like ours just wouldn’t be able to withstand the upheaval and extra workload during a maternity period.
There was a time when…we were considering expanding. It didn’t work out as planned, but the costs associated with employing someone who might take maternity leave horrified us.
The other lady present…said that she, too, as a small business owner, would also not contemplate employing a female of child-bearing age.
I asked him [a lawyer] what he advised his clients and he said never employ a woman over 20 or [sic] under 40.
Who loses out from this? Certainly small businesses lose something when they can’t recruit the best person for the job. But the biggest single victim of the legislation is any woman of childbearing age who wants a job with a small business. She faces untold behind-the-scenes discrimination because businesses simply can’t afford to employ her.
This office will not shrink from the challenge of meeting this most appalling state-sponsored discrimination against women. It’s time to champion the cause of equality and fight against the perverse, well-meaning red tape from Brussels which results in invisible discrimination against women.
|
| Back to content list
To print this story click here. The story will open in a pop up window, Click on File and then click print, you can then close the pop up window.
|
|
|
|
