Hands off the Equality Act

Story published on Women's Views on News, December 17, 2012

Reducing red tape is no excuse for attacking women’s rights

In 2010 the Government introduced the Equality Act, bringing together laws like the Disability Discrimination, Race and Sex Discrimination Acts.

A year later, David Cameron announced that the Act would be the target of the Red Tape Challenge, a cabinet Office initiative aimed at cutting unnecessary regulation,

Members of the public, businesses and industry experts were invited to scrutinise the Equality Act and put forward recommendations for regulations which could be simplified, scrapped or clarified.

Last spring Home Secretary Theresa May announced that, as a result of the consultation, it would scrap the Third Party Harassment law which means employers will no longer be liable if a worker is harassed by a third party such as a customer.

Public bodies would not have to consider the impact of their decisions on social class, and employment tribunals would no longer be able to recommend employers make changes to policies covering all staff when an employee successfully brought a discrimination case against them.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had its remit curtailed and its budget halved.

May also announced a review of the Public Sector Equality Duty which requires all public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equal opportunities and foster good relations between different parts of the community regardless of race, gender sexuality or religion.

Last Month Equality Minister Marian Miller announced the steering group and Terms of Reference for the review. 

The steering group will have just four months to gather evidence, reach its conclusions and write its report.  It can recommend the scrapping or amendment of parts of the duty if it feels they are too costly to administer.

The Fawcett Society is extremely concerned about this and said cutting red tape should not be at the expense of women’s equality.

“The Equality Act is an extremely important piece of law that brings together all preexisting equality law, including all the provisions enshrined in The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

“Without this law, public bodies would have no duty to consider how to eliminate unlawful discrimination, including between women and men, and women would not be legally protected from unequal treatment in the workplace”, it said in a statement.

Fawcett and other organizations representing groups protected by the Act, are urging the public to visit the Red Tape Challenge website to register their comments in support of the Equality Act.

Because, as Fawcett says - any backwards step - let alone the repeal of this Act, would represent a transgression on the rights of women in the UK today and would severely undermine efforts to achieve equality between women and men in all spheres of life. 

What the UK census says about women

Story published on Women's Views on News, December 19, 2012

The latest data shows England and Wales turning away from marriage, but women still working less

Most of the tables in the latest census release are not broken down by gender, so we will have to wait to see what these figures really tell us about our changing roles.

But according to figures released on 11 December people living in England and Wales are rejecting traditional values like marriage and religion. 

The proportion of people with no religious affiliation rose from 15 to 25 per cent. 

And the proportion of households containing a married couple or same sex civil partnership fell from 37 to 33 per cent.  The percentage of households containing a cohabiting couple increased from 8 to 10 per cent.

We also seem more prepared to live with people from different ethnic backgrounds.  Twelve per cent of households now contain people with more than one ethnicity, up from 9 per cent in 2001.

The proportion of those providing unpaid care to friends or relatives has remained the same as in 2001 at 10 per cent.  This is welcome as the majority of unpaid carers are women.

But despite some evidence of changing social attitudes, women continue to work fewer hours than men and are less likely to own their own businesses. 

A third of women work part-time, compared with 8 per cent of men, and only 9 per cent are self-employed, compared with a fifth of men.

Women are more likely to be studying full time however, 5.7 per cent of women are students, compared with 4.3 per cent of men.

There are over a million more women than men registered for the UK census, 28.5m women compared to 27.6m men.

While the main explanation for this is that women live longer, Prof Jane Falkingham, director of the Centre for Population Change told the BBC fewer women chose to or have the opportunity to live and work abroad.

But there may be a more administrative explanation. “Men are not good form-fillers,” she said.

Autumn Statement bad news for women

And research shows 81 per cent of benefit and tax credit cuts come from women.

In his Autumn Statement on 5 December the Chancellor George Osborne announced cuts to benefits, tax credits and tax changes which will save the Treasury £1.06bn.

But according to research, commissioned by Shadow Equalities Minister Yvette Cooper, 81 per cent of these savings, or £867 million, will come from women.

Anne Longfield, chief executive of 4Children explained: "What seems to be happening is there's a transference of targeting – from benefits which had gone primarily to women with children, to targeting personal allowance changes which are for everyone."

So whilst most working people will welcome the extra £235 a year from an increase in their basic tax allowance, Working and Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Statutory Maternity and

Adoption pay, housing benefit and out of work benefits like Jobseekers Allowance will only increase be 1 per cent a year from April 2013, a real-terms cut of 1.7 - 2.2 per cent a year, if inflation remains at current levels.

Gllian Guy, chief executive of Citizen's Advice said: “The government can’t keep hitting the same people over and over again.

“Let’s not forget, below inflation benefit increases will not just hit people who are out of work. It will also hurt working families in low paid jobs who have already been hit by wage freezes and cuts in working hours.”

And as WVoN reported last week, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that most working age people in poverty are now in work, rather than unemployed.

Geri Goddard, Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society, said women had already paid for two thirds of the changes to taxes and welfare since 2010, and women’s unemployment was at a 24-year high.

“The various policies unveiled in the name of growth offer little to support women's greater participation in the labour market or wider economy.

“While further investment in roads and other big infrastructure projects is welcome, few of the 1.01 million unemployed women will find jobs as a result.

She added: “Women will continue to act as shock absorbers for the cuts.

“It’s vital the forthcoming Spending Review considers the differing impact these measures will have on women and men.

“In particular government will need to go further than just a household income level impact analysis if they are to gauge the likely impact of their policies on every day women's lives in any meaningful way.

"At the same time, keeping public sector pay rises at below inflation levels – a real terms pay cut – will also affect women disproportionately, as they make up the bulk of the public sector workforce.

Cooper believes that this has come about because there are now so few women at the top of government.

"This is the problem with having so few women in the cabinet, nobody asks the question," she said.

Story published on Womens Views on News, December 7, 2012

Working households in poverty says report

Story published in Women's Views on News, December 3, 2012

A new report finds that the nature of poverty in the UK is changing.

And most working-age households affected by poverty are in work rather than unemployed, with low income (or poverty) defined as ‘people living in households with income below 60 per cent of the median for that year’.

For the tax year ending 5 April 2012, the median gross annual earnings for men were £28,700, and for women were £23,100.

According to the report, ’Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2012′, written by the New Policy Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation there are now 6.1 million people living on less than two thirds of the average wage – on around £8,400 a year.
And around 6.4 million workers are under-employed – wanting to work more but unable to obtain extra hours.

According to the Office for National Statistics, part-time workers are four times more likely to be those under-employed.

Just under one fifth of people in Britain are on low incomes at any one time, but poverty affects a third at some time in a four-year period.

Over half of the children living in poverty now live in working households.

And poverty is no longer confined to those living in social housing: most poor people live in the private rented sector.

The government’s welfare reforms are worsening their plight, as they are cutting things like tax credits and housing benefits, which the working poor need to supplement low wages and meet rising housing costs.

And these trends are more likely to affect women. Women living in the most deprived areas can now expect to live shorter lives than men in the richest parts of the UK.

The report concludes that ’changing the benefits system will not solve problems such as in-work poverty, increasing underemployment and rising health inequalities’.

According to a recent TUC study, three quarters of the UK’s over 8 million part-time workers are women and they earn 36 per cent less per hour than full-time workers.

The regional earnings distribution figures released recently by the Office for National Statistics showed how wages in the UK differed by sex.
.
While weekly earnings were highest in London for both sexes, earnings for men were lowest in Northern Ireland, at £479, and for women they were lowest in the East Midlands, at £402.

Relatable - teens' verdict on Some Girls

Story published on Women's Views on News, November 13, 2012

WVoN asked real teenage girls for their views on the new BBC3 comedy.

Some Girls follows the lives of four 16-year-old girls who play football together at school, and live on a fictitious council estate in South London.

The first of six episodes screened last Tuesday features Amber, who is trying to extricate herself from her possessive boyfriend while her friend Viva has to suffer the bullying football coach at school and at home, as she is expecting a baby with her father.

Teenage pregnancy, teachers, tranquilisers, sex – nothing is off limits for this programme.  But how well does it reflect the lives and experiences of real teenagers?

“The situations and the language were relatable. Overall I thought it was a very good programme,” said 15-year-old Anike Shantan from London.

Shantan particularly liked the coach, who came down on the girls as teachers do.

“Going to a girl’s school everyone is really roped into having boyfriends and news and gossip about that stuff,” she said.

Seventeen year old Viviyana Matanda, a sixth form student from Cardiff agrees.

“I quite liked it, I thought it was pretty funny,” she said. 

“Some of the stories like the teen mum, very relatable.  It’s exaggerated, but you know people like this. “I guess it represented the situation we are in, but in a more comical way,” she said.

Ellie Manning, 17, from Cardiff, did not think the programme realistic, but found it funny nonetheless.

“I live near an estate, but I’m very naive to what goes on. They are all going through the same things as us. Our lives are all the same,” said Shantan.

The programme is about teenagers, but is screened at 10 o clock, after the watershed, too late for a lot of younger teenagers to watch on a school night.  If you watch it on the IPlayer a button comes up asking you if you are over 16.

  

The programme is clearly aimed at teenagers. “It’s definitely for people our age, anyone older wouldn’t really understand,” said Matanda.

And it addresses issues faced by young women before they reach 16.

It is ironic that to produce a programme that reflects the true experience of teenagers it has to be shown at a time that places it out of reach of many of them.

Shantan believes there is a lack of programmes for young women of her age on TV.

“There are kid’s programmes and there is the Disney channel, and then it goes straight to adults.  CBBC ends at 12,” she said.

The 17-year-olds we spoke to were already watching adult programmes.

Some of the girls were concerned about the way girls their age are portrayed on TV.

“If you watch American shows they are much more mature than us.  In the UK teenagers are portrayed as chavs or immature, it’s usually fairly stereotypical, but that is what we find funny so you can’t really complain” said Matanda.

Shantan said: “On TV it’s like all girls are after boys, running around with skirts round our knickers running after boys. 

“It would be nice to have TV shows that show us in a good light.  They all say the same thing.”

You can watch Some Girls here

1. Google+

We really are in this together

Story published on Women's Views on News, October 22, 2012

WVoN spoke to some of the many women who took part in Saturday’s anti-cuts march.

Two thirds of public sector workers are women, so it was no surprise that there were lots on a march protesting government cuts, nor that many had lost their jobs.

Speaking to those on the march, it’s clear that feelings run high.

Adele from Nottingham was made redundant over a year ago after returning from maternity leave. “I want a sustainable economy with public sector investment. We are not saving money, the deficit is growing,” she said.

Lydia Dalton, a social worker from Ealing, West London was redeployed in 2010.

“The disabled people I worked with were left with no service. I am marching to protect the services we have and regain those already lost.

“I don’t think the 99 per cent should pay for the problems caused by the 1 per cent.

“You can see the cuts biting now and they have only implemented the first 20 per cent,” she said.

“I’ve been made redundant from a job I was doing for 28 and a half years, helping people, making sure disabled people get a fair service. It’s a disgrace to say we are British,” said Jane Oliver from Southend on Sea.

“The cuts to services are particularly harming women if you look at cuts to in-work tax credits like childcare credits it really is women who are suffering,” said Sonia Sager of the Battersea Labour Party.

“In terms of the impact on the economy as a whole it’s mainly women who are in part time work,” she said.

“I want my grandchildren to have the same as I had. A good NHS, good schools, things they can do. There is absolutely nothing they can do now. I want jobs for them.

“Mr Cameron has got to listen to his people. We’ve had a fantastic Olympics and we want that to carry on,” said Mrs Cooper, a pensioner from Nuneaton.

Nadia Clarke, a wheelchair user from Halifax, West Yorkshire was marching against cuts to her personal care budget.

“I won’t have any PA’s, I won’t have any care, I won’t be able to come to things like this. It will cut my independence, social skills, everything,” she said.

“They are on about closing our local hospital. The other one is a 20 minute drive away. That is no use for A & E,” said Becca from Bolton.

“I don’t know how my three children are going to pay back their university fees. I’m just glad my youngest left school last year,” said Debbie Salmon, from Sutton.

“I want to support all the people who are losing their jobs. We all need to stand together and fight and make sure we do things that are going to work better in future,” said Jessica who works for the GMB union.

“The cuts have affected everybody across the country and if they haven’t affected them they have affected someone they know,” said Carole Clarkson from Hull.

“The government really are here to punish ordinary people. They are discriminating and demonising the disabled and unemployed,” said Valerie Sissons, from Chessington in Surrey.

“Those who have got jobs are frightened about losing them. [The government] is very much about divide and rule and this is about bringing people together,” she said.

And there was a warning to Labour. “Miliband is not welcome here today,” said Sissons.

“The Labour party needs to get its act together and remember its grass roots voters. Stop trying to pursue government cuts because they will be doing the same thing only maybe not quite as hard. Unless they remember who they are supposed to represent they are going to get beaten again.

“We want a general strike.

“The rest of the country is waking up to this as well. We won’t give up without a fight there’s no way we are going to roll over while the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

“To nick Cameron’s phrase, we really are in this together. There is no way we are going to roll over and take all these cuts when the money is in the system,” she said.

Simple blood test could detect breast cancer

Story published on Women's Viewes on News, October 9, 2012

Britain’s largest breast screening clinic is to begin trials on a simple new blood test which may detect breast cancer before symptoms emerge.

Researchers claim that the test may also be useful in detecting potential relapses or the type of breast cancer, enabling clinicians to prescribe treatments which tackle it most effectively, claim researchers from the University of Leicester and Imperial College.

Cancer Research UK, in collaboration with the Univeristy of Leicester and Imperial College, London have invested over £1m into the study.

Blood samples will be taken from women attending the breast screening clinic at Charing Cross hospital in London and the DNA will be compared between women diagnosed with breast cancer and those who are not to see what DNA markers are consistent.

Dr Jacqui Shaw, principal investigator from the University of Leicester, said: “Women could have an annual blood test rather than breast screening. This would remove any worry and anxiety for women who are called for further investigations after a mammogram only to find they don’t have cancer.

“As things stand we aren’t able to monitor breast cancer patients after they’ve had surgery and treatment – which is like treating diabetes, but not measuring blood sugar levels. The new blood test could change that.”

Rape Really is No Joke

New campaign targets those who think rape is funny.

A new campaign has been launched against comedians who make jokes about rape.

Rape is No Joke was set up after reports of widespread misogyny at this year’s Edinburgh Festival.

This included a widely publicised incident when comedian Daniel Tosh told a woman who stood up and told him that his rape joke was no laughing matter, that it would be really funny if she was raped right there. 

“The woman who stood up at the gig was very brave, but it would be good to have a campaign with lots of people to say that is not acceptable,” said Sarah Wrack, one of the campaign organisers.

Rape is No Joke is asking comedians, venues and organisers of comedy events to sign up to their pledge that they will not make rape jokes themselves or book acts who make them.

“The campaign will target those who make rape jokes and urge people to organise local events so that people can go to a venue and know they are not going to have to sit through that sort of thing,” said Wrack.

The group is planning a major launch event, but is also asking supporters to organise local events.

NB: The above group should not be confused with a non-UK group of the same name, known as RINJ, who we mention in this piece.

Valuing Maternity launch new guide for working mothers

Story published on Women's Views on News, October 4, 2012

A new campaign aims to tell working mothers their rights

The Valuing Maternity campaign has launched a new video offering advice to working women who are pregnant or new mothers.

More than 30,000 women lose their jobs each year after becoming pregnant and a further 200,000 face unfair treatment as a result of their pregnancy.

In this seven-minute video, solicitor Camilla Palmer, and advice worker Roz Hampson, explain what maternity discrimination is and how you can fight it.

Rebecca Raven, a former teacher who lost her job shortly after announcing she was pregnant, also tells of how she took her employer to an Industrial Tribunal.

“Any unfavourable treatment of a woman who is on or has been on maternity leave is unlawful,” says Palmer in the video.

Palmer believes maternity discrimination is on the increase due to the recession and that employers are often using redundancy as an excuse to get rid of women who are pregnant.

It is, says Palmer, increasingly seen as acceptable for employers to say; “Why would I employ a woman of child-bearing age because of the inconvenience to my business.”

Raven tells how she was handed a letter from the Headteacher of the school she taught at, terminating her employment just three days after she announced she was pregnant.

“At three months pregnant the last thing you expect is for someone to turn round and tell you they are taking away your income and your main source of stability,” she says.

“It was a very harrowing time and not something I would want anyone else to go through.”
Raven also tells of how she lost weight during her pregnancy, and of the long wait for the industrial tribunal.

Hampson advises women to make sure they know their rights before telling their employer they are pregnant. Women should also prepare for problems and make sure they put everything in writing, and ask for written agreements from their employer.

She also urges women to join a union and check their home insurance policy to make sure they have legal cover to cover legal expenses and seek advice quickly.

“Women should join the Valuing Maternity Campaign. 

“We at Maternity Action can give individual women advice about their problems, but we know that with the recession maternity discrimination is getting worse and the government should do something about it.  Now is the time to act,” she said.

Disabled people slam ‘hypocrisy’ of Paralympics sponsor

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 31, 2012

This week disabled people have been protesting against ATOS, one of the Paralymics’ main sponsors.

WVoN spoke to Ellen Clifford from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) to find out why.

ATOS, a giant IT company, which holds £3bn worth of contracts with the UK Government, has been carrying out assessments on disabled people who claim Incapacity Benefit.

DPAC say ATOS have wrongly assessed up to 100,000 people as ‘fit for work’. Those wrongly assessed have subsequently been put under pressure to work when they can’t.

This week DPAC has been hosting the ATOS Games, to expose what they see as the hypocrisy of its sponsorship of the Paralympics and to challenge public perception of disabled people as benefit scroungers.

“Focus groups show the public believe benefit fraud amongst disabled people to be 70 per cent, when in reality it is 0.5 per cent.

“The Government is taking benefits away from genuinely disabled people.  It is taking the means of survival from disabled people.

“That’s why numbers of disabled people have taken their own lives in desperation,” said Clifford.

On Wednesday DPAC held a vigil for the dead.

A coffin, filled with over 100 messages from both disabled people who have had work capability assessments and found them traumatic, and families and loved ones of disabled people who have died after being declared ‘fit for work’, was delivered to ATOS’ London offices.

On Monday, DPAC hosted a ‘medal ceremony’ outside London’s City Hall.  Former paralympian Tara Flood had her medals and car keys taken from her and declared no longer disabled by ‘assessors’.

The campaigners are concerned that ATOS has been given a further £400m contract to assess claimants of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), a benefit paid to help disabled people in the UK meet additional living costs.

“The Government wants to reduce the number of DLA claimants by 20 per cent.

“It is arguing that this is about austerity, but there is an economic case for independence,” said Clifford.

Clifford points to a review by the Office of Disability issues, which found that if independent, disabled people could contribute to the economy, pay taxes and employ personal assistants.

“This is an attack on the welfare state and anyone who requires state intervention,” says Clifford.

Clifford is unsure whether the Paralympics will help people understand the daily struggles faced by disabled people.

“It’s always helpful for the movement to have representatives who can break the glass ceiling, showing what people can do physically.

“But it might worsen attitudes towards disabled people who can’t do that, as there is not an understanding of the barriers (the athletes) faced to get there.

“There’s this rhetoric of disabled people as scroungers, and there’s a danger the public won’t connect the two.

“They won’t understand we are actually talking about the same group of people,” she said.

And DPAC is not interested in working in isolation.  On Friday, they will join forces with UK Uncut for an ATOS Closing Ceremony.

“We are linking with other campaigns, unions and the left, which is something we have not done before,” said Clifford.

After the Games, DPAC will host a Pauper’s Picnic and a lobby of Parliament on September 13, in defence of the Independent Living Fund (ILF), which the Government is proposing to close.

The ILF helps 16,000 disabled people meet the costs of personal assistants so they can stay in their own homes and out of residential care.

Another concern for DPAC is education. Clifford believes the Government green paper on Special Educational Needs will increase segregation.

“The emphasis on academies is detrimental to disabled people.  They are notorious for discriminating against disabled people.

“Special schools mean non-disabled people grow up without being around disabled people,” she said.

Chemotherapy may be safe in pregnancy, study reveals

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 16, 2012


Women with breast cancer should not ease up on their chemotherapy treatment while pregnant, a new study has found.

The results of the German research, published in the Lancet, found little or no evidence that undergoing a course of chemotherapy for breast cancer when pregnant led to health defects in babies.

Professor Sibylle Loibl, of the German Breast Group which led the study, said:

“If our findings are confirmed by other studies, breast cancer during pregnancy could be treated as it is in non-pregnant women without putting fetal and maternal outcomes at substantially increased risk.”

The researchers are advising the one in a thousand women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer when pregnant, to proceed with the treatment as normal after the first trimester and not opt for an early delivery.

“Ideally, you would avoid chemotherapy in the first trimester of pregnancy.

“The thought is that the fetus is really developing at that stage and the organs are being developed,” Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York told ABC News.

The study followed 400 women, 197 of whom underwent chemotherapy. Whilst babies whose mothers received chemotherapy were lighter, they were no more at risk of birth defects, blood disorders or loss of hair.

And while babies of mothers receiving chemotherapy had more complications, the group with the highest rate of complications were those born premature.

Cases of pregnant women with breast cancer are on the increase, this is thought to be because women are choosing to have children later.

The symptoms can sometimes be confused with pregnancy symptoms, making the disease complex to treat.
Scientists have also found that high hormone levels during pregnancy do not cause the recurrence of hormone-sensitive breast cancer strains.

We should be valuing pregnant women and new mothers, not sacking them

Story published on Women's Views on News, August 16, 2012

A few years ago I attended a friend’s baby shower.

My friend told the group that one of her husband’s colleagues had been made redundant because she had a young child and was unable to work until 8pm like her male colleagues.

She worked for a large City bank in the UK and received a big pay-off. Some of the women said that they would be delighted to be made redundant.

Now one of the women has herself lost her job because of pregnancy. She is among 30,000 each year who are sacked or forced to leave their work because they are pregnant or looking after a young child.

A further 200,000 are treated less favourably because of pregnancy or maternity, according to a study by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2005.

Valuing Maternity is a new campaign set up in the UK to fight maternity discrimination and improve services, information and support for pregnant women and new mothers.

Supported by the Maternity Alliance, unions like the National Union of Journalists and UNITE and advice groups like the Citizens Advice Bureau, it is encouraging women to tell their story.  Trudy’s is typical.

Before she became pregnant, Trudy’s boss said she was an excellent worker.  Her company was entering her work for national awards, and during her pregnancy her manager assured her that she would be able to return part-time.

As her maternity leave came to an end the boss changed tack and insisted that Trudy would not be able to fulfil the travel commitments of the job and suggested that a freelancer, who had been covering her role, should be retained with the same job title and equal responsibilities.

“My life was made absolute hell.  I was constantly undermined by the person I was sharing a job title with,” Trudy says.

“Meetings were held without me being there – even when I was in the office. I wasn’t included in conversations essential to the running of the business.”

Her work was often changed by her colleague at the behest of her boss.
“In short, I was seen to be no longer the trusted, respected employee I was previous to having a baby,” says Trudy.

It all came to a head when her manager suggested that the freelance colleague should be promoted to a position above her, taking on Trudy’s responsibilities and leaving her with the less important work.

Trudy saw this as an attempt to demote her and launched an appeal with the support of her union.

While this was happening Trudy continued to work to the best of her ability. She did not take time off, even when she or her child was ill.

“My confidence was shattered.

“On a personal level, it affected my home life with my partner and child, and I would often be depressed and weepy on my days off.”

Eventually Trudy took a job in a less prestigious department.

“I did feel that I had to compromise my career and I strongly feel that I could have continued in my previous role and excelled,” she says.

After nine months working at the new job, she became pregnant again and is now on maternity leave. Her current manager is also a mum and extremely supportive.

“I have no doubt that after my previous maternity leave, my manager was actively trying to get rid of me and she was uncomfortable with employing mothers.

“I strongly believe that it was viewed by my managers that in becoming pregnant, I had decided to sacrifice my career; that as soon as I was a parent it somehow changed my commitment to work and my ability to do my job. I couldn’t disagree more!” she concludes.

Louise Taft, a solicitor at Prolegal, says she has seen a rise in maternity discrimination cases since the onset of the recession in 2008.

“When the economy goes bad, the number of unfair dismissal cases as a whole goes up, but the proportion of pregnancy discrimination cases is about the same.

“We find many women are discriminated against when they have pregnancy related illnesses,” she says.

Ros Bragg, director of Maternity Action, says the number of women seeking advice from her organisation has more than doubled in the last year.

“The redundancy process is used as a way of shifting pregnant women and new mothers out of their jobs.

“The processes can be complex and this can make it difficult for women to prove they lost their jobs due to pregnancy discrimination.”

Bragg says that the law offers women relatively good protection against discrimination.  The problem is with compliance.

“Many women are not aware of their rights. Few are able to access advice when they need it particularly in light of cuts in advice services.

“Few have the personal or financial resources to pursue a case in late pregnancy or when looking after a new baby.”

Bragg says the Government should send a clear message to employers that they must comply with their legal obligations to pregnant women and new mothers.

“Unfortunately we are seeing messages from Government that pregnant women are a burden,” she says.

Well funded advice and information to enable women to exercise their rights and research into the effects of pregnancy discrimination in different industry sectors with targeted intervention to address this is also vital.

Bragg says in the absence of up to date research it is difficult to say which sectors are the worst offenders, but believes that women in the care industry may face particular problems.

“A lot of women are care workers and there is very poor practice in relation to manual handling in these jobs, leaving pregnant women having to choose either to leave their jobs or move and lift people or heavy equipment,” she says.

“Women are often very anxious that they are perceived as trouble makers when they are merely asserting the rights assigned to them in legislation. This reflects very negative attitudes towards pregnant women in the workplace at the moment.”

Bragg believes that discrimination faced by migrant women is often compounded when they become pregnant.  Maternity Action recently published an advice leaflet in Polish, as they are one of the largest groups of women from abroad having babies in the UK.

“Demand has been enormous. The number of downloads has been greater than the number of Polish women who had babies in the UK,” she says.
 
 

 

Independent Olympian wants own flag

Story published in Women's Views on News August 10, 2012


Philipine van Aanholt is an Olympian like no other.  She is the only woman to be competing in the Games without a country.

She is one of just four independent Olympic athletes, who are competing under the Olympic flag. If they win, the Olympic anthem is played.

van Aanholt comes from Curacao, which used to be part of the Dutch Antilles, a group of five islands in the Caribbean, until it voted for independence in 2010.  It has yet to be recognised as a separate state by the UN.

But, as van Aanholt qualified for the women’s laser radial sailing event, the International Olympic Committee allowed her to compete as an independent.

She said some of her friends had been confused by her independent status:

“It’s been quite hard because one of the special things about the Olympics is that you can compete for your country and do them proud.

“People are wearing their team colours. You don’t feel that team spirit.”

She didn’t even get to see the other independent athletes, as she was staying in the sailing village in Weymouth, three hours from London. She is now back in the main Olympic village in London.

For van Aanholt the best part of the Olympics was the opening ceremony.“That was the first time I realised what the Olympics are.

“It overwhelmed me. The reception from the crowd was amazing, with so many school kids waiting for the athletes and asking for autographs.

“We did a dance. We tried to act out our sports which I don’t think many people got.

“We wanted to remember this for the rest of our lives. Everyone was clapping and screaming, amazing,” she said.

She has also been to the Olympic Association and met inspirational athletes past and present, including an 84-year-old who competed in the 1948 games.

van Aanholt is now off to study business and economics in Holland.

“It’s important to have a study behind you. It makes you more well-rounded,” she said.

She plans to keep enjoying her sailing, and will take things slower for the next two years before building up for Rio in 2016, but she is not confident that her country will be recognised.

“I don’t think it will happen, I wish it would so I can compete under my own flag,” she said.