• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Discrimination?

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Discrimination?"

Collapse

  • xoggoth
    replied
    One can hardly expect contractors, being themselves paid only for the hours they actually put in, to be particularly sympathetic with any such case.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by snaw
    I agree they seem excessive. But put it in the context of the salaries and earnings potential of the sort of people we're talking about (High basics and 100% bonuses) and suddenly it's not always as outlandish as they appear to the layman. Plus I think the tactic usually is go in at a high end to hopefully get the actual figure you want (You'd know that in recruitment mate?).
    Fine, in the context of their job that may be so,. However the sums are probably high enough to punish the wrongdoers but too high for these women to gain sympathy. If these women really want sympathy then they should pledge say 80% of the money to charity.

    Leave a comment:


  • snaw
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    Good point snaw, however the sums of money that they are claiming rather strips the sympathy vote away from them.
    I agree they seem excessive. But put it in the context of the salaries and earnings potential of the sort of people we're talking about (High basics and 100% bonuses) and suddenly it's not always as outlandish as they appear to the layman. Plus I think the tactic usually is go in at a high end to hopefully get the actual figure you want (You'd know that in recruitment mate?).

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by snaw
    Why is the immediate assumption that the woman, whichever one it happens to be, is always the one falsly claiming and that the banks are innocent?

    My wife is ex IB, she had to work twice as hard as the guys and put up with this sort of crap for years and not get the same opportunities she'd have got if she'd been male, to the point she left it entirely (Best move she ever made, and one many women opt to do).

    I've worked in trading environments most of my career and seen them first hand, and I can honestly say they're still some of the most sexist & bigoted work environments you'll come across in this country.

    What kind of argument is it to say that you should be strong enough to put up with this kind of behaviour. Why? Is it some undefinable reflection on someones ability to do their job if they don't like being ridiculed at work. Am I missing something here?
    Good point snaw, however the sums of money that they are claiming rather strips the sympathy vote away from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • snaw
    replied
    Why is the immediate assumption that the woman, whichever one it happens to be, is always the one falsly claiming and that the banks are innocent?

    My wife is ex IB, she had to work twice as hard as the guys and put up with this sort of crap for years and not get the same opportunities she'd have got if she'd been male, to the point she left it entirely (Best move she ever made, and one many women opt to do).

    I've worked in trading environments most of my career and seen them first hand, and I can honestly say they're still some of the most sexist & bigoted work environments you'll come across in this country.

    What kind of argument is it to say that you should be strong enough to put up with this kind of behaviour. Why? Is it some undefinable reflection on someones ability to do their job if they don't like being ridiculed at work. Am I missing something here?

    Leave a comment:


  • premiere
    replied
    Course, she could be in for a right old payout if she can prove anything that she was asked to do was a 'veiled' threat!

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    So she didn't get as big a bonus in the year she took 6 months off, and when she did return, everything wasn't the same as she left it.

    It's appalling what employers get away with. Disgraceful.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Galt
    replied
    Could someone order some rubber wallpaper for Threaded

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Don't employ women of child bearing age ...problem sorted

    Leave a comment:


  • threaded
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi
    Nah, she's wearing a crucifix... that’ll be the real reason

    And she's hardly going to get an easy ride working for the BNP with a name like that
    Could be, she's really wearing a purple top! Deep purple, but purple all the same!

    Leave a comment:


  • XTC
    replied
    Originally posted by John Galt
    Woman seeks £1.3 million compensation

    These cases are getting out of hand - why does it never occur to any of these women that maybe they are not being discriminated against but their work rate/performance did actually deteriorate?
    See your point, however banks are notorious for discrimantory behaviour, sexism and having a boys club mentality. But saying that I think if you're going to work in that environment then you really need to be able to turn the other cheek or have the strength of character to ignore that kind of kerap. I mean being asked to clean the dishes.. she could have easily turned that around and made a joke about it or maybe belittled the joker. I've worked with over-sensitive people before, mostly women and it's a pain in the @rse having to constantly watch what you do or say in case they are offended.

    Leave a comment:


  • gingerjedi
    replied
    Originally posted by threaded
    Or she wore purple to the office!
    Nah, she's wearing a crucifix... that’ll be the real reason

    And she's hardly going to get an easy ride working for the BNP with a name like that

    Leave a comment:


  • threaded
    replied
    Or she wore purple to the office!

    Leave a comment:


  • John Galt
    started a topic Discrimination?

    Discrimination?

    Woman seeks £1.3 million compensation

    These cases are getting out of hand - why does it never occur to any of these women that maybe they are not being discriminated against but their work rate/performance did actually deteriorate?

Working...
X