Spain passes law giving menstrual leave


I'm freelance. If I don't work, I don't get paid.

Interesting to see I'd be written off by men on here simply because I look of childbearing and menstrual age.
Who's writing you off?
Becs, if I'm included in that then I feel you're being unfair.
I'm simply pointing out how small businesses could be severely affected by women employees taking time off to have kids or suffering from menstrual issues. It's a truth you may not like to hear, but it's going to happen. I for one am certainly not condoning it, which you seem to have inferred.
They certainly are.
No, they're not. Stating a fact, ie 'small businesses may not be able to manage financially with women employees taking maternity leave and/or regular menstrual problems'
isn't sexist, it's simple economics. Playing the sexism/misogyny card doesn't make it less of a fact.
 
Last edited:
Who's writing you off?
Becs, if I'm included in that then I feel you're being unfair.
I'm simply pointing out how small businesses could be severely affected by women employees taking time off to have kids or suffering from menstrual issues. It's a truth you may not like to hear, but it's going to happen. I for one am certainly not condoning it, which you seem to have inferred.

No, they're not. Stating a fact, ie 'small businesses may not be able to manage financially with women employees taking maternity leave and/or regular menstrual problems'
isn't sexist, it's simple economics. Playing the sexism/misogyny card doesn't make it less of a fact.
Becs is a small business. She is also a woman who might need to take time off to have kids or periods. Don’t say she doesn’t want to hear the truth because she sodding lives the truth. If she takes time off it impacts her bottom line. She doesn’t have the choice.

She and every other female owner of a small business HAS to manage financially.
 
Becs is a small business. She is also a woman who might need to take time off to have kids or periods. Don’t say she doesn’t want to hear the truth because she sodding lives the truth. If she takes time off it impacts her bottom line. She doesn’t have the choice.

She and every other female owner of a small business HAS to manage financially.
I think @Morse is aware of all that and doesn't disagree with any of it.

But you have hit the nail on the head. It impacts the bottom line. That is all the posters are alluding to.
 
Who's writing you off?
Becs, if I'm included in that then I feel you're being unfair.
I'm simply pointing out how small businesses could be severely affected by women employees taking time off to have kids or suffering from menstrual issues. It's a truth you may not like to hear, but it's going to happen. I for one am certainly not condoning it, which you seem to have inferred.

No, they're not. Stating a fact, ie 'small businesses may not be able to manage financially with women employees taking maternity leave and/or regular menstrual problems'
isn't sexist, it's simple economics. Playing the sexism/misogyny card doesn't make it less of a fact.
It’s the very definition of discrimination.
 
I did this recently and picked the 64 year old. He’s f***ing excellent.
Which might work for some companies and not others. You may want to send people on training courses and heavily invest in them growing their skills etc. Doing that with someone who is 21 makes more businesses sense than some one who is 64.
 
Who's writing you off?
Becs, if I'm included in that then I feel you're being unfair.
I'm simply pointing out how small businesses could be severely affected by women employees taking time off to have kids or suffering from menstrual issues. It's a truth you may not like to hear, but it's going to happen. I for one am certainly not condoning it, which you seem to have inferred.

No, they're not. Stating a fact, ie 'small businesses may not be able to manage financially with women employees taking maternity leave and/or regular menstrual problems'
isn't sexist, it's simple economics. Playing the sexism/misogyny card doesn't make it less of a fact.

Several men have said if they had a small business, they would refuse to employ women of child bearing/menstrual age. I'm sorry you felt it was a personal attack as it wasn't.

Business can also be affected by disabled people or people with long term illnesses who may need time off for sickness. If they are happy to employ disabled/long term illness people but refuse to employ women as they might have maternity or menstrual time off, then it is sexist.
Also, you can't tell by looking who is going to have babies or period issues. I look like I could have a baby or be having periods but I no longer have the equipment to do either. If someone didn't employ me because they thought I might take advantage of maternity/menstrual leave, then they've made a decision based on something that is never going to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several men have said if they had a small business, they would refuse to employ women of child bearing/menstrual age. I'm sorry you felt it was a personal attack as it wasn't.

Business can also be affected by disabled people or people with long term illnesses who may need time off for sickness. If they are happy to employ disabled/long term illness people but refuse to employ women as they might have maternity or menstrual time off, then it is sexist.
Also, you can't tell by looking who is going to have babies or period issues. I look like I could have a baby or be having periods but I no longer have the equipment to do either. If someone didn't employ me because they thought I might take advantage of maternity/menstrual leave, then they've made a decision based on something that is never going to happen.
The good news is that Parental and shared leave is becoming slowly more common so all those men they’re employing might one day turn round and say they’re taking 11.5 months off for a baby. They’ll have a shock when they do.

Probably better employ a load of 64 year old men and women just in case I suppose.
Which might work for some companies and not others. You may want to send people on training courses and heavily invest in them growing their skills etc. Doing that with someone who is 21 makes more businesses sense than some one who is 64.
The 21 year old will be much more likely to take parental leave than the 64 year old. Better be safe than sorry.
 
The good news is that Parental and shared leave is becoming slowly more common so all those men they’re employing might one day turn round and say they’re taking 11.5 months off for a baby. They’ll have a shock when they do.

Probably better employ a load of 64 year old men and women just in case I suppose.

The 21 year old will be much more likely to take parental leave than the 64 year old. Better be safe than sorry.
and then return to work? the 64 year old will likely soon retire or end up in bad health meaning you'll have to pay for the the training and invest in someone all over again?
 
and then return to work? the 64 year old will likely soon retire or end up in bad health meaning you'll have to pay for the the training and invest in someone all over again?
Exactly. Every hiring decision involves risk. The woman may return to work after having babies. The man might take parental leave. The woman of childbearing age might never have kids. Or periods. The forty year old might get divorced, and pack in to go round the world.

I’ll probably just hire the best person for the job at that time.
 
Exactly. Every hiring decision involves risk. The woman may return to work after having babies. The man might take parental leave. The woman of childbearing age might never have kids. Or periods. The forty year old might get divorced, and pack in to go round the world.

I’ll probably just hire the best person for the job at that time.
Aye but you weigh it up into likelihoods and look at it from a business perspective. The 64 is more likely to be soon retired and not make a return on the investment.
 
and then return to work? the 64 year old will likely soon retire or end up in bad health meaning you'll have to pay for the the training and invest in someone all over again?
Equally they might stay for three or four years of excellent employment rather than take advantage of the training and then move on at the first better offer. There are always risks when employing someone and discrimination legislation exists for good reason.
 
It’s all great but the reality is If I ran a small business like there’s absolutely nee f***ing way I’d be employing a woman of childbearing age if I could help it. They’d be off having their 2 kids then now period pains till they’re menopausal. Great for large corporates but let’s face it if you’re a small business you just ain’t employing a woman of that age unless she’s brilliant
I've run a small business and none of this was a problem. It was a piece of piss compared to many of the other issues small businesses have to grapple with.
 
Equally they might stay for three or four years of excellent employment rather than take advantage of the training and then move on at the first better offer. There are always risks when employing someone and discrimination legislation exists for good reason.
And in regards to age discrimination is clearly ignored as common sense comes into it.
 
No I know it is which isn’t great but I’m just talking about the practicalities If you run a small business reliant on a few staff. I’ve had this conversation with someone who ran a very successful business selling pressure washers when they took off. Made his million or two. But he was very clear on the issues with employing women in key positions their 20’s and 30’s. It’s not always a wise choice in a small business.
Seriously, maternity leave is a piece of piss to manage. In fact, I only ever found advantages with it. You get someone else in for a year to do the job, they have their own way of doiing it, inevitably some of the good stuff they bring to it is kept when the original person comes back. You also get a happy member of staff who knows her employer supports her all the way. People who can't manage it are poor managers, probably stuck in the past.
 
The 21 year old might move on in 2-3 years if they’re ambitious and have the experience gained under their belt. I switched jobs every 3 years maximum when I was in my 20s
Aye but they might also stay and provide 40 years of service so are more likely to make a return on the investment. Its pretty much a guarantee the 64 year old will soon be away.
 

Back
Top